Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Open Thread

(For other material, please scroll down)

So, what's on your mind?

Here is your chance to opine according to the parameters below:

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: comments consisting of blog gossip will be deleted as soon as an administrator of this blog becomes aware of such comments.

163 comments:

  1. Welcome to the future.
    I think we are all bozos on this bus.

    A small minority of the population got a "right" established for them by Fiat.
    And the gloating president rubbed our nose in it.
    As a kid I wondered how America would fall and when.
    Kennedy appointed by Reagan.
    Souter by Bush 1.
    Roberts by Bush 2.
    Elections matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, did you have a "right" to get married before yesterday?

      Delete
    2. In my view, marriage is not a right. A government cannot declare a right.

      Delete
    3. AOW, I think it's an interesting philosophical exercise. If marriage is not a codified right protected by Constitutional law, it is legally considered a social privilege that can be protected and altered by the State and the Judiciary [as it long has been], through contract law.

      If it is a right, then it is still within the court purview to ensure that said right is accessible equally to citizens, barring a substantial burden to society. Throughout all level of legal scrutiny, this case has uniformly not been made.

      Delete
    4. If marriage is a right, than how can we deny marriage to siblings?
      Or to multiple partners?
      If it is a contract, why did the feds get involved in contract law the states have jurisdiction over?

      Delete
    5. What some men grant, others may take away.

      Delete
    6. Ed and Others, polygamy was the RULE and not the exception in the ancient world. For example, how many wives was King Solomon said to have had? How many concubines had Kings Saul and David? What was the true state of Abraham's married life?

      The concept of marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman based on the mutual attraction we define as "romantic love" is relatively modern. In pre-Enlightenment times and even long after, marriage was primarily a BUSINESS arrangement where daughters were effectively offered for "sale" as a means of securing property rights, perpetuating family lines, increasing wealth and to "legitimize" and protect whatever children might come of the arrangement. The women's feelings were rarely-if-ever allowed to enter into the negotiations, although occasionally a father might be sufficiently fond of his daughter to allow himself to be influenced by her aversion to a prospective suitor.

      FYI: My very own grandmother on my mother's side was in truth a mail-order bride. She was chosen FOR my grandpa from a sheet of black and white pictures sent from Europe where she had been born. My grandparents never met until a day or two before heir wedding.

      Sounds awful, right? Well, they had eight children and lived together in harmony-if-not actual bliss till my grandmother died at age 63 when my mother, her last child, was 21 years old. Grandpa lived another 30 years till he reached the ripe old age of 90. He was two years younger than grandmother, who was 20 when they married.

      I think they were reasonably happy, but only because people had not yet learned to EXPECT more from life than life could reasonably give a hundred years ago.

      Back in the nineteenth century and doubtless long before, a female was considered to be "marriageable" as soon as she experienced menstruation.
      Thus, in the early days of our founding it was not unusual for a girl of 14 or 15 to marry a widower of 30 or 35 who already had several children to care for. Cemeteries in New England are filled with graves marked "Father," Wife," "Wife," "Wife," "Baby," "Baby," "Baby," "Baby," "Baby," "Baby," "Baby," etc. Infant mortality was rife, women died frequently in child birth, and possibly from overwork, and death was accepted as an every day affair –– just a Fact of Life .

      Few if any regarded this as Child Sex Abuse. It was NORMAL for the times.

      The Mormons, of course, were polygamists. The vicious, murderous persecution they suffered for it at the hands of Self-Righteous "Christians" was a far greater son than the curious custom which was perfectly NORMAL for the Mormon community.

      Our inability simply to "live and let live" is in my vigorous, passionate opinion the root of most-if-not-all social evil. We just can't ever seem to learn o ind our own damned business. Therefore, strife, mutual abuse of every variety and much unnecessary DEATH are inevitable.

      Also, I feel compelled to add: Heterosexuality per se is no guarantor of virtue just as homosexuality per se does not necessarily confer odium and sinfulness on one destined to live with such a condition.

      Delete
    7. I have no problem with yesterdays decision. To my mind it addresses not so much the right of gays to marry as is does the right of everyone to be treated equally under the law. In its effect, what's good for the goose and gander must needs be equally good for two geese, or two ganders.
      I appreciate that this disturbs the religious sensibilities of some, but that is an area that should and must remain outside the cognizance of the law.

      I find the decision in King v Burwell far more troubling. If the law doesn't mean what the law says, but is subject to the interpretation of a few, then we are far removed from the concept of a government of laws not men.

      Delete
    8. Vib, so you like CI sees that the end justifies the means?
      If you agree with the result, you are not upset with the method.
      It was done wrong.

      Delete
    9. Viburnum,
      Constitutional speaking, I, too, find the King v. Burwell the decision more disturbing.

      That said, the effects of the second decision have yet to be understood, IMO. A pity that we don't have a reliable crystal ball!

      I predict that the days of ruling both decisions will soon come. The Law of Unintended Consequences always prevails!

      Delete
    10. @ Ed: There is no better end than equality. I agree with Scalia that it is a shame that this decision should have to be made by the court, rather than by the people, but it is right, and proper, and I can find no fault with it.
      @ AOW: I do not foresee encroachments of religious liberty appertaining to Obergefell v Hodges.
      What the country may countenance in the interest of fairness under the 14th Amendment can not rationally be imposed upon the various religious viewpoints protected by the First. It is not the business of government to dictate acceptance in the spiritual realm, only that we accept it's preeminence in the civil.

      Delete
    11. You state your views with chilling clarity, Vib. Might I assume then that because the stated intentions were good, or in one or two rare instances actually actually PRODUCED WORTHY RESULTS you would affirm the following extra-legal, unconstitutional, enormously significant instances of government interruption, disregard and usurpation of the democratic process as outlined in the Constitution?

      Abraham Lincoln's role in the Civil War?

      Teddy Roosevelt's autocratic formation of the National Parks system?

