Who is in Favor of America?

Read a couple tweets yesterday from Charles Cooke (@charlescwcooke):

I don’t like its being done per se, but the fact that people can burn American flags with legal impunity helps to show me that I’m free. 1/2

And frankly I’m much more interested in that beautiful principle than in the people who choose to use it in a way that I dislike. 2/2

I replied:

Disagree; that we allow the burning of the American flag shows that there are people who want me unfree.

One burns what one does not want. The flag is an abstract symbol of freedom.


I like Cooke’s writing. I think he’s intelligent, well informed and far seeing. He’s a go-to guy for political commentary; so please understand I’m not actually going after Cooke. I get Cooke’s point – we must allow that which is disagreeable to us to ensure our own freedom. And, in fact, that disagreeable things go on proves that we are free. But is this really so?  Are we really free when we permit people to rampantly work for anti-freedom? Are we sure, that is, when we allow arguments against freedom to thrive that our freedom will survive?

In the run-up to America’s involvement in the Second World War, while Hitler and Stalin were allied, the American left was stout in its demands that we keep out of the war. So, too, were many patriotic Americans – but for the left, it was purely a political calculation.  They weren’t opposed to fighting (after all, just a couple years previously many American leftists eagerly fought for the Spanish Republic against Franco’s forces in the Spanish Civil War – and those who didn’t fight gave money and other support), but merely to our fighting on the side of the British against the Nazi Germans, allied with the Communist Russians. Indeed, in our industries there were strikes which hindered the delivery of war materials to Britain under Lend-Lease – strikes which were fomented by communist elements within the labor movement (after all, why go on strike when orders for war materials are going to give you a job and more pay?).  All of that changed, of course, the minute Hitler invaded Soviet Russia – then the left was loud in its demands for war and magically all those strikes in war industries providing Lend-Lease stopped. And just as long as we were allied with the USSR against the common, Nazi enemy we had no trouble on the left.  Everyone was united for the war effort. Cool, huh?

But then look what happened when the common, Nazi enemy was struck down – all of a sudden, the left started to discover various problems with American power and most especially with the use of American military and economic power on the global stage. Not a peep of complaint from the left while we fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo – but inadvertently bomb the wrong village in South Vietnam: the left is calling us war criminals.  The genuinely criminal (but highly atypical) massacre at My Lai gets Pulitzer prize reporting…the genuinely criminal (but highly typical – and at least 10 times more deadly) communist massacre at Hue barely rates a mention in the MSM. No anti-war movement in World War Two – but there was one during Korea and vastly more vigorous during Vietnam. All three wars – World War Two, Korea and Vietnam – fought by the same, old United States (flawed but still the beacon and bulwark of human liberty); fought in each case against brutal, inhuman tyrannies, but in two out of the three wars we had leftwing opposition to the war, and in the last case it got strong enough to ensure American defeat.

We can all say – and agree – that it signifies American greatness that we permit vigorous dissent against American actions. That we have vast numbers of people who continually criticize the things we do. But is there a difference between someone pointing out a wrong we’re doing and someone who is committed to destroying who we are?  There was, after all, a vigorous anti-war movement during the American Civil War.  It greatly strengthened the North in it’s war effort – without the sting of vigorous criticism, we might not have won. Because we had to justify our actions against well-reasoned arguments, our actions tended towards a higher order of efficiency as time went on. We got better at training the troops; better at supplying the armies; we found progressively better commanders to lead the armies; we developed a better overall strategy for beating the South.  The South, on the other hand, never really developed an anti-war movement. There were Southern unionists but they were small in number and never organized themselves into a political party capable of challenging the Southern war party. The Southern government was never really challenged in the conduct of the war and made one incredible mistake after another and eventually lost.  Dissent in a democratic society is vital – there must not be uniformity of thought.

But the difference between the anti-war movement in the Civil War and the movement in the Vietnam War was that the northern anti-war movement didn’t want to destroy what we were, as a people. There was no thought among them of jettisoning the Constitution. No thought that democratic self-government was wrong.  No desire that those who favored fighting be destroyed and driven out of the body politic. It was sincerely felt among them that fighting a war with fellow Americans was just not the way to go; that no possible benefit of victory would outweigh the cost of fighting.  The left-wing led anti-war movement of the Vietnam War was different in that they had nothing but contempt for our Constitution and for democratic self-governance. The ideal, at least for some of the anti-war leadership, was that the anti-war movement would grow into a revolutionary movement which would overthrow the United States government and replace it with a socialist dictatorship – where vast swaths of the American population would be proscribed as enemies to be destroyed.

