User Profile: 1FreeVoice


Member Since: December 28, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 2:27pm

    The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar
    Lays out the evidence for this interpretation and much more. I highly recommend reading it… perhaps after a refresher on the logic behind the philosophy that supports such freedom. ( Ending Big Government by Michael Dahlen chapter 2—- & chapter 3 covers the underlying philosophy behind Statism. )

    In reply to the contribution Are We All The Militia?

  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 2:18pm

    There is a fundamental assault on Reason in the Democratic party. Emotion over fact is seen repeatedly in assorted contexts. The multi-gender /because I feel it is so / biology doesn’t matter if I believe hard enough/lost boys in Neverland examples should be proof enough.

    ‘Hands up don’t shoot’ The narrative matters more than the facts seen in court. People speak ‘their truth’ or a ‘larger truth’ instead of ‘ the truth’. Truth itself is held to be subjective.

    I highly recommend
    chapters 2 and 3 in Ending Big Government by Michael Dahlen. They are long chapters, but they lay out clearly the underlying premises of Democrats …and some of our Founders. We have drifted far from out roots. It is good to see the assumptions and logic clearly unfolded to remind ourselves of who we are, what we are fighting for (and against), and why.

    I also highly recommend a book about the bill of rights by …. Akhil Reed Amar.
    It’s really good connecting the amendments with the parts of the Constitution they modify(ed), quoting alternative wording, referencing terms in period dictionaries and documents, explaning how incorporating the amendments against the States later altered the emphasis and meaning. Etc. I was reading in small chunks as I had time and got 12% in when I decided to go back and read in longer sections. That one should be read after finishing chapter 2 of Ending Big Government. The first is philosophy, the other is practical application of many of those ideas.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] July 29, 2016 at 11:29am

    Your comment: ‘you were slave owners and profiteers first’
    Is incorrect. It should read:
    “Your ancestors were slave owners first, and so were mine.
    There is no branch of the human race that can honestly claim innocence
    with regard to slavery.”

    Blacks from further inland were sold to white slavers at the coast by local blacks. They were profiteering also. The blacks from further inland, like the blacks along the coast, had long had their own traditions of slavery.

    Slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. Farther in the past transportation issues tended to make iit local/regional. Slaves were captured not far from where their owners lived, perhaps a neighboring tribe or city-state. The slaves and their owners (being from the same region) were of the same race.

    Slavery being associated with the black race is historically a ‘recent’ phenomenon. In Roman times the word ‘slav’ refered to slaves captured in the Slavic countries… (Think Swedes and blue eyes blonds. ) There were some primitive tribes in western Europe who were looked down on as too uncultured /uneducated to even make good slaves.

    Slavery in the USA been over for generations; let it die already. If you want to get upset about slavery, be upset that slavery exists today. Human trafficking ( usually for sex) is still a problem. Also, captives are being taken and enslaved as part of Jihad today. Get mad about that already!

  • [7] July 28, 2016 at 1:13pm

    Black immigrants who come here with nothing but a strong work ethic and respect for rule of law get nasty/cheap jobs and work their ***** off. 2 or 3 generations later their families are well off and respected.

    Some American blacks start off with free schools, welfare, food stamps…..etc. and generations later their families are still living in poverty…with a reputation that makes people reluctant to even walk through their neighborhood for far of being robbed or assaulted. ….

    “Race” is not the issue. Race baiters keep deliberately missing the point.

  • [4] July 27, 2016 at 2:52pm

    Any sin/all sin(s) separate us from God. It is easy to feel superior…but not necessarily the way He sees the matter. We have all made mistakes. All of us have made excuses for ourselves or otherwise found ways to feel OK about things we did that were wrong.

    Why wouldn’t the pro-abortion people engage in mental self defence? Indeed, conflict between self defence (physical) and self defence (mental/emotional) may be a key part of their platform’s attraction.

