Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Watch Your Mouth!

August 1, 2012 by  

Last month, a professional British soccer player was arrested and faced charges in an English court for something he said on the pitch during a game.

Celebrated soccer captain John Terry’s fate was in a court’s hands. The question: Would Terry’s 600-game career be forever tainted by a criminal conviction for racially abusing opposing player Anton Ferdinand?

The question was not whether Terry physically assaulted Ferdinand. The question was: Did Terry abuse Ferdinand with three hateful words?

The central fact of Terry’s trial was that he called Ferdinand “black,” couched between vulgar swear words. That was never in dispute.

The Telegraph reported:

The offending words were caught on camera and broadcast live to millions of viewers across the world from Loftus Road, where Chelsea were losing a Premier League game 1-0 to Queens Park Rangers.



Keep in mind these are not fifth graders, but professional athletes.

The maximum penalty Terry faced was a $4,000 fine. However, a conviction would have enormous implications for Terry’s career.

The prosecution argued that the Chelsea captain intended to offend Ferdinand when he used those words.

Did Terry intend to offend Ferdinand? The answer might depend on how you feel about the policing of words and whether the law can make us more polite even at the highest levels of sporting competition.

Chief magistrate Howard Riddle took the middle ground. While Riddle did not find Terry’s explanation of events persuasive, other misgivings nagged at the magistrate. In his judgment, he wrote:

It is highly unlikely that Mr. Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black (expletive). However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made.

The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.

In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.

So Terry was found not guilty. But the verdict was rendered not because it didn’t matter that in the heat of a professional football game that some bad words were exchanged. Instead, it was because there was reasonable doubt as to the exact intent of his words.

Had the magistrate ruled that Terry had “meant” that despicable phrase as an injurious insult to Ferdinand, Terry would now have a criminal record.

I know it’s England. I know it is soccer where a rip-roaring game is 1–0 and, if a player gets a hangnail, the ambulance drives onto the field. But really, as unmanly as this game is, can’t players even utter a bad word? It certainly isn’t the kind of organized sports I played when I was a kid. All kinds of comments were made back and forth discretely out of coaches’ and referees’ earshot.

If you think “So what, that’s England and who cares?” you had better think again. The language police are everywhere and — just like the old KGB — you might not know they are standing behind you.

Twenty years ago, I was in Spokane, Wash., standing outside the Spokane Club. It was pouring rain, and I was thinking of the quickest way to get to my car. Crossing a boulevard from the other side of the club was a man with a white cane and dark sunglasses. Because I sometimes think out loud, I said: “That guy does great for a blind guy.”

Two steps behind me was a woman of whose presence I wasn’t even aware. Indignant, she shouted: “He’s not blind! He is sight-impaired!”

She had no connection to the man navigating across the road. She simply wanted to correct my thinking.

A month later, I got a call from Society for the Blind. While I was on the phone with the gentleman who was asking for a donation, I asked him: “What do you call yourself?”

He said: “I’m blind.”

It made me think that the woman behind me that day — the woman who could see — was wrong in telling me what to say to myself or how to think.

Bad Words Are Bad

I hate the “N” word. I never use it, along with a few other words that upset me. That said, black people use it freely all the time. It is part of the rap culture;for some people, it is part of their everyday life.

Years ago, I was jogging alone in Spokane’s Riverfront Park and a couple of young black men saw me. One of them said to his friend: “Look at the [‘N’ word] run!” I laughed then, but later I wondered what would happen if I used that word. If it is terribly offensive for me to use it, shouldn’t it be offensive for others as well, despite their complexion?

This brings me to the word “black.” I see on the news every day that most white commentators call dark-skinned people African-Americans. That is a longer name for a group of people that not long ago were politely called “black.” And it is strange because on the news I see most dark-skinned people refer to themselves as black. If people of African heritage call themselves black, why can’t the rest of us?

Some Just Can’t Wait To Be Offended

We live in a world of political correctness — so much so that there are two words many people consider offensive but which our Founding Fathers highly respected: “Creator” in the Declaration and “Lord” in the Constitution.

A recent Psychology Today article warned about George Orwell’s classic, 1984, and went on to suggest that some of that nightmare is coming true today. Society and even the courts are telling us what words we can and must never say:

What is not fiction is the way the present day language police have established an elaborate protocol of what is called a beneficent censorship. Politically correct school boards, bias and sensitivity committees now review, abridge, and censor texts which in their opinion contain potentially offensive words, topics, and imagery. The members of sensitivity and bias committees are people with backgrounds in counseling, diversity training, guidance, bilingual education, and so forth.

Diane Ravitch’s book The Language Police laid bare “an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, professional associations, states, and the federal government” that steadily and stealthily reduces schoolbooks to packages of pabulum. The arbiters of political correctness on the left have joined with the fundamentalist guardians of morality on the right to foster a censorship apparatus that serves the political and social agendas of both, scorns the interests of students, and ensures that students will not be exposed to anything that might bother anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

I have bad news for some people: Some words and phrases are going to bother you. Choose to ignore them.

Words are a key to freely express ourselves. When people and the courts say it is criminal to use certain words, we have taken an irreparable step back from any hope for future liberty.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Watch Your Mouth!”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • DaveH

    It has more to do with Power than with being offended.

    • http://naver samurai

      You are probably right Dave H. Look at how quickly someone becomes offended as soon as someone mentions God, Jesus, or the Bible. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

      • Kinetic1

        Am I insulted by your comments? No, but I question your logic. Why must I posses the “fear of God” to be a patriot? In my church we do not view God as vengeful, though I realize many of the more traditional and fundamental christian churches do. Are you suggesting that only those of us who subscribe to the beliefs of churches like yours can be “true patriots”?

      • FreedomFighter

        I dont do political correctness, never have, never will, it is just a thought control mechanism created by communist/socialists to further the agenda and control the public conbersation.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Bill

        Unfortunately, many people have construed the “love of country” to mean “love of government”. including the supporting of foreign wars.

      • Robert Smith

        from samurai: “You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.”

        Must be really awful to constantly live in fear.

        Even dog training has pretty much given up on punishment for bad behavior and shifted to immediate rewards for good behavior.

        Can’t get any rewards from your brutal god? Either you ain’t doing anything right or they just ain’t there. Pretty “powerful” god that can only rule through fear. (NOT) ROFL.


      • FreedomFighter

        Robert if God were as brutal as you claim Im sure your kind would have been eliminated a long time ago…

        Your simplistic attacks on others beliefs show your ignorance of the subject, and display a gross amount of stupidity, you thinking you have all the answers about God and his ways.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Louis Lemieux

        God, if You exist, save my soul…if it exists!

      • 2centsworth

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY………”Erasmus of America/Omni Law”

      • DaveH

        It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately. Could it be that is the latest tactic taught to them in their Propaganda war room?
        At any rate, Kinetic, Robert, what is it that you Progressives use when you want to relieve people of their money using Big Government as your enforcers? Could it be the threat of punishment — Fear?

      • DaveH

        I don’t believe a god really exists, but I do certainly believe that evil exists in the world, and it is embodied in the Progressive movement. Note that the Progressive Welfare Statists aren’t the only Progressives that we must deal with. We must also deal with the Progressive Military Statists. They are just two sides of the same Progressive coin. Their common goal is the enrichment of themselves at the rest of our expense. And both sides have Propagandized their followers into accepting their evil machinations (theft, murder) as being for “our own good”.

      • Dave67

        Well DaveH

        Your side lives and trades in fear… Bob sends me stuff telling me that the dollar is about to collapse! This was last year mind you…

        OBAMA is coming for my guns!!! (oh the horror) Not happening….

        Conservatives love the fear, its what brings your side together… If you didn’t have a conspiracy theory to fester over, you would have nothing to talk about…

        Do you have a link for that one?

        The left in this country does the same thing…. We live in a very fearful country… We are sold it everyday… your side does it, my side does it…

        Any ideas of your own (that would be a nice change of pace) on how to get rid of living iin fear as you do?

      • DaveH

        While I’m on that subject, I would like to say that I believe that we can be our own worst enemies if we don’t consistently follow our own moral code. If, for instance, we are religious but turn a blind eye to the killing or the theft of Government, we can fool other people about our lack of consistency, but we can’t fool ourselves. I believe that people not consistently following their own moral code leads to guilt, then to forms of suppressing that guilt (drinking, drug use, etc.). The most important thing in anybody’s life is that they Like themselves, and you can’t truly Like yourself when you don’t apply the same moral standards to yourself that you expect other people to obey.
        That goes for non-religious people also who have a moral code they expect others to obey.
        We need to regroup as citizens and rigorously embrace the morality that drove our Founders to rebel against the abuses of King George and establish one of the Freest Societies ever on this Earth. It’s not just the Moral thing to do; it’s also the prosperous thing to do.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “Do you have a link for that one?”. Then “Any ideas of your own?”.
        Then the other Progressive shill, Flashman (maybe the same person, different personality) says something remarkably similar — “DaveH says nothing, then directs to a Mises link which contains an article he has never read and is off topic”.
        Is it Coincidence that both Progressive shills have the same message today? I’ll leave the Readers to determine that one.
        The Progressive attempts to put me down are comical. They are like adolescents desperately seeking some way, any manipulative way, to suppress my message of Freedom.

      • Dave67


        The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? Don’t look back too fondly on the founders… these were the same people who thought is was our “Christian” duty to kill or convert every native person on the continent so we as Americans can make tons of money

        We do have a moral code in this country, money makes right….We hate when people lie to us, (except for politicians… we just seem to accept that) and because money is our god in this country, when someone wrongs us or commits a crime, we are more likely to sue them or hit them with a fine unless they can’t pay, then we put them in jail.

        Here is an idea…

        Would I want the behavior I am indulging in done to me? We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea.

        But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions. (Newsflash: I read and it is your propaganda, not fact)

        Maybe a deeper understanding of those you disagree with is warranted here to help you become a better moral person?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Robert Smith, define “fear” properly. It was not meant to stand trembling and jump every time a leaf rustled. To come to that conclusion people must have/or had some disgusting parents or caregivers to paint God as being a rotter.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “Newsflash: I read and it is your propaganda, not fact”.
        Feel free to refute anything they say, Dave67 — If you can.

        Dave67 says — “We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea”.
        And how would we do that, Dave67? By Force?

      • Dave67

        DaveH says:
        August 1, 2012 at 10:30 am
        Dave67 says — “Newsflash: I read and it is your propaganda, not fact”.
        Feel free to refute anything they say, Dave67 — If you can.


        Give me a discussion context and the link to what you cite as fact and I will refute it…
        Dave67 says — “We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea”.
        And how would we do that, Dave67? By Force?

        Yes DaveH, by force…. You caught me again… Dang you are Wile E Coyote super-genius.

        I said to have everyone embrace “would I want this done to me” so I can force people to not believe in religion or stop corporations from lobbying congress at gunpoint….

        Sharp as a bowling ball you are…

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? Don’t look back too fondly on the founders… these were the same people who thought is was our “Christian” duty to kill or convert every native person on the continent so we as Americans can make tons of money”.
        Then he later says — “But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions”.
        Do you even read your own comments before you submit them, Dave67?
        First you lump the Founders all together in an amorphous group, and then you admonish me to not lump Progressives and Liberals (same thing to me) in the same group.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Dave67, you do have a choice not to come to this site,to unsuscribe to this site. You do know how choices are made? Thugs and Tyrants not unlike yourself always want someone under their thumbs.

      • DaveH

        Your desperation is showing, Dave67. First you accuse me of having no thoughts of my own and always falling back on Then you say — “Give me a discussion context and the link to what you cite as fact and I will refute it”.
        Duh, Dave67, that shouldn’t be hard for you since, as you say, I use them as references so often.
        Am I flustering your gang of shills, Dave67? Can’t they come up with anything better than that?

      • DaveH

        Isn’t it interesting that both Dave67 and Flashman have used the accusation that I have no thoughts of my own? Hmm.
        Dave67 (Flashman?) says — “Yes DaveH, by force…. You caught me again… Dang you are Wile E Coyote super-genius”.
        and then — “Sharp as a bowling ball you are”.
        You might have more credibility with the readers, Dave67, if so much of your content didn’t involve personal attacks.

      • Dave67

        Nadzieja Batki says:
        August 1, 2012 at 10:41 am
        Dave67, you do have a choice not to come to this site,to unsuscribe to this site. You do know how choices are made? Thugs and Tyrants not unlike yourself always want someone under their thumbs.

        Careful there… thats a lot of words for you…

        Yes, because I disagree with many of the theorists, corporatists, conspiracy theorists and conservatives here, I am a tyrant and a thug…

        So because you want everyone to agree with DaveH’s or your point of view and hate distention in the ranks on this site, what does that make you?

      • Dave67


        Ok, what part of the US Constitution to you let go of to prevent companies from lobbying Congress since want the Gov out of the “free market”?

        If you believe in the “free market” with no Gov interference, then that being said, you support the middle class and poor making less in this country because of the market (See China, Mexico, India) that has downward pressure on working people’s salary. Yes?
        How does the wealth gap get closed with that reality in mind.

        Who should make environmental regs? Worker’s safety regs? Should we have a minimum wage?

        We have a capitalist/ socialist hybrid system in this country, how does free trade policies which is part of the free market reconcile with dealing with countries like China that have strict Gov controls over currency, unions are not allowed, trade etc…

        Give me specific answers…

        Since you know what you are talking about.

      • Average Joe

        Dave67 says:

        August 1, 2012 at 9:41 am


        The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? ”

        Prove it… Prove that they were “all white guys” and next prove that they were all “rich’ and then prove that they all “just didn’t want to pay taxes”.

        You’ve made three acusations in one sentence without proving any of those assertions….and then you go on to say:

        “But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions.”

        I would say that you may want to look up the hypocracy and then take a good long look into a mirror….
        I guess it’s cool to make accusations about others…to deflect the irony of your own statements?

        OK Dave67, it is time for you to open mouth…switch feet….

        Before you spout off Dave67…those were your words…not mine..I simply pointed out “your” double with it…

        Best Wishes,

      • Kinetic1

        “It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately. Could it be that is the latest tactic taught to them in their Propaganda war room?”
        Ooooh, you cut me to the quick! Now, let’s play a game. First, you read the post that I was responding to, the one where samurai said,
        “You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.”
        Now, you read my response and see that the reason I mentioned fear is that it was an appropriate response to a statement about fear of God being a requirement if one wishes to be a patriot. In other words, I didn’t bring it up, samurai did.

        Thanks for playing!

      • JeffH

        Dave H says “It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately.”

        Oh yes indeed. That has rapidly become the latest fad with some of the progressive/liberal shills and trolls hat have been frequenting PLD the last few months.

        Speaking of fear, and the framers got it right, the Obamaphiles, progressives and liberals fear these words “natural born citizen” ,which clearly Obama and Marco Rubio are not. This same fear of the mob, or social movements, has stifled SCOTUS on hearing on the merits legitimate questions of Obama’s Article II eligibility.

        The Supreme Court got it right in their MINOR V. HAPPERSETT opinion defining “natural born citizen” and the framers got it right.

      • Jay

        For the unbeliever, the fear of God is the fear of the judgment of God and eternal death, which is eternal separation from God.

        For the believer, the fear of God is something much different.

        The believer’s fear is reverence of God. Hebrews 12:28-29 is a good description of this: “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ’God is a consuming fire.’” This reverence and awe is exactly what the fear of God means for Christians.

        This is the motivating factor for us to surrender to the Creator of the Universe.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “If you believe in the “free market” with no Gov interference, then that being said, you support the middle class and poor making less in this country because of the market (See China, Mexico, India) that has downward pressure on working people’s salary. Yes?”
        Are you saying China, Mexico, and India have Free Markets, Dave67? It sure looks like you are. But before I get to that, I will answer your question about the middle class and poor. Free Markets, without Government meddling to support their Crony Capitalists, are much more Productive and Efficient than UnFree Markets where businesses are hobbled with ridiculous regulatory burdens that don’t insure better or safer products, but instead insure more costly products, as those businesses must hire people just to negotiate the Government hoops. That of course is beneficial to the Big Business Crony Capitalists who have the cadres of lawyers and accountants to negotiate the mine fields, while many of their competitors must throw in the towel and quit. When they do close their doors, that hurts their employees who lose their jobs and the consumers who must pay higher prices due to fewer competitors and thus less supply.
        With Free Markets, people can much more easily do what they do best and add to the productivity of the country sans licensing and other Government impediments to their chosen profession.
        But I’ve gotten to a point where peoples’ eyes will just glaze over, so those who are interested in more should read this book, especially Chapter 7 “The Morality of Capitalism” which explains how Free Markets float all boats:

      • DaveH

        Re: Dave67′s insinuation that China, Mexico, and India have Free Markets.
        Go here and pick the country links to read just how “free” their markets are:

      • DaveH

        And rather than wait for Dave67′s usual nonsense about Heritage Foundation, I will post a link to another site which also exposes the link between Economic Freedom and Prosperity (just enter the country names in the field at the top):
        Dave67 has demonstrated to me that he has enough intelligence to grasp these concepts, yet he spouts the same old nonsense time and again. Given that, I can only conclude that he is an administration shill (and probably another of Flashman’s multiple personalities).
        And he has no credibility on this board.

      • DaveH

        After re-reading your comment, I see that I wrongly included you in my statement. I apologize.

      • Dutchman

        I agree and would add no fear of political correctness either!

      • Kinetic1

        Webster defines reverence as honor or respect felt or shown, and awe as an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime. Save for dread I would say this is a worthy description of a healthy view of God, but I still can’t see how you could consider “fear of God” as an apt description of honor, respect and wonder. Even a sense of dread is not enough to justify the term fear.

        The logical explanation is that, whether or not you consider the Bible to be the word of God, it is a work of man. Translation is a tricky business and the Hebrew from which “fear of God” is derived is “Yirat HaShem”, or “Fearing God’s Name”. Ask a Rabbi and he’ll tell you that in this context Yirat does not directly translate into fear, but is more synonymous with awe. Then again, if you are from either the Catholic church, one of it’s offshoots or the Bible thumping, fire and brimstone school of Christianity where fear is used to enforce the power of the church, then maybe fear of God is just what you have in mind.

      • Kinetic1

        Thanks for your consideration. After re-reading my post I realized that I had made a mistake as well. In the interest of questioning the idea of ones view of God as fearful or not, I neglected to question whether or not one even needs to be religious to be a patriot. If one shows love for their country and a healthy moral code, what difference does it make?

      • JeffH

        Kinetic1, JeffH or Jay?

      • Larry K.


      • truesoy


        Its nice to se you’re still around, spewing nonsense.
        You should have taken eed of my advice and sought professional help.


      • Rebecca

        Kinetic1, “Fear” in the context of “Fear The Lord” actually means “Respect”.

      • NC

        Jay– excellent response on the fear of the Lord

    • Warrior

      Another gubmint created “cottage industry”. Think about all these organizations that now have their own “diversity” programs and departments with loads of do nothing individuals that PRODUCE NOTHING. Same goes for Tax Attorneys and Tax Accountants. I’ll bet you can also name a few other occupations that actually have no productive benefits to society but the gubmint created them. Go figure.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I agree with you, DaveH, I think that it gives a person a feeling of power and superiority to “correct” others. I am not intimidated by a person who wold tell me that I am politically incorrect. My first experience with “political correctness was in 1989. My son has Cerebral Palsy. I was having a discussion with his principal because he wanted to take a drafting class and she said he couldn’t, because he wouldn’t be able to draw sraight lines. She said he had to take chorus instead. When I spoke of his rights as a handicapped individual, she attacked me and said that it was terrible to call him handicapped. We don’t use that term anymore! Now we say “disabled”. I replied with “My son is not DISabled! He is ABLE to do MANY things, but he does them with a HANDICAP!”. From that moment on, I would NEVER allow someone to make me feel inferior! I will choose MY words and I don’t give a crap if they are “acceptable” to anyone else! Political correctness is about power and control, superiority. It’s not going to work with me. BTW, I got an advocacy group involved and they threatened to sue the school district if they didn’t allow my son to take drafting. He got to take the class, his therapist recommended taping his paper to the desk and he did fine. Don’t let people try to run over you!