      Woodrow Wilson and his role in the founding of the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and the League of Nations?

      FDR and the role he played in initiating and instituting the New Deal?

      President Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the subsequent role the Warren Court played in Brown v. the Board of Education?

      LBJ and his Great Society?

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Anonymous has linked to White House shines rainbow colors to hail same-sex marriage ruling.

      We should probably expect any who object to the above to be excluded from the town square. Dissenters are now pariahs.

      Delete
    2. Rather cynical on the part of the administration since they gave so little support to the push for marriage equality and only formed an opinion when the outcome was obvious.

      The push for equality was successful because people realized it was the right thing to do as more and more gays came out and we didn't fall apart.

      Obama is just trying to make political hay for something he never really supported.
      He's to busy getting on his knees to Pharma and the rest with the TPP.

      Delete
    3. Like that famous broken clock telling the right time twice a day, occasionally even Canardo gets something right, even though he can never resist the impulse to change the subject in order to twist approbation into accusation. ;-) "Big Pharma" had NOTHING to to do with THIS one.

      Delete
    4. So much for the much decried policy of governments posting "hate symbols" on public facilities. Only religious hate symbols need now apply.

      Delete
    5. FJ, I saw a lib guy on Kelly tell a conservative (well known, can't remember name) that we hadn't evolved.
      The looking down his nose at us as being a lower life form was repetitive.
      So disgusting, his smug superiority. Their hate symbols trump our sensitivities.

      Delete
    6. If he's the new ubermensch, then call me "Cheetah"!

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Despite the chicken little exhortations by extremists....this morning my marriage is as strong and solid as before.

    I'll also offer the cogent opinion of Rep. Justin Amash, R-MI:

    For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution.

    Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.

    To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      Bathing the White House in the gay flag lights last night was too much for me!

      I expect the following: churches who refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples lose all tax exemptions, any who tithe to or other donate to those same churches will also lose their tax exemptions (charity deduction). Pressure will come to bear! Dissenters will be shut out of the town square.

      I understand the equal rights argument. But I don't believe that same-sex marriage is actually marriage; call it a contract if you like, but it is not marriage.

      These same-sex unions recognized by the state as marriage will result in great loss of revenue to the state (federal and state level) because of the present tax laws for estates. Therefore, the death tax will come back to affect all. Watch for that development. It's coming, IMO.

      Delete
    2. Under our law, marriage is a contract. It has no other legal definition.

      Churches have always had the power to discriminate by gender [ordination of women, alter boys, etc] and have always had the ability to decline the marital sacrament [among others] to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they decide [I have personal experience with this one]. The Kennedy opinion reiterates this protection. But the larger issue is having clergy act as agents of the State in the first place. That should have ceased long ago.

      There are far larger issues with our tax code, such as unequal protection under the law with respect to the progressive income tax, but the special privilege given to churches under the tax code, is a worthy debate irrespective of the Obergefell ruling.

      The lighting of the White House was showboating and grandstanding...but would you really expect any different from this Administration?

      Delete
    3. oou purport to be a constitutionalist, yet you revel in this tyrannical act.

      Delete
    4. And they are flying a gay pride flag over our embassy in Israel, but not Saudi Arabia.

      Delete
    5. Revel? Must you rely on emotional framing to making your point? That you can only refer to it as a 'tyranny act' is not in the realm of logic that I identify with.

      Delete
    6. The rainbow flag has no more place over facility representative of our nation, than would the battle flag of the AofNV

      Delete
    7. What do you call a judicial overreach that finds a right where none existed (or exists) that overrides the 10th amendment?
      You call it an interesting philosophical exercise. I call it tyranny.
      You appear to think highly of it as you wished it had been done by fifty states. Ergo you revel.
      Your comment "[I have personal experience with this one]" is telling in regards to your antipathy to religious constraints on marriage.

      Delete
    8. You are free to constrain your marriage in accordance to any, or as many, religious constraints as you desire. You can perhaps even "revel" in doing so. But as marriage is a legal contract, religious constraints enforced by the State, have no place in a society of ostensibly free men.

      Yes, you do call it tyranny. Did you call likewise, the history unequal protection under the law....of the persecution and prosecutions of your fellow American citizens?

      Delete
    9. How is my experience 'telling'. I don't begrudge the church in question for their rules. They can function as they see fit. I'm simply not a party to them.

      Delete
    10. Did you call likewise, the history unequal protection under the law....of the persecution and prosecutions of your fellow American citizens?"
      Yes I did.
      If marriage is a contract governed by states (divorce law?) then how do the Feds get involved? Extralegally.

      Delete
    11. There is a rational discussion to be had regarding the reach of the court, exemplified not only by this ruling....but more importantly, the ruling on Thursday in the ACA case. Unfortunately, most of our fellow Americans only care about judicial overreach when a case goes against their liking.

      In this specific instance, SCOTUS had years upon years of precedent by which to hear this argument; Loving not being the least of which.

      Delete
    12. I wager that most people who oppose the Obergefell ruling wouldn't have made a peep about judicial overreach...because it certainly didn't seem to be cause celebrate when the court decided to hear it...which was the proper time to make that case.

      Delete
    13. Roe v Wade was every bit the judicial overreach that Obergefell is.
      And has been protested for over 40 years.
      Many of our fellow citizens are more concerned with feelings than legal constraint. We call them Democrats.

      Delete
    14. CI,
      more importantly, the ruling on Thursday in the ACA case. Unfortunately, most of our fellow Americans only care about judicial overreach when a case goes against their liking.

      I'm not one of those fellow Americans.

      You will note that, so far, I have posted anything front and center about Obergefell V. Hodges. Make no mistake: I don't like it because of my Christian views. But, yes, the ACA ruling of June 25, 2015 is the more important of the two Constitutionally.

      Too bad that we don't have a crystal ball to see what the consequences of both rulings are -- a crystal ball that will let us take a peek at the next 5 decades.

