Accuracy in Media

CNN’s Don Lemon is under fire for making the elementary observation that some of the Ferguson protesters planning violence and mayhem were smoking pot. Linking dope to violence is taboo for most of the media.

Reporting from the scene, Lemon said, “Maybe a minute, two minutes ago we heard a gunshot and watched people scattering. And we’re watching people on the roofs of cars, on the tops of cars and…Obviously there’s a smell of marijuana here as well.”

“Lemon’s comments sparked fierce backlash on social media,” reported Toyin Owoseje of the International Business Times. She said “many members of the online community” accused him of “adding fire to the flames and promoting his own agenda.”

It’s the marijuana, not Lemon’s observation, which added fire to the flames. He was just pointing out the obvious. Are journalists supposed to ignore the use of mind-altering substances by demonstrators planning the burning and looting of businesses?

That Lemon’s simple observation has generated outrage in the press demonstrates how most journalists are trying to play down the harmful effects of the drug and ignore the epidemic of drug use in minority communities. Our media, and some libertarian politicians such as Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), want everyone to believe that police who enforce the laws and the “War on Drugs” are the problem.

No, it’s the drugs and their consequences, including mental illness and violence.

Don Kaplan of the New York Daily News called Lemon’s remark a “culturally insensitive comment,” as if dope-smoking was something indigenous to Ferguson residents. He also called it a “useless observation” which “polarized critics” against Lemon.

Catherine Taibi of the always politically-correct The Huffington Post said the remarks sparked a “backlash” against Lemon.

Why so much outrage over a simple observation of fact? Aren’t journalists supposed to report facts?

It is apparent that Lemon’s critics were concerned that viewers might conclude that some of the burning and looting may be linked to the weed that some of them smoke for alleged “recreational” or “medical” purposes. The “backlash” probably came from other marijuana smokers, or those sympathetic to the demonstrators.

Lemon’s critics were obviously concerned that his observation of fact would put the protesters in a bad light.

But, remember that Michael Brown, who assaulted Police Officer Darren Wilson, was high on marijuana as well. That is something else the media have tried desperately to downplay.

The idea that this “harmless” substance isn’t so harmless after all is something that the liberal media cannot tolerate. That’s why anything negative about the weed has to be suppressed. If it is reported, such as in the case of Don Lemon, the offending journalist must be ridiculed and ostracized.

The Lemon incident brings up another critical point.

Any reporter who reads the grand jury documents in the case and covers them objectively will note there was an extensive discussion of the possible effects of marijuana on Michael Brown.

DeForest Rathbone, Chairman of the National Institute of Citizen Anti-Drug Policy (NICAP), saw the evidence of dope playing a role in the confrontation between Brown and Wilson, and found a strange omission in The Washington Post’s coverage of the grand jury proceedings. In a letter to the paper, he wrote:

“Michael Brown is continually being described as an ‘unarmed black teenager.’ And that mantra prevails among the liberal media and government officials, enflaming violent reactions by people believing that the ‘innocent’ teen-ager was irrationally killed by police.

“But in a glaring example of media bias exacerbating racial tensions in the Michael Brown shooting death, Post reporters left out the key exculpatory fact in the grand jury finding officer Darren Wilson not guilty: The fact that Michael Brown tested positive for marijuana, which could explain his irrational violent behavior, not only in the convenience store which he strong-arm robbed while physically attacking the store clerk, but also in provoking the violent confrontation with police officer Darren Wilson.

“If it weren’t for the mainstream media’s reverence for the ‘sacred cow’ of marijuana, they would see the valid scientific studies showing that pot is currently being produced in varying strengths from a mildly intoxicating 2% THC up to school-shooter-psychosis-inducing 40% to 70% THC. And that early childhood use of pot is a major cause of psychosis and violent behavior…which could be the ‘unknown motive’ frequently cited in news articles on the Ferguson affair.”

Rathbone’s reference to the “unknown motive” is the discussion we have seen on CNN and other networks expressing surprise that Brown would have charged or attacked Wilson. Being stoned on pot, as Brown was, explains his behavior. Many notorious cases of violence have been linked to the drug in the past.

Rathbone said Attorney General Eric Holder’s suspension of enforcement of federal drug laws against marijuana in “Stoner States” has resulted in “producing and shipping brain-destroying, violence-inducing strains of pot throughout the nation.”

“Therefore,” he adds, “it’s not the police, or white racism, that is causing this devastation; it is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who turns a blind eye to the malignant impact of marijuana and then tries to blame everybody else for the resulting social chaos.”

Rathbone urged “responsible journalists” to focus on the problem.

But that’s clearly not going to be the case. After attacking Lemon for mentioning the smell of pot amidst the protests, some in the media have decided to attack the prosecutors for even bringing the subject up before the grand jury.

Anthony Zurcher of the BBC questions the role of marijuana in the attack on Wilson and quotes Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine as his authority in saying the dope couldn’t have played a role.

Jacob Sullum is a libertarian who favors legalizing dangerous drugs, and once wrote an article on why heroin is supposedly less dangerous than alcohol and how people can use the drug without harmful effects. He has compared heroin to nicotine. “Even daily opiate use is not necessarily inconsistent with a productive life,” he wrote.

However, there are some reporters beginning to cover the subject objectively.

Rathbone points out that Kevin Torres, a reporter for KUSA in Colorado, where marijuana is legalized, has done a balanced story on the issue, noting that researchers from Harvard and Northwestern University recently found “younger marijuana users are more likely to have learning and mental health problems.” He cited an article from the New England Journal of Medicine showing high THC use being linked to paranoia and psychosis.

Michael Brown was not only high on THC but was apparently preparing to smoke more dope when Officer Wilson caught him walking down the center of a street and asked him to move to the sidewalk. The swisher sweet cigars Brown had stolen from the convenience store are notorious for being used to make marijuana “blunts.”

Our media are desperate to maintain the narrative that the police are shooting black youth for no reason. If the media admit that marijuana is being used extensively in the black community, that fact could lead to other disturbing questions. For example, did Brown’s mother and father know about his drug use? Did they do anything to stop his use of the drug? Have they used drugs themselves?

You and I know these questions won’t be asked because they are considered to be “culturally insensitive.” So the problem will get worse.

Such questions might prompt some serious scrutiny of the Obama/Holder policy of encouraging drug use in America’s communities by failing to enforce federal laws against the possession or distribution of dangerous mind-altering substances.

Drug use helps explain the violent conduct of Brown, as well as some of the protesters. It also explains why they continue to blame Officer Wilson for Brown’s death when the evidence shows that Wilson was only defending himself against what he described as a “demon” coming toward him.

Reporters like to laugh about the old “reefer madness” film depicting crazy conduct resulting from marijuana use. It’s not so funny anymore.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Journalists are promoting the demoralization of a nation. They want America to fall and be replaced with a far more grievous socialist system. They are not helping anybody, except the wicked people who will rise to power out of the chaos. They hold us in contempt.

  • stringman

    That’s right, Cliff. And some of them probably drink, too! Come on! Drugs and alcohol do not cause violence and lawlessness. By your argument, guns cause murder and no one should be allowed to consume alcohol just in case they might commit a crime. It’s low moral character that causes evil and, nothing else. Read your Bible.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The Bible says “be therefore sober minded,” along with many verses on drunkenness. 1 Peter 4:7

    Paul also instructed men to not wear long hair.

  • Rondo

    Ferguson, MO:
    “The Drunk and On Drugs Happy Funtime Hour!”

  • BeagleDawg

    Can you imagine a country dominated by pot smokers and misfits that have no respect for the law. This is what the journalists invision. What will happen when our freedoms disappear and anarchist take over. Is this the country we want. America needs to fight back.

  • stringman

    Funny! Is that why most images of Jesus depict long hair? And how much wine did he conjure for the wedding celebration? What else ya got? Your point is taken that there is a good difference between simple usage and over indulgence. I maintain that low moral character is the cause of over indulgence, not the other way around.

  • NERDWORLD PROBLEMS

    ‘ Drugs and alcohol do not cause violence and lawlessness.’, tell that to every woman and child that has even been on the receiving end of the violence of an abusive drunk. They are perfectly fine as long as they are sober, throw a few drinks in them and all mental stability flies right out the window. (First hand knowledge) Don’t try to play that old song and dance, yes drugs and alcohol cause violence and lawlessness and aggressive irrational behavior in otherwise stable people.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Most images of Jesus with long hair are not true to scripture any more than 3 wise men visiting the baby Jesus at the nativity are true to scripture. The greek for “wine” is oinos, which is unfermented wine. Also, the wine Jesus made at Cana could not have been fermented or Jesus would have broke the mosiac law. I would be careful of what you accuse God of doing. You’re getting your information on the Bible from the world, instead of reading it for yourself. I don’t know if you have noticed, but the world runs one big disinformation campaign against the Bible. 2 Corinthians 6:17 “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” Plus, modern Bibles are corrupt, they have removed scripture. The King James is the uncorrupted version.

    I don’t know who you think you are, but the Bible says that ALL men are sinners, the temptation to sin is the cause for overindulgence, not “moral character.” The only thing that keeps people from falling into sin is the strength that God gives them, nothing on their own merit. You don’t know what your limit is that you might be tempted to majorly sin. In Venezuela, socialism has caused food shortages that have moved many people to do things they wouldn’t normally do. Only the true believers endure.

    Jesus rebuked the Pharisees more than anybody, because they were playing religion on their own merit, without truly knowing God. Do you really know him? Or are you playing church? Romans 10:3 “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

    2 Timothy 3:5-7King James Version (KJV)
    “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

    Do you really know Jesus?

  • stringman

    Well….Somebody really rattled your bars. And, I don’t know where you think moral character comes from if not from moral teachings. One thing we do know for sure, no beverage in the time of Jesus other than water would be safe to drink for long with out alcohol to preserve it. And, if the celebrants were having wine, it was likely prepared long in advance. The most ardent proponent of the nonalcohol wine theory seems to be the Seventh Day Adventist, Samuele Bacchiocchi. And he seemed to have quite a few issues of his own. As for long hair, I guess I’ll be getting rid of all my pictures of Jesus. On your word, apparently I had no idea who he really was. It’s good that one of us has it all figured out. Sorry you lived with a psycho. How old were you. Was he really a Jekyll and Hyde? Always perfect when not indulging? Or just seemed so much better when he wasn’t. I’m uncomfortable analysing your childhood in this medium. But like politicians, it seems to me, we don’t know who people really are until after the die is cast or, the drink is consumed.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “I don’t know where you think moral character comes from if not from moral teachings.”
    The Pharisees knew the moral teachings of the Bible. Knowing moral teachings of the Bible, are no guarantee that won’t commit sin. Yes there is accountability to God. But God could test you like Job tomorrow and who knows if you could pass the test. You have missed out on the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Man cannot work his way to heaven. When Jesus Christ gave His life on the cross, he took our place and bore the wrath of God for our sins that we deserve on our BEST day of “moral character.” All we can do as sinners, is put our trust in Him to work out our salvation. God the Father sees us through His son’s blood. We are what He has done, nothing more.