      • Liberterian

        Like what and how you say it, always be an individual and stand forever behind what you believe and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Everyone has their own self serviant goals and try to make someone else beieve in or follow them. Politicians are politicians whatever party, class, left or right, they always think that they know it all.

      • Average Joe

        Politically Correct:

        An overzealous media, trying to convince and under-educated audience…that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd…bythe clean end.

        I remain, Unapologetically Opinionated (UO)

        Best Wishes,

      • JohnQ from MS

        Excellent tactic, Nancy. I detest political correctness. I believe that the reason it is such a force in our society today is that too few people have been willing to contest it in the past. Liberals have been bullying us for 40 to 50 years with impunity. It is time it stopped and the only way it is going to stop is when we begin confronting them.

        In fact, that is happening and that is, in part, the reason for the huge division within our country and our society today. People are beginning to stand up to liberal idiots.

        I wouldn’t be so down on liberalism if liberals would display a tiny amount of common sense. For example, take the issue of religion and homosexuality. Liberals are bashing Christianity because the Bible tells us that it is wrong. But we don’t need the Bible to tell us that. Anyone with a little imagination and enough sense to come in out of the rain can figure that out. To complicate matters for liberals, liberals drool at the mouth over the issue of being accepting of Islam. Yet Muslims don’t beat around the bush: they are willing to do bad things to those practicing homosexuality. When I hear a liberal badmouthing Christianity and praising Islam, I have to stop and wonder at that person’s lack of intelligence.

        I was overjoyed with the response to the Chick-fil-A nonsense Wednesday. I am overjoyed at the response of the Catholic Church to Obama and his minions. I used the word minion deliberately because it means “a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power.”

        When a liberal bashes us for using the term “black” instead of “African-American”, we have a perfect opportunity to strike back. The first word out of our mouths should be “How do you know that person is an American? He might be a Jamaican, a Ugandan, a Kenyan or a Bermudian. He might be an Australian Aborigine or he may come from Borneo. Stop being so rigid! Try using a little sense!”

        How about racial profiling? MS has a large concentration of blacks — about 37% of our population and a large percentage of these have the chain-license-plate holders on their cars. These items have been available for 20 years or so and I have never seen a white driver with one. They are exclusively a black thing. Yet blacks complain about profiling. If you encounter a car with a chain license plate holder, you can be assured that the car belongs to a black (or an African-American if you know the driver is an American citizen). And very darkly tinted car windows? Blacks love ‘em.

        I can go on and on about liberal stupidity. Let’s start confronting them, folks. There is no excuse for their nastiness, especially when they have so little ground to stand on.

    • Dave67

      Average Joe says:
      August 1, 2012 at 11:19 am
      Dave67 says:

      August 1, 2012 at 9:41 am


      The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? ”

      Prove it… Prove that they were “all white guys” and next prove that they were all “rich’ and then prove that they all “just didn’t want to pay taxes”.


      They look White to me…

      Most were on the upper echelons of colonial society


      You’ve made three acusations in one sentence without proving any of those assertions….and then you go on to say:

      “But WE love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions.”


      AJ, can you look up the definition of “WE” and contrast with the definition of “YOU”?

      See thats why I use the term WE, because WE are all guilty of it. I am including ME when I say WE

      Do you feel better now AJ?

      I know I do…. Now lets all embrace liberalism and be more accepting of those people who are different from ourselves.

      Have a super wonderful day AJ…

      • Average Joe

        Please don’t include your “we”…My statement was not hypocrtical…although yours was. So, your answer is to misdirect your own failings upon someone else? Nice…although I’m not buying it. While you are free to imply that you are a hypocrite, please don’t imply that everyone else is. You own that disinction all by yourself (as your post proves).

        Please define: white men…because the last time I checked, I am not white…but rater an off-pink color…yes, I know…semantics….but isn’t that what you are arguing? You seem to be more worried about thier color…rather than thier individual characters…not all of them advocated slavery…taxes …etc….but you have lumped them all into a group…based soley on skin color…how convoluted is that?

        Your first link: A painting…so you once again assume (from a painting) that they were all white men? Where were they all from? Were they all from the same country (originally)?
        Did they all come from the same culture or were the in fact, the product of different cultures? (think: European, many cultures).

        Your second link tells a lot about thier occupations and previous training…but nothing about thier individual wealth…you do know than many of our founding fathers were not rich and that many of them died penniless…right?

        I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but assigning your short comings on others will not work on me…I consider that it is simply your opinion….and we both know what they say about those opinions…stop talking out of yours. Work on fixing your own shortcomings…and stop trying to assign your shortcommings on others.

        “Now lets all embrace liberalism and be more accepting of those people who are different from ourselves.”, let’s not embrace liberalism…while you are free to embrace whatever deluded notion that you choose to embrace, I choose to embrace Libertarinism, free market capitalism, Constitutional princioles and the Rule of Law.

        BTW, I always have a wonderful day….unless I wake up on the wrong side of the grass, but so far, that hasn’t happened.

        Best Wishes,

      • Dave67


        LOL… so I should get down the the exact hue of a person? Interesting… so you as an opponent of political correctness now want me to label people of the Caucasian race as a “pinkish-white” to a “very light brown” Because all the founders were of a different hue….So what if I have a tan? Oh lordy… what a conundrum….

        So you never generalize? GOOD FOR YOU AJ!!! WELL DONE OLE BOY!!!!

        You are the first human who never does it…. What is your secret?

        The HC law is the law of the land so I expect you and your other conservative friends to sign up for private HC insurance if you can afford it because its the “rule of law”. Now can you tell some of these conservative states to get with the program?

        Thanks ever so much and have a super special wonderful day AJ. We will make a liberal out of you yet…

      • Average Joe

        “The HC law is the law of the land so I expect you and your other conservative friends to sign up for private HC insurance if you can afford it because its the “rule of law”. Now can you tell some of these conservative states to get with the program?

        Thanks ever so much and have a super special wonderful day AJ. We will make a liberal out of you yet…”

        I don’t recall discussiong HC here, however, since you brought it up…. I will not comply…deal with it. I do not consent and I waive the benefit.

        You write:
        “LOL… so I should get down the the exact hue of a person? Interesting… so you as an opponent of political correctness now want me to label people of the Caucasian race as a “pinkish-white” to a “very light brown” Because all the founders were of a different hue….So what if I have a tan? Oh lordy… what a conundrum….”

        Reading comprehension problems? And a racist to boot?

        I wrote:

        “Please define: white men…because the last time I checked, I am not white…but rather an off-pink color…yes, I know…semantics….but isn’t that what you are arguing? You seem to be more worried about thier color…rather than thier individual characters…not all of them advocated slavery…taxes …etc….but you have lumped them all into a group…based soley on skin color…how convoluted is that?”

        As for making a liberal out of me…not gonna happen… not in this life…but you are free to dream fantastic dreams, chase unicorns and rainbows as long as you wish to do so (good luck with that).
        I’ll stick with reality….it’s so much more interesting and animating.

        Again, everyday is wonderful for me…sorry for your luck…. if yours isn’t.
        Maybe if you changed your thought processes that would change for you.

        Before you spout off again, I wish to inform you that I won’t reply. You are not only wasting your time…but mine as well. So, if you can’t replace my wasted time ( a valuable commodity)….don’t expect a reply to your usual drivel. I value my time.
        My reply in advance…”Yada, yada, yada…sorry for your luck.”

        Best Wishes,

    • Nadzieja Batki

      John Myers, that woman had limited vision. The blind man “saw” more by his other senses than she did with two good eyes.

    • Southside Hawk

      It is absolutely about Power. As a college instructor teaching adults I was recently accused of using an ethnic slur; “Old Jew” in my description of a character in a play. It was used totally in context to describe this particular character, his mileu, his political views. The politically correct student wrote that even thought he was not Jewish, he was raised as a Unitarian Universalist and he was “taught to treat all with respect”. After polling my Jewish students, none were offended, most did not even hear the direction. Researching UU I found an article where even the UU congregation elders write about their intolerance and arrogance toward other view. I informed this somewhat parochial minded student that we could take up the topic in class; that his lack of worldly knowledge – particularly about playwrights – would be expanded. And that I could not teach theatre with the thought police in my class He dissappeared. Bluff called.

      Several weeks later, another student brought in a clipping from the theatre pages of the NYT – a play had just opened, titled “Old Jews telling Jokes.”

    • Deerinwater

      Oh! God exist DavidH , if only in people’s minds , you can’t destroy or make an “idea” go away.

      While I could never buy into this idea of the Humanized understanding of God either, but it works best for some people that can not span the gap between the physical world and the spiritual ( quantum physics) world. A world that does have the same yet opposing forces that are paired up and directly affect each other is best understood in the “good/bad, God /devil metaphor. It’s a formula that quite simple~ “works” more often then it doesn’t. Then too, there is a “Get out of Jail Free” card. As the Lord moves in mysterious ways and his will be done. So It takes “Faith” and I am convinced, Believing things can manifest things, both good & bad, as good and bad are only opposing forces.

      I would never be one to say that God does not exist, for out of nothing came TIME and a long chain of events began, just as early man , today we marvel and ponder about our purpose and existence. The only thing certain in my mind, God is not human and nor is man 100% human. When you accept that your sum is greater then all of your parts, you have accepted this as a fact , where you conscience of it or not.

      The attempt to deny Gods existence , is an attempting to deny a large (but not in physical size) part of yourself. This is why, the term “Father” works so well in metaphor terms.

      To explain the universe the early Jews were very creative. In other distant cultures, it was explained in much the same way ~ to humanize afforded practical ease to understand and association with matters of origin and purpose.

      So? what is “Time”? ~ I would say Times main element that we all can understand and appreciated is,


      But something is missing.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    It is a tricky issue. Mr. Myers brought up the N word. I have always tried to bring logic to the issue of political correctness. So far as my understanding goes, the n word is a caricature of a black person that was created based on a stereotype. Basically the n word describes a fictional character. Saying someone is the n word is not only politically incorrect it is also just incorrect. When I think of political correctness one of the first things that pops into my head is slander. Websters defines slander as a noun as “the making of false statements that damage another’s reputation”. I had a communications professor who taught me a class about reporting and writing news. She went in depth in discussing slander and libel as relates to the law. The key words she always mentioned were “verification” and “proof”. Basically if you say or write something about someone in an attempt to damage their reputation or even simply to insult them and you write or say it without proof or verification it is considered slander or libel depending on how you presented it. This comes to me when I think of political correctness or rather what is considered politically incorrect. Things like racial slurs or derogatory names, racist comments, broad generalizations and basically expressions of prejudice and or discrimination. These are almost universally regarded as politically incorrect. Yet what I have so often found is what is considered politically incorrect is often just plain incorrect. Discrimination and prejudice are wrong both in the moral and actual sense. Racial slurs are not simply insulting they have no basis in reality. And racism itself is founded on the idea of judging people for something other than their actions. Such an idea is very unreasonable in my opinion. So when it comes to political correctness I tend to be in favor of it. Of course sometimes it can go to far. Though people can say hurtful and sometimes nonsensical things it is their right to do so. And sometimes people act in ways that warrant politically incorrect language. To me in such cases what matters is verification and proof. So if you feel you must say something politically incorrect at least take the time to get evidence to back up your case. If you must say something unkind or uncensored make sure such harsh comments are warranted. And make sure you can verify that it is.

    • Michael J.

      Jeremy Loechner,
      Why is it that you do not demand verification and proof of “Political Correctness’s” origins and intents before blindly living by it’s mandates?

      • Mike in MI

        OO-OO-Oo-oo, MJ, approve, a-ahp-prove!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not blindly accept it Mike. I just believe that things like racism and prejudice are both politically incorrect and just plain incorrect. Judging people by something other then their actions is wrong. It was not something Martin Luther King came up with. We need to judge people based on the content of their character. I believe statements made out of judging someone by something other then the conduct of their character is wrong. As I said all I desire is truth in judgement. If you want to say something a little off the collar go ahead. Just be sure you are telling the truth. The problem I have is when people say things that are politically incorrect as well as incorrect.

    • DaveH

      Funny, Jeremy (Flashman), that I don’t ever see you admonishing your fellow Progressive commenters for their relentless personal attacks.

      • Mike in MI

        Dave H -
        That’s probably because it would be kind of out of character for him to do it in the “Jeremy Loechner” incarnation. You know, if you’re going to go to the trouble of producing various characters in a well written novel you’ve got to keep the personalities separated.
        He’ll take care of doing that as Flashy or another of his split self-incriminations.
        Oh, BTW your “fear” discussion with Kinetic 1 above was somewhat off-center. If you interpret and understand the meaning of a word used in the Bible as being only what you know of that word’s usages during our day and time you may end up with error.
        Also, bad interpretations arise when two or more Greek words (With divergent meanings) are translated into one English word (or the other way around also) people fall into deep misunderstandings about God. The words in the Bible, unlike other books of human derivation, are used with great accuracy and continuity. The problem has been that people have usually brought their sloppy confusion and injected it along with their prejudice and opinions into the Word. Then, they wonder why God doesn’t answer their prayers.
        Well, maybe it happens that God has His own opinions about things and isn’t about to change to please people who are dopey, sloppy or down right devilish on purpose.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps I should Dave. But is it not more fun to criticize people you mostly disagree with then with those you agree with. I kid of course. You do have a point. I will try to do that more often. And thank you for at least trying to have an honest conversation with me.

      • DaveH

        I wasn’t referring to the Bible at all, Mike. And the reference to Kinetic was a mistake on my part.

      • DaveH

        There is no dishonesty on my part, Jeremy (Flashman).
        However there is on yours. I refer people to this thread (follow it to Bob Livingston’s remarks):

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Come on Dave, We were on a roll. We were finally having a real discussion. That post you have shown is not about me. Its about someone else. My name is Jeremy and Jeremy only. Please try to understand that. You and I were finally talking and now we are back to square one. It hurts Dave

  • GALT

    No Mr. Myers the question is: Where are the ( common ) law and equity courts?

    Then the question would be: Where is the corpus delicti?

    [Latin, The body of the crime.] The foundation or material substance of a crime.

    The phrase corpus delicti might be used to mean the physical object upon which the crime was committed, such as a dead body or the charred remains of a house, or it might signify the act itself, that is, the murder or Arson.

    The corpus delicti is also used to describe the evidence that proves that a crime has been committed.

    Of course, by not really knowing what the right question is: You get to hold forth on this
    “symptom” while disease continues to ravage what has been and ongoing process for
    70+ and 50+ years, respectively………..( Federal and Federal Districts )

    One might ponder if this would rise to the level of a potential “suit in common law” and this would bring up the possibility of “jury nullification”, an established principle of same.
    ( Georgia v. Brailsford ) BTW This would be where juries judge both fact and law, and where raising this DEFENSE is NOT subject to a contempt citation.

    The thought is almost laughable that this would merit any attention…… all.

    Anyway, let the games begin……..IGNORANCE is STRENGTH

    “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

    • Michael J.

      Off subject,repetitive and worst of all, boring.

      • GALT

        What subject would that be? As you aptly demonstrate below “unalienable” is to the constitution……as anything intelligent or relevant is to this topic.

        Of course, you would actually need to know what the word “unalienable” means?

        But thanks for sharing…….

      • Michael J.

        Anyone so adept at dribbling should try out for the L.A. Lakers.

      • Michael J.

        BTW, unalienable is synonomous with inseparable.

      • DaveH

        Galt in his ignorance and attempted condescension says — “Of course, you would actually need to know what the word “unalienable” means?”.
        As if anybody on this board can’t easily look any words up that they don’t understand.
        And, as Michael said, he keeps repeating the same boring unrelated arcane mantra as if that is going to convince readers that he is superior.

      • GALT

        So, then Michael J. if “unalienable” is synonymous with “inseparable”, then you should not
        have any difficulty proceeding to demonstrate in what sense this would apply…….provided you actually understand the question?

        Say for those “unalienable rights”, among which are “life, liberty, and the etc.”

        History would seem to suggest that “separating” these things from your “fellows” is quite easy…… fact, isn’t that what you all come to kvetch about everyday here……on cue,
        as the bell is rung………I shall do you the courtesy of ignoring your irrelevant remark, just to see if you can continue down the path you have started in an intelligent manner…..

        As for the contributions of the w.i.A.L.F. aka “talking monkeys” which is an insult to monkey’s since at least they know what they are about………..any conversation, regarding
        the constitution…….and the current “situation” is essentially a waste of time, unless you actually understand the “legal jurisdiction” to which you are subject………

        The privileges and benefits you do have are NOT SYNONYMOUS with the RIGHTS you used to have……..

        Where are those ( common ) law and equity courts?

        FREEDOM is SLAVERY……..bye now.

      • Michael J.

        galt dribbles,

        “if “unalienable” is synonymous with “inseparable”, then you should not
        have any difficulty proceeding to demonstrate in what sense this would apply…”

        It means that our God given rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness can not be taken away by a man or any group of men.

        That’s enough questions for now. Go find squiggy and take your nap before you get cranky.

    • Vigilant

      “The thought is almost laughable that this would merit any attention…… all.”

      At least little GALTY knows how to describe his usual disjointed, stream-of-consciousness babble.

    • Vigilant

      We have here a cretin named GALT
      who speaks nonsense here without halt
      His words are so boring
      They set us to snoring
      Says GALT, “it’s my brain that’s at fault.”

      • DaveH
      • Vigilant

        LOL! Thanks, Dave!

      • Mike in MI

        MJ – good limerick
        could you change the last stanza to:
        “…’It’s my brain that’s a fault.”? “a fault” as in: an immense crevasse in the earth, a dirty crack, etc

      • Mike in MI

        OOPS! that might not be politically correct.

    • Average Joe


      Please lay off of Galt.
      While some of you may not like what he says, you may want to listen a little more carefully to “what” he is saying.
      If you don’t understand who and what you are (in reality) then you can’t win the game of life. It’s kind of like playing golf…while using football rules…your game is not going to end well.
      You can’t walk into a court room and win..if you don’t know the rules. Does anyone here believe that the purpose of Courts to to mete out justice? If so, you are deluded. The courtroom is all about procedure…not justice. If Lawyers follow the procedures, they win…if they don’t follow them…they lose…which is why it is a bad idea to be your own lawyer…you don’t know the rules…and they are quite complicated procedural rules.

      What Galt is trying to explain is can’t claim Constitutional “rights” if you are not in a Constitutional court system. You cannot assert rights that are not within the jurisdiction of the venue that you are placing yourselves in.
      Constitution = Common Law, In 1938 we lost our Common Law and therefore…we lost the ability to claim Constitutional “rights”.

      Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 1938.
      Individual subject to
      the political commerce under
      the private law merchant.

