Local Posts #31

2009-8-16 02:04:00

[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog which can be read online at Idaho Statesman Letters To The Editor. These exchanges were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey to The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]


July 30, 2009 -- Post #1


"Mr. Slack" says he is writing a second letter "to better explain" his opposition to the religious right. He then goes through a hodgepodge of data that makes it obvious he did not achieve his goal.

He says that a large group that bands together has the same effect as a state religion that can make laws and collect taxes. Then he cites as an example the pro-lifers.

Well, there is another large group that has similarly banded together -- the pro abortionists. Why wouldn't they be just as dangerous as they are even more dogmatic and resistant to change or compromise?

And how about the Sierra group, Earth First, ELF [Earth Liberation Front], ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now], and many others on the Left? Are their questionable tactics fine with "Mr. Slack"?

Obviously "Mr. Slack" only thinks those on the Right should not have the opportunity for free assembly and creating organizations.


July 30, 2009 -- Post #2

"CD" wrote:

"Actually, Mr. Slack is too kind - all religion is a danger to the Constitution, not just the religious right. But the RR is the current leader in the competition to confiscate people's freedom."


Overall; the Religious Right [RR] attempts to defend the Constitution and I cannot think of any freedom that is in danger because of them. The only freedom some are willing to take away is abortion and that is not likely, though the public overwhelmingly are against late term abortions.

Freedom is in much more danger from the Religious Left with their dogmatic unscientific views on Global Warming. If Cap and Trade is passed then the freedoms lost because of the Left will, compare with what the Right did in the Middle Ages.

Obama indicates he wants to force us into civil service for ACORN-like service.

Obama's Healthcare plan would take away many freedoms and may force us into examinations and procedures we do not want. Privacy of records will be a thing of the past.

Left Wing environmentalists take away our freedom to do what we want with our land and [US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsberg and Lefties on the [USA] Supreme Court voted to confiscate private land, not for public use, but to increase the tax base.

The Right looks like Snow White compared to the Left as far as a threat to freedom goes.

"CD" wrote:

"I've never met or heard of anyone who is pro-abortion."


I am pro choice myself but the difference between me and most who make this claim is I am pro choice on everything that enhances the freedom of the individual. To be pro choice on only one item, abortion, is not really being pro choice at all. Since we cannot correctly label choice on a single item as pro choice the only label left that accurately describes their stance is anti-abortion.


July 30, 2009 -- Post #3

"Grandjester" wrote:

"Joseph, What do the Sierra Club, Earth First, ELF and ACORN have in common? Not much actually but one thing they do share is that none of these groups has ever killed anyone."


And no Right Wing organization has killed anyone. The Unabomber [Theodore John Kaczynski] killed three people and injured 23 -- more damage than all the anti-abortionists put together. Then there's Obama's mentor Bill Ayers -- the mad bomber.

Both sides have their crazy individuals, but that does not mean an organization supports violence.

It is the Left Wing organizations that support violence and terror as a group, not the Right. ELF, as a group, has caused millions of dollars of damage in arson, created 1200 criminal acts and put people's lives in danger. PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] also takes violent and destructive action. Earth First spiked trees with nails which risks the lives of loggers.

Good environmentalist that I am, I attended one of Earth First's meetings when they first started and heard first hand founder Dave Foreman state that his goal was to forcibly remove people from the cities and turn the land back to the animals. I immediately realized this was not my kind of environmentalism. Most of the other environmental groups have a similar destructive attitude toward civilization or free enterprise -- or just plain freedom.

Again, Right Wing organizations are like Snow White compared to the Left as far as terrorism and threats to freedom are concerned.


July 30, 2009 -- Post #4

"Grandjester" (GJ) wrote:

"Nice try. ELF has not killed anyone, nor did William Ayers."


ELF killed people's lives through their 1200 illegal acts that destroyed millions of dollars worth of property.

Bill Ayers planned a police bombing that was carried out by his wife that killed an officer and injured two others. He attempted a bombing in Detroit that would have taken numerous lives but fortunately it failed.



I see you were unable to refute my point that it is only the individual screwballs on the Right that commit terror whereas it is organized into groups on the Left. For instance Earth First planned as a group to place loggers in danger by spiking trees.


July 30, 2009 -- Post #5


To GJ;

Your argument is meaningless. There are wackos of each belief system that kill. I could create a large list of individuals but that would prove little. The odd thing about Obama is that bomber Ayers was a good friend and was also part of an organized group.

Name one Right Wing organization who plans and carries out terror as a group. There are many on the Left but none on the right I can think of.


July 31, 2009 -- Post #1

Ms Garris writes:

"There is a solution. HR 676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers."


Is this the same John Conyers that said this a few days ago?

"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?""