    “One thing we do know for sure, no beverage in the time of Jesus other than water would be safe to drink”

    Who is “we?” Did you read the story of woman at the well? That well had been around since the time of Jacob. Well water is filtered. So what kind of water are you using to make wine? You seem to have this assumption that you are somehow more sophisticated, when wickedness surrounds you.

    You appear to be carrying on conversions with two different people.

  • JRobb

    stringman,
    good job, I have an 1813 KJV Bible. It is word for word of KJV Bibles of today. Our Founders established America upon the KJV which is the reason so many lampoon the authority of the KJV. Destry the Bible and the Constitution and you have destroyed America. Check out my site “creatorisliberty.com”

  • stringman

    Ok preacher but, there’s only so much time in the day to cover all the hornets I’ve stirred up here. So, we should make no attempt to rise above our human sinfulness, even with all the laws of Moses and Abraham and all that came before Christ. Just toss the rest of Bible in to the dust bin. By that argument, there is no point in discriminating between right and wrong on any level. The salvation of Jesus is all that matters. We shouldn’t bother using our heads for anything but a hat rack. Of all the utter nutterly. I will say to you what i say to my kids: God gave you a head. Now, use it.

  • stringman

    There are many that would dispute the motives of King James version. Oh and next you’ll be telling me that the Maji didn’t come bearing frankincense, myrrh, and gold.

  • AndRebecca

    Who told you not to use your head? The problem with marijuana is that you can’t use your head, as you put it. It is a mind altering drug, and doesn’t work the same on everyone. It does cause problems of some sort for all of the users and their families.

  • stringman

    You appear to be having a conversation with yourself. I said that water was safe to drink. What dId you think I said? Without refrigeration, any beverage besides water develops bacteria very quickly. So, they were either drinking nothing but water or something with alcohol to sterilize it. Pretty boring existence.

  • stringman

    Whatever you say, sister. Glad you straightened all that out. Sixty year olds like me need all the help we can get. I’ll try to keep away from the demon weed and keep my head with me at all times. Thanks. It might even be worse than the obesity and diabetes epidemic the country is having. Or worse than the welfare epidemic…..or the Obamacare disaster…..or the debt crisis….

  • stringman

    Unless they were printing their own bibles then, all they had was the KJV. That’s all that was available to them at the time. So…..what’s your point again?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Sugar inhibits bacterial growth. Hardly a boring existence, people in that day were far stronger than a girly man like you.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Stick with your thesis. You said that overindulgence of alcohol is simply a matter of moral character. I did not say that one cannot learn moral character from the Bible. I said that standing on your own knowledge will not protect you in an extreme trial like that of Job. There is a difference between trusting in one’s self and putting your full faith and trust in God. Bible knowledge alone is not going to save you. The battles in the Bible were fought and won with God at the helm. The Lord Jesus Christ himself said ” I can of mine own self do nothing..” – John 5:30 Jesus did everything in obedience to the father. He relied on the Father for everything. Jesus is our what? Our example.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The King James is from the textus receptus or the received text. All modern versions are from gnostic texts. The only reason it is disputed is because the marxist, socialists, humanists are trying to water down the Bible like they do everything else. They want a happy Bible, that says you can love your sin and still be right with God. They actually understand that this nation will fall to destruction if enough people are not right with God.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Let me know if you find that video on the communist party meeting.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    If America would simply stop giving up ground, she might have hope. Resist, stand against. But the continual giving in to compromise is a cancer that will end up destroying her.

  • Antileftist

    what an ignorant statement. Drugs and Alcohol are MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES. Guns are not mind altering, they are inanimate objects that we don’t put into our bodies.

  • Antileftist

    You just doubled down on stupid. Alcoholism is a disease, not a character flaw.

  • William N. Grigg

    “Rathbone said Attorney General Eric Holder’s suspension of enforcement
    of federal drug laws against marijuana in `Stoner States’ has resulted
    in `producing and shipping brain-destroying, violence-inducing strains
    of pot throughout the nation.'”

    In order for the federal government to implement alcohol prohibition, the Constitution had to be amended; once the authoritarian fever behind that destructive and misguided policy broke, that amendment was repealed.

    There has never been a similar amendment authorizing the federal government to prohibit the sale and use of marijuana, or any other mind-altering substance. The only “legal” authority behind that policy is — of all things — a 1961 United Nations convention on narcotics. In recent years, the UN functionary who heads that body’s committee on narcotics policy has condemned marijuana legalization with roughly the same vehemence we hear from Cliff “Reefer Madness” Kincaid — who in any other context will fulminate endlessly about the evils of the admittedly detestable world body.

    Using the same “links and ties:-style “logic” Cliff often employs — as when he pulled from his retreating aperture the remarkable claim that Ron Paul was somehow part of a Kremlin-orchestrated campaign to undermine the GOP in 2012 — it becomes clear that Cliff Kincaid is actually an asset of the UN, flogging marijuana prohibition as a way of stealthily promoting “world law” in US domestic affairs.

    That’s one possibility. The other is that he’s simply an authoritarian blatherskite.

  • MaileO

    Good for him, reporting on what he was witnessing unfiltered. What I would like to hear from the media is “18 year old unarmed black boy with marijuana in his system”, just helped himself to an unpaid item, mugged the store clerk was shot by a white cop while trying to wrestle the officers gun after punching, bullying and taunting him. Enough with the poor innocent kid mantra. He made a very poor choice that day, zero respect for the law.

  • Taurnil Oronar

    We have that now, where do you think all those from the 1960s went?

  • stringman

    You get more hilarious as we go! I am state certified to test for bacteria. And, even the pasteurized wine in my cabinet turns to vinegar if unrefrigerated. I’m pretty sure it’s got a significant content of sugar. Girly Guy

  • stringman

    Where are you getting your rules for life, if not from the Bible? It’s the inspired word of God. What other tangible guide do you have? I don’t think I’ve strayed from my thesis.

  • stringman

    A bullet through the brain can be quite mind altering, in fact. And not every wacko became one by the use of mind altering substances. There are plenty of Obama worshipers that aren’t stoned.

  • stringman

    Disease please! You people just cant face the truth that the inability to control your own behavior lies between your own ears. Weakness of character is the human condition. Next you’ll be telling me that your inability to keep your penis in your pants (and out of others orifi) is a clinical illness.

  • stringman

    And where did Jesus get his guidance for obedience? I’ll tell you where: From his training in Hebrew scripture. Jesus was a trained rabbi. teaching of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, et al by heart. That is how he was able to astound the elders of the temple when he was only twelve years old. I know you think you are straightening us (me) out here. But I’m not as dumb as I look.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Plenty of people know the Bible, have what you call “moral character” and still overindulge in alcohol.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Oh brother. Again, the Mosiac law says that Jesus would have been a sinner had he turned the water to fermented wine at the marriage of Cana.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Jesus was the Son of God. A deity does not need training. Scripture says that man cannot understand the Bible unless you are spiritually discerned.

    1 Corinthians 2:14

  • stringman

    You know these people? Just because they have read the words, means nothing. Often, over indulgence becomes a matter of opinion. Look at the variation in meal serving sizes. Obesity is epidemic in children. You’d think there would be an all out effort to cut caloric intake. But, once again, human weakness is brushed under the carpet. Gluttony(including alcohol), sloth, and all the other deadly sins….legendary human weakness and deficient moral integrity. Sin is the natural state of humanity.

  • stringman

    Oh brother, yourself! I refer you to this site:
    https://winemakermag.com/962-i-m-interested-in-cold-filtering-to-obtain-alcohol-free-wine
    Nonalcohol wine is an extremely difficult trick. If the wedding party was drinking that then, it was freshly squeezed grape juice, not ‘wine’. Grape juice does not keep.

  • stringman

    Whatever you say, buddy. That doesn’t offer must incentive for the rest if us to study scripture. No wonder there are so many heathens. God sure must love heathens, he made so many.

  • Antileftist

    yes because you know more than the medical profession what constitutes a disease or not. What an uneducated tool. And for the record, I think sleeping around is a sign of weak character.

  • Antileftist

    no one said every wacko became that way because of drugs and alcohol. You put words in other people’s mouths then refute them. What the hell does a bullet through the brain have to do drugs and alcohol fucking up your mind? Strawman argument. Reams of medical literature pointing to long term drug use causing personality disorders. Is a patient going through chemo of low moral character for using pot to alleviate nausea?

  • stringman

    Just an observation: I am betting you might be one of the many that believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old and, the old testament flood covered the entire planet up to the tops of mountains. I have a coworker that when asked how fish fossils( that are millions of years old) got to mountain tops, she says the flood put them there.

  • stringman

    Sex addiction….alcohol addiction….drug addiction….food addiction….educated idiot that can’t see the pattern. Typical. They are all behaviors, chosen on a moment by moment basis. I hope it makes you feel good about yourself explaining away your weaknesses with BS.

  • stringman

    Calm down bubby! I was only joking. You’re gonna bust a vessel. There a huge difference between morphine for pain and morphine for jollies. Same for pot. I think it should all be legal for responsible adults….and it all was before the 1900s. But I am wondering what wacked out some of you all on this thread. Geez!

  • stringman

    Perfectly fine….my ass!

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I am a fundamentalist, so you would be correct. The evolutionists believe that dust was formed out of a gas, yet we are the crazies. Scientists are currently struggling with how to spin the recent finding of WWII planes beneath “millions” of years of ice.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    You study the Bible because you want to, not because you have to. Man has a tendency to want to lift himself up. That is the essence of the Old Testament and the foundation of the gospel. God gave them the law, and they ended up relying on their own righteousness. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes man out of the equation. What makes a Christian reconciled to God? What Jesus did. What makes a Christian washed of his sin? What Jesus did. No matter how much Christian cults will try and maneuver the doctrine of salvation, it is ONLY by what Jesus did. God took man out of the equation, that His and only His name might be glorified. Stop trying to make it to heaven on your own merit. The Bible says that we are filthy rags in the eyes of God, no matter how hard we try to be “good people.” It’s when you acknowledge that He is LORD and that you are nothing but a filthy sinner, that you can do real business with God. The BIble says “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Why don’t you just believe that he died for your sins? He didn’t die for your “moral character,” he died for your sins.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    My thesis has never waivered from the word “wine” in Greek meaning non fermented. Your antithesis is that the wine cannot last long refrigerated by today’s standards. Yet your perspective is from a degradated age. We like to think we are sophisticated, but we are at the degradated side of the spectrum.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Your moral integrity apart from God’s grace is worth absolutely nothing. If America collapsed tomorrow, you have no clue what you might be capable of doing.