      There are three types of jurisdiction listed in the Constitution:

      Common Law
      Equity Law
      Admiralty Law

      With the single case Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 1938, our Supreme Court decided that they had the authority to combine Equity and Admiralty and create a new kind of court that isn’t recognized by the Constitution…this perversion of the law is called Private Merchant Law…AKA….Statutory Law, which operates completely outside of Constitutional Authority.

      To understand more clearly, I will give you some links …read them if you want to know how we got here…or don’t read them if you wish to remain uninformed. I suggest reading them..but that decision is entirely up to you.

      On team law, I recomend that you start by reading “Historical outline”

      This morning, I got this vid from the Josh Tolley program and would like to share it as well (since it pertains to this subject):

      Knowledge is power!

      Best Wishes,

      • Mike in MI

        Thanks, AJ !!

      • TIME

        Dear AJ,

        First off; Thank You so much for your Beautiful post.

        Saddly the very root of the problems with many is their ego’s.
        Yet as frail as some are here I do quite well understand its nearly impossible for many to grasp the REAL state of confusion we are in today. Of what was started in 1861 – long before we were born.

        You know Oddly the word {Babylon means Confusion} of what the ego tends to make some feel as if they know whats real and whats not based on twisted intel, of what is the standard format avaliable, its been designed to confuse and confound.

        So it’s with a very heavy heart that I say our nation has become the “Whore of Babylon.”
        I am sure many will be angered by that statment, but saddly its TRUE.

        Of what brings me to the next point; To some of us; obviously yourself, Galt, myself its very clear that the issues we all face are far deeper and darker than most here let alone around this nation can fathom.
        The fact that we have been lied to for our whole life, let alone our fathers and their fathers as well – its really nearly impossible for many to get their heads around what we face today.
        Thats the very reason why games like Political Correctnes exist.
        “TO DIVIDE and DIVIDE again and again until they CONQUER.”

        As we see daily by some here the simple points of light are highly contested due to Ego as well Ignorance – of what we are all at some point.
        I do pray that more will open their minds to the fact that not all is black and white.

        Perhaps some here can gain some wisdon with the YOUTUBE feed below.
        If you really do give a damm about this nation, please look up this youtube feed.
        Kelby Smith, youtube feed; Video for the people of the United States.
        This will explain the root of this nations ills.
        How to fix it is yet a differant animal, but it can be done.

        Joe Again, I thank you for your beautiful post. All the Best to you and your family,

        Peace and Love Brother

      • GALT

        Gentlemen…….thank you for your efforts……

        I find myself pondering what would actually happen if they actually got their rights back?

      • GALT

        BTW Joe, if you are going to learn to play this game, lawyers have no purpose…..nor are they necessary……after all…..if you employ the reservation of rights correctly…..lacking corpus delicti….there is no available jurisdiction to try you…..nor any “lawful money” available to pay any fine, fee, tax, etc.

        Lawyer’s are useless… common law and equity……so unfortunately, you have no choice but to act as your own “legal counsel”…….clever these TYRANTS….are they NOT?

      • Jay

        Nice work, AJ!!!

      • Average Joe


        I understand completely. The key is learning how to properly avoid being within thier jurisdiction in the first place. Knowing how and when you must assert your “Rights” in order to avoid thier jurisdiction and leave them scratching thier heads….always fun.
        I am hoping that my links posted above educate at least a couple of people here…because then…they in turn will spread the message to others….waking up is a wondeful thing. I woke up about 22 years ago when a friend asked me to read a small book called ” The Miricle on Mainstreet” and I have been searching for the “Truth” ever since.

        Thnx for all of the Kudo’s…. Kudo’s to you all as well…for trying to spread knowledge to the sleeping masses!

        Best Wishes,

      • DaveH

        When Galt makes those comments, Average Joe, they are completely out of context and, no doubt in my mind, solely an effort to feign superiority to those he addresses. Now, it happens that this time the author actually mentioned courts of law, but usually when Galt spouts off with his Common Law crap there is no relation to the article or comments at all.
        And he makes no effort to explain what he’s talking about, and lots of effort to denigrate others.
        You need to search through some of his comments on other articles to see what I mean.

      • DaveH

        I don’t doubt a lick that Government is overstepping their legal bounds in courts, just like I don’t doubt a bit that they have overstepped their bounds in Income Tax law. But I have enough problems in my life without going up against the biggest gang in the land. I’ll leave that to you folks.

      • DaveH

        Also, Average Joe, I think before you admonish those of us who’ve put up with Galt’s annoying comments over the months, you need to stick around and do more reading of his comments.

      • GALT

        See your problem my little liberal DavidH is that you can’t comprehend that we are a nation of laws……which you not only don’t get, but seem to be clueless about……..

        Now as hard or impossible as this task might be…….to “guide” you…..start where Michael J. left off……..he got to inseparable equals unalienable……..

        How are life, liberty and etc. inseparable…….

        Your vehemence toward me suggests that if you had the opportunity, separating me from
        any of my “unalienable” rights would be………..?

        If the foundational principles are flawed, how can the conclusion be valid?

        BTW……since your host has been challenged with the current QUESTION…how do you explain the deafening silence?

      • TIME

        Dear Galt,

        Yes indeed I do fear what may happen if a lot of people do wake up and find they have been made “Sub Human Slaves” to a gang of criminals Zionest who have taken them to the cleaners in all respects.

        But none the less I will keep on keeping on, perhaps more get it, then again perhaps its all for not.
        Whats that old saying; “No good deed goes un-punished.”

        God knows I am far from being totaly awake myself at this time, BUT I at least try to let go of my ego and let me tell you its not easy being an Artist / Musician to do that.

        What I can’t understand and what makes me crazy is that so few will even look up anything!
        They want you do their work for them and then they complain about people on public aid!!!!!!!!! Hello!!!!!!!!!!!
        With WW III about to unfold before our very eyes, how many Americans will be oh so happy to join in on the BLOOD LUST that their De Facto Gov started by way of proxy puppets.

        Yet daily someone post that “Common Sense” is missing, wow – thats the understatment of all TIME. The Con fused are Con founded.
        Yet even when told when the flat tire happened they would rather beat up the messenger, then get a old copy of Blacks Law, and watch a few hours of Youtube feeds where all they have to do is sit and watch.

        I have posted the Season of Treason 1 -3 how many times, yet so few get it. How simple can one make it? My GOD Kurt has made it so simple its bloody absurd.
        Let alone Kelby Smith’s Youtube feed; For the people of the United States.

        I sure don’t tell these folks the apples are ripe for my own benifit as I have had no per diem for my efforts.
        I only do it for the possibility that someone may wake up, But -perhaps Its all in vein.

        Peace and Love Brother

      • GALT

        Dear Time…..these are such amazing times……I never would have imagined that I would see the extinction of a planet, self induced, in my life time……..

        For me, life is about helping, seeing, solving……..and from what I can tell, this doesn’t pay well…….tell me…… there any escape from this IDIOCY?

        Forget that self indulgent crap……what do we DO now?

      • Average Joe


        All of us have gone “off subject” on this site at one time or another…hell, I was gonna go into Ron Paul campaign mode today ( simply because no one has mentioned him in a while)…and post Ron Paul links…just to support my canditate. Thank goodness for me…there is the Gary Johnson link for me to support Ron Paul today…lol
        As for Galt, I have had my own run ins with him in the past, but sometimes we must recognize that sometimes…folks are just trying to give us a message …that we really should look into…because it truly is important information.
        If I know something about the info… and others try to beat down the messenger….then I tend to speak up and say…step back for a moment and listen to what is being said. Don’t kill the messenger! (he’s simply delivering the message).
        If you don’t agree…or feel that he is off topic…simply refuse to respond…that ends everything…he delivered the message… you agreed or didn’t…and we all go about our business. But berrating the messenger serves no purpose…other than both parties…pissing each other off….Where is the gain in that? Does anyone benefit from sour grapes? If we want others to listen to us…we must remain somewhat civil….Yes, we all get snippy from time to time…and yes, there are a few folks that get under our skin so bad that we wish we could reach through the computer and slap the stupid out of them…but that wouldn’t be productive either.

        Please don’t take offense…. I was just trying to nip an argument in the butt…and maybe spread a little info in the process.

        Best Wishes,

      • TIME

        Dear Galt,

        Stronger words could not have been written. Many of us see the Dark Large Handwiting on the wall. Its very scary that so many still insist on BLOOD LUST, rather than thinking about the Why’s, Whats, When’s and Where’s and WHO’S.

        Fear has gripped the material world – that leads to Frustration and Hate of their fellow humans for no other reason than the Twisted Logic their Masters tell them by way of the Mass Media.

        Yet daily the same people post the same Twisted Logic that the masters expel for the mass’s to consume like tainted pearls of Wisdom. Of what begs the question; why are they so angry when given the TRUTH by people like you and I?

        When will these people just stop being TOOLS and start to open their minds? Humans EGO’s are so fractured that they can’t admit they are wrong as that would expose a weekiness / a flaw as it were, let alone their FEARS exposed to others.
        God Forbid that would happen!

        Yet we as a world all face “self destruction on a massive scale.”
        And it will all be done by ourselves to ourselves.
        It will be people like you and I or AJ that will be rounded up first to the very applause of these people who think they are somehow Patriots, and we who tell them the TRUTH are not.
        If thats not CON-founding, I am at a loss for words.

        How can it be stopped?
        Its not going to be easy nor will it be fun in any way shape or form.
        If everyone who wants to be truly FREE would reach out to the Christ and ask that he open their minds, eyes and most important their hearts.
        The Christ will grant them that power, to see, to hear, to FEEL.

        Walk away from the Corporation known as the United States, stop supporting their criminal behavior, stop paying TAX’S. Pull the Plug and just say NO!
        Get mad at the right people not each other, get mad at the real CRIMINALS of the 13 bloodlines and all their TOOLS; who BTW – number in the hundreds of millions world wide.

        I saddly fear that the “material” world is now far more value to the mass’s. I do understand that mind set, afterall I lived it for years, and YES – I was then just as mindless as many here are.

        Yet – there is HOPE, if I can change – so to can others.

        Peace and Love, Brother

      • TIME

        Dear AJ,

        You SIR, are one very WISE man!

        Again I thank You for not only a Beautiful post that was so well presented that I am in awe.

        Have a Blessed day my Brother.

        Peace and Love

    • GALT

      Well Michael J…….since it was already stated that they are EASILY taken away, and are being taken away as we speak and that is what you come to salivate for EVERYDAY when the bell is rung here……you have now joined the rest of the w.i.A.L.F. talking monkey’s here…….actually you were already there, I just wanted to make it official and see if you could actually follow a “line of reasoning”……..DUH!!!!!!!

      So where are those ( common ) law and equity courts?

      Bob, staph writers, and associates……..feel free to save these salivating dogs at any time?

      Oh, and that would include Ron, Rand and that Judge dude……

      BTW anyone know what the word INTEGRITY means?

      IGNORANCE is STRENGTH…..and if you play your cards right, you may find a little extra-personal liberty or ( freedom ) at the expense of someone else……

      Is the TRUTH really good for business?

      ” Cry havoc…….and slip loose the salivating doggy sycophants…..”

  • Michael J.

    Dear Mr. Myers,
    All this tip-toeing around Political Correctness makes me nauseous, seeing as how I am privy to it’s original intent and stated goals. I believe a full-blown expose of the origins of “Political Correctness” would be beneficial in understanding the events unfolding today and over the last century. It’s effects have entwined our culture like a terminal disease, which is of course what Karl Marx’s desciples had in mind when they created it. Time to shine a light on the teachings of The Frankfurt School and it’s migration and influence on the hippie generation after they set up shop at Columbia University.

    Last thought, exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that people have an unalienable right not to be offended?

    • vicki

      Michael J. writes:
      “exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that people have an unalienable right not to be offended?”

      It is hidden in the 9th amendment. But here is the key. Each individual has the full and infinite power to exercise his/her right to be NOT offended. No law need be created nor could any law be created to force him/her to be or be NOT offended. Our forefathers didn’t bother to point that out cause they expected intelligence to increase over time.

      They knew and the actual English makes it clear that I must TAKE offense from what others say. You can not give me offense. You can say something you HOPE I will take as offensive but I have the full power of Creation to NOT TAKE offense. It is, of course, why I laugh at liberals ad-hominem attacks.

      Now our forefathers DID notice that people (Dictators and Tyrants in particular) might want to use the claim of offense to suppress speech. It is one of the of the reasons they created that amendment that liberals so love to cite when their ox is being gored but are more than happy to ignore when it is the conservative ox.

    • Michael J.

      That’s the problem with setting traps, you never know who will set foot in them. I surely did not intend it be you.

      To my knowledge, the 9th ammendment has never successfully been used to proclaim a person, or a groups right to not be offended. Ask Ward Churchill.

      • Vicki

        If you are saying you set a trap then you will notice by my answer that I did NOT fall in but instead built a structure around it. That structure shows that though you have the right to not be offended (see amendment 9 for un-enumerated rights) you have the full and complete unabridged, undiluted, inalienable power to CHOOSE to NOT be offended. Thus it is one of those things that you have NO need of government as you have the power and CAN NOT delegate it to anyone.

        See Amendment 10.

  • MAP

    The statement, “I am offended”, means what? Just because someone makes this statement doesn’t necessarily make the statement true. How does one test for the truthfulness of it? People can say anything and not always for honest reasons. The truth lies between someone’s ears and is forever a mystery. What the entire pathetic and oppressive purpose really about is to silence the opposition, just as Trotsky intended it. As DaveH states above, it’s all about power. My advice: Arrest me when I have committed an ACTUAL crime; otherwise, leave me ALONE! The evil and sinister left created this silly game and sets the childish rules as they go along. But I refuse to play. I fly a Confederate flag off my front porch, I go to church routinely, and I support certain right-wing organizations. And if the Stalin-wannabes don’t like it, they can jump off a cliff. The radical left offends me daily with their incoherent stupidity and tyranny already. So what? Who will come to my aid? No one!. You’ll notice how the radical fanatics are posting in an attempt to make light of something that is pathetically childish, stupid and oppressive. No surprises from that band of habitual liars and dictators.

    • Chester

      MAP, simply stated, I AM OFFENDED means something has been done or said that upsets ME. Does not mean any sort of a crime has been committed, regardless of what fifty dozen lawyers, and a few judges, might say. Again, offenses against a person or a thing, that is, offenses actually committed are in a totally different category, again, regardless of what is being screamed and yelled into our ears every day.

    • Flashy

      ” People can say anything and not always for honest reasons.” <–MAP did look int he mirror this morning eh ? The rest of your post amply proved your practicing your above statement

      • MAP

        Words of wisdom from a communist liar. How many other names are you posting under today, Jeremy?

  • Keith

    Britain is the greatest social dictatorship the world has ever known. They just can’t help themselves. They really think they can legislate a peaceful society.

    • eddie47d

      What kind of society then would you legislate?

      • Vigilant

        Read his words again, eddie. He’s saying that legislation should NOT be used to mold the tenor of society.

      • eddie47d

        Yes the British were prim and proper colonialists all over the world taking much from the countries they took over and being polite while doing it. May I please take your land before I enslave you to our ways. I was trying to see if Keith approves of countries (including ours) should legislate wars and conquest under the guise of helping them out. Now let Keith speak for himself .

      • Gary L

        The emphasis is on LEGISLATE eddie. Why can’t you be peaceful?

      • vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “What kind of society then would you legislate?”

        A free one. With just enough government to keep honest people honest. Kinda like the Founders of the US created. A thing called a Republic. Here is a ~10 min description

  • Doc Sarvis

    Society has ALWAYS had words that are more or less “in favor”. These change over time and over geographies to some extent. And society has always judged people on their use of language. If one is going to use “bad language” (as so often happens on this site – and others), usually to intimidate another, then they better be prepared for the intimidation/judgement of others. It goes both ways. If you are going to curse at someone it says more than you think about your character and therefore you will be judged by those words you heap on someone else.
    Our Founding Fathers were wise to use the terms “Creator” and “Lord” as they are more generic terms for a higher being and apply to most religions. For a diverse country, and even world those terms work for most peoples.

    • MAP

      Doc, your post just offended me. It should be deleted.

    • Michael J.

      Doc Sarvis,
      The word “people”, when spelled “peoples” is an acknowldged derogatory term which is offensive to certain ethnic minority groups. Where is your sensitivity?

    • Robert Smith

      Doc posted: “And society has always judged people on their use of language.”

      At the risk of being stereotyped because of a knowledge of Broadway musicals…

      Professor Henry Higgins was an expert at such. The show “My Fair Lady” revolves around the very notion that social status is determined by the way one talks.


      • momo

        You’re stereotyped alright, buit not because of your knowledge of broadway musicals!

      • TIME

        Dear Robert,

        Point quite well taken!

        Peace and Love

    • Vigilant

      Sarvis says, “Society has ALWAYS had words that are more or less “in favor”. These change over time and over geographies to some extent. And society has always judged people on their use of language.”

      But American society until recently did not always make it a punishable offense. Alien and Sedition Acts and Lincoln’s/Jefferson Davis’s suspension of habeas corpus aside, the rule was usually “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Even newspapers can claim absence of malice to successfully defend slander in court.

      Courts of law now unconstitutionally convict persons of “hate crimes” simply because they were known to use politically incorrect speech at one time or another. That’s quite a shade of difference, Sarvis, compared to the innocuous judgment of society sans legal action.

      • Doc Sarvis

        How about yelling “fire” in a theater? How about plotting against the government in a serious way?

      • Flashy

        Vigilant…you made a point, as has Doc, that language is used to judge. Informally in a social setting and formally in legal. And has always been such. During the Inquisistion, the righteous Christians tortured and burned folks at the stake because words. One instance has a priest broken on the rack to confess companionship with Satan…the initial proof? He misspoke a Latin phrase incorrectly in conversation. Speak against the King usually was rewarded by removing the offending organ…most often this being the head.

        So it has been, so it will be. We judge people without thinking based upon words. DaveH says nothing, then directs to a Mises link which contains an article he has never read and is off topic (or contradicts what he was saying it was about). MAP is worthless unless one wants to read insults with no substance. i could recite the position of a Conservative Supreme Court Justice and be crucified (as occurred yesterday), and then called a liar because i point out the obvious with reasoning. The well read and fluent on the site are taken with more weight than those who are challenged above two syllables.

        Taking both of your stances melded together, you are correct.

      • Vigilant

        “How about yelling “fire” in a theater? How about plotting against the government in a serious way?”

        Non sequitur, Sarvis.

        You’re talking about (1) irresponsible and legally proscribed behavior that can do serious damage to life and limb on the one hand, and (2) actions (plotting), not politically incorrect speech.

        Your thinking is muddled; you would do well to avail yourself of some introductory courses on logic and the English language.

      • DaveH

        I didn’t say your comment was a lie, Flashman. I said that You are a liar, so you can’t be trusted.
        Ask me, Flashman, to prove to the readers that you can’t be trusted.

      • DaveH

        “I would like to take this opportunity, once and for all, to set the record straight on the famous old cliché: “after all, no man has a right falsely to shout fire in a crowded threatre.” This formula of that old cynic, Justice Holmes, has been used time and again as an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Just exactly why does no man have this right? Is this really a case where libertarian principle must give way to a diluting “prudence”? There are two possibilities: either the shouter is the owner of the theatre or he is not. If he is the owner, then he is clearly violating the evident contract which he made with the patrons: to put on a play which the patrons can watch – a contract which they executed in cash. By disturbing this performance, he is violating the contract. If the shouter is not the owner, then he is clearly trespassing on the owner’s property. He was permitted on that property on the ground that he would peacefully watch the play, a contract which he is obviously violating. The false shouter of “fire,” therefore, is punishable not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is violating the property right of others. And property right, in libertarian principle, is one of the basic natural rights of man” — Murray Rothbard.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        DaveH, common sense would dictate that the “person” who yelled Fire in a crowded theater when there was no fire would be endangering and possibly murdering people when a stampede would occur.