    Immagine if the law allowed involuntary euthanasia of the disabled:
    If a relative was crippled in a DUI accident the surviving family might be gently pressured…constantly reminded that taking on the crippling medical bills and rehabilitation therapy was a choice and they don’t have to choose bankruptcy. It’s not their fault after all. Why should they have to pay the price of dealing with this? …Isn’t that the basic argument of pro-aborts?

    Perceived self defence can twist anyone into a pretzel when it conflicts with another form of self defence. When defense against threats to your ability to care for and provide for your family conflict with defence of morals that protect your mind and self respect… etc. it’s not hard to see how some people are led astray.

  • [29] July 27, 2016 at 4:45am

    And Democratic leaders keep supporting BLM in spite of all the violence, vitriol, and racism.

    You have the wrong skin color; go to the back of the ___ ( bus, line, protest… ).
    “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon”
    ” What do we want – dead cops, when do we want them? Now!”

    What else do you need to see/hear? Dead bodies of police officers at the hands of people inspired by
    BLM rhetoric and lies? Why hasn’t anyone sued them for libel for lying/misrepresenting the facts of some of these cases that have already been settled by the courts.

    Add inciting violence to the list and see if the dead bodies make it stick. Maybe not the first one or two deaths, but after it was clear that some people were taking it as a literal call to arms… at what point does such language cross the line beyond protected speech?

    Responses (1) +
  • July 25, 2016 at 9:46pm

    I used to post links to conservative articles…I haven’t bothered for
    …hmmm . .. .quite a while.

  • [4] July 25, 2016 at 9:28pm

    When they believe what they say, they simply think they are telling the truth. With Clinton matters have gone far beyond that; they know they are protecting their own. Truth is being sacrificed for a ‘greater good’…or rationalisations to that effect.

    Progressives demanded greater government influence over people’s lives. Now that they have it, the idea of an adversary or political opponent with that much power over their lives terrifies them. Protecting the democratic nominee is a form of self defence.

    Reducing government power and authority to keep that power out of anyone else’s hands is never considered. The whole point of your group seeking power is to force your will on others. It would be self defeating to use such a means to strip an opponent of power. The current back and forth involves allowing your opponent to claim more power for government, and then take your turn in power to wield the power they expanded for you. No one shrinks government.

    Yet between big govt. Big labor, or big business 70% of the country sees big gov. as the greatest threat.

  • [1] July 24, 2016 at 1:57pm

    Quick question…
    What does the law say about inducing an abortion against the will of the mother? There was a case a while back where the boyfriend switched medications on his girlfriend so the meds she was taking for an infection were switched for an abortifacient.

    A person is no more or less a human because they are liked/wanted or the reverse. If such cases are given special consideration as if a human baby had been killed, it says something, doesn’t it?

  • [4] July 24, 2016 at 1:49pm

    What about a Catholic who thinks that regulation of human reproduction is a dangerous thing to trust in the hands of government? Maybe he thinks that it sets a precedent that could slide to some totalitarian places.

    Responses (1) +
  • [15] July 24, 2016 at 1:43pm

    Women have the right to choose, just as you have the right to swing your fist around. Both rights stop short of premeditated murder or punching someone else in the nose.

    You can choose to use birth control and wear a seatbelt. You cannot choose everything in your life to be convenient for you. You might get pregnant a year or two earlier than your 5 year plan called for…your husband could be paralyzed by a drunk driver. You don’t kill inconvenient kids or injured husbands.

    Responses (5) +
  • July 23, 2016 at 5:59pm

    Single person facility, sometimes called the family restroom.

    Anyone of any gender or non-gender can use it. Parents who need to help their child… it is even handicap accessible.

  • [8] July 22, 2016 at 7:02pm

    I am put in mind of some Muslim traditions regarding submission of infidels. They pay a sort of protection money to be (sort of) left alone. The racist agitators want working Americans to pay the ghetto comunity off and avoid trouble.

    I am not responsible for things that happened before I was born. We are all ignorant of something; none of us have walked in everyone else’s shoes.