  • Erudite Mavin

    No surprise at the facts of the marijuana use including Brown.
    If anyone believes marijuana is no big deal, why don’t they become a passenger in a car with a driver on marijuana.
    I saw Rand Paul interviewed some days ago on the Ferguson rioters, arsonists,
    etc. and all Rand Paul could do is snark about the police and the bad program of the war on drugs. Hey Rand how about the problem of rioters destroying
    the businesses of in many cases African Americans.

  • AndRebecca

    They all go together. We’re changing the country, and not for the better. Change can sometimes mean decay.

  • AndRebecca

    I will. I haven’t had a chance to look for it yet.

  • stringman

    So, the laws of physics (created by God) have ‘degraded’ since early times? We live in a degradated age? Fascinating! Something I’ve not heard in my 60 years of experience. An observation: All the examples of human depravity contained in biblical teachings are repeated endlessly throughout the last two thousand years of history. There is nothing new about humans. Just the tools we use to carry out our sinfulness.

  • stringman

    No one does, my friend. No one.

  • stringman

    How profound. We are certainly in decline as long as the people are dense enough to vote for the likes of Obama……Twice!

  • stringman

    Is this the ‘millions of years of ice’ you’re referring to?http://www.damninteresting.com/exhuming-the-glacier-girl/
    268 ft of ice over 46 years = approx 5 ft of snow per year. In Greenland glacier fields those are some fairly mild winters. Perhaps math is not your strong suit.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Those were their words, not mine. It’s a glacier, not a snow pack.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    You have conceded my point.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    God never changes. His laws never change. Nevertheless, man is degrading. Obedience to a patriarchal structure is one area. The Bible says that the last days will be as in the days of Noah. The days of Noah were complete disobedience toward God. Those days have not been seen since the flood.

  • AndRebecca

    Yes, it isn’t called the dumbing down of society for nothing. You mentioned the obesity problem before. We used to have home economics-nutrition and cooking taught in school, and now it isn’t in most places, since it is considered bourgeoisie to teach it. No one until recently thought fast food restaurants were responsible for feeding America, moms were. The fattest woman I ever met bragged about not being able to cook, and didn’t cook for her family. She has a severe addiction problem…People can’t watch TV, read a magazine, or do anything else without being told how wonderful Obama is. That is why they voted for him twice, they think he is great because they are being told to think that way…The last magazine I looked at was pushing Hilary for Pres. On the NPR radio today, they had a show about Disney and mentioned two homosexuals who fell in love with each other while working at Disney. Something we wouldn’t have heard on the radio even a year ago. Leftism is being pushed hard, and hardly anyone seems to notice.

  • stringman

    Just for one example: You think the Romans weren’t as bad as these times? Excuse me?

  • stringman

    Sorry? Where is it you think glacial ice comes from? Maybe….snow?

  • stringman

    Perhaps I am mistaken….I got the impression that you fundamentalists knew exactly what you would do, given your trust in God. The rest of us, not so much.

  • stringman

    I could be wrong. People may have been smarter in times past ……but I doubt it. They did elect Carter president. And hundreds of thousands did kill each other in the civil war. And we did allow lead to be put in gasoline. ……..etc. No. I’m pretty sure humans have always been stupid and always will be stupid.

  • AndRebecca

    And, if they are stupid, they need the state to take care of them?

  • stringman

    Why are you asking me that?

  • AndRebecca

    Why wouldn’t I ask you that? You just said people are stupid and always will be. Do you think the state should take care of the “stupid people,” so they don’t have to do it?

  • stringman

    My answer is no. But, what would give you the impression I would say yes? Is it my picture? The picture is 25 years old. I have always been self sufficient even back when I was a broke musician. Never taken a dime of government assistance. Just cuious as to why you asked. I thought the picture was just kinda fun.

  • stringman

    Yes. People are sooooooo stupid that they believe what they are told on TV. Everybody knows politicians lie but, still believe what they say. Even people who claim to be eating healthy are going vegan and vegetarian. It’s nuts (pun intended). The woman next door can slam down scotch whiskey with the best of them. Then she tells me that it’s unhealthy to eat pork and red meat. Yeah we should all be gulping whiskey instead (sarcasm). Well…… I can’t really claim complete innocense. I had a lot of really dumb ideas when I was young, too. But it proves the point…..we humans are ALL pretty stupid. No exceptions.

  • stringman

    ‘Man has a tendency to want to lift himself up’. In what alternate universe? There are a few that seek to lift themselves. You must be rubbing elbows with a very select group. I don’t see much ‘lifting up’ going on in my everyday life.

    It has been a pleasure debating you. I truly do like a long time off to pursue such things….even it’s to nurse a back injury.

  • Antileftist

    calm down yourself moron.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Man thinks he is good. I have heard it a lot witnessing. You ask somebody, if they died tonight would they be in heaven. They say they would because they are a “good person.”

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The fundamentalist knows that God will provide a way out in temptation.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    And if it is ice it is compacted, no?

  • stringman

    Whoa! All worked up….maybe one too many? Better slow down. Well I guess it’s 5:00 somewhere.

  • stringman

    The distinction being…Just because they think they are a ‘good person’ does not mean they are attempting to ‘uplift’ themselves. Probably more the opposite. Since they’re so good there’s no need to improve.

  • stringman

    Interesting theory with nothing but anecdote evidence to support it. I’ll agree that believers are more likely to choose good over bad. But, even atheists mostly claim they are ‘good people’ (though why being good matters with no after life/hell, is beyond me).

  • stringman

    Yeah. What’s your point?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The Bible says that God will provide a way out. Fundamentalists believe in the Bible. Fundamentalists see the power of God all the time. If God says it, we believe it. There is no such thing as an atheist. An atheist always stands on dialectic thinking or “relativity” in his belief that there is no God. They can’t stand on absolutes, so they run contrary to their own statement. For instance, an atheist believes simultaneously that there is no such thing as an absolute truth and that there is no God. So they make no sense. A Christian believes in absolutes. Right, wrong, black, white, sheep, goats.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    They don’t recognize their sin. The Bible says that God sees us as filthy rags. So they are lifting themselves up. They don’t think they are that “bad of a person.” But in the light of God they are. When you preach the BIble to them they get rebellious, i.e., “don’t judge me.”

    http://youtu.be/knscROKs9MU

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Hybrid seeds, GMO foods, emasculated men, jezebel women, fiat currencies, tattoo culture, profane music, sodomite marriage, women dressing like whores…

    1904 http://youtu.be/W2sBJC24yzI

    1972 http://youtu.be/oab4ZCfTbOI

    http://youtu.be/wV1FrqwZyKw?t=2m57s

  • stringman

    Well dang! You fundamentalists have got it all figured out! I’ve got to get me some fundamentalism first thing tomorrow. Seriously, do you handle snakes too?

    Humans? Dealing in absolutes? You must be joking. There’s a few of us but far between.

  • stringman

    Oh yeah. The new mantra: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Can’t wait for that explanation. There must be a catch.

  • stringman

    The Israelites created the golden calf to worship whilst Moses was off talking with God and getting the Tablets. So what else is new? You really need to stop being distracted by current circumstances. Humans have always been depraved. Do you think the biblical admonishment against homosexuality just popped out of nowhere? Humans were doing that back then too. Maybe we are taking ourselves just a bit too seriously.

  • Common Science

    My poor nephew was devastated being told he just didn’t have the killer instinct to play defence on his school’s hockey team a couple of months ago. I’m tempted to encourage our young man to performance-enhance with a little of that ‘School-Shooter’ bud for hockey try-outs next year. I assume it’s a sativa, related to that conspicuous energetic “Face-Eater’ strain. Anyone have Cliff Kincaid’s number?

  • AndRebecca

    We are commenting on Ferguson and Brown and pot. So far you haven’s said much about it except people have been stupid and sinful forever. What is your point?

  • AndRebecca

    So, don’t worry, be happy. Let the evil dudes trying to takeover the world go for it. Better Red than dead.

  • Taurnil Oronar

    I thought the effects of pot was to make pot heads mellow… and hungry.

  • stringman

    What is YOUR point? Do you think the state should take care of dumb people? You’re the one that keeps asking the question.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    There has always been depravity, yet there was a time when men lived 800 years.

  • AndRebecca

    Most people in America did not use King James’ Bible. They used the Geneva Bible, or reformed Bible, the Calvinist Bible as in Puritans and in Calvinists, not the Bible version of the people they were fighting.

  • AndRebecca

    Good one! They also had other ways of purifying water like using silver cups. And, they were just plain careful of using good wells and knowing how to tell a good water source from a bad one. The French in Paris were the ones drinking polluted water, and came up with bottled water, or so I have read.

  • stringman

    I’ve seen no empirical evidence for 800 year life spans

  • stringman

    The apostles to a man all denied Jesus ‘before the cock crowed’. Saint Paul three times. That does not bode well for the rest of us when put to the test. Those were men who walked with Him and saw all, first hand.

  • AndRebecca

    I found the trailers for the video you mentioned. I also found one or two other interesting websites during the search, but not anything I was looking for. FYI, I bought the book “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,” handbook II, (used, online, cheap), and haven’t been able to read much of it, but the bibliography in the back is a list of Leftists like Adorno and Maslow and Fromm. No wonder our schools are messed up. They’ve got at least one or two anti-dad books written by the educational culprits listed. Here’s a good one, “Personality and Social Change,” by Theo. M. Newcomb, 1943.

  • AndRebecca

    I would say Ron Paul and the Kremlin types are the authoritarians. Anarchy is a part of Marxism. They are the ones wanting to get rid of our laws and replace them with lawlessness or some third world version of the law, which we then will have to deal with. Ron Paul would be perfectly happy with a one party, two class system, the rulers and the ruled. And “they” have placed themselves in authority. You are not in authority, but a pot smoker. That is why you support them.

  • AndRebecca

    No I don’t think the state should take care of dumb people, especially ones who ruin their brains and then can’t function. Like the people under 65 who support legalizing pot because they are supposedly wracked with pain and can’t work and are on Medicare, welfare or whatever. Now, if someone is retarded because they were born that way, that is a different story. They need caretakers.