      • vicki

        Nadzieja Batki says:
        “common sense would dictate that the “person” who yelled Fire in a crowded theater when there was no fire would be endangering and possibly murdering people when a stampede would occur.”

        Some would say that Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. However FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater does result in direct harm to the property owner and to the RIGHT of the patrons to assemble peaceably. Thus it is not enfulllyough to observe that the word “fire” was yelled but that the circumstances would cause the reasonable person to flee perhaps in panic and perhaps injuring others on the way.

        The crime is in telling a lie that did cause direct physical harm to others.

        Now you will oft find that those who would try and control every thing you say would try and link this effect in ways to fully protected speech such as is done to people who are accused of inciting a riot. Yes a reasonable person might surmise that a ethnically sensitive group of people (most noted by their really good suntans) might be encouraged to flash mob some “evil rich merchant” but where is the actual crime. There is no natural tendency to panic in a flash mob (unless you are not part of the mob but surrounded by it :) )

        Thus the individuals of the mob (or riot) chose to participate and are individually at fault.
        The instigator(s), though despicable, is/are still not the cause of the damage.

      • Vicki

        Oh and I almost forgot. Most of my discussion about yelling fire in a theater also covers yelling fire in other crowded places. With respect to free speech including yelling fire you have to remember the full circumstances. The theater as DaveH mentioned is PRIVATE property and the owner CAN restrict any and ALL speech. In fact with respect to theaters the ones I go to will even throw you out (that trespass thing) if you speak or make noise and the owner chooses to.

        Actually I am glad someone brought up the false fire thing. Now I realize that it is irrelevant since the private property owner is the one who controls speech in the theater and it can be reasonably assumed that the owner would not want someone to falsely shout fire in the theater. Thanks DaveH for reminding us of simple libertarian principles.

      • DaveH

        First of all I have no empathy for people stupid enough to “stampede” when there is no smoke or other evidence of fire.
        But even if there were, that would be no excuse to act like fools and harm others in the process of trying desperately to hang on to your own life.

  • dan

    I don’t care what color you are…although green and orange make me uneasy…
    I’ll be t your a$$ is brown. PC is for commie pinko’s who speak the dialectic.
    on another note:
    I had an akkk attack when I saw the banner this AM…I thought it was a PERSONAL warning from Bob :)

    • realsustainability

      Long live the First Ammendment! By todays measures the founding fathers would ALL be gagged and jailed. There probably would be no Constitution as we know it. Perfect for the liberal thought pattern of ignoring it anyway.

      • Michael J.

        Right, and Archie Bunker would have been executed.

  • freelarrysinclair

    England? You have to go to England now?

    Some day you’ll live in a world that is free of fear and terror. Until then, stock up on guns and shoot everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

    • Michael J.

      Even someone who is cross-eyed can see plainly through cross-hairs by closing one iota. Duck-n-cover, dweeb.

  • angelwannabe

    Ah yes PC, another money maker from slanderous lawsuits and wild attempts at controlling content of language, can anyone say Hilter?___


  • dcjdavis

    PC stinks anyway you look at it. Mostly it just gives reason for taking offense to those who are looking for it.

  • arlo

    Who gives a Ratsa** what people think, I am going to say what I want, when I want. We are becoming a nation of little girlyboys supported by a socialist, communist, marxist group of misfits. Can I say that? I just did, so kiss my a**

  • FreedomFighter

    Very Non-Politically Correct speech:

    Shocking: The Alaskan Island Tradeoff / Alert From Listener

    July 31, 2012

    Hi Steve,

    I read the article about Odumbo supposedly giving away 7 Alaskan islands to the Russians back in February. A high up inside source says the leak for those 7 islands are payment for the 350,000 Russian troops here that will disarm and kill Americans when the collapse comes! It includes their training, wages, guns, ammo, tanks, assault weapons and housing in underground bunkers. So in reality Odumbo, gave away our land as payment to kill most of us, while all our troops are overseas and wouldn’t dare attack the American people! Back in February the deal was made just like the article says about the giving away of the 7 islands. So they say no money in the article was given because there wasn’t no US dollars paid! Instead they made a deal for the slaughter of our blood and lives for the rich oil based islands, and will let their Russian troops do the dirty work! Besides, how could they afford to pay the Russian troops you ask to attack the American people? They can’t! We are already 16 trillion in debt. In reality it is over 200 trillion! They don’t want our soon to be useless dollars anyways. So payment was made with the oil rich 7 islands for the Russian troops. It all fits the puzzle and the mystery behind what the payoff was. You may post or do what you want with this information. Pass this along to everyone you know……..
    Keep up your great Watchman work and God bless,


    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • eddie47d

      You are becoming more whacked each day Freedom Fighter. Way off topic so the only puzzle is your insane conspiracy theories and fear mongering.

      • Gary L

        Maybe it is off topic…but ignoring truths won’t make them go away.
        Sometimes fear helps self preservation.

      • Dave67

        Gary L,

        Which “truths” is eddie ignoring again?

        Its just FF with another nutty conspiracy theory post…Nothing new here from him.

      • DaveH

        Neither you, Dave67, nor Eddie, knows whether FF’s post is true or not.
        Yet, you have the gall to put him down. Typical Progressive behavior.

      • FreedomFighter

        Noticed none of you even checked this, if you had, you would be afraid, Obama seals the island deal in Feb, in March Russian troops begin to arrive in America from a deal cut with DHS J. Nap., the troops from Russia continue to arrive.

        The Russian Troops train to disarm Americans, all the while Obama sends American troops and forces to the other side of the world. Huge push to disarm Americans. World wide crop failures, jobs non-existent, mobs robbing stores…

        These kind of deals have been made by wanna be dictators in the past, oh and what about Obama’s slip on the open microphone promising the russians…

        Americans are being played for fools, using political correctness, media blackout, manipulation and propaganda, you dont even know the truth when its in front of you.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi.

      • Jay

        If nothing else, eddie & dave67, you should, at the very least, recognize FF’s contributions, as a expression of care and concern for his fellow Americans.

      • eddie47d

        Not if he is using distortions and fear to present his view. Some of you should have the courage to call his nonsense out.

    • Louis Lemieux

      A look at the map will give the reader some notion of the frozen “Alaskan” islands under discussion. All are far closer to the Russian mainland than to the Alaskan mainland. All lie on the Russian side of the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary set by a treaty that the U.S. Senate ratified overwhelmingly more than two decades ago, after being signed by President George H.W. Bush, and with the support of both of Alaska’s senators.

    • Dave67

      And DaveH

      You engage in typical conservative behavior in not challenging “supposed” (thats in the post) conspiracy theories because you hate Obama that much.

      If Obama tried to sell US territory to the Russians, that might make the mainstream news… You THINK?

      Oh, I forgot… you have a track record of not thinking.

      • Dave67

        FF, once again… your Tin hat is ready and waiting for you…

        Q: Is President Obama giving away several Alaskan islands to Russia?

        A: No. The U.S. has never claimed ownership of the islands identified in viral emails and websites. They lie far closer to the coast of Siberia than to Alaska.

        Read… if you can stomach another delusional conspiracy theory getting shot down in flames…

      • FreedomFighter

        Yes comrade, because its closer that proximity gives ownership, so how come Obama had to give it back?

        Because they didnt own it.

        You make no sense comrade.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Dave67


        How can Obama give back something we did not claim in the first place? Did you read?

        No.. of course you did not…

        “The whole business was raised anew in an opinion piece published Feb. 16 on the conservative site World Net Daily (notable for promoting dubious claims about the president’s birthplace). It was written by Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of former Sen. Frank Murkowski) in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, only to see Lisa Murkowski go on to win the general election handily as a write-in candidate.

        “Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians,” Miller wrote. “We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.” The following day, Miller posted an addendum to his piece conceding that he was raising “an old issue” and that he had been “assisted with this article” by Olson’s State Department Watch.

        It is an old issue indeed. In fact, World Net Daily itself published a July 29, 2008, article critical of the State Department for the “island giveaway.” Of course, George W. Bush — not Obama — was president at the time. (The Bush administration’s official Arctic Region Policy stated that the U.S. would abide by the 1990 maritime agreement and would continue to urge the Russian Federation to ratify it.)

        And we’re not sure why Miller mentions only seven islands when Olson always has insisted the U.S. has a claim to eight. But whatever the count, it is simply false to claim that Obama is “giving away” islands to which no U.S. president has asserted a claim for more than 85 years, if ever.”

        Oops… not back into your conspiracy cage… The tea party corporatism will release you soon enough to put forth more BS the soft heads on the right will eat up.

      • FreedomFighter

        You are giving missleading informationcomrade Dave, the islands were part of the original purchase.

        Only Obama for some “unknown” reason settled with the Russians and got what in return?

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • FreedomFighter

        ” Being an
        executive agreement, it can be rescinded at any time by either party unilaterally. It is currently
        being enforced by the State Department on various federal agencies.

        1990 U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement–

        Executive Agreement

        Obama gave it away, its afact.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Dave67


        I am giving misleading info? Pot meet kettle….

        Your site is so choc full of good info… LOL…

        Size 10 on your tin hat? careful of the Gov mind rays when you go outside. Stay off the black streets… its all a way for Obama to control your mind.

      • Vicki

        When you actually look into it the island controversy is far messier than did obama give away or not.

        and factcheck gives a lot of info to tiptoe thru.

      • Dave67


        Land disputes between nations rarely are neat and tiddy…But the facts remain… The United States has not claimed these islands…Unless you have the president that did claim them. Obama has nothing to give the Russians since they were not ours in the first place.

        Its more conservative led BS trying to paint Obama as UnAmerican and not having this country’s best interest at heart and somehow Romney does.

        Its straws they are grasping at here…

      • Average Joe

        I belive that Dave67 is on the game show…”Trolling For Dollars”

        Don’t feed the Troll……If it is ignored enough…it will go away…keep feeding it …and we’ll never get rid of it…just saying.

        Best Wishes,

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes
        “Obama has nothing to give the Russians since they were not ours in the first place.”

        So what was he giving away? As to the islands, if you read the contents of your link and mine you will find that some of the islands do belong to Alaska and they are still a part of the country that obama claims to be president of.
        Here again we find that there IS something for obama to give away. Notice that the giveaway was started long before he took the office so don’t blame just him. The treaty was never actually signed by a nation that no longer exists so the islands were never ceded to the USSR let alone Russia in the early 1990s. Thus they must still belong to Alaska and thus under the jurisdiction of the US.

        Obama DID give away something that was ours.

        Or was there quid pro quo “under the radar”.

      • DaveH

        When do you ever challenge the board Progressives, Dave67 (probably several of which are your different personalities)?
        As far as my non-thinking goes, you should lay low on that nonsense because I regularly make you look like the fool you are. Having a non-thinker upstage you so much doesn’t put you in a very flattering light.

    • Karolyn

      You have got to be kidding me. Some people believe everything they read or see on the internet when it suits their agenda.

      • Vicki

        Some people believe everything they read in the newspaper. What was your point again?

      • Average Joe


        The intelligent thing to do….research the assertions and either learn something new in the process…or disprove the initial assertion.

        Simply pointing out that “Some people believe everything they read or see on the internet when it suits their agenda.” , does nothing to prove or disprove the original assertion….it simply points out the obvious. Since something is obvious…it serves no purpose nor does it find any truths.

        It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry ‘I could have thought of that’ is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn’t, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too.
        Douglas Adams

        Best Wishes,

      • Vicki

        Average Joe says:
        “The intelligent thing to do….research the assertions and either learn something new in the process…or disprove the initial assertion.”

        Or ignore the assertion as proof by bald assertion. (Presumes there was no cite to back up the assertion.)

  • Ray Kennedy

    To threaten one here in Panama is a serious problem – it is not allowed. You can quickly go to jail and it is much more difficult to get out than it is to get in. You may have divergent opinions in any language or words you wish – but you may not threaten him or his.

    • Jefferson Thomas

      There is no longer a government in the area called Panama? They are existing by the very thing you say is against their law… coercion. They threaten the use of force if you threaten the use of force. What constitutes a threat by their law? Does this law apply to the tax collector? Police?

      What if I look at you in a way you dislike or find offensive?

      • Vicki

        Which you can then claim to “feel” threatened by.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So does everyone go around Panama with their heads bowed down and their eyes cast down in case they offend someone?

  • Zed

    I knew the situation had gotten out of hand years ago when I heard someone referred to as “metabolically challenged” because calling him “dead” was considered politically incorrect.

    • TML

      “Metabolically challenged” is just stupid and actually sounds as bad as saying ‘dead’ because of it. “Dead” can be considered very rude, especially when your talking to someone who was close to the “deceased”. Or depending on the way it’s used in a sentence… someone who has “passed away”.

      • DaveH

        Dead, deceased, departed, passed away, or whatever. They all mean the same thing.

      • TML

        Yes, but the topic of discussion is more about general etiquette than the definition of words.

        It about how and where you might say it.

        Attending a funeral, it’s generally considered more respectful to relatives to say “passed away” or “deceased”, than to use the word “dead”.

        Of course, I think it’s rather stupid to have any legal issues over these issues unless the language was meant to provoke an assault. Thus the intent does make a difference, but stories like the soccer player in England is rather ridiculous.

      • Vicki

        TML writes:
        ‘Of course, I think it’s rather stupid to have any legal issues over these issues unless the language was meant to provoke an assault.”

        You still CHOOSE to be provoked. Thus the one committing the assault has committed a crime (assault) and not the one trying to provoke the assault.

      • TML

        No, one doesn’t choose to be provoked, but they do choose to commit the assault.
        However, those proven to provoke the assault are not innocent in the matter and should be taken into consideration, and the provocateur reprimanded by the court.

      • Vicki

        TML says:
        “hose proven to provoke the assault are not innocent in the matter and should be taken into consideration, and the provocateur reprimanded by the court.”

        Lawyers and Judges love that attitude. I prefer a simpler and easier to prove approach.

      • TML

        It’s not easy to prove, especially when it’s mere words, but for example… a person carry a concealed hand gun can not verbally nor physically provoke an attack. Giving someone the bird, or saying F you to provoke someone can and should be a legal issue for example.

      • TML

        “Giving someone the bird, or saying F you to provoke someone can and should be a legal issue for example.”

        to clarify, this is meant concerning someone who carrys a gun.

  • Ted

    I grew up in an ethnically mixed neighborhood. I learned the hard way not to use the terms “wop”, polack”, “hunkie”, “frog”, “hillbilly”, etc, when referring to my classmates. Even now, I live in a neighborhood with people of Portuguese persuasion. I don’t use the term “portagee”. I’ve never been called a “Kraut” even by people I’ve offended, and I’m thankful for that.

    It’s a matter of being polite and considerate of others. And of considering another person’s actions as being more important than his ancestry.

    There are thousands of words in the English language. Feeling deprived or discriminated against because it is frowned upon to use a handful of words is really pretty silly.

    • Karolyn

      Some time ago, maybe 12 years or so, a politician came under attack for using the term “Polack.” I was working with a woman who said her husband was highly insulted by the word. We had a nice little discussion, with me telling her even though all my grandparents were Polish, I had no problem with the term. We were raised that way. I have no need to defend my heritage because of someone’s use of a word that’s supposed to be derogatory. It’s just a word. i’ve always loved Polack jokes.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can respect that Karolyn. I guess my only issue is why have the word at all. I admit it can be used in a joking manner but why have it at all. Why is there a need to tell polack jokes.

  • TML

    Yeah, I’m still going to say, so what… it’s England. Perhaps the language police are everywhere, but if that’s so, then I’m sure there should be plenty of examples here in this country, right? Seriously, if your best example in America is some chick getting upset about your use of the word “blind”, then it’s not convincing there is a major problem in this country.

    The ‘N’ word being used by blacks, and not by whites, is not only for obvious reasons… but there is also a difference in there way the word is said, and if you know the person you’re saying it to. The slang version of the word ends with an ‘a’, while the offensive derogatory version of the word ends with ‘er’.

    As for “Creator” and “Lord”… those are quite generic terms that can be applied to nearly every religion or philosophy, even pantheism. Most atheists do not find these terms offensive for this reason.

    Still there is often words and phrases that may be offensive, and I’ve seen censorship even on this site where the comment was replaced with “[Offensive comment removed]“. Although I understand that this may be due to the more widely accepted curse words, who gets to decide what will be included? The answer is obvious… the organization that monitors the language… whether it be this site, or a school.

    People should be able to express themselves respecting general edicate…. but there will always be those who get upset about something whether its the person getting upset about saying “blind”, or those that get upset about that person saying “sight-impaired”.

    • Vicki

      TML writes:
      “…..I’ve seen censorship even on this site where the comment was replaced with “[Offensive comment removed]“. ”

      That is because this site is private property and not government. The 1st amendment restricts CONGRESS not private individuals/property owners. Now what is your ability as a property owner to deal with someone who refuses your lawful demand?

      This site even tells you at the beginning of the comments section.
      What is your ability as a property owner to deal with someone who is standing on your property and refuses your lawful demand?

      You tell him to leave your property.
      Now for a really tough one. Public places. What is your ability as an individual to deal with someone who refuses your lawful demand (to stop speaking freely say on a soap box for instance, Or street corner)?

      You exercise another part of the 1st amendment and WALK AWAY.

      It’s really that simple.

      • TML

        Vicki says, “That is because this site is private property and not government. The 1st amendment restricts CONGRESS not private individuals/property owners.”

        Then you repeat what I’m saying really… when I said, “who gets to decide what will be included? The answer is obvious… the organization that monitors the language… whether it be this site, or a school”… of course, I should add, owners of private property.

        Vicki says, “Now for a really tough one. Public places.”

        That’s not really tough… the obvious and most reasonable thing to do is of course, to walk away… if you can. But as the saying goes, you can’t yell fire in the middle of a crowded theater either. However, the provocation should become a legal issue if an assault occurs.

      • Vicki

        TML writes:
        “However, the provocation should become a legal issue if an assault occurs.”

        Everything related to an assault becomes a legal issue.

  • http://Walker Richard

    I grew up in Mobile, AL, and as I tell people, if you go any further south you are in the water. In the fifties it was the land of Jim Crow and prejudice. Well, I have never had a prejudiced bone in my body and could never understand why most people I grew up with did. I always felt that because we are all human beings, we deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color. However, I also always felt that no one should be telling anyone who they must associate with socially, because that is an individual choice.

    Using the “N” word back then, as it were, was generally used to describe black people and at the same time could be construed to be an insult depending on the context. There have always been those that were lazy, shiftless, dirty, and generally no-good of both races, and there have always been the normal, hard working, dependable, responsible folk. I grew up knowing this, and when I used words to describe people of either sort I was not worried about what any of the “discriptees” thought of the words I was using to describe them. There was no such animal as “political correctness” back then. “Political correctness” is something recently invented by the liberal progressive statists to further erode our American freedom to express ourselves and is an abomination, as I see it. I also disagree with the term “African American”, since as citizens of this country we are all simply Americans.

    Words we use to describe something are just that – descriptors, and whereas they can hurt your feelings, they don’t hurt you physically. Remember “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”? If I had been as sensitive and taken offense so quickly as those that nowadays get called the “N” word, I would have never made it through Parris Island or become a fighter pilot (USMC F-4J), since I was called many things way worse than “(expletive deleted)”.