The belief that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain, unalienable rights is a dogma as much as any dogma proclaimed by the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church cannot prove (in the scientific sense) that God is a Trinity any more than an American can prove (once again, scientifically) that we have unalienable rights. But it is in practical terms as much a requirement that an American believe in the dogma of unalienable rights as it is a requirement that a Catholic believe in the Trinity. You really can’t be an American if you don’t believe in unalienable rights any more than you can be a Catholic and deny the Trinity. We freed the slaves, enfranchised women and have poured out blood to defend liberty simply because we believed in our founding dogma – that all people have certain, unalienable rights. The question I think we need to really start asking is just how many people holding American citizenship really believe in our founding dogma – how many really believe that we have unalienable rights? It is true that my unalienable right to free speech means I can burn the American flag – but, honestly, if I’m burning the American flag, how likely is it that I believe in an unalienable right to free speech? The flag is just a bit of cloth, of course, but it is a symbol of the dogma – just as a crucifix might be a bit of carved wood, but it is a symbol of Christ. If I were to burn a crucifix, how much of a Catholic would you think me to be?

Speech codes on campus. Complaints about micro-aggression. Assertions that people be excluded from areas based upon skin color. Are these the sort of actions which indicate a devotion to the ideal that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights? Or as these the actions of people that believe that rights are conditional and based upon social utility, as they define it? I think the latter.  Should I feel safe in my freedom while people are out there giving firm indication that they don’t respect the rights I consider unalienable?

We are caught in a bit of a bind – those of us who believe in the dogma cannot take action to actually do anything to those who don’t. But maybe we should start asking?  You know, actually start to query our opponents in the political sphere on what they really believe? Not so much on a lower level, but on the higher level – during a debate next year, maybe the GOP candidate should ask Hillary Clinton if she believes in an unalienable right to free speech…and then ask her how she feels about campus speech codes. We need a national clarification of what we, as a people, broadly believe. Maybe we’ll find that a majority really doesn’t favor free speech – it’d be interesting, at least, to find that out as it would tell us in favor of free speech where we really stand. But we’re not having that debate because we are presuming our leftwing opponents are in favor of free speech. Maybe they’re not – and maybe they don’t want to admit too loudly to their views?  But if we don’t challenge them on it, we won’t be able to draw the line for the American people to see – and make a choice between the two sides.

I think the left has gotten a free ride from us for too long – we keep behaving as if we on the right and those on the left are working in the same frame of reference. This is where the concept – being expressed by Jeb Bush and Chris Christie for the 2016 Presidential cycle – that we can work across the aisle comes from.  The presumption being made is that our opponents want essentially the same thing we do. But, do they?

We need to have a national argument about this – not a national conversation. A national conversation is just a means whereby the left decides what we converse about and provides us the pre-approved result of the conversation. We need an argument – vigorous but polite – about just what we, the people of the United State of America, believe. What is our commonality?  What binds us together to make e pluribus unum? Is there, indeed, enough we agree upon where we can actually say we live in the United States of America?  Personally, I think there is – I think that a few things political can command 80% or better support. Free speech. Freedom of conscience. That sort of thing – but if we don’t have the argument and clearly define what we mean by those words, we’ll be continuing to surrender the debate to that small part of the left which actually calls the tune on the Progressive side of the aisle – and it is a tune very much out of sync, I believe, with the fundamental desires of the overwhelming majority of the United States. I could be wrong, of course – but if I’m wrong, the only way to know for sure is to have the argument.

30 thoughts on “Who is in Favor of America?

  1. rustybrown2014 July 2, 2015 / 10:44 pm

    Seems quite odd to me that you desire a national argument, vigorous but polite, with your opposition yet can’t tolerate it on your own blog. Do you see how this is rightly perceived as talking out of both sides of your mouth?