  • rsteeb

    Cop emptied his clip at an unarmed young man. No excuse POSSIBLE.

  • stringman

    You may THINK you can fill the sandels of Jesus. I have my doubts.

  • stringman

    Glad we finally got though that. Government cannot be trusted with our tax money….period.

  • William N. Grigg

    I would say Ron Paul and the Kremlin types are the authoritarians.

    This comment was taken directly from the “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” school of petulant tu quoque responses, garnished with a fallacy of composition: The “Kremlin types,” or Siloviki, are certainly authoritarian, but Dr. Paul has never displayed authoritarian impulses of any kind.

    Anarchy is a part of Marxism.

    That would have come as news to Karl Marx, who posited the eventual withering away of the state after the lengthy rule of an unaccountable vanguard — a prescription that is diametrically opposed to anarchism, which simply is a rejection of rulers (not of rules).

    Did you ask permission before posting your comment? Did you wait for instructions before choosing what you ate for breakfast this morning, or what clothes you wore? To the extent you make decisions without seeking permission of others, you’re behaving as an anarchist, which on your premises makes you a Marxist, apparently.

    If Ron Paul supports a “one-party” system, why did he prominently call for inclusion of multiple parties in the 2012 presidential debates? If he’s an anarchist (he isn’t, yet), why would he support a ruling class of any kind?

    Prohibition, you almost certainly don’t know, began with the late 19th Century Progressives — the kind people who adapted the Communist Manifesto for American consumption. They gave us such blessings as the Wilson regime, World War I, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve. Prohibition — of alcohol, which morphed seamlessly into the anti-marijuana hysteria of the 1930s, then the Drug War — was part of the same package.

    Prior to 1900, there were no national drug laws in this country, and precious few state ones, either. Cocaine was available at the corner apothecary and advertised as a topical analgesic for children’s toothaches. Opiates and cannabis were used in over-the-counter cough and cold remedies.

    Were our stern, pious 19th Century forebears COMMUNISTS because most of them avoided drug addiction without the stern but necessary tutelage of the divine State? Once again, on your premises, they must have been.

    You are likewise unaware, I’ll warrant, that the sternest and most rigorously enforced drug laws in the world (outside the US) are those in force in Communist Cuba, Communist China, and Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia.

    That’s some fine and pleasant company you prohibitionists keep. As Sean Hannity might ask: Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate America?

    As to my personal assortment of vices, a subject about which you know even less than the ones examined above — I’m a non-smoking teetotaler. My chief addiction is to sugar, which is a far more harmful substance than cannabis, which — according to encouraging recent research — shows promise in treating diabetes, ironically enough.

  • AndRebecca

    On this we agree.

  • AndRebecca

    According to the law, there was a reason. Why do you think the Grand Jury came up with a dismissal? Are you for the law, or for your “feelings,” which are based on what race baiters have told you through the “news” media? We went through that staged Florida thing with the “white Hispanic” how many phony grievances will it take for you to see you are being had?

  • AndRebecca

    You are not thinking straight, but you would be the last to know. I have read Marx, Lenin, and Engels and many other Marxists. All of what I just said is true. You are the one who hasn’t read any of them.

  • William N. Grigg

    I have read Marx, Lenin, and Engels and many other Marxists.

    Just any (other?) dutiful, devoted, drug-prohibiting Communist would, one assumes. 🙂

    You are the one who hasn’t read any of them.

    Having abandoned remote diagnosis of my supposed drug use, you’ve now appointed yourself an expert on my reading habits, apparently.

    Just as the practice of medicine starts with the study of disease, I have done extensive surveys of the literature of totalitarianism of all varieties. Each variant of that doctrine begins with the idea that the individual is the property of the collective — an assumption shared by those who pretend that government has the authority to regulate what people choose to consume.

    Answer this question: If government can forbid someone to smoke marijuana, why can’t it prohibit the consumption of nicotine, caffeine, or sugar? If the government has a proprietary claim on your bloodstream, why can’t it seize control of all health care decisions in the name of the collective good?

    In a single phrase: If drug prohibition is right, why is Obamacare wrong, in principle?

    Individualists can offer a coherent, intellectually consistent answer to that question. You cannot, but you’re invited to try.

  • AndRebecca

    It isn’t totalitarian to make just laws. We have a particular kind of democracy in America, which is nothing like the “democracy” held out like a carrot to the donkeys by the Marxists. Our laws are based on a certain amount of the population being able to rule themselves and take care of themselves. Dope smokers can’t figure that out and that is why dope shouldn’t be made legal, as far as I am concerned. For all your talk of studying totalitarianism, you must have missed the part written by Lenin on how to take over America. You can get on the CPUSA websites, or even the International Workers of the World sites and see what they are up to. At least what they want the public to know.

  • rsteeb

    I think the prosecutor egregiously [and deliberately] failed in his presentation to the grand jury. The law either precludes such murderous use of overkill by police or it is seriously lacking.

  • William N. Grigg

    It isn’t totalitarian to make just laws.

    You’re avoiding the question above, which is predictable. Obamacare advocates insist on describing that monstrosity as “just”; on what basis are they mistaken?

    In our system, a “just” law must first be constitutional. What provision of the Constitution empowers the government to prohibit consumption or sale of marijuana, or other currently controlled substances? Bear in mind that unless a power is explicitly granted, it doesn’t exist.

    We have a particular kind of democracy in America…

    Ah, Comrade, your Red roots are showing! The United States was never intended to be a democracy of any kind, and the Framers were emphatic and explicit in their repudiation of that system.

    On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto refers to the revolutionary struggle as an effort to “win the battle of democracy” (see chapter two of that document).

    So you instinctively side with the Manifesto in opposition to the Constitution. Hmm.

    Our laws are based on a certain amount of the population being able to
    rule themselves and take care of themselves. Dope smokers can’t figure
    that out and that is why dope shouldn’t be made legal, as far as I am
    concerned.

    I would agree that chosen impairment of one’s reasoning faculties is wrong and sinful, which I why I choose not to consume such substances and teach my children to avoid them, as well.

    The argument you’re making on behalf of criminalizing a vice is indistinguishable from the one employed on behalf of alcohol prohibition. Should we re-impose the Volstead Act?

  • stringman

    And freedom is preferable to government enforced morality. Hundreds of billions spent on prohibition of drug use have made no improvement.

  • AndRebecca

    You really need to re-read your Marxists. You have no idea of what they said. All of the Marxists were diametrically opposed to Christianity, and America. They said so repeatedly. Karl Marx and Engels were dirty old men and probably did drugs. They went to prostitutes together. Legalizing marijuana is more like legalizing prostitution and homosexuality, than Obamacare, both of which the socialist Marxists want and are getting in Europe, along with other perversions. Obamacare is flat out communism. As I said, you aren’t thinking straight. Being against dope does not mean I am for Obamacare, and you really should be able think better than that.

  • AndRebecca

    The policeman in Ferguson was “jumped” by the suspect. All of the witnesses agreed that is what happened except the robber who was with Brown. All of the evidence said the same thing. Even the bullet pattern was consistent with the cop’s story..

  • AndRebecca

    “Freedom is the ability for any woman to walk down any street in this country and not be afraid of what might happen to her.” I am paraphrasing George Washington. The legalization of dope does not add to a woman’s physical freedom. And, as you should realize, the first sentence is becoming more archaic by the day due to the “changes” the Leftists are making, including dope smoking.

  • William N. Grigg

    As I mentioned above, I am opposed to both Obamacare and drug use. I have no brief for perversions of any kind — which includes perverting the text and structure of the Constitution in order to enforce prohibition.

    The question is still pending: What specific provision of the Constitution authorizes the government to criminalize drug use? Is it perchance lurking within what some idiot Democrat (forgive the redundancy) called the “good and plenty clause” of that document? Or is this a Nancy Pelosi-style arrangement in which we have to support prohibition before being told where it’s authorized in the Constitution?

    Have you actually read the Constitution? Your arguments display no familiarity with it — beginning with your casual description of the system it created as a “democracy.”

  • MaileO

    Really, you were not there in that moment. what would you have done in Wilson’s shoes? This is how it goes down.

    How a NY cop lost his life.
    http://clashdaily.com/2014/12/ny-cop-lost-life-shows-darren-wilson-shot-michael-brown/

  • stringman

    When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws have drugs. Shall we reinstitute prohibition? Create another underground crime organization. That’s exactly what we have been doing with the drug problem. More people go crazy, have their lives destroyed or snuffed out by alcohol than all other substances combined. When I was in college 40 years ago, none of the girls I did drugs with ever acted like they were afraid.

  • Crut

    Couple things.

    Substituting the word “drug” when you are only talking about marijuana apparently enables you to say things like “Drug use helps explain the violent conduct of Brown, as well as some of the protesters.” I can’t think of a single more “peace-inducing” drug than cannabis, can you?

    Show me one aggressive, pissed-off at the world, yet unarmed (high??) Michael Brown, and I can show you hundreds of armed drunk imbeciles of any color you want.

    The disproportionate outrage by biased and selectively informed fear-mongers like ol’ Cliff, and DeForest Rathbone here are nothing but hot air. If they were confronted with a thousand peaceful cannabis consumers, they would look only for the one or two that fit their preconceived notions of degenerate pot-heads. Missing the forest for the trees comes to mind.

  • Crut

    Couple things.

    Substituting the word “drug” when you are only talking about marijuana apparently enables you to say things like “Drug use helps explain the violent conduct of Brown, as well as some of the protesters.” I can’t think of a single more “peace-inducing” drug than cannabis, can you?

    Show me one aggressive, pissed-off at the world, yet unarmed (high??) Michael Brown, and I can show you hundreds of armed drunk imbeciles of any color you want.

    The disproportionate outrage by biased and selectively informed fear-mongers like ol’ Cliff, and DeForest Rathbone here are nothing but hot air. If they were confronted with a thousand peaceful cannabis consumers, they would look only for the one or two that fit their preconceived notions of degenerate pot-heads. Missing the forest for the trees comes to mind.

  • William N. Grigg

    After a diligent search, I’ve found the decades-old documentary that left an indelible impression on the soft, waxy mind of the young Cliff Kincaid, who was, and remains, too dim to recognize a satire.