    In my opinion, to prosecute someone because they have used words describing something they dislike (or even hate) is the height of absurdity. As human beings we discriminate against and like or hate things (and people) every day, it is our nature. I hate lazy people, should the lazy people then be able to accuse and prosecute and convict me for saying that I hate them? To those that tell me I am insensitive I say that I am not sorry for the fact that I am a human being and say what I think (and believe) to anyone listening when I feel it is appropriate to do so. Like most normal people I self censor what I say when I am “out in society”, but I also call a spade a spade. In this country I am entitled to have my opinion and I have the right to voice it. Anyone who wants to take that right away from me should be careful, because when the pendulum swings the other way (as it always does), they might find themselves on the receiving end of the very “law” they enacted.

    MAP, you are spot on.

    • Louis Lemieux


      Interesting to read. What a contrast to where I was raised! I was brought up in a small town near the Canadian border where people were all white. My mom would talk to us about people of color because she worked many years in New York City. I was about six or seven when I saw one for the first time, he came from far away to load Christmas trees on a big truck and soon disappeared when the truck was loaded.The poor guy, so many people starring at him! I believe way down deep we are all racist to a certain degree, it’s up to each and everyone of us do our best to become less and less of it. Self improvement never really ends. Every human being deserves respect. I don’t hate lazy people, but I do hate the fact they’re lazy. The less we judge others, the happier we are.

    • DaveH

      Good comment, Richard.
      Freedom of Speech can be sometimes be brutal, but what better way is there to steer people in the right direction than to allow them to speak freely so that their misconceptions may be addressed rather than having them bottle up their negative feelings until some day they explode in rage?

    • JohnQ from MS

      Richard, I absolutely agree with you. Two other comments: one of my favorite novels is “To Kill a Mockingbird” which was written just “a hop, skip, and jump” from Mobile. And, I made a career of the navy (confound it, is that swabby badmouthing this jarhead?). I think that you and I think enough alike that you will understand both these comments.

  • eddie47d

    There wasn’t any reason that Mr Meyers even brought up the word black and it was irrelevant to what was said. It’s the other words that went with it that were offensive. Black,White ,Brown are just colors to describe what you seen nothing more. I’m white and Louis Armstrong is black, so what! Few people are offended by Lord or Creator either. Now when the word damn is thrown in with the word God it can rile up a few folks as is not easily accepted just like the N word. I don’t like the term “political correctness” because it has little to do with politics when using language. It all depends in how uncivil you want to be and how much of our language you want to trash. Personal responsibility is how we communicate with each other so if you want to win the battle with salty words then that is your problem. You rather deserve your reputation! I have a sneaky feeling a few of you feel that Freedom equals the privilege to insult and get away with it. When you are caught you shout out that you are loosing your freedoms to be insulting.

    • Flashy

      i’ve noticed i his last few articles Myers is veering off and becoming less factual and knowledgeable and more emotional in appeal. For instance “as unmanly as this game is”…shows a true ignorance of the game. His insistence the words “Creator’ as in “their Creator” means …in usage and intent, a christian deity and the use of “Lord’ in the Constitution where it recites the date in the terms of the times…is another indication of being somewhat unprepared and well as stretching reality to make some point which otherwise could not be made.

      He has used examples from Spokane from decades ago (before he showed his patriotism and fled to Canada.) to ‘prove” a point about today …

      John Myers used to write articles which, though one may have strong disagreement with, usually were solidly written and though wrong in proposition…were strong as debate. hopefully, he’ll get back to his former quality.

      • Vigilant

        “His insistence [sic] the words “Creator’ as in “their Creator” means …in usage and intent, a christian [sic] deity…”

        Sorry, Flashy, Mr. Myers insisted on no such thing, and your attempt to decipher his intent is presumptuous.

        Nor did he say “their Creator.”

      • Flashy

        Vig…ya think Mr. Myers meant Bhuddism? And what does ‘many people” mean?

        Just pointing out…John’s writing quality is slipping of late.

        “We live in a world of political correctness — so much so that there are two words many people consider offensive but which our Founding Fathers highly respected: “Creator” in the Declaration and “Lord” in the Constitution.”

      • Vigilant

        Mr. Myers knows full well what the term “Creator” meant to Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. It has obviously eluded your superficial thinking.

        Terms such as “Creator” and “Nature’s God” were clearly Deist terms, not even used by pastors in the Christian pulpits of the day. Jefferson himself did not subscribe to Christianity as a revealed supernatural religion. He even excised all references to the supernatural assertions in the New Testament and published his “Jefferson Bible.” Washington, Franklin and Thomas Paine were Deists, Madison had the leanings. Only Adams stands out as a devout Christian amongst the leading Founders.

        The Deist term is best described as “ultimate reality” and applies to whatever deity in which you may believe. It conforms perfectly to Christian belifs, but is not mutually exclusive.

        The use of the word “Lord” in the Constitution was following date conventions, as in “Year of Our Lord.”

      • Vigilant

        “And what does ‘many people” mean?”

        He’s clearly talking about the atheist condemnation of the words in our daily life and with respect to civic functions. Does that answer your question?

      • Vicki

        I use the term Creator rather than God or Allah or YWAH, or nothing? or whatever in this paragraph

        “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
        How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
        is how you shall be judged.”

        specifically because I have yet to meet or know of anyone or anything that was not created. I capitalize the word as a courtesy to those for whom it does mean the God of their belief.

  • Hedgehog

    Over 100 years ago, in England and many other countries, there was a simple solution to the problem of verbal offense, dueling. Ah for the good old days! An armed society is a polite society. But in such a society many persons who could be called N words, such as; nitwits, no accounts, and numbskulls, would be endangered species. It would be so satisfying to invite some Loudmouthed, Liberal, Leftist (Oh! Dear!, I’ve used offensive L words 3 times!) to pistols at dawn.

    • Flashy

      ” It would be so satisfying to invite some Loudmouthed, Liberal, Leftist (Oh! Dear!, I’ve used offensive L words 3 times!) to pistols at dawn.”

      And it would be just as satisfying to be there as you didn’t show to man up and walk your talk….

    • Vigilant

      The 3 Ls are redundant. The term “leftist” is already defined by the other two words.

      • Vicki

        Only because leftests stole liberal. That is why we most often say classical liberal (not well defined) or libertarian. Well defined.

    • Doc Sarvis

      It would not matter much if they showed up or not; conservatives are pretty poor shots.

      • Vicki

        And liberals hate and fear guns so accurate shooting is not really required. In fact you can save ammo by not even being there. Liberals are so afraid of guns that they think the gun itself will jump up and shoot them and will thus run away.

  • Dave67

    It works both ways… In this country, you can’t be president unless you prostrate yourself and tell everyone you are a “good Christian” whatever that means…

    The right have their sacred cows as does the left. For the longest time you could not question the motivations of religious leaders because they were somehow above reproach. We have the same deal with the US Military. You can’t question a soldier even one that has not served in war on the front lines… That is also a form of political correctness.

    How about we use direct language for all and judge based on the actions of the individual? That does not mean we need to use language that is derogatory to a group to describe a person or group because we are too lazy to get to know or understand them.

    As a society, we should shame those who engage in bigoted language and actions…. But before anyone goes off half cocked because of what someone says due to someone is looking to be offended, how about a little context?

    • Gary L

      You are right Dave67, it does work both ways. There are lots of people out there that will say that someone shouldn’t be president because he is a “good Christian”.

  • peter

    Just trying to figure how many politicians are actually correct, never mind politically so, or is the ‘ politically ‘ part just applied in order to exonerate them from their lies? Also, if a black calls you a ‘ honky ‘ that’s ok, but you call them anything other than ‘ sir ‘ you are a racist. Disrespect either way is a sign of ignorance and poor up-bringing and it always takes two to tango.

  • Jonathan Baker

    It seemed to me in watching the very small video clip that had no sound that the situation was between players of a game on the field, one of whom said “something”, possibly to an opposing team member (and not to his team mate), and the action was inadvertently caught on camera. Did that reach the level of slander or libel? I think not. Let’s have some sanity here.

    So, in a nutshell: Sticks and stones my break my bones, but names will never hurt me!

  • Louis Lemieux

    There is always something good in everyone – even in the nastiest of people. It’s up to you to recognize that. The nastiest of people are also the unhappiest of people. Be kind to them because they are the ones who need your love the most.

    • Nadzieja Batki


      • Louis Lemieux

        Why what?

      • Louis Lemieux

        It’s only by changing the heart’s of people towards kindness that we can make this world a better place to live.

      • Karolyn

        Nadzieja – You’re kidding right?
        Louis – I feel the same way. Actually, I feel sorry for people who say and do horrible things, for they are the unhappiest people in the world.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        People often criticized Abraham Lincoln for being to kind to his political opponents. Once an adviser asked him why since these people were his enemies. That he should be trying to destroy them not make them his friends. To that Lincoln said ” Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Louis L., you do realize that you are advocating “abuse”, that a person is to show love even to the nastiest and unhappiest people. The nastiest and unhappiest people can make people’s lives miserable and the victims are just to “love” them.

      • Karolyn

        Nadzieja – No one can “make” your life anything; just like no one can”hurt” your feelings. We create our responses and have control over our own emotions and responses to what others do or say.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Karolyn, is Louis L., your alter ego?

      • Louis Lemieux

        Nadzieja Batki,

        I thought the Bible was your guide in life! :

        Matt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…

      • eddie47d

        Nadzieja and Opal are too busy doing the persecuting!

  • Louis Lemieux

    If you do not want to be affected by people of low consciousness, simply raise your consciousness to a level where you are safe from them.Low consciousness people hold you back from reaching greater heights. These include energy vampires, critical people, dishonest characters, and people with temperament issues. Let them go from your life and send them love as you do that.

  • http://Walker Richard

    Mr. Livingston, When I grew up Damn and Hell were expletives. The “N” word was not. Your removal of it from my comment was out of context and not in keeping with what you seem to be trying to accomplish with this newsletter/blog. In essence, you have done to me what you are protesting in the body of your report. I would expect that treatment from the Brits, or perhaps “Big Brother”, but not from you. Shame on you.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      It appears that you used the “N” word deliberatly to set up a confrontation with Bob L..

      • The Christian American

        A bit of history. The Black Panthers, the one’s that coined the word black to replace negro, were tutored by Communist. Communist preach “Divide and Conquer”. Their logic is black seperates the races better than negro, and they’ve been proved right. Martin Luther King was busom bodies with Ahmed bin Bella, the Communist that engineered the French being thrown out of Algiera. Using the word gay instead of homosexual or sodimite gives a moral respect to those unseemly actions. It allows for sodomites participating in society on a equal level with straight people. The assumption is using using the word gay legitimizes their actions.

      • eddie47d

        Go back to Uganda C.A. You’d be right at home again.

  • http://none Charlie

    How many “True” Christians read this site ? can you quote “Scripture” that proves you are a Christian according to The Holy Bible? I dare say less than 1% can…

    • The Christian American

      Maybe people will become true Christians when they read this site. It is not ours to say what people are but to share the knowledge of Christ and His teachings. In this day and age Satan and his legions and Christ and His soldiers are making their presence known. Read the prophecies Matt 23&24 might be a place to start. Man is servant. It only depends on who he serves.

      • http://none Charlie

        Christian American , glad you answered ,because I love to pick on people that ,,,THINK,,, they are Christian BUT are only Judeo-christian at best…
        Note, The Bible is The words that God had His Men write , King Jesus has the same authority as His Father God , see Matthew 28:18 for that…
        Note, King Jesus is God in the flesh as well as Spirit…
        Note, Satan and his demons are mostly spirits BUT can take over and control some of God’s creation ,,,BUT,,, who are The People that Satan CANNOT take over and control???
        The People that King Jesus called out at Matthew 15:24 , who are The house of Israel ??? BUT ,,, what do the people of the house of Israel have to do to gain The Protection of King Jesus Christ ??? The right hand Man of King Jesus Christ while He was on Planet Earth told us at Acts 2:38 …
        Accomplish Acts 2:38 with UNDERSTANDING of what and why you are doing Acts 2:38 and , bingo! ,,, you have become a “Christian” per The “Orders” of King Jesus Christ and His Man Peter ,,,BUT…
        To arrive at understanding of The Basic Bible one MUST read the whole Bible and comply with the Basic “Orders” of King Jesus Christ …
        What are the first two basic “Orders” from King Jesus ??? you don’t know,,,OK,,,
        check Matthew 6:33 and you will find them ,,,then ,,,go to Matthew 16:19 and you will find that Peter had some special “Blessings” from King Jesus …
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing …

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Charlie, what is a “True Christian” considering that Christianity among its adherents has its share of “adult babies”, the young and the old and none of this applies to any particular age group. So you can have a 5 year old more mature than a 60 year old.
      Percentages do not tell the whole story.

      • http://none Charlie

        Yes , I know , there are young fools and there are old fools since most young people are some what foolish , how does one avoid becoming a older fool ???
        Read Matthew 6:9—13 and Pray it everyday out loud if possible and pray it in The Name and Blood of King Jesus Christ… BUT,,, don’t play games with King Jesus , He plays Hard ball and you could strike out just from fear and ignorance …
        Learn to Honor and Love The King and His Law Book ,,,there is power in His Words , read John , chapter one …
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing…

    • Louis Lemieux

      Some people KNOW God exists and some people KNOW God doesn’t exist. It’s important for me to be sincere with myself as much as possible and I KNOW I am very sincere when I say I’m not perfect enough to KNOW if God exist or does not exist. If God does exist, I’m sure that’s what He wants of me, to be sincere with myself.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        From where do you get your sincerity doctrine because it is nowhere in the Bible?

      • Louis Lemieux

        Madzieja Batki,

        Philosophy, philosophy!!! Sincerity,a lot from Baruch Spinoza.

    • JohnQ from MS

      Charlie, I’ve been a Christian for 60 years and don’t believe I’ve ever heard of Jesus, our Lord, as being referred to as “King Jesus”. You keep using the phrase over and over. I am a Southern Baptist. You are obviously of some other denomination. It doesn’t bother me because I know what you mean. But “king” is an earthly, political term. I just believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is far more than just a mere king. It’s nothing to get all upset about, yet your usage is a bit strange. And be careful about accusing others of being non-Christians simply because you don’t agree with them. Jesus stated pretty clearly in the Gospels that God, and God alone, is able to discern the state of a person’s heart. That excludes you and me.

      An earlier post used the word “fear”, as in “fear of the Lord”. This is an example of the 400-year-old English that is used in the King James Version of the Bible. Words tend to change their meanings over time, especially over a period of four centuries. This confuses those who don’t know the Bible very well. People are free to use whatever version of the Bible they are comfortable with, but they should be aware that Shakespeare’s writings and the KJV of the Bible are confusing because they were both written around 1610, give or take a few years.

      I’ll make one more point. Jesus tells us that Satan knows and can quote the Scriptures just as well as a Christian can. Thus we should be careful of pontificating. Being able to quote scripture is problematic: a parrot might be taught short verses.

      I’m not judging you and I don’t expect you to judge me. And you certainly haven’t offended me with anything you have said. But I do think a few things you have written need to be clarified.

      • http://none Charlie

        JohnQ, thanks for you comment , can your Parrot learn all of your comment ? and understand it ? Anyone that calls him/her self a “True” Christian per The Bible should be able to say , “the Bible says” and then give Scripture reference to what ever subject matter is being addressed , so…
        What is your Scripture reference on how you became a so called “Christian”???
        My, My, can’t find it? then you may NOT be a Christian according to The King’s Book…
        The Kingdom always has a King , the Bible says The Kingdom of God will always have a King from the Lineage of the Tribe of Judah, in the OT it was King David , in the NT , it IS,,, King Jesus Christ , check out Matthew 6:9–13 , what does it say ? it’s The King’s Prayer to Pray Him into place ON PLANET EARTH!!! , the words in The King’s Prayer are so simple and “Directive” that anyone that tries can understands it , you could , maybe even teach your Parrot to say it ,,,but,, the Parrot will NOT understand it…
        Knowledge and understanding of Bible Scripture IS A MUST in becoming a “True” Christian PER The Law Book of King Jesus Christ,,,so here it is in very basic Scripture.
        Accomplish Acts 2:38 , spoken by Peter is confirmed as Salvation by Peter at 1 Peter 3:21,,,notice Acts 2:38 gives you Salvation and The Gift of The Holy Spirit ALL in one verse ,,, how about that a simple Fisherman with all that Blessings from The King , stated in ONE verse… Peter got that Authority from King Jesus at Matthew 16:19…

        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38…

  • The Christian American

    Lenin said: People think in words and how interpret words is who they are. Knowing that, he told his generals to create words and change the definitions of words to mold people to the kind of person we want. Lenin was not a sunday school teacher but one of Satans servants. His teachings are mentoring to Obama and his ilk. Gay replaced homosexuals and sodomites when the homosexuals and sodomites said it should. In the 60′s Black replaced negro when the black Panthers deemed it should. Amoral has replaced moral. Man’s rules of action has replaced God’s rules of action. Politically correct isn’t the word isn’t the word. Satanically correct would be better, not that they’re not synomous now-a-days. TERROR: a physical or psychological act, violent in nature, committed to gain submission. We’re being terrorized to accept what these people want us to accept. We’re afraid or saying and doing what is moral and right in the eyes of God, and people enjoying his liberty.

  • Gea

    Almost anything that somebody says could be construed as “offending” from somebody. Perhaps it is time to get a little thicker skin and lough it off. Live and let liive. IF we muzzlew free speech we will be like walking on the egg shells and destroy free thought which will lead to failure of Western civlization just as Muslim countries are failing and thus Islamists are coming to still functioning Western coutnies where they can live on the dole and not starve like in their sharia-run countries back home. Freedom of thought and expression is what keeps societies going. I am sick and tired of political correctness dictating what we can think and say!

    • The Christian American

      Free speach is reserved for the moral: People observing God’s rules of action and interaction. Freedom merely means status. Liberty is that freedom God gives those observing morality. John Adams said: This Constitution is only for the governance of a moral and religious people. It is UNFIT for the governance of any other.

      • Louis Lemieux

        It’s easy for anyone to use his freedom to step on his neighbor’s freedom. My freedom stops where my neighbor’s freedom starts. This isn’t always easy to determine, people don’t always agree, that why we have laws. Morality is the expression of “love thy neighbor as thyself“.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        If you are a moral person you would make sure to know at what point your freedom ends and someone else’s begins?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        My reply was to Louis L..

      • Louis Lemieux

        Nadzieja Batki`

        It has a lot to do with someone’s conscience. Someone may have a strict conscience and someone else a lax conscience. Conflicts do arise. My skype id. : louis.lemieux1

      • Vicki

        So like Louis Lemieux, I went thru a time of philosophy as related to religion and thru a time of liberal/progressive attempts to tear down American institutions. After a few years I was able to right my moral compass (moral relativism is a b*h) and it came upon me to know thus and share it with the people.

        “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
        How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
        is how you shall be judged.”

        It favors no specific religion.

        It is really good for resetting your moral compass after long or short term exposure to the works of Marx and Lenin and others of such belief.

        It is also consistent with the observable laws of physics (both sets) and religious sayings which are similar to the biblical one “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

      • Louis Lemieux


        The problem is too many people never built their own philosophy of life searching for the truth wherever you can find it, even in your adversaries.

      • 45caliber


        That isn’t exactly right since you neighbor can insist that his freedom starts a lot sooner than yours does.