      Delete
    15. Ed - Roe v Wade was every bit the judicial overreach that Obergefell is.

      But was Loving?

      Many of our fellow citizens are more concerned with feelings than legal constraint.

      True, but one can make a case that there are as many [Democrats and Republicans] who are concerned more about feelings than about civil liberty.

      Too bad that we don't have a crystal ball to see what the consequences of both rulings are...

      Talk about putting every cable news outlet, talk radio show and pundit out of business!

      Delete
    16. But Loving only enforced the rights to full citizenship based on race, that were conferred (or recognized) by the fourteenth, race rights being the intent of the equal protection clause.
      I doubt the intent was to confer recognition of homosexual unions.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. The court didn't broach homosexual unions, as none had been argued to that point....but the court set judicial precedent in stating [exclusive of race] that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." This premise was relied upon in several following rulings such as Turner v. Safley in that a fundamental right to marry [existed] that a state can not restrict unless it meets the court's "heightened scrutiny" standard.

      Did the courts overreach?

      Delete
    19. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." And homosexual unions are fundamental to our survival?

      Delete
    20. Nope. Nor are they a detriment, or a burden. Thus, there is no rationally compelling argument to deny the franchise to homosexuals.

      Delete
  5. Judicial Tyranny.
    So when you get your way, by tyranny, it's OK.
    You got your way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is your opinion of Abraham Lincoln's role in the Civil War?

    What is your opinion of Teddy Roosevelt's autocratic formation of the National Parks system?

    What is your opinion of Woodrow Wilson and his role in the founding of the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and the League of Nations?

    What is your opinion of FDR and the role he played in initiating and instituting the New Deal?

    What is your opinion of President Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the subsequent role the Warren Court played in Brown v. the Board of Education?

    What is your opinion of LBJ and his Great Society?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course –– and to anyone else who might be interested in discussing he relative merits of he phenomena cited. I did after all respond to your statement, Ed.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I didn't know if it was a comment in response to mine on judicial overreach, since they are all examples of executive overreach.
      I wonder if the two branches are going to engage in a turf war to dictate law, since Congress has no interest in staking it's claim to what is its turf.

      Delete
    3. "... since Congress has no interest in staking it's claim to what is its turf."

      And there's the rub. While we're at variance on the current topic, we certainly agree on the on that. Congress has abdicated it's Constitutional role and left the course of the ship of state in the hands of others.

      Delete
  7. BIG VICTORY TODAY!
    But that “Victory depends on who you ask! As a ISIS Gunman identified as Abu Yahya al-Qirawani attacked and killed over 38 people and wounded at least 36 others at a Tunisian seaside beach resort. And in France, ISIS has claimed responsibility for a bomb blast at the Shiite-affiliated Al-Sadiq mosque in Kuwait during Friday prayers, leaving at least 27 dead and more than 200 injured.
    There were Terror attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait in the past 2 days
    The Tunisian president said “This is worse than terrible’
    However, I could not help but notice as I was reading the local newspaper, and as the Supreme Court was issuing two of THE MOST CRUSHING RULINGS IN AMERICAN HISTORY was made on individual liberties and states rights , that a part of America died today. I was reading the obituary
    The White House lit up in celebration of today's gay marriage ruling, New York’s progressive Mayor DiBlasio hung out FOUR, on one but FOUR Rainbow Flags for his Mansion. . Yes, It's a great day for America
    Gay sex and race baiting do not create jobs in the United States. Whining and crying about victim-hood does not create jobs in the United States. Making excuses for failure based on race is not a productive path to go down. But the new generation knows only the emotional tugs of tears in Denver 2008 when Obama was nominated and later when he was the so called "first black president." They screamed "hooray we made history!"

    On this same day the U.S. Supreme Court forced Obamacare on all 50 states and recognized gay sexual deviancy in all 50 states. This new generation. the Hippy’s of yesterday, celebrates the death of a generation that they do not understand nor can appreciate the America that I and most oy you grew up in. This new generation grew up in the 1990's where nobody kept score during soccer games or Little League games because everybody was a winner and nobody wanted to have hurt feelings, aka PC generation.

    So my question is: Just how long can the United States survive before it's collapse, when the most important think that Our president can do is NOT to do anything about ISIS, or the threat that ISIS might attack the USA, and what are we doing about this gang of terrorists, but save the world by ruling on Gay Marriage and taking down the Confederate (“Racist Rebel”) Flag! We have a President that thinks the Confederate flag belongs in a museum!
    Who will save us from these idiots? Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Bill di Blasio, or Bernie Sanders ? Right...we really have choice and a democracy in the United States... Yeah Right, Sure.....
    I consider myself to be a thoughtful, and critical thinker. But the Democrats of today are like zombies, just walking along in a daze, never really seeing anything or having a cogent thought about reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extending the benefits of the civil marriage contract to all citizens is hardly going to cause our downfall.

      Nor is ISIS.

      You can look at the attacks as three very different incidents and attempt to stay rational.
      The act in France looks much more like a workplace argument than an organized attack and that's what will probably emerge.

      The Kuwait attack is another chapter in the Sunni/Shia split as ISIS attempts to get Shia in Kuwait to revolt and put pressure on Saudi Arabia. I notice the Saudi bombings in Yemen, while indiscriminate, probably give you the giggles.

      Tunisia is very troubling. It seems to be a lone actor but in a country that is making serious strides toward installing a sectarian government. The most serious of the three by far and an act that is very difficult to stop.

      It's my experience that when the fringe right starts talking about reality we are in for mindless boiler plate.
      What did you think of Booby Jindal's idea to save money by eliminating the Supreme Court.
      By the time that group of idiots is finished they'll all reveal themselves to be such fools that it's Hillary in a cakewalk and even then you'll go all reality on us and claim the election was rigged.

      Cogent thinking on your part.

      Delete
    2. All citizens, ducky? Why can't I marry my sister? Why can't I marry my sister AND my brother? If this is simply a matter of "civil-contract law", your argument remains strikingly inconsistent.