    In all seriousness, this ancient parody tracks so closely to Kincaid’s obsessive-compulsiveness about “The Pot” that one would believe the foregoing. I do leave open the possibility that Cliff is engaged in a prolonged, Andy Kaufman-style work of performance art.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orJbLB843EU&feature=youtu.be

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    No wonder is exactly right. Hard leftists are still controlling it at the top today. Did I give this one: there are some yellow highlights in it?

    http://authorityresearch.com/ARTICLES_Other/Human_Relations_Curriculum_Change.pdf

  • AndRebecca

    I didn’t get this one. Thanks for it. We now have David Coleman, the Gruber of Common Core at the top. More lefty than all who have gone before. Have you heard how they are incorporating the Communist “White Privilege,” into the teaching? It goes beyond the multi-cultural stuff. It seems children of color will learn better if they can hate white people and learn to do it in school. They have brainwashing in every subject. Totally anti-American, anti-Christian. If you search Dr. David Pook and Common core, you will come up with stuff on white privilege.

  • AndRebecca

    Since the Obama White House is for the legalization of weed, it took everyone in the government this long to read the constitution like you read it. You are for re-interpreting the constitution, just like the Leftist Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

  • William N. Grigg

    You’re not answering the question: Where does the Constitution authorize federal laws against drug use?

    Obama and Holder — who share your view of the Constitution as a “living document” with non-enumerated powers — continue to imprison people for marijuana possession, sale, and consumption. Pelosi has never called for decriminalization of marijuana.

    I’m also eagerly anticipating an explanation from you as to how the Constitution mandates “democracy” as our form of government (here’s a hint regarding your problem: Read Art. IV sec. 4).

  • AndRebecca

    You are a self-centered twit. You can’t see the overall picture because your brilliance is blinding you. That shows one of the problems with dope. It seems your world is all about whether you will be an alcoholic or an addict. Big thoughts going through your mind…

  • AndRebecca

    Obama and Holder do not share my view of the constitution, they are the ones trying to legalize drugs. I did not say the constitution mandates a democracy. I said we have a democracy different than what the left calls a democracy. You need to put on your thinking cap. We have a body of laws in this country which should line up with the constitution. We have a republic with very democratic elements in it. You don’t understand any of this, and even think I agree with Obama and Pelosi…you aren’t real swift.

  • William N. Grigg

    Engaging in petulant persiflage and misdirection isn’t helping your case. Answer the question: What specific provision of the U.S. Constitution, the “supreme law of the land,” authorizes the federal government to criminalize drug use?

    You obviously disagree with Obama and Pelosi in terms of policy. You just as obviously share their view of the Constitution as a document that gives government wide latitude in regulating the behavior and habits of the population. Either supply the answer to the question in the first paragraph, or have the rudimentary honesty to admit that you, like Obama and Pelosi, take a liberal view of the Constitution. Those are your only choices.

  • AndRebecca

    Do you really believe the people who founded our country wanted marijuana to be legalized? The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of 1776? You have to be kidding and very blind. I’ve explained it to you as best I can. The constitution is clear…and The Bill of Rights states the Creator gave us our rights, and after reading the Bible, I am pretty sure He doesn’t want us smoking dope.

  • stringman

    And what about tobacco? There very few substances to compare to it’s death statistics. Shall we make it illegal too? …..from the self-centered twit.

  • William N. Grigg

    You’re still avoiding the question, which means — by default — you’re admitting that you are of the Obama/Pelosi school of liberal constitutional interpretation.

    Do you really believe the people who founded our country wanted
    marijuana to be legalized? The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of 1776?

    Are you referring to pillars of rectitude like George Washington, who grew hemp?
    The more interesting question, the one you continue to avoid, is this: Why didn’t the “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of 1776” criminalize marijuana? Why did our Church-going ancestors of the 19th century not only allow, but encourage, the use of cannabis and cocaine for medicinal purposes?
    The constitution is clear…and The Bill of Rights states the Creator gave us our rights

    I agree wholeheartedly that our rights come from our Creator — but this isn’t stated in either the Constitution (which assigns certain powers to government) or the Bill of Rights (which offers a non-exhaustive list of specified rights government cannot violate). Have you actually read those documents?
    after reading the Bible, I am pretty sure He doesn’t want us smoking dope.
    Jesus never condemned people for what they consumed, but for what came out of their hearts (Matthew 15:11). Paul taught the early believers not to judge people by what they consumed (Col. 2:16). In Romans 14 he went into detail about the iniquity of judging fellow believers over what they consumed (see especially verse 10). While we must condemn sin, it has NEVER been the province of believers to dictate to non-believers how they would live.

    Prohibitionism, as I’ve mentioned above, is a socialist heresy, a product of the same Progressive movement that gave us Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve, the League of Nations and the UN — and yes, Barack Obama.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I have heard bits and pieces, like the Pilgrims being called the first “terrorists.” (What do you think they are trying to say?)

    A woman in Texas approached a school because her daughter was told by her teacher that only teachers are allowed to teach them, i.e., never allow your parent to teach you. The woman rebuked the teacher for calling the children “our” children.

    The video below is fairly long, but references some marxist ideology. He’s in Madison. I have been to Madison, it is like a Midwest Berkeley.

    http://youtu.be/Si-kx5-MKSE

    http://www.authorityresearch.com/Current%20Issues/Current%20Issues%202014/2014-01-22%20Common%20Core.htm

  • AndRebecca

    I’ve seen this video. It’s good. There are many more anti-common core videos. Many parents are just waking up to the brainwashing going on in the schools. I’m not sure why now, but it is about time. I guess it is because of the way communists infiltrate organizations. There is a takeover process, and then it is somewhat done. But, even then it isn’t finished so they go back in and do some more. Kind of like the Unitarians taking over churches, starting in northeastern America in colonial days. They’ve been at it ever since, and now they are taking them over through social justice and emerging church movements. I can say this, Common Core is about politics and not about “the kids.”

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    It’s all about continual conflict creating a new synthesis. It’s all about the conflict. Dialectical materialism claims the conflict will end one day at the lowest, er, highest truth. They won’t stop until they have the children.

    “If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality…. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” Dr Mary Jo Bane

    Sam Webb, CPUSA has America on track for a socialist system by the 2023, I believe.

    They aren’t challenged by the masses, that’s why they are winning.

  • AndRebecca

    Yes. That’s what legalizing pot, Ferguson, and all of the rest of it is about. Outside of fighting this as best we can, with the help of God, I don’t know what else to do. The evil of Marxism isn’t pretty, it’s downright ugly. It seems attractive to the uneducated juvenile mind. The kind of mind coming out of our present day school system. The self-centered, hyper-individualists with no grasp of what society is all about. They’ve done studies of children in orphanages without a mother’s attention, and they don’t thrive. The whole thing is anti-God, anti-good.

  • AndRebecca

    There are only two reasons why you would want to legalize pot as much as you do. I. You smoke it. 2. You plan to make money off of selling it. There are all sorts of laws against doing all sorts of things not directly addressed in the Constitution. I can’t figure out why you don’t know that… The Left came up with a plan which is in play called “Defining Deviancy Down.” It calls for legalizing many deviant behaviors including prostitution, juvenile delinquency, pot smoking, and homosexuality. DDD is taught in sociology classes in the universities. An example of a textbook which has been in use since the early 1970s is “The Emergence of Deviant Minorities,” and the gist of the book is that as the population of America changes, we have to lower the moral standards to accommodate people of color. Now, this is one of the Marxist excuses to “change” the country. Obama wants homosexual marriage and the legalization of pot and all of the rest of it. Legalizing pot has all sorts of lefty ramifications. It takes potential capitalists out of the picture. It is a non-capitalist way of making money. It is bad for traditional families. And it makes the individual incompetent and easy to lead. And you think the left is against the legalization of dope. What a joke. And, now you know more than any Christian about the Bible.

  • AndRebecca

    There is a park bench with your name on it out there somewhere.

  • William N. Grigg

    There are only two reasons why you would want to legalize pot as much as you do.

    I’m for restoring the constitutional system as it existed prior to 1913, which would of necessity mean an end to prohibition of all varieties. De-criminalizing marijuana would be an effect of that development; it is not the cause in and of itself.

    I. You smoke it. 2. You plan to make money off of selling it.

    There are only two reasons you persist in refusing to answer my question: 1) You don’t understand the Constitution; 2) You prefer the Communist tactic (made famous in the Moscow Show Trials of the 1930s) of imputing motives, rather than addressing facts.

    As noted above, I don’t smoke anything — never have, never will. Once the idiotic laws against cannabis are repealed — and they will be — growing and selling it should be recognized as no more innately immoral than doing the same with the immeasurably more harmful — and government-subsidized — drug called tobacco.

    There are all sorts of laws against doing all sorts of things not
    directly addressed in the Constitution. I can’t figure out why you
    don’t know that…

    Once again, you’re embracing the Obama/Pelosi model of a “living” Constitution. James Madison — of whom you may, or probably have not, heard — emphasized that the powers delegated by the Constitution a “few and defined”; it is not a document that grants vast and innumerable powers to the government.

    The Left came up with a plan which is in play called “Defining Deviancy Down.”

    That’s a line that could be taken from a book entitled “Everything I Think I Know I learned from Rush Limbaugh” — who used EXACTLY the same lines on his program yesterday that you’re regurgitating today.

    Legalizing pot has all sorts of lefty ramifications

    It would reduce and decentralize power, which is the opposite of what leftists want. Strike one.

    It takes potential
    capitalists out of the picture. It is a non-capitalist way of making
    money.

    Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned, and profits are retained by entrepreneurs and distributed among shareholders according to an agreed contract. There is no reason whatsoever why cultivation and sale of cannabis would be “non-capitalist”; in fact, there is a large and growing private pot marketplace in Washington and Colorado. Strike two.

    It is bad for traditional families.

    “Traditional families” in states that recognize the individual right to consume medicinal cannabis are successfully treating cancer and epilepsy in much more economical fashion that government-controlled medical methods. That preserves families that would otherwise be ripped asunder by disease and impoverished by the socialized health care system.

    Furthermore, alcohol has done IMMEASURABLY greater harm to families than marijuana. The problem is addiction of any kind, not access to a substance government has no legitimate authority to prohibit.

    Strike three.

    And it [pot] makes the individual incompetent and easy to lead.

    As your credulous recitation of potted talking points demonstrates, talk radio actually has that unfortunate effect.

    And, now you know more than any Christian about the Bible.

    In this exchange, one of us has talked about the Bible, the other has cited specific passages from it. I make no claims to superior Bible scholarship, but it seems clear that only one of us has read it seriously — just as only one of us seems to understand anything about the Constitution.