        I prefer it this way – I’ll give you all the freedom that you give me. But I expect you to give me all the freedom you want. If not, then you and I will discuss the definition of freedom.

        There is only two ways to have freedom in this world. You give others freedom on the condition they return it or you take all of it for yourself. The problem is that too many tyrants or want-to-be tyrants want it all for themselves.

      • Vicki

        45caliber writes:
        “The problem is that too many tyrants or want-to-be tyrants want it all for themselves.”

        That’s not a problem. That’s a signpost easily identifying them AS tyrants :)

      • http://none Charlie

        The Constitution DOES NOT replace or do away with The Holy Bible in any form or fashion … The Constitution itself tells you it is The Law of the Land ,,,and Land means “Commerce”,,,all money comes from “The dirt” that God created … HINT!!! The King and His Law Book are STILL The Highest Law of The Earth… King Jesus is King of America … Yes heathens ,,, The USA is in The Bible ,see 2 Samuel 7:10 –28,,,it is The New JerUSAlem …
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38…

    • DaveH

      Good comment, Gea.

  • Wyatt

    Charlie , I admit you have a point . However being able to quote “Scripture” is not proof that a person is a Christian . That depends on how you practice what it is you preach and quote .
    I am of Native American and Irish / German decent . My mothers family coming to America with the first Quakers to come to America with Wm Penn . My Grandmother on Moms side was the most Christian person I ever knew or had the honor to meet and , that includes Clergymen . And even with her influence I wish that more of her ways had rubbed off .
    Now from my fathers side , I am Mohawk , Native American , an Indian . However as pointed out to me by a friend who is from India , I am not an Indian , never was . So I am Native American or Mohawk .
    But regardless of what people choose to call me , I take no offense . Well lest it be derogatory or in a tone of voice that is demeaning . Words can be a powerful thing if used properly . I can remember when Black people were called Negro’s , and they refered to themselves as such . During the 60′s they suddenly became Blacks , Even though that even the darkest of them are not actually black . After that , the decided to call themselves African-Americans . To be politically correct ? I haven’t a clue but, I wonder what they will want to be called next . I do have a suggestion though . Try Americans , forget this nationality nonsense . You live here , you are an American if you don’t want to be called that , well , you are free to leave . Remembering your heritage is fine , but keep it home . Tell you children sure , but tell them how their ancestors came to America , be it in search of freedom or as slaves . And in the end , they became Americans .
    Being politically correct will be the death of this country as will everyone being suit happy . The case of the two soccer players is just an out shoot of the game itself . If you have ever watched a soccer game there is more drama an acting than in a Hollywood movie . Just look at the drama when a player is taken down as they go for the ball . It suprises me not that one of them would file suit against another for words uttered during a match .

    • http://none Charlie

      Wyatt,,,thanks for your view but My view nor your view mean very little compared to The Words of King Jesus ,,, “Truth” is what one should be searching for and the equation for truth is found at Psalm 119:160,,, truth = the sum of God’s words ,,,that’s why it’s so critical to know Scripture because to memorize Scripture means you will understand it at sometime just from thinking about it and harmonizing it with other Scripture to arrive at truth on some subject matter ,,, the Bible says the Children of Israel are God’s chosen people ,, so,, most of us some what bastardized non-children of Israel have a greater need to know Scripture for the solutions to our defects ,,,the Bible says “know the truth and the truth will make you free” John 8:32…
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38…

  • 45caliber

    An angry person doesn’t play as well. I thought the whole point was to make the guy angry. While I’ll admit that it might not be the best action in the world, it is done all the time. Some coaches even encourage it among their players for that reason. Should we ban it? Why? If a person can get enraged that easily, he shouldn’t be playing in the first place. Something else might happen and he would likely start fightng.

  • 45caliber

    Brain washing was a term initiated during WWII to define what the Axis was trying to do to prisoners.

    It simply tries to change the thought patterns of people and teach them new loyalties.

    That is exactly what “politicial correctness” is trying to do.

  • Concerned Montanan

    There are many references to “fear of the Lord” in the Bible. Some quotes – Proverbs 23:17 “Do not let your heart envy sinners, but live in fear of the Lord always.” and Prov. 28:14 “How blessed is the man who fears always; But he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity.” From the NT – II Cor. 7:1 Therefore, having these (God’s) promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
    The word “fear” is in such cases, translated from a Greek or Hebrew word that means “reverence” or “awe, (also expressed as a “holy fear”), far from meaning that we should be afraid of vengeance from God. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)

  • moonbeam

    “That said, black people use it freely all the time. It is part of the rap culture;for some people, it is part of their everyday life.” And that, dear sir, I consider a racist remark.

    You form your lips to generalize what you “think” African Americans say. How much time do you actually spend in the company of African Americans? Apparently not enough or you would know that we don’t all speak this way.

    Do you think we all live in the hood or are rappers? We don’t and we’re not. Do you think all who do live in the hood talk like this? Hate to disappoint you, but this is not the case either.

    If it is one thing that royally pisses me off, it is how whites love to generalize about the black population. I am African American and I do not use that language. As a matter of fact, I hear more whites use it than blacks.

    Your stupid comment “black people use it freely all the time” is highly offensive. You don’t really know us. Your statement proves it. You’re going by what you think you know. Best if you think before you write.

    How would you like it if I said “All white people blow snot out their noses at the table where people are TRYING to enjoying their meals.” That is one very ignorant nasty habit you all have that has ruined many a meal for me at a restaurant. Not fun to hear snot coursing from one’s nostrils while I am eating. People with social grace excuse themselves to the bathroom to do that. You don’t like that I wrote that, do you? Neither do I.

    A little story. My great grandmother cussed an uncle up one wall and down the other for blowing his nose at the dinner table. He never did it again.

    Oh by the way, I forgive you for your poor choice of words.

    • Vicki

      moonbeam writes
      “If it is one thing that royally pisses me off, it is how whites love to generalize about the black population.”

      Right after telling someone else that they are racist. To funny.

    • http://none Charlie

      Hey moonbeam have you been drinking moonshine? read Matthew 15:24 and tell Me if that’s a racist remarke by King Jesus…
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38…

  • JON

    And make sure you don’t use the name of a common body part like penis or vagina, it might offend someone! It is no different than using the word arm or ear or nose. Yet, the word vagina was removed from a posted comment by the “powers that be”. So much for the first amendment and personal liberty. That IS the name of the website, right?!? Personal Liberty?!?

    • Karolyn

      Was that really removed? They use it on mainstream media all the time.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear Karolyn,

        It was used as a pejorative toward Palin16. It was not the word, it was the use of the word.

        Best wishes,

        P.S. Mainstream media do not set my standards

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear JON,

      As you well know, context is everything.

      Best wishes,

      • Jay

        Recently, one of their own shared with us, the results of a government-funded-research who’s findings revealed that progressive-liberals were endowed with greater intellectual capacity, then that of their counterparts. However, wether the test-subjects were homo sapiens or otherwise, was never disclosed.

    • DaveH

      You should be happy Bob even let’s you post. This website is his Property. How would you feel if I came to your house and insulted you and then claimed 2nd Amendment Rights?
      Well, actually I would never dream of doing that, but what if you invited Flashman or Dave67 over and they did that?

  • Karolyn

    Very interesting videos on non-violent communiation. I think it’s apropos to what goes on here. We really do not know how to properly communicate.

    • Average Joe


      The delivery of the message is just as important (or more so) as the message it’self.

      BTW, thank you for taking my advice …by adding links to support your views.

      Best Wishes,

      • Karolyn

        When I have them to share, i use them.

    • DaveH

      Okay Karolyn, I learned something.
      “Please” don’t vote for people to steal my money.

  • Lawrence

    What’s the matter with you people? Black, White, yellow, red, and whatever? There is nothing wrong with any of those words. If you are offended no matter what your color you are to thinned skinned. Get a life.

  • JeffH

    “UN Agenda 21″ is underway within our borders. Many in our government, state, county and cities are complicit with this UN Agenda…understand that it is real and it has been eroding our national sovereignty for over 50 years.

    Agenda 21 – The U.N. Plan for Your “Sustainable” Community
    Note: This global contract binds all nations to the collective vision of “sustainable development.” They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic manipulation, and social equity.

    • JeffH

      The American Policy Center is an excellant source for info about Agenda 21′s sustainable developement

      Watch the video – Tom Deewese talks about Agenda 21.

      Also, click on the link: Environmental Protection or Global Governance?

    • DaveH

      True or not, what is significant is that our Government regularly keeps Secrets from us — Their Employers. Would any of us employ people in our businesses who are keeping secrets from us about their operation of our business? Of course not. So why do we allow the Government to keep secrets from us? They should not be allowed to do anything that trespasses on our bodies or property without our express permission. And we should not allow them to keep ANY secrets, even the so-called National Security secrets. If they aren’t up to NO GOOD, they don’t need to keep secrets from their employers.

  • duane

    How is this for politically correct wording. That hearing impaired, mentally impaired and sight impaired boy sure can play a mean pinball. Taken out of context from the song Pinball Wizard by the Who. Now how lame would that song sound with the politically correct wording above?? “That deaf, dumb, blind kid can sure play a mean pinball.” Hey a spade is a spade and a heart is a heart. Call them like you see them and mean them.

  • Franklyn Molina

    I would like to engage in, the political correctness of aborting retards.

    The problems with political correctness have always been many. For starters, the entire foundation of the movement is based in dishonesty and emotion, as opposed to reality and logic. The premise of political correctness, put simply, is that we should all parse our words for the sake of not hurting peoples’ feelings. This premise has expanded over time to include allowing children who fail to still advance a grade to spare their feelings, all the way to the coup de gras of political correctness; removing Christ from Christmas.

    As the politically correct movement has grown, and the vernacular has become more accepted, its defenders have become more and more deft at finding new ways to use it. Most notably, perhaps, came shortly after the attacks of 9/11, when America was on high alert for possible follow on attacks. As a result of the threat, law enforcement officials began doing what they would do in any such situation; they began creating a virtual composite sketch of potential terrorists. This is how we solve and stop crime in America; we identify the most likely perpetrators and then engage surveillance on them. For example, after the Columbine high school shootings, school security teams paid close eye to all sullen boys wearing long trench coats. In the law enforcement world, they call that “profiling,” and it has existed since the first caveman was robbed by some cromagnin wearing his baggy loin cloth down around his knees. Thus in the wake of 9/11, we correctly identified the attackers as radical Islamists, made up exclusively of young Muslim men. Heaven forbid, however, we streamline our resources and correctly pay close attention to such folks. In the age of political correctness, the “feel good police” were ready to pounce and referred to this as “racial profiling,” knowing that anytime you use the word “racial” nowadays, it will elicit an exclusively negative remark. Alas, we made people feel good by searching white grandmothers and allowing Koran carrying turban wearers to pass by without a glance.

    The examples go on and on for seemingly ever. It is now politically incorrect to believe that man-made global warming is a hoax. However, the biggest proponents of global warming (Al Gore, the Hollywood kooks, etc) are also the biggest burners of fossil fuels bar none. Barbara Streisand’s house and cars alone make Exxon look like Mother Nature herself.

    The hypocrisy is stunning. As we watched former President Bill Clinton (once literally awarded the title “America’s first black president” for his alleged love of the African American race) dissolve into an abject racist as his wife ran for the presidency, the true mantra of political correctness came clear: Behave in the way I tell so that peoples’ feelings will be spared, not because I truly believe in what I am asking of you. In other words, Clinton was, is and always has been a liar and has never truly cared about black people nor has he ever considered them to be equal…he just wanted you to believe that was the case.

    Which brings us to perhaps the most hypocritically sickening story of the politically correct movement:

    Children born with “Down’s Syndrome (DS),” and other genetically caused disabilities have always been the target of much ridicule, almost all of it caused by peoples’ inability to deal with the handicap and their ignorance about it. Examining the motives of peoples’ ridicule is futile, however, because the answer will always be “human nature.” Everyone gets made fun of, whether disabled or simply different. Short people, fat people, bald people, stupid people and everyone in between gets made fun of and always will.

    Despite that great cosmic truth, however, the politically correct movement has deemed that calling a DS diagnosed child a “retard,” (or any other form thereof) is politically incorrect and mean. DS children are gifts from God, we’re told, and are essentially “just like everyone else,” despite, I submit, evidence to the contrary.

    I have dealt with this idiocy for my entire life, for I grew up just houses away from a mentally retarded boy. When people then, as they do now, would chide me for calling them “names,” my answer has always been the same; what world do you live in? The human race is a mean culture, by nature and you do not confront that by a futile attempt to remove the behavior, you confront it by teaching people the shortcomings of the speaker and how to aptly tolerate the fact that people suck.

    People who call our radio show say that some poor retard’s mother might be listening when we use that term and she will begin to cry. This is political correctness in a nutshell; hide the behavior rather than asking people to grow up and learn to find ways to properly confront and react to such behavior.

    Some people have even written entire articles going further and literally stating that the world would be a far worse place without DS children. (

    But there is a bigger crime against not just society, but humanity going on here. As we have all been told that DS children are these great gifts to be treasured who are “just like everyone else,” modern medicine has advanced. We are now able, almost always, to tell expecting parents whether or not their child is a mutant. Lo and behold, despite 40 years of political correctness and trying to change human nature and convince the society that there’s nothing different about DS children, less than 13% of all American parents who had such knowledge still kept their fetus.

    Written another more horrifying way, 87% of people are aborting their pregnancies rather than giving birth to a retard. How accepting of us.

    Thus reveals, yet again, the great lie of political correctness; all of it comes from “fantasyland.” Political correctness demands that you say things out loud that we all know are not true. The truth of that matter is that is exceptionally hard to raise a DS child. For starters, they die young and almost always live at home their entire lives, with rare exception. They require around the clock care, have multiple special needs and will provide none of the traditional childhood moments so many parents sadly live for. Political correctness has done its’ best to provide phony versions of little league sports heroic moments, and academic achievements and the like but at the end of the day everyone, most notably the parents, still know the truth; their kid is retarded. All of the lies and spared feelings on Earth don’t change the truth.

    Which is why, when presented with the choice of having no child, or a retarded one, 87% of us choose none, abort, and move on.

    Please don’t misunderstand me; I am neither horrified nor an activist about abortion. I am horrified and an activist about dishonesty. I, with the agreement of my wife, would make the exact same decision if I were to ever be in such a horrible situation. The difference, however, is that I wouldn’t lie about it. For I have never tried to convince people that abnormalities in society are normal, because by definition they are not. Strange people are born; or in this case, aborted.

    Some day, I pray, the horrors of lying to ourselves and to each other will be aborted.

    • Jay

      Wonderfully stated, Mr Molina. You have exposed the duplicity of those who practice the religion of “political-correctnes” with great skill and precision. Bravo!!!

    • GALT

      Mirror, mirror……lying to yourself is a matter of perception…..hell actually being “perceived” can be a “trial”………

      One is poised to ponder what would actually happen IF……a very large “non speaking” hominid, were captured from their native habitat and transported to say New York City for display purposes…..and after arriving decided to exercise it’s “unalienable” right?

      Nah, never mind…..still it might make a good movie?

    • http://none Charlie

      Franklyn , Wow! that was a temperamental outburst , what God/god are you mad at ?

      • Franklyn Molina

        What are you talking about?

  • Jay

    Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

    I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

    The problem? Why wasn’t communism spreading?

    Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

    What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

    And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

    One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

    And call it something that sounds positive: “Political Correctness.”

    Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the “correct” handling of contradictions among the people. “Sensitive training” – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

    In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud’s psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

    But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the
    ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.



    • GALT

      A very correct and short SHOUT…..either turn the caps lock off…..or hold the shift key down……since we know you can do one or the other …… SOMETHING!!!!!




      • GALT

        wow, I didn’t get lower texted……okay, have at it or them or whatever……do what you think is best…….

      • Deerinwater

        CHRIS, ~ Caps are much harder to read, they requires more effort. People that use the net, ~ read ~ a lot! ~ a whole lot in fact! We write with an “inside voice” . and not an OUTSIDE voice. ~ If we want to make a “point” , or BE LOUD! ~ fine. But if you are loud all of the time, ~ what are you going to use to be really “LOUD”?

        It has became an excepted social net courtesy to write with an “inside voice” and to be accepted on any forum, personal or business you “MUST” project yourself with an “inside voice”.

        Now I didn’t invent courtesy or make the rules but they make sense and serve a purpose of “common good”.

        You have been here several weeks now Chris and it’s time you shoulder your end of civil discourse if you enjoy Mr. Livingston’s forums and plan to hang around.

        I personally enjoy having you here and hearing your views on today’s affairs.





        I AVOID MAKING COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. YET, “Deerinwater,” YOUR COMMENTS ARE THE FIRST I HAVE ENCOUNTERED WHICH IMPLIED I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE MUCH LONGER IF I CONTINUE UTILIZING CAPITAL LETTERS – “You have been here several weeks now Chris and it’s time you shoulder your end of civil discourse if you enjoy Mr. Livingston’s forums and plan to hang around.”





    • NC

      The article is not silly. That a man in a locker room would be prosecuted for using locker room language in front of other men IS silly, or would be silly if it weren’t so serious. I just lost my job for making a positive reference to a positive racial stereotype b/c the client felt humiliated.

      Re: ALL CAPS: Yes, it is considered shouting. And when people shout other people may be tempted to turn their ears off. The reason upper and lowercase developed is because it is considered easier to read (and this has been true since the ancient Greeks) and certainly we have been conditioned to read upper and lowercase. So if you want to communicate effectively you might want to reserve UPPERCASE for words you want to emphasize.

  • gunner689AI

    I looked up the origins of Political Correctness, wondering where such a bizzare concept had come from. According to the web sites about it PC started in Germany with the teachings of Karl Marx as a way to control the population and what and how they think. The concept floated around Europe and reached it’s zenith with the Nazi and Soviet regimes where you could be sent to the camps or be shot for what you said particularly against the gvt. After the war the PC concept was adopted by the radical colleges in the USA, natuarally, and eventually spread like a cancer throughout society. Too many Americans are afraid to speak their minds as they may be labeled racist or homophobe or some other insulting title even when they’re speaking the truth. Remember the roots of Political Correctness and treat the concept for what it is; speech and thought control and don’t buy into it. Remember and spread the word: PC is BS.

  • George Vieto

    I remember a preacher in California who is Black who said he does not allow racial or insults of his profession to get under his skin and he just laughs it off and carries his cross and does his work.

  • boyscout

    HA. I just love it when a topic like Political Correctness elicits such petty assed bickering from “both” sides (as in there are only two). It brings back childhood memories of play ground and the ubiquitous rock fights that spanned the yard. The assinine near name calling herein is certainly proof positive that beligerance is the best way to win advocates. Might I suggest a revival of the historic and once traditionally American way of setteling affairs of honor which would extend choice of weapons to the first offended (if that could be agreed upon – lol).
    Oh, and if you don’t like my post, go **** yourself !

  • jr

    I was going to comment, but then I look out my window and saw one of Obama’s language police drones outside my window, and thought better of it.

  • Jefferson Thomas

    What is the difference between the politically correct thin skinned and a baby?

    Eventually a baby stops crying.

    • Vicki

      :) Good one.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      The difference is a baby cries for any and no reasons. When a person is upset about political correctness its an actual problem. Being upset because someone says your going to hell because you are what you are is not thin skinned. Wanting people to treat each other with respect does not make one a baby. With all due respect I believe picking on people makes someone seem more like a baby then being upset about being picked on.