    • M. Noonan July 2, 2015 / 11:13 pm

      Had a different response, but I decided to go with this, instead:

      It’s not my blog – I just write here.

      Perhaps you’d care to comment on the subject of the post?

  2. rustybrown2014 July 2, 2015 / 11:40 pm

    “an argument pre-supposes that people will stay on subject and not resort to mere insult and threat. Additionally, that both sides will actually expose themselves to reasoned counter-argument….
    …I won’t be proved wrong, nor moved from my position, by someone hurling insults at me; or refusing to actually engage in the debate at hand.”

    Well first of all I take exception to the implication that I’ve engaged in any of the tactics you’ve described. With a fair rereading of our discussions I think you’ll find that I always remained on subject and have never resorted to mere insults and certainly not threats. It’s clear we disagree on many things; that does not preclude me from discussing them with civility. For instance, I disagree with your desire to censure flag burning. The sanctity of free speech and protest far outweighs the harm that may be perceived by burning a symbol.

    • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 12:30 am

      I don’t recall ever taking exception to any of your comments as such – others have, I know. But I am not dictator of the blog – as I said, I don’t own it. I just write here. This blog gives me a place to air some of my thoughts and I’m grateful for that. Book writing will in the future be more and more where I’m going with my writing. Matt and I have, of course, the revised Worst President coming out, but I’ve also got some solo works going on, including fiction. And let us be realistic and remember that it was the commenters on the left who most often turned the place into a distressing flame-war. And, yes, so did some on the right. I’d rather not have any of that.

      I censure cross burning, as well, you know? What I’m saying on that subject is that I doubt highly that a person who burns an American flag is at all in favor of the things the flag represents, however imperfectly. Now, perhaps I am wrong – maybe those who burn Old Glory as the most perfect example of free-speech absolutists the world has ever seen…but if they are, I’ve yet to see much evidence of it. In fact, most of those I have seen at the flag burnings tend to go for an extremely leftist view of the world which is definitively against free speech. Cooke, who got me thinking on the subject, is clearly of your view on the matter – that we allow flag-burning is a measure of our freedom. I believed that until I read Cooke’s comment…and then it occurred to me that rather than a barometer of freedom, it might be an indicator of impending tyranny.

      As I said in the post, there’s not much I can actually do about it – as a free speech absolutist, I simply must allow people to say what they want (or burn what they want, within reason); and I admit that I’m more of a free speech absolutist than I used to be…the fear of censorship has concentrated my mind wonderfully on the matter. But I’d like to find out, for sure, what the views of the flag burners are – and have the broad mass of the American people know, as well. After all, an informed choice is the best choice, right? And if we do have a side in our political debate which does take exception to free speech, ought we all be aware of that? In fact, you haven’t actually stated your view on the matter: I’m ok with flag-burning happening. You are, too – but what of expressions of free speech that you definitely don’t like? And when I mean “ok with” I mean it absolutely – outside of an incitement to violence, I don’t think that anyone should be disturbed in any way, shape or form for what they say. The only thing which should happen to them is that people should verbalize their disagreement and only in a polite manner. Once that is done, then it is done. No one loses a job. Gets hounded on social media. Gets threatening phone calls. No boycotts. It is just words and none of us are guaranteed in this life against hearing things we find repugnant.

      Of course, that’s just me – others can have a different view. I just think that if someone has a different view, everyone should clearly know what it is. And if someone is of the view that free speech has more limitations than incitement to violence, I’d like to know precisely what they are to be, and who is to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t. And I think that the American people would be greatly interested in the debate.

    • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 10:05 am

      My observations of “Rusty’s” posts is that he slips in with a couple of superficially reasonable posts, draws us into dialogue, and then almost instantly segues into completely predictable Leftist claptrap that has nothing to do with respectful exchange of ideas or defense of positions.

      He flies a false flag till he gets in the gates and then shows his true color (red) and proceeds on his usual path of ridicule, personal attack, and so on. I have yet to see any discussion with “Rusty” proceed past a couple of exchanges before he drops the pretense of reason and reverts to the old tactics of attack and smear.

      Naturally, his “positions” are those of Identity Politics, and based on blind acceptance of hate-based Leftist strategies.