  • AndRebecca

    You are a liar. You said you read the Marxists and you have not. The Marxists are specific about what is capitalism and what they are against. Selling dope is not capitalism. Selling your body is not capitalism. Capitalism, according to the Marxists was started by the Protestants. Particularly John Calvin. Quit lying about all of your knowledge because I can’t carry on a conversation with a liar. George Soros has written two anti-Capitalist books and has been down in Uruguay supporting the Communists down there legalizing pot. You don’t know anything about the world today or back then. But you won’t stop showing your ignorance. You can find the textbook I mentioned for sale online. It is real, and it has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. Plus, there are other textbooks with the same theme! What an dope you are! Next you’ll be saying Rush is a communist.

  • William N. Grigg

    You are a liar. You said you read the Marxists and you have not.
    As our conversation demonstrates, I have read immeasurably more by and about Marxists — and every other subject we’ve discussed — than you have.

    The Marxists are specific about what is capitalism and what they are against.

    Unlike you, I don’t regard Marxist ideology as authoritative, so I don’t believe that they have the right to define what constitutes a market economy.

    Quit lying about all of your knowledge because I can’t carry on a conversation with a liar.

    I’m relieved to learn that, unlike many people, you’re not in the habit of talking to yourself. 🙂

    You don’t know anything about the world today or back then.

    Thus far you have done nothing but emit a slurry of partially digested talk radio soundbites and unsubstantiated accusations about the character of somebody you don’t know. I’ve provided citations and context, and have cheerfully assumed the burden of doing the thinking for both of us. I’m happy to be your tutor, but eventually I’ll have to start charging tuition. 🙂

  • AndRebecca

    Your comments defy logic. If you are going to comment on something, you should read up on it. The Marxists are in all of the universities and spend their time writing Marxist books. What do you think feminism is all about? Why do you think homosexuals support the BDS? Your brainwashing has gone well. You even think Rush is a communist propagandist. LOL!!!

  • William N. Grigg

    You even think Rush is a communist propagandist. LOL!!!

    If you’re going to lie about someone in a real time conversation, you need to strive just a bit harder to make your lies plausible.

    In the comment thread immediately above, we find the following statement from me about Limbaugh:

    That’s a line that could be taken from a book entitled “Everything I
    Think I Know I learned from Rush Limbaugh” — who used EXACTLY the same
    lines on his program yesterday that you’re regurgitating today.

    Nobody burdened with a modicum of intellect and honesty could depict that as a Cliff Kincaid-esque imputation of “Communist” affinities.

    I find myself wondering, not for the first time, who in your household is currently using the family brain cell…..

  • AndRebecca

    Your comments defy logic. The Marxists are in all of the universities writing books on every subject, and they teach Marxism in every grade. Maybe not by every teacher, but in every grade. What do you think feminism is all about? Why do you think homosexual groups back the BDS? Have you ever gone to a library and checked out a book on politics or any related subject? Is it possible for you do an internet search and see what leftist groups like the ACLU and CPUSA are up to, today? You can look up anything I have said on the net. I have mentioned looking up Leftist books and sites, because you don’t believe conservatives!!! Good grief, you are out of touch and are doing everything you can to stay that way. Rush is a communist now, LOL!!!

  • AndRebecca

    If Rush believes and has said the world is round and I say it too, this means I got it from Rush, and nowhere else?

  • William N. Grigg

    An ideologue’s job is to convince the credulous that the world is some shape other than round. One equivalent in our current context would be persuading people that the Constitution authorizes government to punish people for consuming certain substances.

    Incidentally, Limbaugh, “The Epitome of Morality and Virtue,” nearly destroyed his health by illegally acquiring Oxycontin, and when he was caught he was given celebrity-grade leniency from a system that generally sends people to prison for a LONG time for such offenses.

    Do you think Limbaugh should have spent time in prison? Your argument dictates that you should. I, on the other hand, do not.

  • AndRebecca

    You are way too concerned about drugs not to be an addict. Now, you seem to think there are no communists or Marxists in the world. Do you know that Mexico is a Socialist nation? Do you know that the mayor of New York is a communist? Do you know that there are many socialists in Washington in office? Don’t you believe me when I say Soros wrote two anti-Capitalist books? Don’t you know the Communist Party USA is a fact? Do you know that the IWW was sent here by Lenin to sabotage our war efforts before the First World War? Lots of people don’t know that, but I read one of his books where he stated it. Why are you in such denial? Does it make drugs less palatable to you if they are brought to you by Marxists?

  • William N. Grigg

    You are way too concerned about drugs not to be an addict.

    I’m preoccupied with human freedom, and concerned about government power, which is the deadliest narcotic in human history.

    Now, you seem to think there are no communists or Marxists in the world. Do you know that Mexico is a Socialist nation?

    I lived in Mexico during the reign of JoLoPo (Google it), when the banks were nationalized and the Communists were insurgent. Since Salinas, Mexico has been more corporatist than socialist, which is bad enough.

    Skipping over borderline-aphasic comments and non-sequitirs, we arrive here:

    Does it make drugs less palatable to you if they are brought to you by Marxists?

    I don’t find drugs of any kind (including alcohol and tobacco) to be palatable at all, irrespective of their source.

    You really should direct drug-related questions to Rush Limbaugh. Oh, yes — do you think it was right that he avoided prison, or should he have done time?

  • AndRebecca

    For some reason, my comments aren’t coming up. I’ll try again tomorrow.

  • Cristina4Jesus

    Pot was also involved in the Trayvon Martin case. The fact is, pot causes bizarre behavior, bad decision making and a huge IQ drop in the brains of teens. This angle is ignored as the liberals and libertarians consider pot a god of sorts. No one dare suggest pot makes one crazy and violent. We are all supposed to repeat the lie that it is some harmless herb that makes people peaceful, but the science shows different.

  • stringman

    Maybe…..But there is definitely a rubber room with yours on it.

  • AndRebecca

    LOL!

  • stringman

    LOL yourself, girlfriend.

  • raffishtenant

    Fantastic. I would be hard-pressed to make the authoritarian case for the war on marijuana more satirically effectively than you did in the space of six lines, Ms. 4Jesus. You left enough strawmen dangling out there in the wind that I’m 90% sure you’re not serious, and that you, like me, have a few bones to pick with Prohibition II.

    If I’m giving you too much credit, and you’re not kidding and actually do want to talk about the 10,000+ peer-reviewed studies of marijuana over on PubMed, or whether a given substance should need to be a “god” and/or “harmless” for adults to possess, or Genesis 1:29, or whatever, I’m game. If not, I’ll simply depart with the words of one of the greats:

    “Women played a large part in the enactment [of prohibition]… They are now realizing with heart burning and heart aching that if the spirit is not within, legislation can be of no avail. They thought they could make prohibition as strong as the Constitution, but instead have made the Constitution as weak as prohibition.”
    — Pauline Sabin, 1930

    Smart woman, no?

  • raffishtenant

    It could be as you say, Rebecca. It also could not be, especially with respect to Brown’s final moments of life. Without the opportunity for cross-examination, we most likely will never know.

    I see an officer whose story contains details that are very, very difficult to believe. Based on your interpretation of the proceedings, you seem certain that he’s telling the full and honest truth. I envy your certainty, but I cannot join you there.

    Far more often than not, in the United States, we have jury trials to establish guilt or innocence as best we can. This isn’t some sort of liberal radicalism: it’s part of the basic bedrock of our justice system. The willingness of so many self-proclaimed “conservatives” to cheer as that process gets selectively shredded when the suspect is a LEO is…okay, yes, it’s kind of depressing. You got me. Sorry if that falls under the category of “feelings.”

  • AndRebecca

    I’m not sure what you are talking about. The police officer did go through the justice system. Radicals had riots (or demonstrations) planned around the country before this verdict was even known. Holder and Obama have been after getting some white guy for racism since they have been in office. It is a huge part of Leftism to blame whitey for everything. V.I. Lenin had communists over here a long time ago and he used American statistics to plan how to overtake America. One of the things he noted from his research was that in the southern U.S., we’re talking about 1900, there was a 40% illiteracy rate among blacks and a 30% illiteracy rate among whites… in the poorest parts of this country. At the same time there was a 70% rate of illiteracy rate among the peasants in Russia, and they were all over that country. So Lenin could not get white Americans to revolt, like international communists. They were too literate for one thing and too Protestant. He said so. Through his communists here, he was able to get people from Russia and Ireland (to start), to come to the U.S. and shake things up…It is about radical leftism and always has been. Here’s a book from 1968 by Michael Harrington “Toward a Democratic Left,” “A Radical Program for a New Majority.” This Communist pretty well covers all of the left wing projects, like agitating in black neighborhoods. Harrington worked in the Catholic Worker House and was editor of the Catholic Worker…no doubt a forerunner of the social justice movement in the Roman Catholic Church.

  • raffishtenant

    Well, cross purposes, then: I’m not sure what you are talking about either. I’m as anti-commie as the next patriotic McCarthyite—really! I’m even from Wisconsin!—but let’s imagine for the moment that this wasn’t even about race, but about the power of a prosecutor to put his thumb on the scale. Out of 162,000 federal prosecutions in 2010, a grand jury declined to return an indictment in exactly 11. (Source: fivethirtyeight) Wilson was allowed to tell his tale of the “demon” at length, but nobody was allowed to cross-examine or question him about claims that a reasonable person might reasonably doubt. And now here we are, and nobody’s happy—not even you, since even as your “side” “won,” there are always going to be sticklers for detail whose respect for law enforcement simply cannot override our skepticism that a true and fair hearing ever actually happened.

  • AndRebecca

    I don’t have skepticism about this case. I told you what I am skeptical about and why.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Young people are psychologically conditioned to rebel against a patriarchal structure, with God’s authority at the top, followed by the father, mother, pastor, employer, etc. And then critical thinking destroys anything that is good.

    Bloom’s Taxonomies declares somewhere that it is a psychological taxonomy. Brainwashing
    http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/Congress.htm

    Once a patriarchal structure is attacked, then so is the notion of a pay scale based on experience, character, etc. They live in angst because they can’t have the pay that took others years to work for. My own experience is that God blessed me with a better salary as I tithed and repented of the sin in my life. Phyllis Schlafly likes to say that the feminist movement told women a lot of lies and that American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. In other words, marxists get people so distracted in lies, and living in sin and misery, they can’t ever be thankful for the blessings that they do have.

    They are only individualists in the sense of being freed from God and higher authority, i.e. self actualization. “We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood.” “Walden Two: ‘Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn’t’… ‘we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. “We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That’s the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement?there’s no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior?the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises.” Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person

    How do you control them? Group think! Collectivism.

    http://youtu.be/qA-gbpt7Ts8

    I know marxism isn’t pretty. It is wicked. You are right, God has to be at the helm before you go to battle. All you can do is fight.