      • Jefferson Thomas

        It was a joke my poor widdle sensitive man-child.

        If you get that “upset” perhaps you should look into a prescription for anti-depressants or tranquilizers to numb your sensitivity or try to be an adult who is secure in who he is instead of being “upset”.

        Perhaps you are “upset” because there is truth or an element of truth in what is being said? The prophets and apostles were not stoned to death or put to death in a number of other different ways because they were “sensitive” about upsetting people or making them “feel” badly.

        If someone says you are going to hell and you are confident in who you are and that you are right, why do you care unless you have doubts that nag at you from what is left of your conscience?

      • Deerinwater

        “The difference is a baby cries for any and no reasons.”

        Babies never cry for no reason Jeremy, ~ We might not understand it, but there is always a reason.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The problem Jeff is when people actually believe that someone is going to hell and believe hateful rhetoric. People start to repeat things and it goes from simply being one person to being several. Worse still is when such hateful words become action and people attempt to enact legislation based on prejudice. People should be secure in who they are. But when multiple people go around saying “your going hell you worthless fag” and harass you any time you try and so much as interact with a person you love or just other people in general its hard to not feel just a tad upset. People should keep their spirit. However when multiple people are constantly treating you with contempt and indignation its difficult to not get upset. After all how can one reject hateful criticism without running the risk of discounting genuine criticism. My point is its important to do something about your life and situation when people tease you. However I hardly begrudge someone for getting upset over hateful statements being made towards them.

        And I stand by what I say. It is more childish to make fun of someone then it is to be upset over it. A mature adult can make a successful argument without resorting to name calling and abuse. A child cannot.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps your right Deerinwater.

      • Jefferson Thomas

        The problem may be that you have a misunderstanding of the words being spoken that are warning a person of their destination in hell unless they change their behavior that will take them there. While it is true that there are people who do things and say things out of hateful motivations it can also be true that people attempt to warn others out a motivation of love for the person and hate for the activity they believe is sending the other person to hell. No one likes to be told they are wrong or to learn they have been wrong. It grates on our human pride.

        It is also clear that there are people who want to label everything they disagree with or someone who disagrees with them as “hateful” and engaging in “hate speech” and that they wish to silence people who disagree with them and their behavior.

        It is also true that God has love and forgiveness for all of us when we repent.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The problem for me Jeff is I believe that the words, hateful or not, come from a misunderstanding. I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin and I do not believe that homosexuals are going to hell. So when I hear people “warn” homosexuals to repent of their sins it sounds more like one group of people condemning another group of people just because they do not understand them. And perhaps a bigger issue for me in regards to “warning” homosexuals is that there are children and teenagers who are homosexual. When they hear such things it is difficult for a child or teenager to remain faithful to this life. I have heard numerous stories like the one of Bobby Griffith about gay teenagers who tried to “Pray the Gay away”. People who believed homosexuality would send them to hell and were trying to “repent” their sins. In these cases what ended up happening was the teenagers committed suicide because they became convinced that the god who they believe created them also despised them. That’s why I disagree rather strongly with those trying to “warn” gays about hell. You say there may be love and concern behind the words. If one truly loves or cares for another perhaps one should try to understand that person, get to know them and perhaps try and accept that person for who they are before casting judgement.

        I agree that there are hateful people in this world. That does not make hate okay. It is still wrong to engage in hateful speech. As we all learned when we were very young, just because you have a right or the ability to do something does not mean it is right to do it. Hate only encourages hate. It makes no one feel any better. And all it really does is give us all a chance to spite and curse at each other with nothing getting done. I am not saying hate is not a natural feeling. Everyone feels it from time to time and it is sometimes perfectly justified. However there is a time and place for it and proper ways to express it. Going around and calling people names and mocking their pain is not one of them.

        I always believed god had love and forgiveness for everyone so long as they strived to live according to his commandments and his teachings.

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        Babys Cry for Help! Untill they can do it themselves.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Everyone needs help at some point. Crying out or asking for it does not make you a baby. Sometimes it requires help to learn so we can grow. Babies do not learn to be adults on their own. Parents have something to do with it.

      • Jefferson Thomas

        @ Jeremy…if you think I do not know anyone who is gay you are mistaken.

        My best friend has a brother who is gay that I have known since he was a child. Do I still care about him and want the best for him…yes. Will I accept his homosexuality as right behavior and something other than sin through God’s eyes? No.

        Do I treat him as a human being who God loves? Yes.

        Your attempt to foist guilt upon others for stating things others disagree with to somehow make others responsible for their actions of suicide is bogus.

        People have a free will as given to them by God.

        Labeling something you disagree with as “hate speech” and trying to silence those persons you disagree with is heading down a slippery slope towards even more censorship. If you don’t like speech you find offensive…either choose to not listen to it or tell the other person you disagree with why you disagree. We then may agree to disagree.

        I have not cast judgement. God has warned us about behaviors that he judges. If not for the grace of God I would be on the way to hell. God is the final judge.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I apologize for suggesting you did not know anyone who is gay.

        With respect it seems contradictory to me to say you care for someone and treat them as someone who god loves while believing that what makes them who they are is a sin which god hates.

        I am not saying disagreement means one is guilty. What I am saying is that when someone who is gay commits suicide because they believe god hates them and that they are going to hell I believe the people who go around saying “gay people are sinners who are going to hell” are at least partially responsible. If people kill themselves because they believe people god hates them I feel the people who go around saying god hates them are involved. Suicide is wrong but hate can be responsible for it as much as the person themselves.

        I am not labeling it hate speech just because I disagree. People who go around condemning people for being gay are condemning people for something that is not bad. Its not that I disagree with them, the fact is they are in the wrong in judging people by something that is not evil. I do not wish to censor anyone. But what can I do when I strongly disagree with what someone says and what they are saying is repeated by others and legislation is proposed based on it. I cannot nor will I ever try and censor anyone. However I will disagree with what I disagree with and I will always call what I see as hate speech – hate speech. I do not call prejudice hateful because I disagree with it, though it is a big reason, I call prejudice hateful because it is. It is passing judgement regardless of the individual actions of the person being judged. It matters not the individual actions or beliefs or someone who is homosexual, simply by being homosexual they are condemned. Homosexuality is not a sin and so for me anyone who says it is I believe is being hateful to something they do not understand. If someone is homosexual what harm is there in them making love to someone who is also homosexual. Why would that be considered sinful.

        With all due respect Jeff as you said mankind has free will. The judgment that homosexuality is a sin is your judgement, not gods. The bible says homosexuality is a sin. You have the power to believe that or not. I believe the bible was written by man and that those statements in the bible that go against homosexuality are the individual judgements of men not god. It is up to you to decide what you believe. When you condemn homosexuality it is you talking, not god. The final judge is the law of treating other as you would want to be treated. As I would believe you would never want someone to treat you as sinful for being heterosexual so you should consider not treating people as sinful simply for being homosexual.

      • mark

        @ Jeremy….considered and rejected. You are entitled to your opinion and The Bible which I believe is the word of God is accepted by me as the final word on the subject.

        Each time a society degenerates it thinks it has found something new that is somehow more enlightened than what the Creator says. The ruins of these societies testify to the error of their thinking and actions.

  • Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

    I apologize if I offend all of you but after reading this diatribe, all of these thoughts were going through my mind and yes they were in answer to John Myers, DaveH, FreedomFighter, Vicki, Kinetic, JeffH, and all of the mindless zombies on this site. You do bring out the best in all of us. You are all such loving, caring, sharing, non-judgemental christians.

    GFY, STFU, KMA, ES, BM, EMS, FU, EMA,YFL, AH are all of the various expletives that go though my mind when I listen and read mean, conservative, libertarian, republican diatribe and lies.

    Yes and I am sure you all believe that calling other Americans you don’t unserstand and disagree with, Libertards, Marxist, Communist, Progressive Trolls and all of your expletives are OK.

    The question for Bob and this site is: Will you take sides, will you even recognize the abuse, or will you follow in the footsteps of the self appointed righteous moral majority who believe in their own superiority, racist and misogynistic behavior?

    I don’t care if you delete this post. and my account as I have finally reached a point where I think hanging out with you people is unhealthy. And I thank God for that.

    • JeffH

      Gee Eric the Red says he’s gonna’ leave this website…again.
      Another empty threat by the Red flag.

    • Vicki

      Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff) says:
      “I apologize if I offend all of you but after reading this diatribe, all of these thoughts were going through my mind…”

      Apology accepted. Not that I was offended. You didn’t call me a mindless zombie for instance.

      Eric: ” and yes they were in answer to John Myers, DaveH, FreedomFighter, Vicki, Kinetic, JeffH, and all of the mindless zombies on this site.”

      So English is a little fuzzy on this. Are you saying that we are a part of the class “Zombie, Mindless” or is that a different group?

      Eric: “GFY, STFU, KMA, ES, BM, EMS, FU, EMA,YFL, AH are all of the various expletives that go though my mind when I listen and read mean, conservative, libertarian, republican diatribe and lies.”

      You probably didn’t get to use those various expletives very much then.

      Eric: “Yes and I am sure you all believe that calling other Americans you don’t unserstand and disagree with, Libertards, Marxist, Communist, Progressive Trolls and all of your expletives are OK.”

      If expletives are ok for liberals to use when they don’t understand and disagree with conservatives then why are you so upset when conservatives return the favor? Isn’t that being hypocritical?

      Eric: “I don’t care if you delete this post. and my account as I have finally reached a point where I think hanging out with you people is unhealthy. And I thank God for that.”

      Now where and when have we heard that before? :)
      At least we know that Eric believes in God. We thank Him too. And for similar reasons.

  • needfulthings

    ALL legal documents and most documents where dated if the format ” THE YEAR OF OUR LORD” , it means NOTHING! There is no GOD in my Constitution, sorry about yours !!!!

  • NC

    I just lost my job (in social work) due to political correctness. I told a client I wished I could be one of those big black women that could step into a classroom and instantly command respect. (Hard to see how wishing I was of a particular group is racist, but…) The client was highly offended and “humiliated” and after extensive “investigation” I was terminated. I can’t apply for unemployment b/c my dismissal was “with cause,” but fortunately I’m old enough for Social security. If you’re white, you can’t ever refer to race, despite that many forms we have to fill out specifying race.





      “NC” AND OTHER CAUCASIANS – AN EASY WAY TO “PISS-OFF” NEGROES IS TO SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL APPEARANCE – i. e., “NAPPY” HAIR, BIG LIPS, BIG “BOOTY,” ETC. [Remember, during the Civil-Rights Era, Ku Klux Klan REFERRED TO Martin Luther King AS Martin Luther KOON because of his "big lips" and dark skin].

      • NC

        I think I have figured out that it was offensive. It certainly was a mistake in judgement and perception of the situation. It shouldn’t be offensive– I did not call anyone a name, and there was absolutely no malice intended (as opposed to the above mentioned soccer player who clearly did not like the other person). I told a black male I wished I were part of a class of people he respects (and which I greatly respect.) The point is that I should not have been fired over it–it is political correctness gone amok, which again is the main point of the article.
        Underlying it is the perception by some that all white people are prejudiced. A black male coworker once stated in a staff meeting that a white women (three highly trained professionals, including me, present in the meeting) could never understand the situation of a black male. I called him on the statement and he said he “doesn’t have a prejudiced bone in his body.” Fine. (He doesn’t usually act in a prejudiced manner). But I wouldn’t dare say that. How does one clear one’s self of an allegation (racist, homophobe, etc) once is has been made? How does one prove the thoughts and intents of one’s heart? The simple answer is that you can’t.







        • NC

          So you apparently agree with my employer that I should have been terminated (after 8 years of no problems with anyone). I think I should have been subjected to a rather redundant education lecture such as the one you are giving me. Apparently you do not realize that I have already acknowledged that my well-intended remark was poor judgement.

          You are making a few assumptions– that I am a man, that I know little or nothing about the black community or the history of race relations, or that I have little or no experience outside my own culture (whatever you assume that is) and am “not used to socializing” outside of my own racial or ethnic boundaries. Wrong on all all counts.

          I find your use of the word “negro” intriguing as I don’t know anyone of any race who normally uses the term. “Negro” is not a word that I have ever used–it went out of vogue when I was a kid and was replaced by “black,” which is where I am stuck linguistically. Most people I know are comfortable with either “black” or “African-American” in conversation. I use the term “African American” in writing as it is the term most frequently used on official forms.

        • NC

          “THERE ARE MANY SIMPLE AND SILLY THINGS YOU CAN SAY TO ANOTHER CAUCASIAN – BUT, NOT TO A NEGRO.” Forgot to say, THAT is exactly my point. But is is not clear from your comment if you think it SHOULD be that way and that you approve of a double standard where a black person can say things a white person can’t, or if your attitude is a sardonic resignation (“Hey dude, that’s how it is.”)

          “PEOPLE LIKE TO SAY RACISM IS OVER.” , It would be nice if it were. I think it had improved for a long time, but it is getting worse, in a reverse racist sort of way. I think our current president has made it worse as he frequently plays the race card through his proxies. No candidate can criticize one of Obama’s policies without being told he is a racist. It tells me something of the poverty of thought on the liberal side.








        • NC

          Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you–I’ve been busy the past couple days. I am getting the feeling that you personally were offended, not in the least by calling me Ma’am. I am 68, so I suppose I deserve it.

          I’ve been told I think like a man before. My friends agree that I’m totally left brained AND totally right brained creative. The most formative class I ever took (and I have two master’s degrees) was high school geometry because it taught me to consider all the options and proceed logically.

          I am familiar with the issues you presented, having lived and worked at least 25 years of my life in the black community (about 17 currently, where I am the second Caucasian on the block, 8 or so when in my 20′s) (plus 30+ years cross cultural work with Turks and Kurds in Germany and Turkey). I still remember the old fashioned straightening combs and curling irons you put on the kitchen stove. Talk about instruments of torture!

          No one is happy with their appearance and the ads you cited (although I live under a rock and don’t know who the celebrities you cited are) are designed to make us unhappy enough to buy their product. My hair is straight and slippery and also will not do what the pictures suggest it should even with their product. I’d love to get extenders but my hair is so slippery I’m afraid they would come out and it would be a waste of the $100-150 investment. But I digress.

          As to the incident that got me fired: the interchange with my co-worker was private and we came to a working agreement and get along fine. I was working in a drug rehab for chronically homeless addicted men. One of my clients was acting like a 7th grader and disrespecting my (black, female) co-worker. Part of the job is to address such behaviors. I thought I had good rapport with him (and my supervisor confirmed this). I had in mind the very self confident black teacher aide who commands instant respect when she enters the classroom. I don’t know any white women that can do this. It turned out to be a bad call as he was unwilling to listen to my explanation.

          At any rate I am now “retired” although I had hoped to work until 70.

          Regards, Norma




  • Pingback: My Homepage

  • http://none Floyd Hardee

    When we taunt someone, or disagree strenously with them, we more often than not intend to offend them. The question here is did he use vulgar words that are not permitted in public? If so he could be reprimanded and fined for misconduct and using foul language in public. If he did not physically threaten to harm him he is only guilty of using foul language to display his displeasure with associating with this gentleman who was offended.

    If we start prosecuting everyone who calls someone a bad name when they get angry we are setting a dangerous precedent and there will follow many law suits and a great loss of revenue and a waste of time in the courts.

    Next it could be: he looked at me ugly and hurt my feelings. So fine him and give me the money and make him say he is sorry.

    What everyone needs is God, and Christ, in their lives and they would love their neighbor as if they were their own brother, sister, or mother. Put God and Christ back in school and start praticing the golden rule….got it?

  • Deerinwater

    I could give a $hit and what some grown men playing child ball sports do. ~ much less penalized for.

    I tend to live is a real world of blood, sweat and meaningful endeavors that serves a purpose beyond someone’s “entertainment.

    They can rub snot on each other, fling buggers and call each other mama nasty names and be no more childish then their notions of some-kind of domination over a damn “Ball”.

    Yea! They won!

    Sports are for “growing bodies” , after one has “grown” it’s time to move on to the real world and apply yourself.

  • truesoy

    John Myers;

    I understand that in order to make a point some people, such as yourself, have at times to resort to story telling, even when in order to get to that point requires some historical ‘facts twisting’.
    I’m not going to get into whether blind of vision impared is the proper use, though I think you could use either term. But my issue with your ‘little’ story tellings is at the steps of that bridge that you so ferverish try to build in an attempt to connetct both, christianity as the foundation for this nation and our Constitution.
    To do so, one would have to overlook the fact that it was common practice duering the times of our Founding Fathers, anywhere in the world, to sign all documents with ‘on the year of the Lord’. To imply it means anything else, other than the date in which the document was signed, its a stretch of the imagination at best, and/or a devious attempt to mislead.
    I’m sure that had the Founding Fathers intended to include God in our Constitution, they’d have done so.
    Lets face it, our Founding Fathers were mindful enough to include even the percentage value of a human (slaves), but they forgot God?. Now, don’t you think that as meticulous as they were in their drafting of the Constitution, they would have included “God”, if that was what they wanted/intended?
    It was very ingenious of you, John, but it won’t fly.
    Nice try, though.


    • Jefferson Thomas

      Your ignorance of history and your ignorance concerning the education of the men who wrote the constitution as well as the men who educated them is only exceeded by your arrogant assumption that you “know” the facts as presented to you by your government school “education”. They succeeded nicely with you. Can you say Statist drone?

      Here is a fact for you to try to think about…did you know that the first recorded representative form of government was implemented by Moses in the book of Exodus?

      Do you think James Madison was ignorant of this fact? Did James Madison know about Roman and Greek forms of government? Was he influenced by John Locke? Who was John Witherspoon and the other famous pastors who preached for and influenced the American Revolution? Did they influence the framers?

      Enough homework for now.

      • Deerinwater

        Well JT, my guess would be that the Pharaoh would differ with you in regard to the first recorded written laws of government coming from Moses. Maybe the first written laws that you have personally read perhaps. An intriguing statement none the less that shows a history bias framed inside a Jewish view of world history.

        The Exodus (Greek ἔξοδος, exodos “way out”, Hebrew ; “[the] exit [from] Egypt”) is the story of the departure of the Israelites from ancient Egypt described in the Hebrew Bible.
        Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure from Egypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequent law-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan described in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

        Several details point to a 1st millennium date for the Book of Exodus: Ezion-Geber, (one of the Stations of the Exodus), for example, dates to a period between the 8th and 6th centuries BC with possible further occupation into the 4th century BC,[21] and those place-names on the Exodus route which have been identified – Goshen, Pithom, Succoth, Ramesses and Kadesh Barnea – point to the geography of the 1st millennium rather than the 2nd.[2

        Learn more;


        The earliest recorded human settlements in what is today called China were discovered in the Huang He basin and date from about 5000 B.C. During the Shang dynasty (1500–1000 B.C. ), the precursor of modern China’s ideographic writing system developed, allowing the emerging feudal states of the era to achieve an advanced stage of civilization, rivaling in sophistication any society found at the time in Europe, the Middle East, or the Americas. It was following this initial flourishing of civilization, in a period known as the Chou dynasty (1122–249 B.C. ), that Lao-tse, Confucius, Mo Ti, and

        Mencius laid the foundation of Chinese philosophical thought.

        Read more: China: History, Geography, Government, & Culture —

        Clearly you have Chronological issue.

        • truesoy


          He is most likelygetting his information from Mr. David Barton, creator of ‘Wallbuilders’. This is ‘right wing’ christian/political organization that promotes its political agenda using their own version of christianity with which they distort history as well.
          You would have to be crazy to believe anything they say, but you know, there are crazy people out there.