      Delete
    3. If marriage is a right, than how can we deny marriage to siblings?
      Or to multiple partners?

      If marriage is a contract governed by states (divorce law?) then how do the Feds get involved? Extralegally.

      Delete
    4. Wow, Duck. I did not know about the Jindal quote. Waiting to see the context. The full text. But it sounds bad.

      Delete
    5. He wasn't the only one

      Ben Carson says this is a "judicial law" rather than a "legislative law" and the president and legislature are not obligated to enforce or obey it.

      Others want impeachment. Some are calling for an amendment.

      This issue is going to play into Hillary's hands, Ed.

      Delete
  8. Good point “Opinionated Me”. the relevant question is why at this very dangerous time in America why is this ruling “Gay Marriage” so urgent and important?

    I read both your and Ducky’s comments and in my humble opinion, was this a " Great week for Americans who cares about America"?. There's really nothing I can add that would improve what Opinionated Me said or how he put it... Has this been a great week for America? Maybe for the Koolaide Drinking, Tree Hugging Americans, but for those who care about America, I’d rather see the president doing something meaningful about these Islamic Terrorist who are running wild all over the world killing innocent people. And after this week's brutal terror attacks in France etc , I would have thought that by this time everybody would agree, including Obama who doesn’t seem to give a damn, but is more interesting in Race and Gay Marriage.
    It’s time for the U.S. to give full reins to our military and if we do it right, within 24 hours the job can be done! The only way to win a war is to untie the hands of our troops and let them go in and kill enough of them to make the rest of them not want to fight you any more. And most importantly, not to elect Hillary Clinton who is another Obama..

    ReplyDelete
  9. CI,
    The Kennedy opinion reiterates this protection [of churches].

    I predict that such protection will vanish. Agenda activists will see to it.

    Marriage via clergy was recognized as a legal contract for a lot of reasons. I'm sure that you know all the Westward Movement and related information as to why clergy could make marriage a contract recognized and protected by the state.

    Once again, I understand your libertarian argument. I am not optimistic that your argument will hold up with the kind of government we have now. Tyrants hate libertarianism more than any other -ism. Therefore, I say that what you see as protection of libertarian rights isn't that at all as far as this regime and like regimes are concerned.

    Tyrannical governments pervert everything!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure any right, privilege or law can be usurped by tyranny actors, and a greta many of them have. Do we then keep a status quo where unequal protection under the law in the norm, or do we change such in favor of civil liberty....and strive for the continued protection of other rights?

      We certainly cannot reasonably adjudicate law on the basis of assumed transgressions, where there is no rational basis with regards to cause and correlation. Even under our current paradigm, with an irrational emphasis of protecting us from ourselves, we maintain a a balance of punitive measures for transgressions, but not pre-emptive mitigation against them [this does however, vary from one issue to another].

      Delete
    2. Doubtless there are natural laws; but good reason once corrupted has corrupted all. Nihil amplius nostrum est; quod nostrum dicimus, artis est. 1 Ex senatus consultis et plebiscitis crimina exercentur. 2 Ut olim vitiis, sic nunc legibus laboramus.

      The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. Custom creates the whole of equity, for the simple reason that it is accepted. It is the mystical foundation of its authority; whoever carries it back to first principles destroys it. Nothing is so faulty as those laws which correct faults. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. That is why the wisest of legislators said that it was often necessary to deceive men for their own good; and another, a good politician, cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur. 4 We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end.
      - Pascal, "Pensees"

      Delete
    3. Kennedy's pronouncement protecting religious rights struck me as even more dictatorial direction from the court. How enforceable will his proclamation be?

      Delete
  10. Ed,
    If marriage is a contract governed by states (divorce law?) then how do the Feds get involved? Extralegally.

    Excellent point!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State law cannot trump the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment .

      Simple.

      Delete
    2. It was part of an earlier argument that Due Process refers to a right.
      If marriage is a right, than why not a right to incest, polygamy, or both?
      but if it's a contract, then state law (divorce?) governs those contracts.
      That means states can't control marriage (and divorce) at all.

      Delete
  11. Forget politics for a minute!

    We have (Had?) termites in our cottage, aka The Little House. $3500 shelled out yesterday for liquid-spray treatment of underside of The Little House (no warrant because of raised floor) and a bunch of termite traps all around the main house, aka The Big House.

    Who has helpful hints about termites and the rebuilding of a portion of the floor in The Little House? That structure was a garage; closed in in 1948. The structure consists of the garage portion with a room attached (step up). The foundation is cinder block, and the outside of the structure is brick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't rebuild a floor....but for termites, we've always regularly sprinkled boric acid around our foundations, inside and out. Haven't had any issues with them, and we've lived in some termite infested parts of the country.

      Delete
    2. Napalm. then nation building. er home building.

      Delete
    3. It sounds like there must be a crawl space to replace or "sister" floor joist that have been damaged.
      After that is the subfloor above the joists. Is it hardwood flooring above the joists?

      Delete
    4. Ed,
      It sounds like there must be a crawl space to replace or "sister" floor joist that have been damaged.
      After that is the subfloor above the joists. Is it hardwood flooring above the joists?


      As far as we can tell, the joists in the garage side are okay. We have floor in the attached room open 25"-33.3%.

      The floor is not hardwood. It's thick board with a veneer layer to make the floor look like hardwood. Support beams running across the back of that room will be replaced and at least part of the support beams along the west side of that room. All the joists and support beams were likely treated with creosote by my uncle, who built that floor in 1948.

      Each room is 15 by 10.

      Over the years, the cottage has been a chicken brooder (80 chickens killed and dressed every morning and taken to a nearby restaurant), a party hour for my cousin during his high school years, a spare house for rent or other purposes (including a piano studio and a coin shop), a man cave (Mr. AOW had his stroke out there; the EMT's had to toss a lot of things around to get to him because he was trapped in the corner, and now a storage shed.