    James 4:7 (KJV) Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (Marxist free and back when they weren’t afraid to use scripture in a dictionary) defines resist:

    RESIST, verb transitive rezist’. [Latin resisto; re and sisto, to stand.]

    1. Literally, to stand against; to withstand; hence, to act in opposition, or to oppose. a dam or mound resists a current of water passively, by standing unmoved and interrupting its progress. An army resists the progress of an enemy actively, by encountering and defeating it. We resist measures by argument or remonstrance.

    Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:19.

    2. To strive against; to endeavor to counteract, defeat or frustrate.

    Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51.

    3. To baffle; to disappoint.

    God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. James 4:7.

    RESIST’, verb intransitive to make opposition.

  • AndRebecca

    Benito Juarez was a great guy, and the last Mexican interested in freedom that I know of. The Roman Catholics had a problem with him, as he wanted to take away their extensive landholdings in Mexico and also take away their peons. I guess that is why Catholics support communism south of the border, even today. They aren’t concerned if their flock is atheistic, they just don’t want them becoming “White-Hispanics.”

  • William N. Grigg

    Since 1910, at the very latest, there hasn’t been a Mexican leader who seemed seriously concerned about human freedom. Juarez was in many ways admirable, but I don’t really care for government seizure of church assets (even though I’m an Evangelical, rather than a Catholic)

  • AndRebecca

    A as serious protestant, how do you rationalize the legalization of pot? You must know about the drug wars and their religious and political components south of the border.

  • William N. Grigg

    I explained the biblical reasoning above: There is nothing in the New Testament that treats consumption of marijuana (or of alcohol) as a sin warranting mortal judgment and discipline.

    Decriminalization of marijuana — which would restore the status quo ante 1913 — would actually devastate the politically protected criminal gangs in Mexico. They are THRIVING because of the “war on drugs,” which is a price support program for the cartels.

    About 14 years ago I interviewed Mike Levine, who was a DEA undercover operative for decades. He described in detail how the Reagan and Bush administration protected key Mexican political leaders involved in narcotics in order to facilitate enactment of NAFTA.

    Right now, US soldiers are guarding opium fields in Afghanistan, while others are training police to conduct military-style drug raids here at home.

    The whole thing is a colossal, impious fraud.

  • AndRebecca

    I think Mike Levine is now working in security in Colorado in the dope industry. Communist governments make a lot of money off of narcotics and other illegal activities. We have only recently legalized gambling in the U.S. and I don’t think it harmed any illegal gambling operations. The protestant way is to find legitimate, moral jobs for people, not to make the country better for the bad guys.

  • William N. Grigg

    I think Mike Levine is now working in security in Colorado in the dope industry.
    Where on earth did you get that idea? While protecting property and legitimate business interests is an admirable calling, Mike’s too busy with other projects:
    http://michaellevinebooks.com/
    http://www.expertwitnessradio.org/site/
    http://www.policetrialexpert.com/

    Communist governments make a lot of money off of narcotics and other illegal activities.

    Communist governments criminalize everything, then find ways of diverting profits from the resulting black markets. That’s how all Prohibition works.

    We have only recently legalized gambling in the U.S. and I don’t think it harmed any illegal gambling operations.

    Interestingly, one of the first things the Castro regime did was to criminalize gambling, so he’s on the same page with you.

    “We” haven’t decriminalized gambling; here in Idaho the federal attorney recently confiscated a man’s home after an informant accused him of holding “illegal” poker games.

    The protestant way is to find legitimate, moral jobs for people, not to make the country better for the bad guys.

    The Protestant way is to teach people to seek salvation through grace by faith, which is how God will cleanse the inner vessel and reform individual appetites. The collectivist way is to make people “righteous” through the threat and exercise of state-inflicted violence. These two approaches are irreconcilable.

  • AndRebecca

    We had no legal gambling in this country for years and this was a much better place. How can you compare the US to Cuba on this is beyond understanding. You are certainly not going the protestant way. And, it may not have been Mike Levine, but it was a speaker who went the rounds of talk shows talking about legalizing pot ,who is now in Colorado working for the dope industry. You are on the side of leftists like George Soros and not on the side of Christians on this one. So, I am back to thinking you are just plain lying about what you are saying. The Socialist way and the Communist way are different. The Socialist way is secular-humanism, materialism, and immorality. The communists are supposed to be a little more rigid, but they are not, as you pointed out. They do every nasty thing in Cuba, and offer it to the tourists…You just can’t face leftism for some reason. It has destroyed a good part of the world, and you can’t admit it even exists, except you think Rush and I show signs of it. Truly bizarre.

  • William N. Grigg

    I’ve not accused Rush of being a leftist. I have correctly pointed out that he committed several drug offenses for which others would serve hard prison time, and somehow eluded significant punishment. Do you think this was right, or should Rush have been sent to prison?

    Cuba did recently open itself to tourism of several repulsive varieties. Another country that serves as a preferred destination for sex tourism — including child prostitution– is the Dominican Republic

    As it happens, Rush Limbaugh visited the Dominican Republic in 2006, in the company of Hollywood heavyweights. with a suitcase full of Viagra. The thrice-divorced, drug-addicted, self-described epitome of morality and virtue never explained why he visited a notorious sex tourist destination carrying a huge load of a “performance enhancing” drug. (Here’s a link to the primary source documents — http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party).

    Is this the “Protestant way”?

  • AndRebecca

    As far as I know, what Rush did was not something anyone would get prison time for. Contrary to popular belief, minor offences do not get prison time. We have been letting even hard core prisoners out of jail due to overcrowding. I know about both Cuba and the Dominican Republic. I don’t think Rush has ever said he was the epitome of moral virtue, or even that he is religious. If you want to see the epitome of Christian virtue in men, watch the movie “Courageous.” It is a fantastic movie about cops and the bad guys and how male Christians should do things, both on and off the job. This movie is about the “Protestant way,” and not about how you do things. I may look at the site you mentioned. Now, Dinesh D’Souza got a stiff sentence for what he did. His two anti-Obama movies are great! See all three movies. They will do your heart good.

  • William N. Grigg

    Nothing Dinesh D’Souza did was an actual crime, and his prosecution was a transparent act of political retaliation — but we’re not discussing him, so please don’t change the subject. The question before us is: Do you think Rush should have been imprisoned for violating drug laws?

    As far as I know, what Rush did was not something anyone would get
    prison time for.

    Rush Limbaugh was accused of, and admitted to, “Doctor shopping,” an offense for which the prescribed punishment is up to five years in prison:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/warrants-detail-rush-limbaughs-drug-use

    Contrary to popular belief, minor offences do not get
    prison time. We have been letting even hard core prisoners out of jail due to overcrowding.

    The first statement is demonstrably untrue, which helps explain why the second statement is entirely true.

    Would possession of two ounces of marijuana by a wheelchair-bound paraplegic who used it for medicinal purposes be a “minor offense”? Would a life sentence for that crime be excessive? That’s what happened to Oklahoma resident Jimmy Montgomery (whose term was eventually reduced to a “mere” ten years).
    http://www.mpp.org/our-work/victims/jimmy-montgomery.html

    Rush admitted his addiction and was spared prosecution. Montgomery’s life was ruined. In what sense is this remotely related to “justice”?
    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/29/nation/na-limbaugh29

    I don’t rely on movies and other popular fiction for instruction regarding proper Christian behavior. Like any authentic Protestant I consult the text of the New Testament, which is all-sufficient to that purpose (2. Timothy 3:16-17).

    Now, please don’t engage in any further evasions: Should Limbaugh have been imprisoned for his “crimes,” or not? If a poor, sick man in a wheelchair can be given a life sentence for two ounces of pot, shouldn’t a rich celebrity who engaged in wholesale medical fraud to supply his addiction be incarcerated, as well? Stop stalling and answer the question.

  • AndRebecca

    I answered you question, you don’t like it because you are a leftist, I guess. You don’t think anybody else should get jail time for drug use, and they don’t. But you want Rush punished. Authentic Protestants consult the entire Bible, and don’t have a problem having a good time watching great movies.

  • William N. Grigg

    I answered you question, you don’t like it because you are a leftist, I guess.

    You did not answer my question; you admitted ignorance:

    As far as I know, what Rush did was not something anyone would get prison time for.

    I supplied you with direct evidence that Rush’s actions are very much the kind of thing for which people serve prison time in Florida. Now, stop feigning — or, perhaps, displaying — invincible ignorance and answer the question.

    You don’t think anybody else should get jail time for drug use, and they don’t. But you want Rush punished.

    That is a direct misrepresentation of what I have said, as this excerpt from our previous exchange proves. Pay attention to the highlighted portion:

    William N. Grigg

    AndRebecca


    3 days ago

    Incidentally, Limbaugh, “The Epitome of Morality and Virtue,” nearly destroyed his health by illegally acquiring Oxycontin, and when he was caught he was given celebrity-grade leniency from a system that generally sends peopleto prison for a LONG time for such offenses.

    Do you think Limbaugh should have spent time in prison? Your argument dictates that you should. I, on the other hand, do not.

    Authentic Protestants consult the entire Bible, and don’t have a problem having a good time watching great movies.

    The New Covenant does not require the conduct associated with the Law of Moses. We read the Old Testament (covenant) to understand how Christ fulfilled the law.

    There are some prohibitionists even sterner than you who insist that watching movies violates the Second Commandment of the Decalogue. That’s the kind of absurdity that results when someone seeks to impose legalistic “righteousness” without New Testament authority. The same is true of both alcohol and drug prohibition.

    Now — cease with the evasions and misrepresentations, and answer the question.

  • AndRebecca

    I don’t have to answer any of your questions, period. But I did. Why would I take anything you say as fact? Why would I be obsessed with Rush Limbaugh? Weird things get to you.

  • William N. Grigg

    “Weird things” like impenitent dishonesty do annoy me, certainly. You did not answer my question, and replied to my comment with yet another in a series of lies about what I have said in our conversation. You are behaving like a spoiled, petulant child who is manifestly wrong and persistently dishonest, but refuses to admit as much. Act like an adult, and answer the question.

    Unlike everything you have posted — wild digressions, casual aspersions on my character, unsupported claims about the law — I have provided documentation in the form of links to actual sources. I have some unfortunate experience in counseling people who suffer from clinical conditions, and your behavior is very much akin to what such troubled people display. At this point I’m persuaded that you may need to seek appropriate medical help.

  • AndRebecca

    You sound like you are going to blow a gasket. And you talk weird.