      It is clear that he, and his fellow travelers, have created a game in which they post a post, or two, or even three, that are not only not overtly offensive but could even pass as sincere efforts to engage in a dialog, and then when those opening efforts have passed muster they revert to their usual blog vandalism and efforts to disrupt the blog while engaging in their pathologies of blind hatred and nonstop attack.

      Their minders feed them a few nuggets, such as the reference to judicial review, that sound reasonable on the surface if not examined too closely but which they use as currency to buy themselves into a discussion under the guise of serious discourse, but overall the appearance of Rusty and his ilk, several of which have suddenly (coincidentally ?) crawled out from under their rocks, is just a reminder of what should be this blog’s motto: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on us. Fool us hundreds of times over many years, we’re idiots to let it happen again.”

      You, and your fellow travelers, have created this pattern. While you are whimpering about it, remember that it is a self-inflicted injury, that you have had many dozens of opportunities to change your M.O. and have always made the choice to stick with it.

    • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 10:37 am

      It actually seems we’re in complete agreement on this. I too am a free speech absolutist and think flag burning should be protected, even though it’s a rather crude form of protest. Personally, I would never consider burning a flag and would most likely look down on someone who would – too broad and unoriginal. However, I don’t think a protestor should be compelled to “explain themselves” or answer challenges in any way. Let’s not revert to McCarthy era paranoia and persecution.

      As far as speech I personally disagree with, again, I’m an absolutist and such things don’t bother me. In fact, I disagree with you that there can be no backlash or boycotts. Having the privilege of free speech should mean having the responsibility of handling the resulting criticisms, and individuals and private businesses should have the freedom to react in their best conscience. That’s part of the package.

      • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:47 am

        I’m just not a fan of bothering people who aren’t doing anything to actually harm another. I understand the concept of boycott – and, indeed, for the past 10 years or so I’ve had a one-man boycott against Chinese-made products. A sort of small protest against the use of Chinese slave labor. It doesn’t amount to much, of course – but I feel better when a long search finally comes up with a shirt made in USA (though made in India or Vietnam is a good substitute; anything but China). But all in all, I just don’t think it worthwhile to take any direct action against someone holding unpopular views. After all, I hold unpopular views, too.

      • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 11:14 am

        We’re in general agreement. I too think boycotts can get carried away and have been against some famous recent “outrages” from the left, the Donald Sterling case comes to mind, but there are many others. Yet I think the concept of boycott and the right to speak out against speech one finds distasteful is important to maintain. Unfortunate people get carried away, but free speech is certainly messy.

      • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:18 pm

        It wouldn’t be quite so messy if everyone would drop like a ton of bricks on those who get out of line – as, for instance, when George Takei the other day made a horrifically racist Tweet about Justice Thomas…now, to their credit, a large number of African-American liberals called him out on it, but most white liberals were either silent or tried to justify Takei’s comment. But it gets worse than that – all sorts of completely false stories are spread and when the truth comes out, hardly anyone acknowledges that they were wrong to join in the witch-hunt.

    • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 10:43 am

      Once again we see a familiar pattern: civil discourse from me followed by personal attacks (however impotent) and vitriol from Ama. Oh well. This is no surprise to me; I’ve recognized the leopards spots for some time.

      • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 6:01 pm

        “Vitriol”? I see Rusty is up to the same old tricks of the Left, simply redefining words to support whatever it is they are saying that month/week/day/moment.

        “Personal attacks”? On whom?

        Here’s a little tip on how you might be able to discover a “personal attack”. One, it has to be an attack. Two, it has to be directed at a person.

        You may find it offensive to be labeled as “red” but you have a forum to prove that this analysis of your political position is inaccurate. This is, by the way, not the first time I have encountered this. A year or so ago I was accused of reverting to attacks and insults when I referred to someone as a “Lefty” after a few years of passionate attacks on anyone and anything on the Right and even more passionate defenses of anything on the Left. I was told that the term “Left” was, in his own words, “a pejorative”. So….you can wind yourself up over being linked to the word “red” and even go as far as thinking this is an example of my “vitriol” but in reality all you are doing is exhibiting one of two behaviors: Ignorance of actual, real, objective politics (being focused on Identity Politics without any foundation of political philosophy beyond the emotional), or shame at being on the Left and sensitivity at being labeled as such.