      • Jefferson Thomas

        @ deerinwater…It is plain to see that you do not read with comprehension. I said Moses implemented the first REPRESENTATIVE form of government when he took the advice of his father-in-law Jethro the Midianite who told Moses he was wearing himself out trying to deal with all of the issues of the people and that he should appoint representatives for the people to deal with all of the issues of the people .

        I said nothing about Mosaic Law.

        Get a clue.

        There has never been a civilization on the planet earth. There have only been organized to semi-organized societies with greater or lesser degrees of freedom. In a civilization people live without force, coercion, and fraud.

        Because of the nature of man our founders implemented the separation of powers into the executive, representative, and judicial branches. They understood very well the old saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. I think they should have put even more restrictions on those in power positions with harsher punishment for those who violate the law themselves.

        There will not be a civilization on this planet until the only righteous, wise and just King rules forever.

      • truesoy

        Jefferson Thomas;

        As I sit here reading your post the most resoundingofyour assertions is that I’m ignorant. I thought that to be somewhat of an insult, yet, I do realize that we humans, at one time or another, are ignorant of certain subjets or details because we never learned it and/or were terribly mislead. However ignorance bestowed upon oneself is not the same as ignorance that derives from a lack of knowledge for if we seek the answer then the state of ignorance is overcome.
        I know that the source of your information comes from David Barton. I’ve watch some interviews of his, and heard what he had to say. He is totally deceiving people on purpose for he knows better, but it is just that he wants to believe and thereby deceiving himself, too. But I doubt that; I think he knows better, but count on others not to know as much, and there you stand. And I don’t bl;ame you for not knowing, but Ido blame you for not doing some of the homework yourself.
        Exodus 18:13-26 doesn’t have anything to do with ‘representative government’ as you were led to believe by Mr. Baton (or by anyone that subscribes to his ‘thesis’).
        What Exodus 18:13-26 refers to, is Moses appointing leaders to be judges for he was the only one up to that point when his father in law actually suggested appointing others as well. And Moses did it by his own ‘selection’ and withoutelections, either.
        Food for thought: if, as Mr. Barton says God commanded set elections from the beginning, why was then Israel a “Monarchy”?
        About David Barton. He is the founder of the ‘Wallbuilders’ website. He promotes ‘right wing’ philosophy that he wraps in his brand of christianity, and that is ok; to each his/her own. But what is not ok is to misuse religion to promote his brand, or any brand of political ideology.
        However that is not the only unethical thing he does, for by twisting Biblical events he tries to effect a change in the true beginning of our nation and of our Founding Fathers. In other words he is distorting the history of our country.
        Furtheremore, in order to add credibility for his argument he tries by all means to discredit the value and accuracy of our public education. Obviously if Mr. Barton is telling us the truth, then the public education system must be lying to us, or so his strategy is.
        One thingI have left to say though, and that is that I hope what you know about the Romans and the Greek’s you did not learn it from Mr. Barton.
        And one more thing.: did you know that the book of Moses was written years after his death?
        And remember that ‘ignorant’ is not the one that doesn’t know but seeks the truth; ignorant on the other hand is he/she than rather to accept the truth, rejects it.
        Ps.- Read Exodus 18:13-26. A little homework for you.


      • Jefferson Thomas

        @ toomuchsoy…You are wrong and incorrect on so many levels I don’t know where to begin….but I will correct your assertions and incorrect conclusions for my mental amusement:

        I have listened to David Barton a grand total of one time. I found him interesting but I don’t know much else about him…your first false statement corrected. As to Mr. Barton twisting biblical events I would not know as I have not read any of his material.

        If you say a person is deceiving others on purpose then be so kind as to provide the references for this. Nice assertion but it means nothing.

        At no point did I state it was a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY that Moses implemented….I said it was a REPRESENTATIVE form of government. Try reading with comprehension.

        What is a representative? Some one who represents or serves another. These men were appointed by Moses to serve the people by being arbiters and judges in smaller matters that the people needed solutions and judgement for. Larger matters they could not handle went to Moses.

        As to them being appointed…this has nothing to do with the fact that they were there to represent the people and hear their grievances as well as provide judgement according to God’s law. In our own country before the constitution was changed the congress voted on the senators and not the popular vote. The men who were appointed by Moses were not of his “own selection” God gave him guidelines that they were to be capable people, people who fear God, people instructed in truth and strongly committed to it, people who hate dishonest gain and are thus free from covetousness and the love of money. We the voters should “appoint” men like this to positions of authority (all of this is in Exodus 18).

        You also need to do more study. Israel was a theocracy at the time of Moses with Moses as God’s representative and with God as the monarch. Israel did not become a monarchy until after the age of the Judges when Saul became king.

        I don’t care if you think it is ok for religion to be an influence on the body politic or not. It already has been an influence and it will be an influence. It will be an influence with the state seeking more and more power to become the God of the people towards bondage or it will be an influence with Christianity towards freedom.

        As to your comments on public education you are either woefully ignorant or you are a representative for the public school unions or something similar. The public school system is a disaster. Yes the public school system is lying to people, short changing them, and presenting only partial truth and facts. A grade school education 70 years ago is the equivalent of a Bachelors degree now.

        I have read the complete Bible many times sonny including the book of Exodus and continue to do so on a yearly basis with other supplemental study. Try this one for your homework….the Bible can have multiple layers of meaning.

        I noticed that you addressed nothing I said about John Witherspoon and other influential preachers who were also teachers and founders at almost all of the universities in America. These preachers were the instructors of a large number of the founding fathers.

        You also did not address how preachers preached for American independence from the pulpit as well as physically fighting in the Revolution. Religion also played a huge role in the willingness of the people to fight the English. My own ancestors for instance hated the Church of England and the English because they were forced to pay tax to support the English and a tax for the English church..along with a long list of other grievances that were ignored and compounded by the English.

        There is no book of Moses. There are the first five books of the Bible that Moses authored for the most part with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Moses was also uniquely qualified for this task if you think about his life and education.

        Joshua (whose name means “The Lord is our Salvation”..same as Jesus) the successor of Moses and his protege most likely finished ending of the books of Moses as you say.

        Yes I have read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, History on Greece, Alexander, some Plato and Aristotle. It has been many years however. My point was that James Madison was extremely well versed on these as well as other empires in history and understood a great deal about the rise and fall of the empires of man and their weaknesses.

        Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father God except by me”

        • NC

          Well reasoned response. I wa getting concerned that people were gong off on strange tangents– but I’m not sure what this thread has to do with the original topic. Oh, well. I’m new to commenting.

        • http://incerely, truesoy

          Jefferson Thomas;

          I’ll keep my answer simple.
          Before Moses there was government, and judges, etc, etc, etc…..
          Humanity did not began when moses began. Humanity was there way before Moses. But of course you would tell me again that ‘my public education’ lied to me. The again it must be a world wide conspiracy because anywhere in the world teaches about the same thing. Obviously I must be wrong because we all know the world is only 6000 years old and the earth was put here to stay forever, unchanged. And who knows, maybe we really are at the center of the Universe and all planets and stars revolve around Earth.
          You are really an eye opener, Jefferson!.


      • mark


        You must have a reading and comprehension problem coupled with your need to project something you have read about other Christians on to me.

        I will try to keep my response simple for you.

        I did not say that there were not governments or judges before Moses. If you can find where I said this then provide the reference. Try to factor in what I said about Moses being uniquely qualified for his task of writing the first five books of the Bible because of his life and education. Now think about the reason that Moses was uniquely qualified. He was raised as the son of the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt and as such would have been educated as royalty with exposure to the government of Egypt where one of his ancestor relatives as a matter of fact was given to be in charge of the government of Egypt (can you say Joseph?). With this in mind (if you can hold on to that thought) does it sound to you like I think there were not any types of government or judges pre-Moses?

        I did not say humanity began with Moses. Where do you get this nonsense from? Do you pull it out of thin air or out of one of your bodily orifices that excretes waste?

        I did not say the earth was 6000 years old. No human being knows the exact age of this planet.

        I know for a fact that the earth has changed.

        Yes your public education has lied to you. They short changed you. They wanted to turn you into a good little statist who thinks the nanny-goddess state is always right, all powerful, and all knowing.

        I take it that your last reference was to the statist-catholic church which was responsible for suppressing the discoveries of Copernicus showing that the planets revolve around the sun? Perhaps you were attempting to be subtle in insinuating that my faith in God somehow makes it impossible for me to accept the accurate discoveries of science? Perhaps you think I have a fear of science and the scientific method?

        You are not an eye opener. I have seen this before and I was an atheist for over 20 years on the opposite side of the question and argument.

        Yes, there is a worldwide conspiracy. It is both physical and spiritual. When you get some time google “Babylonian System”.

        • http://incerely, truesoy


          The Babylonian System’ is a good anaysis of bliblical stories/accounts from a religious perspective.
          Historically though, the city of Babylon was for centuries a thriving commercial and science center, and its destruction came about by wars and its eventual conquest.
          Anyone can put a spin at the reasons why, and I know that religion has its own.
          I’m not an atheist, but I do use logic when reading the many ‘stories’ of the Bible, and simple reasoning should tell you that those stories are just, stories.
          One of sound mind might overlook the origins of the Book and read too much into it and be affraid to deviate from what he/she believes would be the proper course to follow, or as it was taught them the proper course to be.
          No one can dispute the varies historical accounts of events past during biblical times, but one can question, and probably should question some of the reasons given in the bible as for the cause and/or for the reason for the outcome in those events.
          Religion is puzzling thing though, for one it defies logic, but then we use ‘faith’ to overcome that because of the ingrained belief in the ‘something greater than I’ must exist and therefore I believe! But reasoning can also tell you otherwise for if God is all that is good/goodness then there could not be evil, but evil is all around therefore God doesn’t exist.
          Who knows?.
          Thomas Aquinas said, (something along these lines): that an all powerful God is good and will allow evil to exist and from it bring good. However another person could reason the opposite. Thus religion’s validity, just like beauty, is all the eyes of the beholder.
          I believe that because of the troublesome concept of the religious person one of the best things ever was the introduction for the separation of Church and State in our Constitution.
          As Jesus said, give Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God’s.
          I said lets save government and religion from each other. Keep them separate.


      • Jefferson Thomas

        @toomuchsoy…I accidentally typed in another name of mark i use elsewhere in my response

      • Jefferson Thomas

        @ tomuchsoy From the book of Daniel…..The kingdom of Babylon in its original form was destroyed because God said when he wrote on the wall MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. meaning “God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians”. When Belshazzar saw this writing on the wall he soiled himself and his knees knocked together uncontrollably….story or fact? Is God a man that he should lie?

        Babylon was a thriving commercial center. A large part of the wealth of Babylon came from stealing what was produced by others through the force of armed conquest and armed subjugation along with slavery. The bible records the cruelty of the conquest of the Israel by Babylon in which babies were taken from the arms of their mothers and smashed against walls by Babylonian soldiers spilling out their brains.

        The “science” of Babylon was mixed with with witchcraft, astrology, idolatry, sorcery, soothsaying, spiritism, and black magic. Nebo, Bel, also called Merodach was the god of learning, writing, and astronomy in Babylon.

        When one uses the human system of logic to try to understand God and who he is you are attempting to use the finite to understand the infinite.

        You are correct in one aspect….”simple reasoning” would tell you that the facts and truth of the Bible are just stories.

        One should question and try to understand. As Solomon said Get wisdom, Get understanding….But it was also written through Solomon “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not to your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and depart from evil.

        It does not matter if you are an atheist or theist in the sense that either way you believe in something greater than yourself whether you acknowledge it or not. It is one of two choices; there is a causeless cause or existence exists. Either way it is infinite and you and I are finite with a beginning.

        Yes there is evil. God is good and goodness. When man or Lucifer decides to defy that good and depart from it evil is born and multiplies.

        There is nothing in the constitution concerning separation of church and state. You are referring to a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams if I recall correctly. In fact it is the other way around in the sense that it says congress shall not make laws restricting the freedom of religion. In other words the state should not be interfering in religious practices. It says nothing about religious people influencing the state.

        Yes Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Do you know why he said this? It is because the government does not bear the sword in vain. They are supposed to be there to punish evil doers and criminals thereby protecting the people of an area. I also like what Dr. Walter Williams said (paraphrasing by me) “If 10% is good enough for the First Baptist church it most certainly is good enough for the government”.

        Do I want a government like the islamist fascists espouse in which the state and religion are one and the same? Most certainly not. Do I want a state church in which the people are forced to pay a tax to support the church? Most certainly not. Do I think wise people who love and fear God should be an influence on the people and the government by being the salt of the earth. Absolutely.

        You won’t be able to save the government unless people of moral and religious character save the government from its own corruption. Corruption is the natural course of the state as they always try to take too much power from the individual.

        I believe because of the troublesome concept of the state-god and the individuals that practice the religion of the statist-god that religious people of Jehovah God must become involved in the process of downsizing government and returning to the religious principles taught by our forefathers which influenced the formation of this country.

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Sticks & Stones may brake your Bones… But Names “Should” never hurt you…

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Facts are: Originally: Law… The will, of the Strongest Power… But: The Will, is No Stronger, than the INFORCEMENT, thereof!
    From 10 Comandments to Thousands of Laws… With them threating us… Where is the Freedom, this Country Brags about?

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      The root of the CRIMINAL SYSTEM… Is the Deprivation of Rights of another!
      Bail … Fines… Punishment, for Victomless, violations, of codes… ( Our Government.)
      Am I to hush up now?

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        Pourpous of Law: Control the mass!
        Additional Revinue!
        Safety of Public? L.O.L.

  • Deerinwater

    “I hate the “N” word. I never use it, along with a few other words that upset me. That said, black people use it freely all the time. It is part of the rap culture;for some people, it is part of their everyday life.”

    I don’t have a bit of a problem with the word “Niqqer” or “Slut”, I just don’t find very many opportunities or the “need” to use them. It’s only when words are “abused” that I find a problem. The words I select to use , I do so deliberately and carefully, age tend to have that affect on some people , while some are a foolish at 60 as they were are 8 years of age, whatever is on their minds falls out their mouth.

    But bear in mind, the words that a person select to speak openly are a direct reflection on that person, the one that spoke them and not on those that heard them. That should be simple enough to understand for anyone of any maturity.

    It seems that Right Wingers have a problems when comes to delegating and assigning guilt and blame. This is perhaps the single most fundamental difference between them and all other people I’ve ever had the opportunity to know on a personal level.

    It’s about as close to a criminal mind as you can get, in some ways I tend to believe maybe they are criminals, ~ the only difference being documentation of the act.

    First off, They are innocent! They have done no wrong, have made no mistakes

    Second, They are victims! Someone, somebody, some system has wronged them!

    Third, They owe the world nothing and it is world that owes them!

    Forth, They going to blame anything and everything on someone else for every problem they have ever encountered in life.

    Fifth, They hate to pay for what they want to have, they want wars and tax cuts, they want the benefits of government, clean water, air, nice streets and bridges, an open market place, they want peaceful neighborhoods, affordable housing, air-conditioning but whine like hell when asked to pay for them,

    Sixth, They favor the wealthy, because that is their mark, their target, they plan on acquiring some of his money as they smooze up close and proclaim to be on his side and flutter their eyelashes. They hope that he finds them worthy and useful.

    I offer all of this, ~ from my observation and 35 years of paying close attention. It’s not very flattering, ~ I know, but it’s about time somebody said it and what better time then now as John Myers has opened the door.

    IT is the Right Winger’s (not simple republicans) that initiated this “judging and labeling process of other’s”, where by it is “they” that sets themselves apart from ALL other peoples. It seems that everyone not like themselves is determined to be, liberal, socialist , communist, freeloader, non-christian, un-American, anti-gun-, anti-military, and the root of all the problems in the universe.

    My I only say, we~ (the world) has only three problems today, ~ ignorance, discrimination and poverty. And there is no way these three problems will ever go away as long a man and women (such as yourselves) are alive.

    So! that said, ~ we as a nation of people, united under one flag, confined by space and boundaries and must learn to live with one another.

    However, if you harbor ideas of starting some kind of armed revolution, ~ please do it, do it soon, do it today! or as soon as possible, the sooner the better. I beg of you, to be your meanest old nasty self. The sooner that you find peace, the better off we all will be, as clearly you are not suited for living among other free men and women.

    • JohnQ from MS

      Hitler and his cronies said that they didn’t like Jews, so they put them in prison camps and began exterminating them. And they lived happily ever after — at least for a few years until the allies invaded Germany and put a stop to their madness. Ahhh, tolerance. Of course, from the tone of your rant, you probably don’t believe in the holocaust.

      Now the world has you. Your solution to everlasting world peace is to put all “right-wingers” in a prison camp and drop a bomb on them. Viola! All the problems of the world solved. Congratulations, Bud. You’re quite a problem solver. If you send your loony brethren in Washington a copy of this post, they’ll probably make you a Czar.

      The only problem with your solution is that most of us right-wingers are jobs producers and tax payers. Wipe us all out and you won’t have any tax money to redistribute. That would be terrible. You will surely tick-off all the non-producers. Occupy Wall Street protesters will despise you and camp out on your front porch and use it for a toilet. Really.

      Now that you’ve spewed all the venom out of your upper body, you should take a big dose of caster oil and clean out your other end. Take a glass full. Believe me, you’ll feel much better.

      • Deerinwater

        It is you and people like you that are advocating armed revolt Sir. So why crawfish backwards and attempt to act one more time like the victim while it is you, with your behavior and statements that has brought you to a put-up or shut-up situation?

        This poor little victim routine is wearing thin.

      • Deerinwater

        “The only problem with your solution is that most of us right-wingers are jobs producers and tax payers. Wipe us all out and you won’t have any tax money to redistribute. That would be terrible. You will surely tick-off all the non-producers. Occupy Wall Street protesters will despise you and camp out on your front porch and use it for a toilet. Really.”

        Don’t flatter yourself, ~ you have got some seriously flawed ideas about what you are talking about. ~ This notion that your opposition are malcontents parasites, jail birds, students, do nothings and are not business owners and operators, skilled craftsman and soldier engaging the market place on all levels is quite simply incorrect.

        You have over dosed on Fox Noise would be my guess.

        You have yourself elevated up there pretty high buddy. While you are up there in the nose bleed section, maybe you should look around?

        Go brown nose a rich guy, maybe he’ll pat you on the head and throw you a bone.

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      The Word, “Nigger” Came from … “NIGERIAN”! People from Nigeria… Some people turned it to a Hatefull term. For gainfull reasons. ( Instigating Fights, for intertainment.)



  • tlgeer

    Soccer is unmanly? Since when?

    • NC

      I agree. Soccer is a great sport, under-appreciated in America. In Turkey it’s the national passion (next to politics) Try telling a Turk soccer is “unmanly.” the reaction will not be very feminine.

  • SiliconDoc

    More tyranny from the word minders – and the courtroom crap is coming to the USA as it spreads out from the gay pretend ones we have in colleges all over the usa.
    The MSM is insane over words, and has their own tyranny enforcement concerning their use, where of course gigantic lies and hypocrisy are the ruling methods they use.

    What really makes me sick are the sad nazi crybabies who tell us they are offended then proclaim they NEVER do such things, and go on to moan, complain and rag about whole multi-state populations of the USA condemning them with their PC self adoration whining turd loser talking points.

    If I ever meet one of these idiots in person they had better practice their censorship crap with their own piehole or it will soon be sucking their own bloody snot.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.