      Mr. AOW and I lived in The Little House from 1972-1981. No bathroom! We did have running water, however. Unfortunately, the water pipe burst in 1985 when it was left on by a Sears repairman.

      Delete
    5. I would consider pulling up that damaged sections flooring to get to the damaged joists from above. Don't replace but "sister" wood or 3/4" plywood strips (cut to the correct orientation lengthwise) alongside the joists. Put down OSB sheathing and "Pergo" or tile or linoleum.
      Feel free to call.
      Send pictures.

      Delete
    6. And treat the soil (I assume your service did, but you didn't mention it, so I'm not sure).

      Put down heavy duty visqueen with overlapped, taped joints on the soil, sandbagged in place, and turned up a few inches on the foundation. Termites will still make columns up the foundation or pylons, but at least you can SEE those.

      Is the floor structure sound? Or spongy. If it's sound screw down 1/4" plywood to give you a level surface to put the flooring open (verify door swing clearance first!).

      If spongy, and joists damaged, follow Ed - through bolt new, treated wood (2x8 or 3x8, 4x10, etc., depending on the span) to existing joist until you get to 'good' wood. Carpenters might curse the treated wood because it messes up skill saws, but you won't have to do it again.

      If you want to discuss further, feel free to email me offline. :)

      Delete
    7. Aaaah ... my long lost!!

      Actually, I've been through this twice in the last year (2 different properties). And Mr. B is THE man on things construction. And termites. We have not had to replace a floor, but have a spongy one and have already reviewed our solution with our contractor. Fortunately, we have a high crawl space with oversized access panels - 3 of 'em.

      Delete
    8. That works. I am on a slab, no basement to flood, no crawl space to work in. I love it. My son has a crawl space. He's been playing The Great Escape to clear mor access.

      Delete
    9. Baysider,
      They managed to crawl under the cottage house and treat the soil.

      Is the floor structure sound?

      What has not already been removed seems sound. We still need to check beams and joists in the portion that has not been taken out.

      Thanks for the advice. You are an expert on this topic!

      Delete
    10. The code-minimum access panel size must have had a pre-pubescent Korean in mind. We enlarged 2, and were able to create a lift-out sub-floor in an old water heater closet, so the fattest plumber can get through. We've had many a grateful nod for that, too!

      Delete
    11. Baysider,
      A couple of points which I haven't previously mentioned:

      1. The cottage is not a dwelling and probably never could be legally made a dwelling. The Zoning Nazis have forbade our adding a bathroom -- never mind that our "carbon footprint" here is miniscule compared to those living in the McMansions all around us.

      2. All buildings on this property will be demolished within 10 years. A developer will come along because of the size of our lot.

      Delete
    12. Oooh ... size of lot. How big? And how long a garden season? :)

      Delete
  12. Hey! Has anyone here head about Got [Google] Chrome? Google Just Silently Downloaded This Onto Your Computer.

    A friend of mine got this notice today. It reads in part:

    On June 17th, Google did not announce (the news broke) that the DARPA affiliated corporation has been silently downloading audio listeners onto every computer that has Chrome.

    This effectively means that Google sees your privacy as piddly-squat, which does not necessarily come off as a surprise, when one considers Google’s censorship of We Are Change – this very organization as nothing.

    [...]

    So a computer black-box was installed, hooked onto a private corporation’s server and now has the ability to eavesdrop on you...


    This black box can eavesdrop on any conversation you're having with someone else in the room in which you have the browser booted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, a mic would have to be connected.

      Delete
    2. Read the article. Um. Scary potential. What's the antidote? Can you un-install? Does anyone here know more? I just switched to Chrome to get out of Firefox!

      Delete
    3. Baysider,
      I'd like to know that answers to those questions!

      Delete
    4. Google already knows virtually every keystroke.
      physically fisconnect any microphone.

      Delete
    5. The microphone is built in, and I use it for Skype. Any other ideas? LIke un-installing this thing?

      Delete
  13. Gay lifestyle is a morality issue diverted onto a civils rights platform. If we believe it is a civil rights issue, than paedophilia and bestiality are also civil rights issues.

    My fear? Churches will lose their 501C3 status if they do not perform gay marriages.
    I do not want First Amendment rights trampled by a special interest group.

    http://economicaffairs.com.pk/persecution-of-the-christian-community/


    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Civil rights are predicated on the interaction of consenting citizens...not non-consensual violation. I view this as a civil rights issue diverted onto a morality platform. How are the faithful any less of a special interest group?

      Delete
    2. Conflating pedophilia with homosexuality is simply ignorant.

      Are you really concerned about bestiality. I'm waiting for the argument that people will soon be allowed to marry their dog. Sheer madness.

      Churches won't be forced to perform any rites and they will not lose their exemptions.
      What will happen is that the adults will remain in charge and some churches will perform gay weddings.

      Life goes on, within you or without you.

      Delete
    3. Early on during the gay rights movement, we were told, "We don't want marriage. We want certain other rights."

      Now it turns out that gay marriage is demanded as a right.

      I say that activists will see to it that churches are forced into performing same sex ceremonies.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure who the 'we' is in the statement, as there has never been a spokesperson on other side, who spoke for his/her entire respective side.

      That said, I hear the concerns over forcing clergy to perform ceremonies...but I have to ask...why? Outside of some dick wanting to make scene [and both sides have these folks], why would someone who isn't a member of a particular church, try to force the church to perform the sacrament against it's wishes? Especially when there are quite a number of churches who have already been performing SSM ceremonies....and churches have had a long history of autonomy.

      Now it turns out that gay marriage is demanded as a right.

      How is that any worse than opponents demanding the exclusion of gays from the protections and privileges of marriage?

      Delete
    5. We = those of us opposed to same sex marriage.

      On an iPad right now.

      Delete
    6. I tend to the more sanguine side of this, ala Ducky and CI.