        I observed a pattern exhibited, over and over hundreds of times, by Leftist posters on this blog. This is not an “attack”. It is an identification of a specific type of post and a specific pattern of posturing as people serious about their desire to engage in discourse followed quickly by a reversion to posts which have nothing to do with discourse. These tend to focus mostly on using what was said here as points for hurling accusations and revisiting old grievances.

        A post on another thread discussed the death spiral of job participation IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. That is a potential topic for discussion. But your response is to use this observation of an objective fact as the launching platform for lurching back into history so you can revisit your grievances against George W. Bush.

        Naturally, you can’t associate the horrible downturn in our economy with any Leftist programs and agendas, nor can you relate it to anything actually done by Bush. The purpose of this little spasm of BDS is merely to wallow in more Identity Politics. True discourse would involve looking at what is going on right now, in the present, in this time and place. It would involve examination to see what existing programs and policies may be contributing to this problem, or even causing it.

        You brag “With a fair rereading of our discussions I think you’ll find that I always remained on subject “ No, you don’t. In this case, the subject is the economic situation here and now, and why it exists, and what can be done about it. If you can’t produce solid, verifiable, objective information about how the housing/banking collapse of 2007-2008 is responsible for the current crisis, with such far-reaching impact that The One We Have All Been Waiting For and his cadres of geniuses are helpless to turn it around, all you are doing is dodging the subject and gleefully regurgitating what tasted so yummy to you back then in hopes it will taste as good today.

        So you claim “Takes quite a bit of shovelin’ to dig us out from the hole “The Decider” left us in….” That kind of nonsense not only makes sense to you, it forms the basis for what you probably consider your political philosophy. Jes’ curious—how much “shovelin” WILL it take to get out of that big bad scary “hole” Obama was so eager to jump into? And what is it about the Rule of Holes that you people find so hard to comprehend? (That is, when you find yourself in a hole, STOP SHOVELING.) I had to laugh out loud at that comment of yours, because it was so funny on so many different levels. The eager lurch back into BDS was predictable, but always good for a chuckle, but the idea that the reason we are still in this imaginary “hole” is because you think “shovelin'” is the way to get out was too rich. I think you just explained a lot.

        (BTW, the Second Rule of Holes is “when your opponent is in a hole, hand him a bigger shovel”. The thing about the Left is, they always bring a good supply of shovels, and they are always the biggest ones, so there is nothing for anyone else to do but watch them self-destruct and wonder who they will blame for it.)

        And then, after your little temper tantrum (but by golly it felt good to bash Bush again, didn’t it?) you simply lie. “But our economy is way better than it was eight years ago by almost every important economic measure.”

        No, it is not. Millions of people have been stripped of insurance policies they liked and could afford and been forced into inferior coverage that costs more, just to expand federal control over people and the economy. The middle class is shrinking. Job participation is abysmally low, meaning that productivity is down, and the very foundation of our economy is eroding out from under us. The structure of government that provided the framework for every success this nation has ever had has been deformed and degraded, and we are now a nation ruled by unelected despots who can never be removed from their jobs and a president whose own personal dictionary defines his office as one with absolute authority to defy laws, ignore laws, repeal laws, and write new laws. Before you whine that you specified “ECONOMIC” measures, the out of control expansion of the entitlement/dependent class which is accompanied by the confiscation of what is produced by the productive class IS responsible for much of the economic misery we experience today, and much of it goes back to the tyranny of the new (unconstitutional) branch of government, that of Agencies, and the outrageous rules and restrictions that hinder progress and punish profits. Factor in a megalomaniac president who ignores and defies legitimate legislation and opens our borders to cheap labor competing with Americans for jobs and the rest of the utter mess the Left is making of our economy and our government, and you have the recipe for disaster we see cooking today.

        The economic problems of the Bush era were specific to a certain sequence of events, none of which have much to do with anything today. It is in the past, and simply cannot be blamed for what we are enduring today, but this is the default position of the hard-core fact-deficient emotion-controlled Identity Politics Lefty. And if none of this fits you, then you are not being “attacked” at all and I am talking about other people who post other things, and you can retire your feigned outrage at my alleged personal attacks on you.