    Africans are not held responsible for ancestors capturing their neighbors and selling them to whites. Italians are not Appologising for Roman conquest and occupation, brutality and enslavement of others. Indian tribes are not held responsible for capturing and enslaving members of other tribes.

    Slavery was part of human history worldwide. Before improvements in transportation, slaves were captured in the same local region as those who held them enslaved, thus were usually of the same physical type as their captors.

    It was no less wrong or terrible when Egyptians or Babalonians held slaves as when the Incas, Mayans or anyone else did. Being native to a place or era does not make it more right, but does mean that they should be judged in comparison to their peers, not their descendants centuries hence.

    The American experience was not exceptional because of slavery but because of how slavery ended. The enlightenment and the “religious right” of the period were key influences in the origin and development of abolition. Both are now denounced as worthless.

    In reply to JakkiK's comment on the contribution Dear Black People, I'm Sorry

  • [4] July 22, 2016 at 6:07pm

    Color blind glasses:

    Can you imagine if the protesters blocking the sidewalk
    and only letting members of their own race through
    …how the press and everyone would scream if they were white!!!

    But it’s BLM so…meh.

  • [21] July 22, 2016 at 5:20pm

    It seems to be a standard operating principle that has spread among police departments. Dogs are expendable, pay a few $ to the owner and legal liability is satisfied. They are never called to pay for counseling for bereaved family members, especially those who witnessed the incident or traumatised children.

    They are never held accountable for the erosion of public trust. With all the threats and harassment from BLM etc. why borrow more trouble painting themselves as trigger happy thugs?

  • [5] July 22, 2016 at 5:16pm

    Have you considered putting up signs:

    Friendly dog – act friendly back
    …cowards not welcome

    LEOs lock your weapon in patrol car
    open cary welcome otherwise

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] July 22, 2016 at 5:06pm

    From the details I read, this may have been a legitimate fatal misunderstanding, the sort that could be solved by training police about dogs, as mail carriers are trained to avoid bites.

    Part of the reason people are so upset is a history of quick draw (shoot first and figure it out later) incidents coloring people’s responses to this incident. The police have past actions overshadowing this one.

    Excessive use of force with canines or people is an issue of concern. The two are related in that they have the same origins…militarization pf the peace officers and concern about officer safety to the overshadowing or exclusion of those they are supposed to be protecting.

    Being a Peace officer was never an easy job, nor safe. Concern for officer safety is a good thing…until it overrides everything else. There must be other priorities, like protecting the public and their pets/property.

    At least with dogs there are not racial overtones adding to the stress level…yet. If the Police use this as a learning moment they can use their response to address the underlying causes of public distrust.

    They are under threat now from BLM. Turning the other cheek and concentrating on non-violent ways to address trouble is harder if a siege mentality sets in.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] July 22, 2016 at 4:41pm


    No, he is saying that the companies are essentially overcharging the government & taxpayers. By not selling the food at a discount, they are pocketing extra millions of your (tax) money.

    Re: if you are trying to tell us that those who are able and are on welfare and food stamps at the expense of the rest of us don’t lobby for that continued sustenance, you can sell that crap elsewhere. We aren’t buying it.

    The corporation’s lobbyists are better funded, can offer more incentives and cooperation, are better organised…

    Sure the welfare Q. are voting their food stamps, but since when does DC really care about voters? If push becomes shove the masses will be expendable and we all know it. The Elites will protect themselves and those like them or useful to them. Anyone else will be left to fend for themselves… or shot putting down the riots or some such.

  • [2] July 22, 2016 at 4:30pm

    Who knows….maybe he did.

    He probably tried to do something
    to put such cognitive dissonance behind him and settle his mind.

  • [10] July 22, 2016 at 4:28pm


    Obama went to college, but no one remembers him being in class with him. Double-secret attendance? Top Secret school records? I doubt he is just hiding a C average.

123 To page: Go