      However, anyone who argues, as Ducky does that "Churches won't be forced to perform any rites and they will not lose their exemptions" is hopelessly naive.

      A law means whatever The Nine Mullahs in Black Robes say it means, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. The Nine Mullahs are the supreme law of the land.

      So yes, at some future point, they can simply declare, in a nice Orwellian flip, that any church that refuses to marry someone is violating the religious liberties of those wishing to be married.

      Delete
    7. "Why would someone who isn't a member of a particular church, try to force the church to perform the sacrament against it's wishes?"
      Lots of Christian haters on the loose who look for opportunities to cause trouble. Maybe they're interested in a union; maybe not.

      Delete
    8. Tammy - yes,morality on a civil rights platform.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. It's a certainty that somebody will instigate a case....you can't name a single issue where some crackpot isn't going to try and "make a statement".

      Remove the clergy from the role as an agent of the State, and you've solved not only this problem, but further remove the religious sacrament of marriage from the purview of the State, and place it solely in the hands of the respective denominations.

      Delete
    11. An interesting and provocative thought, CI. Seriously.

      I've given this a lot of thought in the last 5 years, particularly in its historical context. New England Puritans of the 17th century did not ascribe any ecclesiastical role in marriage. It was strictly civil and not an affair of the church. Since the church WAS interwoven with the state 'back home' in England, I can understand how they came to think this. Now, they still married under the auspices of the civil authority, so it wasn't a 'government' issue. I think it was mostly a rejection of the high Anglican practices that made this a covenant of that quasi-Roman church, and participating in such ceremonies bound them to the unwanted vestiges of that church.

      I suspect there will come a time when Christian clergy will not 'perform' weddings, but have the civil notary do the official task while they solemnize and conduct ceremonies for their members. Since we've thrown out the constitution and protection of constitutional and natural law on which it's based, we may be entering a sharp transition phase where we are forced back to finding ways to not be coerced against conscience, as did the Puritans. Unfortunately, there isn't a large, empty-ish continent to which to decamp.

      Delete
    12. SF,

      A law means whatever The Nine Mullahs in Black Robes say it means, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. The Nine Mullahs are the supreme law of the land.

      So yes, at some future point, they can simply declare, in a nice Orwellian flip, that any church that refuses to marry someone is violating the religious liberties of those wishing to be married.


      As in when churches refused to perform interracial marriages?

      Delete
    13. PS @ SF,
      The Nine Mullahs in Black Robes is a great turn of phrase. I need to remember that one.

      Delete
    14. Baysider,
      I suspect there will come a time when Christian clergy will not 'perform' weddings, but have the civil notary do the official task while they solemnize and conduct ceremonies for their members.

      The obvious "work-around," IMO.

      Many churches do perform wedding ceremonies for non-members, too. I wonder what will happen to that option.



      Delete
    15. Yes. I think it's a small income booster. I'll bet it stops. Or at least the websites come down that advertise the rental.

      Delete
    16. "Why would someone who isn't a member of a particular church, try to force the church to perform the sacrament against it's wishes?"
      Or a baker or florist.
      Are you so naive?

      Delete
    17. Baysider,
      I think it's a small income booster. I'll bet it stops. Or at least the websites come down that advertise the rental.

      Thus ends the right to do with one's own property as one sees fit.

      Delete
  14. With apologies to the Beatles...

    "La la la la life goes on!"

    ReplyDelete
  15. The pressure others to reform is great.
    Whoever won't conform inspires hate.

    An Ethos prevalent demands adherence,
    Or at least be lent a feigned sincere appearance.

    No one will tolerate what he despises,
    So, he'll berate who otherwise advises.

    The Bowels of Belief is where we live
    Where challenge never has Relief to give.

    Parochialism jails, and then it smothers
    Conformity impales, then kills all others.

    Most people fail to see this work all ways,
    And so the Blight will kill till end of days.


    ~ FreeThinke

    TRANSLATION: We'd all be better off if everyone quit minding their peoples' business and tended to their own knitting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was rather moved today, Ed

    They performed a very fine rendition of Amazing Grace. You couldn't easily shake it off but shortly afterwards a preacher started a sermon and was soon on about homosexual marriage.
    Completely destroyed the moment.
    Well, you keep looking for epiphanies where you can find them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure Duck. Did you take the picture> and what event?

      Delete
    2. There was a Mennonite revival on the Common today and I did snap a few photos.

      I was surprised by how much I was moved by the choir's singing Amazing Grace. So much s that I stuck around for the sermon but left as soon as he started on about homosexuality.

      It's a deal breaker for me. Gets nobody any closer to the divine.
      Just a sad waste.

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      I thought those were Mennonites in the picture.

      Mennonites don't care about your opinion of the sermon, I'm sure. Furthermore, Mennonites have the freedom to believe what they believe.

      Years ago, one of my devoutly Catholic friends became a Mennonite. She is happier than she has ever before been!

      Delete
    4. They certainly do and there has been a controversy in the Mennonite church over this issue.

      Some Mennonite ministers have attempted to perform gay marriages.

      The minister had a number of people listening and I was just one of several who were turned off. Seems he wasted the moment. Boston Common probably isn't the best place to come out against it if you wish to retain your audience.

      Although who knows. I expect the Episcopalians and the Methodists may accept gay marriage before long. Maybe others will join them.

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Please read this article and comment if possible...

    A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.

    I note this section from the above article:

    ...Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

    Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read through that piece, by the Witherspoon Institute...and wasn't terribly impressed. It's long on attributing transgressions already occurring in this nation to gays....yet these transgressions are not intrinsically related to the movement for marriage equality. It's an opinion piece that doesn't do itself justice when making it's claims.

      Delete
    2. CI,
      You certainly are quick to cast aside anything with which you do not agree. Just sayin'.

      It's long on attributing transgressions already occurring in this nation to gays.

      Adage: "Two wrongs do not make a right."

      Do you know anyone in Canada of whom to inquire?