      • Cluster July 4, 2015 / 8:51 am

        You’re one of the most intolerant people I have ever been familiar with, and you’re not an adult Rusty. You’re an uninteresting, overly sensitive, hostile, progressive fascist and it is a complete waste of time to speak with you on any issue.

      • Retired Spook July 4, 2015 / 10:11 am

        Ama, I couldn’t care less about this business of “personal attacks”. But it seems to be your favored subject, I suspect in substitution of having to actually defend your positions in detail.

        How laughable. Amazona and I arrived on this blog about the same time — over a decade ago, and since then there’s been no one, that’s NO ONE who has outlined their position, their beliefs, their principles and their ideology better or more thoroughly than Amazona has. You, OTOH, have never really taken a position on much of anything, preferring instead to come here and nit-pick other people’s comments. The last straw was a few threads back when you described your view of the compact by which our rule of law was established as nothing more than a guideline, changeable at the whim of bureaucrats and a handful of men in black robes. That’s disgusting, and you’re not worthy to even live in this country. NOW GET THE FUCK OFF THIS BLOG, AND DON’T COME BACK!

  3. Cluster July 3, 2015 / 8:24 am

    What binds us together to make e pluribus unum?

    I would contend that the Democratic party and the militant progressive left has been successful by making e unum pluribus – out of one many. The left has divided this country along every possible societal line – gender, race, class, etc. The Democrats have no interest in governing this country for all, rather they choose to govern this country for their narrow constituencies by pandering to their fears, exaggerating their problems, identifying who is to blame, and promising to punish that group and bring about “equality”. It is a destructive and immature way in which to govern, but it has been very successful for them, especially with the LIV’s and the fascist progressive. Why in the world would you want to continue a dialogue, argumentative or otherwise, with such a cretinous faction? They lie about, and distort every issue, they insult and demonize any and all opposition, and have proven themselves to be completely unworthy of any respect.

    The militant fascist left wants to continue the dialogue only because they want to continue to find the slightest offensive remark or position, exploit that offense amongst their overly sensitive base of LIV’s and attack and demonize that person and position to further their political agenda. For that reason alone, further dialogue is pointless, but in addition to that they are a repugnant, annoying, and uninteresting breed, lacking the humanity and insight needed to truly advance a society. Simply look at the results of nearly 9 years of progressive governance – this country and this world is in worse shape than I can ever remember. Moreover, look at the results of the last 50 years of Democrat policies in places like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, etc..

    The militant, fascist progressive deserves nothing. They are cancerous parasites infecting this country.

    • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 1:04 pm

      “…this country and this world is in worse shape than I can ever remember.”

      Strange, I remember this country being in far worse shape after Bush’s two terms.

      • Cluster July 3, 2015 / 1:09 pm

        You have a poor memory. Labor participation rate was stronger, national debt was much less, average incomes were higher, welfare dependency was much less, we were more respected and feared around the world, Iraq was actually calm, and had some white collar Wall Street guys including Fannie Mae officials been investigated, indicted and prosecuted, we would have emerged from the housing crisis in much shorter time and in stronger condition.

      • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 2:09 pm

        Meh. Nobody said This country is going through a golden age and the items you mention are some understandable remnants from the worst recession to befall America in 80 years, brought to us by eight years of Republican rule. Takes quite a bit of shovelin’ to dig us out from the hole “The Decider” left us in. But our economy is way better than it was eight years ago by almost every important economic measure.

        I think it’s you with the short memory. Remember when we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs A MONTH?

      • Cluster July 3, 2015 / 3:17 pm

        It was only one month that we lost 700,000 jobs as a result of the housing crisis which was the cause of the recession. And just FYI, it’s not a conservative policy to offer mortgages to any one who walks in the door. That was a liberal progressive policy conceived by Jimmy Carter and accelerated by Bill Clinton. To be fair, Bush did not stop the practice but it was Bush who warned Congress on several occasions of the impending collapse to which Barney Frank and maxine Waters accused him of being racist.

        And this is why I no longer engage with people like you Rusty. You’re either completely ignorant or purposely deceitful and in either case, my life is just too short to f**k with it.

      • rustybrown2014 July 3, 2015 / 3:46 pm

        Wrong again Cluster. According to the BLS we were losing jobs around the 700,000/month ratio for several months around the end of Bush’s disastrous presidency. So are you being “completely ignorant” or “purposely deceitful” here? Just curious.

      • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:14 pm

        He was pointing out the basic absurdity of the argument that because we’re not losing 700,000 jobs a month, we’re better off than we were 7 years ago. The Labor Force Participation rate was 65.7% when Obama took office, as of last month, it was 62.6%. Now, there are 7.8 million more people employed in the United States than when Obama took office, but the US population has grown by nearly 12 million in that same time. If Obama had just kept even, we should have about 10 million more people working than when he took office…and if he had done anything good for the economy, about 12 or 13 million more people should be working today.

      • Cluster July 4, 2015 / 8:57 am

        Here was the report on January 4, 2008:

        Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.

        The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation

        Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

        Unfortunately, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters preferred to call Bush a racist rather than heed his advice on the dangers of Fannie Mae’s secondary market policies and the economy collapsed when unqualified buyers stopped making their mortgage payments. Fascist progressives leave this part out of the conversation.

      • Cluster July 4, 2015 / 12:20 pm

        As for the labor participation rate, that was in decline before Obama took office – Rusty

        Actually, during most of Bush’s presidency the labor force participation rate was fairly level. And virtually all of the decline during the Bush years was from the recession that began the year before he was inaugurated and from the recession that began at the end of his 2nd term, for which he certainly shared some blame, but wasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, solely to blame. The participation rate in 2007 was about the same as it was in 2001. As the only recession during Obama’s presidency officially ended 5 months after he took office, the decline during his terms can only be attributed to his dismal and inept economic policies. Except for a brief uptick at the beginning of Obama’s presidency the participation rate has been in free fall for the last 6 years.

      • rustybrown2014 July 4, 2015 / 6:19 am

        You are not here to discuss but only to attack. You attack other posters, you attack a former President, you attack an entire political party, but you never offer any ideas or solutions. One more time you were given the chance to show that you are finally ready for adult political discourse and one more time you have shown us that you define adult political discourse as nonstop complaining about what you say other people did. //Moderator

  4. Cluster July 3, 2015 / 3:47 pm

    Here’s an interesting article speaking to the insufferable POS progressive’s and their effort to sanitize American history. Below is the summary:

    The purpose is to render whatever came before unworthy of remembering, honoring or saving. Or, in the case of the Confederate flag, to scratch the ever-present liberal itch to flaunt their moral superiority


    It is kind of amusing to watch self righteous progressives fall all over themselves about shedding the country of a Democrat designed flag, Democrat raised flag, and a Democrat defended flag. And if we are shedding ourselves of all racist reminders, when does Al Sharpton leave the country?

    • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:01 pm

      To me, it is just more mis-direction from the left – they are getting to be exceptionally expert at getting the national conversation off the manifest failures of Obama and on to trivialities. We all get it that African-Americans can be easily offended by the Confederate battle flag – mostly because it was appropriated by the KKK in the past and was deliberately used as a specifically racist banner. But whether or not it exists is a triviality. Its not something anyone should greatly care about – especially in relation to the state of our economy and the state of the world…and the horrific and growing corruption in our government.

    • Amazona July 4, 2015 / 12:18 pm

      Given the various dangers of IUDs, dangers well known for decades, I wonder if those schools will be held responsible when girls become infertile due to infections, or die because of ectopic pregnancies or uterine perforations.

      I’m guessing that when that happens—–and given the statistics, one or more of these things WILL happen—-the reaction will be same casual dismissal of responsibility and consequences I have outlined in my earlier post on the determination to keep an illegal alien free and on the streets until he finally killed someone.

  5. Amazona July 4, 2015 / 12:08 pm

    You know who are NOT in favor of America? Let’s start with those who defy our laws to harbor and protect law-breakers. That’s a list that starts in the White House, rambles through the laughably misnamed “Justice” Department, and goes all the way down to cities like San Francisco and law enforcement agencies which put their own personal feelings above the law. (emphasis mine)

    SAN FRANCISCO — A man suspected in the shooting death of a woman at a busy San Francisco tourist destination has seven felony convictions and has been deported five times, most recently in 2009, a federal agency said Friday.

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had turned Francisco Sanchez over to San Francisco police March 26 on an outstanding drug warrant, agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said. His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges.