My question is:  "Has Conyers read his own bill?" Probably not and he probably didn't write it either.

If he had read his own bill he would find that it breaks Obama's promise to not raise taxes of common people. It raises the employer and/or employee payroll tax an additional 3.3% and taxes common people every time they sell stock.

Tort reform is one of the biggest things we can do to save money. Unnecessary testing to make money and protect against lawsuits accounts for about one third of healthcare costs.

[Tort is a system for compensating wrongs. Tort reform is a group of ideas and laws designed to change the way our civil justice system works and are designed to either limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue, limit how much money juries may award to injured people, or both.]


July 31, 2009 -- Post #2

"GrayMatter" wrote:

"Jo [JJ] - Your rantings are way off, as usual. You are claiming 1/3 of all healthcare costs are due to tort? Please cite your sources [fauxnews diatribes don't count]."


It is amazing how you Lefties go through a knee jerk rejection spasm whenever you suspect information could come from a conservative source. This is a pure emotional reaction with no thinking involved. Because of this outright unthinking rejection you only hear one side of all the news hence Lefties become programmed to accept a Big Brother mentality without realizing it.

To make it easy on Lefties here I have only quoted Fox News once since I have been here and I gave advanced warning to avoid giving a heart attack.

That said, you must argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. I did not say the whole amount was due to tort but gave two reasons:

  1. Tort, and;
  2. Testing to "make money."

These two together amount to around $700 billion in unnecessary tests according to this non conservative source:



Aug 1, 2009 -- Post #1


(Concerning a refusal of the military to do a traditional flyover that has been done for many years.)

Mr. Severson preaching to us that Jesus would not approve of the flyovers is ridiculous. Jesus never said a nation should not defend itself but did speak of using common sense.

"Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?" (Luke 14:31)

We as a nation use this common sense and calculate how many weapons we need to maintain security.

It is also written, "in righteousness he doeth judge and make war." (Rev 19:11)

Even though Jesus was peaceable He was above all things a teacher of common sense, and if we did not have a military we would be enslaved within a few years and quite possibly no one would have the freedom to even speak the name of Christ.


Aug 1, 2009 -- Post #2


"We maintain a military far beyond the size needed to protect our homeland, the doctrine suggests instead of defense we must be able to fight two global conflicts at once. It would be far more honest to go back to calling it the 'Dept of War'."


It's a good thing we rose to the occasion of fighting two global conflicts at once during WW2 [World War 2] or you would be speaking German. It was people like you that caused the USA and Europe to be caught with their pants down, thinking that greatly reducing the size of the military was a good plan.


Aug 2, 2009 -- Post #1


Maybe running out of money for vaccines may not be such a bad thing. Check out these sites:



Aug 2, 2009 -- Post #2

"Claret" wrote:

"Joe [JJ], I am typing as slow as I can so you can understand: vaccines are a good thing."


Type slower next time. The fact that you use your divine authority to proclaim a thing does not make it true. Sorry but you are not God.

"JobeMaha" wrote

"Joseph [JJ], for or against vaccines? 'CD' -- ridiculous myth? So, you're an x-pert?"


Unlike the Lefties here I try to examine both sides of an issue. The Left just accepts without question conclusions from authorized sources and automatically rejects all others.

There is evidence on both sides and I would only consider a vaccine for something life threatening. I haven't been vaccinated for anything for over 40 years and haven't needed it.

I notice though the anti vaccine sites present some interesting facts whereas the pro vaccine sites merely proclaim they are right and do not present much data.


Aug 2, 2009 -- Post #3

Children of the current generation receive 24 mandatory vaccinations. A generation ago, only 10 were required.

Through vaccinations, children receive 400 times the amount of mercury deemed safe by the FDA.

The "Hep B" routinely given to newborns contains so much mercury preservative that it would normally only be considered safe under standard medical guidelines to give to a 275 pound adult.

Why is this going on?

Politics and corruption.

See:  http://brasschecktv.com/page/376.html

Does the amount in a flu shot matter? The theory is yes. In genetically susceptible children, even small amounts of mercury can damage the brain and the mercury buildup is cumulative.

The flu shot is particularly important because babies will get it twice the first year and then continue getting it once a year thereafter. There are 25 micrograms of mercury in a single flu shot. Compare that to the current safe levels of mercury most kids get in their cumulative vaccinations in 2004 which is something like 0.4 micrograms all together over several years.

Other scientists and the CDC [US Center For Disease Control] dispute such a link. But if it's true, hundreds of thousands of American kids could be living with the fallout. And the results could be devastating to vaccine makers and federal health officials who have steadfastly defended the use of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, in childhood vaccines.



Also see:



Quote of the Day

"I am a fan of disrupters ... Let's not question each other's patriotism."
  -- Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Town Hall, 1/17/06