      Delete
    3. How do you figure? I read this piece a few weeks ago. I think I've spent enough time digesting the contents.

      I do not have any Canadian contacts. But I would look for someone impartial to this particular issue.

      Delete
    4. CI,
      I know of nobody who is impartial about this matter.

      Do you?

      Delete
    5. I once thought that CIs insistence on Gay Rights was based on a Constitutional issue, buit he has revealed it to be a desire of his to have gay marriage codified.
      I'm not implying he's a closet gay, I just wonder what his real motivation is to see this happen at the expense of correct interpretation of the Constitution, a la Scalia and the rest of the minority.
      Does he really think Kennedy, Kagan, etc. are correct in their interpretation?

      Delete
    6. My position has nothing to do with gays at all. Their ability to marry or not, doesn't affect me in the lest.....just as it doesn't affect you. We, as a society of free men....have long concluded that the marriage contract is a basic civil liberty. The denial of this contract, based on gender and sexual orientation....not only serves no purpose [as there is no burden upon the fellow citizen], but is antithetical to the very tenets of liberty....and is unequal protection under the law. The fundamental error in this entire affair, stems back to allowing the State to license this contract.

      I get that you believe your position to be Constitutional...but you haven't provided any foundation as to how the exclusion of gays from the marriage contract is any more Constitutional. From my perception, it would appear that you oppose this ruling and would exclude gays from entering into this legal contract, based on your faith....which as we know, does not always comport with a secular system of jurisprudence and civil liberty for all citizens.

      Delete
    7. Further, this ruling is grounded in both the Equal Protection and the Enforcement Clauses [though Thomas had fair argument with respect to Kennedy's over reliance on the Due Process Clause] of the 14th Amendment; with adjudicated precedent dating back at least to the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts.

      All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State or Territory” to engage in real property transactions, make and enforce contracts, and have the right to “the full and equal benefit of the laws.”

      Delete
  19. A couple of questions which have been on my mind....

    1. Is marriage a right?

    2. Does one need a state license to exercise a right?

    Driving a car is not a right; therefore, we have drivers' licenses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said earlier, if it's a right (Equal Protection) then it's a Fed thing.
      So how could we bind people into a marriage with divorce laws?
      There should be an equal right to non-marriage.
      Divorce is a state issue, so marriage should be.
      There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, only freedom of assembly or association.

      Delete
    2. Ed,
      Interesting point about the divorce laws.

      Delete
  20. Whoa!

    YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE by Allen B. West.

    Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must."

    More at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll be dismayed to see two articles on the children of LGBT parents...grown kids....tomorrow at my place :-(

      Delete
    2. Z,
      I will make a point to check out those two articles.

      Delete
    3. I spoke about reciprocity on the radio this morning.
      There's no denying the argument.

      Delete
    4. I hope this jackass tries to bring an unlicensed firearm into Massachusetts. He's liable to be arrested and he can take his appeal all the way to SCOTUS and lose.

      Now, here's the difference.
      Applications for concealed carry are approved or denied in a non discriminatory fashion. You aren't rejected for being gay or republican or female or other descriptive variables.

      Denying a marriage license on the basis of gay sexual orientation while granting the license to heterosexual's has been declared discriminatory by the supreme court.

      Pitch till you win but Mr. Gun Loon's argument is seriously weak tea.

      Delete
    5. Ducky, you're correct about the descriptive variables, but what you forget is that some States are "May Issue", and as such required the applicant to demonstrate a specific 'need'. It has been noted uniformly that in said States, self defense is not considered an appropriate 'need'. Thus the average citizen is denied a permit [which itself could be considered unConstitutional], while some per its are indeed issued to the politically connected, celebrity protection and those who carry large sums of money. "May Issue" favors political whim and wealthy. I'm not really sure why you would support that.

      Delete
    6. Good reply CI.
      Rights are rights, and as long as we're making them up, why not support the ones clearly ascribed in the 2nd Amendment?

      Delete
    7. We haven't invented any rights....we have ensured equal access to the existing right of contract.

      That said, for me...it's an even easier sell to ensure 2nd Amendment rights have equality of exercise for all citizens.

      Delete
    8. I would Argus that the 10th, 2nd, and 4th Amendments make concealed carry permits unnecessary - you can privately carry a gun at your leisure without informing a damned soul - thus it is truly concealed - and we now have the added bonus of King v. Burwell, which opened up the fun that what laws actually say or don't say no longer matters. The Affordable Care Act gives you the right to mount rocket launchers on your car.

      Delete
    9. (Argue, not Argus, damned auto-incorrect)

      Further, King v. Burwell lets you kill political opponents on Tuesdays. ;)

      Delete
    10. All laws against theft, fraud, and murder are void, because they are not mentioned in the ACA. ;)

      Delete
  21. Why's anybody suggesting above that the SACRAMENT of marriage is in the hand of the state? The only part of marriage is the legality; the certificate, etc.
    The sacrament, any church wedding, is only icing on the cake . You can get married in your bathtub as long as you have a legal certificate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the whole "forcing us to solemnize their marriage" issue is settled as soon as we say we only perform the service for members in good standing, and do it quick. Baker/florist issue settled.
      Private club protections.

      Delete
    2. My solution for wedding caterers is to offer straight wedding cakes at regular price, and gay wedding cakes at $6 billion a piece, with the option that the gay couple can buy the straight cake and put the semen, blood, and fecal matter on it themselves.

      Delete
  22. Why's anybody suggesting above that the SACRAMENT of marriage is in the hand of the state? The only part of marriage is the legality; the certificate, etc.
    The sacrament, any church wedding, is only icing on the cake . You can get married in your bathtub as long as you have a legal certificate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, it's day two of the Supreme Courts Ruling and I don't know of any republicans or conservatives, or any other heterosexuals, who have crashed into stores and looted or burned down stores and buildings because of yesterday's ruling on gay marriage know that I I don't really feel too different about it. It's totally irrelevant to me.I'm more concerned about their ruling in taking down the Confederate flag, a symbol of Southern Pride, NOT RACE.
    Anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      It's a copy and paste comment. But I will let it stand because the point made is important.