  • William N. Grigg

    Text doesn’t make sound, “weird” or otherwise. But someone who must hear voices probably gets confused about this, as well. I’ll leave you in the hands of people qualified to deal with your variety of derangement. Toodles! 🙂

  • AndRebecca

    I am so glad you are leaving, for whatever reason. We are supposed to be commenting on the above article and it turns into your problem with women and authority.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I think it’s funny that you are calling him a leftist. Obviously, you have no idea who he is.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Norman_Grigg
    At least you refrained from calling him ignorant. Lol.

  • AndRebecca

    I believe politics is a circle and that if you go too far to the left or right you end up next to the other guy you are calling your enemy. Or you could leave the founding of America and conservative American politics out of the picture and put extreme rightwing Marxism on one end of the line and extreme leftwing Marxism on the other. You would find Libertarians (some of them) on the one end and Communists on the other, and no one who believes in the founding documents of this country. The writer’s comments were all over the place, and at least one comment was just plain silly. There was no research or study behind his arguments. They sounded leftist at times due to the “reasoning.” Leftists believe you reason with your feelings which is absurd, and that is how he sounded to me. I’m glad you think it’s funny!!!

  • Rothbardian Slip

    Did you follow the link I provided you? He’s definately as far from a Marxist as anyone can possibly be. As far as research or study behind his arguments, he provided links. I (and millions of others) read his articles frequently. He’s always been one to research and provide documentation for what he writes. I don’t want to seem like I’m sticking up for him though. He’s plenty capable of doing that for himself. I just thought you may like to know who you were accusing of leftism.

  • AndRebecca

    I looked him up on the net. I stand by what I said about him. I am going by what he wrote here. Do you see the inconsistencies in his arguments?

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I don’t, but I’m a bit of a fan of his writing. I’m probably not one to ask for an objective opinion.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    This is from the Wikipedia article on the JBS.

    “The John Birch Society (JBS) is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism and limited government.[2][3][4][5][6] It has been described as radical right.[6][7]”

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

    This is from the Wikipedia on Grigg.

    “William Norman Grigg (born February 4, 1963) is the author of several books from a constitutionalist perspective. He was formerly a senior editor of The New American magazine, the official publication of the John Birch Society.”

    Tough to reconcile the man as a Marxist, leftist, or even a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. I bet if you went over to his pro libertate blog, you might even find some common ground. Maybe not though. You seem a fan of the police state.

  • AndRebecca

    O.K. I’ve never heard of him before. When I decided to face the fact that Leftists are taking over this country, I started researching the subject and it is surprising what you can learn by reading a few books. Then it is aggravating to realize the so-called experts have not done their homework. And even more aggravating to find many people on the right are not what you think, or that many so-called Christians are not what you think. But, maybe he does research his books. Like I said, I’m only going by what is here.

  • AndRebecca

    His thoughts right here on this blog are not consistent. He was arguing to be arguing. Now you are getting to be just as ridiculous as he is.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I would have to agree that many on the right are not who they project themselves to be. I have pretty much zero trust for the political class. As far as the christian thing, I’m an atheist. I will tell you though, that from the outside looking in, more Christians need to show more tolerance. I follow someone who goes by the name “JAM” on here. She says she’s a “wide awake christian”. She seems the type of person you would want representing Christianity. An author named Lawrance Vance is another. I would love to link some of his articles if you’ld be interested in reading them. Or you could google him. Either way. Let me know.

  • AndRebecca

    We have a church full of heretics today. There isn’t any use following them if the truth isn’t in them. I will look at the two sites you mentioned. You need to look up the word tolerance. Tolerance is not about giving up your beliefs for another’s. This tolerance bull is leftist. If you read a few Marxist books you will learn that pretty quickly. Now, open your eyes and see the other side. The Christian countries are being overrun by intolerant people wanting Christians to be tolerant. What is it you want a Christian to tolerate? Is it good for you and them?

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I want them to tolerate others who pose no threat. I don’t want them to tolerate violence of any sort other than self defense.

    Here are a few to get you started with Vance. I misspelled his name. I misspell more than I should. Oh well.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/laurence-m-vance/just-war/

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/laurence-m-vance/co-conspirators-of-the-welfare-state/

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/drug-warriors-are-dangerous/

    JAM is just someone I follow. If you click on my name and click on the part where it says follows you would find her. You can’t really look her up.

    I hope you enjoy Vance’s articles.

  • AndRebecca

    Can you be less vague? Can you give an example of something personal or local in your area where a Christian has been intolerant? You do know the “peace” thing is leftist. This is what the hippies were chanting in the 1960s and they were Marxists and anti-Vietnam because we were fighting their friends, the communists.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I should have put this article first. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/laurence-m-vance/toss-out-the-american-and-israeli-flags/
    Of course, if you consider peace to be a leftist concept there’s not much point in talking. The Christians I respect consider peace to be a Christian concept. Possibly, that would be too much of an abstract for some Christians.

  • AndRebecca

    I looked up Lew Rockwell…You are the one not thinking. Christians, including the founders of this country, believe in peace through strength. The Quakers and Unitarians the “liberal” religions in this country are the peaceniks and they were behind the 1960s revolution which was leftist. See, you think you are a right wing guy and you are not. You believe the same things as the left. Would you care to give me an example of Christian intolerance toward yourself or someone close to you?

  • Rothbardian Slip

    None of the articles I linked were written by Lew rockwell. I don’t think for one minute that I’m right wing. I’m anti government. I’m an Anarcho capitalist. I’m completely against state power. For someone who tries to act knowledgable about politics, you sure seem ignorant. You seem to have no knowledge of what a Rothbardian is or even who Murray Rothbard was. Now that I know you are the violent type of “christian” I feared you to be, I think it’s better to cut my losses and say goodbye. Bye.

  • AndRebecca

    Peace as in “Give peace a chance,” is a leftie concept. Why don’t you know this? The Quakers and Unitarians,”liberal” non-Christians, were behind the 60s peace movement. They are accepting of communism. And they believe it is better to be Red than dead. Do you have an example of Christian intolerance toward you or someone close to you?

  • AndRebecca

    If you are what you say you are, quit pretending you are for the Constitution. Scared you off, did I?

  • Rothbardian Slip

    The constitution is a dead letter. I don’t pretend anything.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    The only one pretending here is you. Pretending to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

  • AndRebecca

    You were pretending.

  • AndRebecca

    How would you know? We have a problem here with a basically uneducated person-you, thinking they know everything. You don’t read, you don’t make any observations, so how would you know anything? You can’t. All you know about are the slanted articles you read, and don’t bother to test them to see if they are true. I’ll bet you aren’t even curious to know if anything I have said here is true. And, you are too lazy to find out.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    Excuse me, I don’t mean to be rude or interrupt .
    But we’ve, that is you and I sister should have a chat in our Lord about how the Lord walked through His life.
    See I’m having a hard time finding him right now, and I really really need to. I’ve got an emergency situation at hand and sister I am in need of prayer.
    See sister it’s like this, The Father has chosen me ( yea that was my posturing then to… You must be kidding me Lord..), and won’t let me back away from being of maximum useage to Him, and you, and Rothbardian. The Lord God, Who makes no mistake, is perfect in all His Ways, set me up in a place where I know I have not earned to be. That should consequence and circumstance collide I yet rattle cold steel bars with a tin cup. Yet sister I am troubled deeply in my heart for my sister, she is part if the same body I am, I know it for truth for He confirms by His Spirit she is His and He is hers. She is a heart, a tender merciful child of His, but shes a bit befuddled right now, she’s in a situation that has her hurting so bad she’s acting like she shouldn’t. And she won’t tell me why, what’s going on insider Her to cause her to neglect loving her neighbor, Hiw such a compassionate heart might neglect such a salvation so freely given unto her, my heart breaks… She is my precious sister in Christ Jesus… And I love her.

    Please be kind to all sister,
    Please ignore presumption of harm done and not return harm,
    Please be patient with others who don’t understand surrender and utter defeat like we must have both had to reach out for Jesus?s Hand in our own lives.
    Please.

    Thank you my beloved sister, I am steadfast and I am at your service.

    May God through the mighty power and amazing Grace of His Son, our Risen Lord bless you exceedingly abundantly above and far beyond your ability to contain it, may your vessels nought run out of the oil if justice and mercy as you share the same in like abundance with others.
    The Father LOVES YOU very, very much.

  • AndRebecca

    If you are talking to me, you are right, the Lord doesn’t make any mistakes, we do. If you think God is giving messages to you, seek help because it isn’t God talking to you. You seek the Lord by joining a church. So, go join a church. Follow their teachings. The Bible is based on the ability to make judgments. Something you seem to be having a real difficult time doing. Having ambivalent beliefs is not a good sign, mentally or emotionally. The Bible is rational and so are Christians.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    Ok sister,
    I get it… God bless you too once you get out of His way.

    Sigh.

  • AndRebecca

    In case you haven’t noticed, this is a political comment blog. Christians have been making political comments and have been active in politics for about 2014 years now. Don’t blame me for your problems.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    lol.
    Let me guess, your catholic?

  • AndRebecca

    I am not Roman Catholic.

  • AndRebecca

    I’m not Roman Catholic, but here is a political book by a Catholic :” Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture,” by Gene Edward Veith, 1994. Note the 1994…We live in a post modern culture and have for a while.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    Theirs a book called DANIEL that’s points directly to Rome. Another called Revelation points to Romes daughters.

    Americanized Protestentism are those daughters… What nameplate is over your souls door?

  • AndRebecca

    Oh dear. This, and you can’t even spell.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    Neither could Paul.

    Your a bit shy in the discernment department too.
    Who is it your a slave too again?

  • AndRebecca

    I don’t know. Who I am a slave to? Do you know? You’re the one getting messages from out there…

  • Wrong_way_willis

    Dulos.
    It’s a koine Greek word used in scripture many times, and every time man is described as a servant of Gods. It means ” a slave, either willingly or unwillingly. ”

    We all are slaves to someone, God or Lucifer take our pick.
    And sister I’m a very diligent student of Gods word and I take it quite seriously and quite literally.

    Faith is nothing less than believing that God can and will do all that He has said He will do. In works in our Salvation by Faith in Jesus as well as in the transformation of our inner character that MUST SHOW UP in our everyday lives as PROOF of our giving our hearts to Jesus. These are the works James speaks towards that don’t save but are Jesus through us doing in us and through us what we can not naturally do because of sin. Paul references it ” that what I want not to do I do, and that what I want to do I find I do not, oh wretched man am I “.
    There are no mysteries, and yes I do hear the Father and so could you if you’d just search His word daily with a seeking heart.
    Not to hurt your feelings, for I can see in you a true heart, but right now the Jesus your presenting to the world on this thread isn’t very attractive. You might want to take what I just said seriously.

    God bless