    Officers arrested Francisco Sanchez on about an hour after Wednesday’s seemingly random slaying of Kathryn Steinle at Pier 14 — one of the busiest attractions in the city. People gather there to take in the views, joggers exercise, and families push strollers at all hours.

    Sanchez was on probation for an unspecified conviction, police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said Thursday.

    Kice said ICE issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting to be notified if he was going to be released. The detainer was not honored, she said.

    “ICE places detainers on aliens arrested on criminal charges to ensure dangerous criminals are not released from prisons or jails into our communities,” Kice said.

    Friday evening, an attorney for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department said it had no authority to honor the immigration hold. Freya Horne said that federal detention orders are not a “legal basis” to hold someone, so Sanchez was released April 15.

    San Francisco is one of many “sanctuary cities,” which prohibits city employees from helping ICE with immigration investigations or arrests unless it is required by law or there is an active arrest warrant, CBS News affiliate KPIX reported.


    So, what led to this tragedy, in which a lovely young woman strolling with her father along a popular pier, was approached and shot to death for no reason? Obviously, this killer has been enabled for many many years, by various agencies and by various weaknesses in our border control, so there is plenty of blame to go around. I would say that there is plenty of blood to stain a lot of hands in this fiasco.

    The man was deported FIVE TIMES! As he was here illegally from the get-go, that means he crossed the border illegally SIX TIMES. (Let’s pause here for a moment to give some simpering Progressive bleeding heart time to whine that he was “only seeking a better life”.)

    On a list of the culpable are those who have fought to keep the border open. And I do not mean have simply objected to various recommendations on how to secure the border—I mean have actively FOUGHT to keep it porous. Again, the bleating has been that closing it would be RACIST and ‘inhumane” and so on, so we have to include those who have contributed to the pathetic state of our border security.

    Then someone, or several someones over the years, decided that the best way to deal with this criminal scum was to kick the can down the road and send him back to the sewer from whence he came. Proof that that was not going to do much, given the fact that he was back, again, after the last few deportations? Not our problem, said the Pontius Pilates who ostentatiously washed their hands of the problem by engaging in a symbolic punishment they knew would be ineffective.

    But even then, even after the valiant efforts of the above to keep this filth on the streets where he could prey on the innocent and break our laws at will, he was arrested, and tried, and convicted—-AND PUT ON PROBATION !!! ???????????? WTF???????

    So any effort to respect and enforce the law has been stymied, yet again. But wait—there is more! We haven’t even gotten to the complicity of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, the last link in the chain of this massive effort to keep this predatory creature out on the streets where he could prey at will. The Sheriff’s Department has a lawyer, you see, a lawyer who has explained that “… “federal detention orders are not a “legal basis” to hold someone”,…

    Yep, ol’ Freya Horne and her Progressive buddies in the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department just made the decision that they did not consider a FEDERAL DETENTION ORDER the “legal basis” for, well, DETAINING someone. ICE knew he was dangerous, ICE tried to keep him off he streets, ICE did try to hold this man, ICE did try to overcome the Leftist determination to protect him and keep him on the streets of a nation he had no right to be in, ICE did issue a formal order instructing the locals to inform ICE of an intent to release him so someone could step in and do their duty and protect the citizens, but as we can see, when the Left is determined to subvert justice and has people placed in high enough positions to do this, there is not much law-abiding citizens can do about it.

    BTW, the last part of that statement applies all the way from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to the White House.

    It is ironic to have to report on this on the anniversary of this nation’s founding as a country based on a completely different concept of law, a nation founded to escape tyranny and now subject to it again.

    • M. Noonan July 4, 2015 / 11:00 pm

      Someone Tweeted about this – an illegal immigrant with an illegal weapon shoots a person in a gun-free zone in a sanctuary city and our liberals answer for this is more gun control and open borders.

      What needs to be drilled into the public mind is that illegal immigration is immoral – all it does is empower criminals, and they do take advantage.

  6. tiredoflibbs July 4, 2015 / 8:08 pm

    “As for the labor participation rate, that was in decline before Obama took office” – Rusty

    It is still declining even after obame’s heavily touted, as successful, fixes were in.

Comments are closed.