      Delete
    2. It's a copy and paste comment.!

      YES, MINE... so whats the problem with that?

      Delete
    3. Generally speaking, copied and pasted comments are not well received when the exact same comment is found elsewhere that I frequent.

      My blog, my property, my rules.

      Delete
  24. Regarding Google Chrome, I sent the article to AOW - and then I uninstalled Chrome. Easy process, but it involves filling out a check-list as to why you are removing it.

    Problematic for me as a journalist, is the right to source confidentiality. It is increasingly difficult to maintain Fourth Amendment rights and the privacy of my papers. In recent weeks - several journalism "finds". Most thoughts kept in my head and not placed in digital format. This is based on "an abundance of caution" paradigm that involves my deep commitment to journalism ethics and professionalism.

    On a different note, I opened WordPress today and it has a rainbow banner across the top. sigh

    Will Christians face a backlash if we proclaim that the tenets of our faith forbid sexual immorality in all forms? Not all live the faith - but the tenets of the faith are unchangeable and immutable as the Word of God. I do not rejoice when human liberty embraces societal decay. We continue to cheapen ourselves in the eyes of the world in the name of "human rights". We have no true north moral compass to offer as our gift to the world. But we have reduced ourselves to jibberish language which is hollow and devoid of merit.

    The Last English Prince

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What other people do with their sex lives is none of YOUR business as long as it's not done in public. Your determination to impose YOUR understanding and YOUR standards of Christian doctrine and conduct on others is alienating millions from the faith. Your fanatical fundamentalism will DESTROY the Christian Movement. You might as well spit in the face of Jesus for all the good your style of ranting and bellowing is doing society.

      A. Christian Christian

      Delete
    2. A. Christian Christian,
      Tammy is indeed a Christian!

      Delete
  25. Well, the only reason states got in the marriage licensing business in the first place at the beginning of the 20th Century was because progressive leftists didn't want white people marrying non-white people.

    The state of Alabama has come up with the perfect Solomonic solution that nullifies all sides. They no longer issue marriage licenses to ANYBODY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see if the US House of Representatives stops penalizing single people with higher taxes while giving a tax break to married people.

      Delete
    2. Beamish,
      There is a substantial "marriage penalty" for married couples if SSDI or ObamaCare subsidies are involved. Mr. AOW and I got slammed and continue to be slammed with the former.

      I suppose that the tax breaks for married couples had something to do with buying homes and/or offspring, bit I don't know for certain.

      Delete
    3. Um, bit s should read but. This iPad!

      Delete
    4. Beamish,
      About marriage licenses...Wasn't there also something about the Wasserman test and preventing the birth of mental defectives who would become wards of the state?

      Delete
    5. Anti-miscegenation laws were founded on the progressive left-wing, er blatantly racist, er progressive left-wing belief that mixed couples would produce birth defects.

      You can't really have expected people who believe spending more than they have makes them prosper to have mastered science, can you? ;)

      Delete
    6. Beamish,
      Please scroll down to my blog post "The Real Hillary Clinton."

      Delete
    7. Done :)

      I see the racialists brought their bad breath... Sigh.

      Delete
  26. Ve Vill allow Homos to marry each utter.
    The King of the USA has spoken!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Can YOU handle the TRUTH America? I can!
    We all hear this a hundred time or mor, because the Main Stream Media wants us to hear it and wants America to Dump Trump!
    As we ALL know very, very well this is what Donald Trump recently said:

    “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me… When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
    Was Donald Trump accurate and correct, was what he said correct? Did he say anything that wasn’t true? Maybe he didn’t say it in a diplomatic way or a PC way, and that is why Trump will most likely never win the Presidency, I agree, but “The Donald” spoke the TRUTH and what did he get for it? He lost over FIVE million dollars worth of business, that’s what he got.
    Does that remind you of what Donald Sterling got when he spoke on his own telephone in his own home to his “Girlfriend” about race! Sterling was banned by the NBA, they forced him to give up his own team, and fined him $2.5 million for his comments! Geez, I always thought that a person could speak about race in his own home and say anything that he wanted to say! Well silly me!
    So what did Donald Trump get when he spoke the TRUTH about what is going on in America?
    He was castigated by the American madia, they took away his TV show, they dropped his TV appearance of the Miss America Pageant, Macy's dropped his clothing line, La Raza and other Hispanic organizations also dropped him like a rock. as did everyone else that wants to play *The Race Card* as they pander for votes within the population of America.
    There are those that are here in America illegally that are the scum of the earth. They are here to rape, rob, steal, drive drunk and kill, and yes, MURDER those that stand in their way, or in some cases, murder for hire or just because they have nothing better to do.
    In general, wherever they go, they leave trash, crime, drug addiction and in far too many instances, death and destruction.

    When does it stop? When do we say ENOUGH? When do We, The People stop these people, and other undesirables from turning the USA into a Third World hell-hole?
    These are recent headlines that make me believe that we, as a nation, must do something different in regards to immigration and deportation. 121 Illegal Aliens Avoid Deportation, Now Charged with Murder. From CNN we see this, and I am surprised CNN was even offering it, Suspect in killing of San Francisco woman had been deported five times, and last but not least, Illegal Alien Crime and Violence by the Numbers: We’re All Victims.

    And both Dems and RINOs are blasting Trump for speaking the truth. Ted Cruz is being blasted as well, simply because he happens to agree with Trump.
    I get the feeling that the silent majority is tired of the liberal bullshit.
    We are waist high in it after six years of Democrats. The Obama experiment is a total failure.
    Can Trump win the White House? I doubt it and I think he knows it but his tough talk is what the Republicans need. I don’t know who would want the job but whoever gets it has an almost impossible task ahead. God help us all.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective