Yabberz Community Leaderboard

Active Discussions

active 8 seconds ago

      Contains images some may find upsetting


      History is littered with instances of Cold Blooded murder and Butchery that leave long lasting scars. You never have to look far to find evidence of Mankinds ability to forget any human emotion, instead opting for out and out Barbarity. We are witness and audience members to Humanity at its very worst.

      Each and every Country has a history written in the Blood of others and a shame that is forever. Do those countries recognise that, appreciate the life that was taken was wrong?

      What about an Army of men raging through an encampment with men women and children, killing all those in front of them with a sense of God in their hearts and a holy book as their guide? Many died where they slept as the cowardly forces swept through extinguishing life without regard and nothing in the way of remorse.

      No life spared, no innocence left behind and more importantly a message sent out to all that resistance in the face of such a determined occupying force will only end in the demise of one side and that side were allied to the changing landscape however hard to disconnect from the land once theirs. A hand that was offered in peace was cut off at the wrists.

      No this isn't a recent act of Daesh, nor is it one more dastardly deed carried out by the Nazis.


      Governor John Evans of Colorado Territory sought to open up the Cheyenne and Arapaho hunting grounds to white development. The tribes, however, refused to sell their lands and settle on reservations. Evens decided to call out volunteer militiamen under Colonel John Chivington to quell the mounting violence.

      Evans used isolated incidents of violence as a pretext to order troops into the field under the ambitious, Indian-hating territory military commander Colonel Chivington. Though John Chivington had once belonged to the clergy, his compassion for his fellow man didn't extend to the Indians.

      You see these Soldiers weren't only driven by their 'Duty', they were also driven by a higher power. Their acts of brutality in the name of the progress of their cause, acts seen throughout history, recent history included.

      Now remember the Tribes of the Cheyenne and the Arapaho had camped together as an act of Peace. Their gathering a sign that they sought peace and had agreed to camp at Sand Creek.

      In the lead up to the Massacre....


      On the morning of November 29, he led his troops, many of them drinking heavily, to Sand Creek and positioned them, along with their four howitzers, around the Indian village.

      Black Kettle ever trusting raised both an American and a white flag of peace over his tepee. In response, Chivington raised his arm for the attack. Chivington wanted a victory, not prisoners, and so men, women and children were hunted down and shot.

      With cannons and rifles pounding them, the Indians scattered in panic. Then the crazed soldiers charged and killed anything that moved. A few warriors managed to fight back to allow some of the tribe to escape across the stream, including Black Kettle.

      . An interpreter living in the village testified,

      By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated. Black Kettle ever trusting raised both an American and a white flag of peace over his tepee. In response, Chivington raised his arm for the attack. Chivington wanted a victory, not prisoners, and so men, women and children were hunted down and shot.


      Men driven by belief or a warped version of a Belief carrying out the worst kind of Atrocities against a people who wanted no more bloodshed in their vain attempt to save what little of their people were left. Whilst there were other tribes still fighting for what was left those who chose peace were slaughtered at their most vulnerable.

      An interpreter living in the village testified,



      Sand Creek.

      more less
      Pundit Post
      active 3 minutes ago

          this got cut off during copy and paste... John Hawkins | Jul 31, 2012

          "It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so." -- Ronald Reagan
          ”You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

          1) Being Open Minded: To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people's ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being "open-minded" as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don't even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil?

          2) Racism: Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don't belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their skin color or if liberals take an explicitly racist political position, like suggesting that black people are too stupid and incompetent to get identification to vote, they can't be racist. White Republicans, on the other hand, are generally assumed to be racist by default, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

          3) Fairness: In all fairness, I must admit that fairness is an arbitrary concept. So, you could make the argument that no one could get "fairness" wrong. Still, liberals do because they don't make any effort to actually "be fair." As a practical matter, liberals define "fairness" as taking as much as possible from people who they don't think are going to vote for them and giving it to people who may vote for them in return for their ill gotten largesse. Certainly conservatives, libertarians, and moderates might disagree about how much money to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor or how to help the disadvantaged, but the only liberal answer to the question, "How much is enough?" is "more."

          4) Greed: To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed.

          5) Hate: Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it's chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is "hatred." This irony is completely lost on the Left.

          6) Investment: Actual investments involve putting money or resources into a project in hopes that they will appreciate in value. Liberals skip the second half of that equation. To them, an "investment" is taking someone else's tax dollars and putting it into a project that liberals approve of and whether a profit is made or lost is so irrelevant that they typically don't even bother to measure the results.

          7) Charity: Contributing your own money or time to a good cause is charity. Liberals view themselves as charitable if they take someone else's tax dollars and give it away to people they hope will vote for them in return. At a minimum, they should at least credit the taxpayers who paid for the money they gave away for the charity, although it's not really charity if it's involuntary. Of course, there's nothing charitable about asking someone else to sacrifice for your gain, which could actually be better described as selfish.

          8) Patriotism: Liberals love America the way a wife beater loves his spouse. That's why they're always beating up the country "for its own good." Doesn't the country understand that liberals have to hit it in the mouth because they LOVE IT SO MUCH?!?!? Of course, the conventional definition of patriotism, which is loving your country and wishing it well, isn't one that liberals can wrap their heads around.

          9) Tolerance: In a free, open, and pluralistic society, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may have to tolerate, even though we don't approve of those activities. Liberals don't get this distinction. For one thing, they don't understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. They also don't extend any of the tolerance they're agitating for to people who disagree with them. Liberals silence people who disagree with them at every opportunity which is, dare we say it, an extremely intolerant way to behave.

          10) Diversity: What liberals mean by "diversity" is that they want a broad range of people from different races, colors, and creeds who have identical political views. A black or Hispanic conservative doesn't contribute to "diversity" in liberal eyes because he actually has diverse views. Incredible role models for women like Sarah Palin can't be feminists to liberals because she doesn't share the same liberal beliefs as sexist pigs like Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher. How can you have any meaningful "diversity" when everyone has to think the same way?

          more less
          active 5 minutes ago

              How Elizabeth Warren Helped Sanders Deflate Clinton's Massive Political ApparatusClinton has failed Warren’s ‘money-in-politics’ litmus test — and now the Democratic Party is splitting in two.

              Clinton has failed Warren’s ‘money-in-politics’ litmus test — and now the Democratic Party is splitting in two.

              By H. A. Goodman / Huffington Post February 10, 2016

              "The Atlantic has a provocative piece by Conor Friedersdorf that all Americans should read titled "Hillary Helps a Bank — and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons." Let's just say the article gives some insight into why Hillary Clinton is paid millions for speaking engagements. If you haven't read Friedersdorf's article, then you won't know why there's so much desire to read Clinton's speech transcripts.

              Hillary Clinton's political machine, which runs on a peculiar form of "honest graft," as stated by Walter Russel Mead, has been undermined by a political revolution within the Democratic Party, and within American politics."

              Read more of the thought proving article at:

              more less
              active 7 minutes ago

                  Progressives apotheosized the dictatorship of the majority. Now they finally have reason to fear it - Donald Trump - and they may be too late to do anything about it.

                  The American Progressive has operated for several decades a solid century now, arguably at least since the days of Wilson and accelerating thru FDR, as if the United States Constitution hardly exists - to use as a general outline when it suits them and to reinterpret or even discard when convenient to do so.

                  Progressive Democrats have been especially vocal during Obama's terms, stating publicly that "we should just give the man all the power he wants."

                  Republicans in Congress have acquiesced reigning-in his actions time and time again, afraid mainly for the images Democrats create in opposition, fear-mongering images of "throwing granny off a cliff" and making "shutting down government" synonymous with "keep Congress from using the power of the purse to stop him."

                  Sure, the Dems succeeded with their branding efforts to hamstring executive opposition, but what they may have actually succeeded in doing is far more nefarious...

                  ... with Trump, the Progressive chickens are coming home to roost.

                  Here Mario Loyola, an National Review contributing editor, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, takes us through the steps that got us here as well as how a Trump presidency could seal the deal.

                  It behooves every American citizen to understand this, what they have done to contribute to it, and to understand how important it is to elect constitutional leaders.

                  In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Karl Marx famously blamed the French bourgeoisie for the dictatorship of Louis-Napoleon. The dictatorship “was contained in a finished state within the parliamentary republic,” wrote Marx. “It only required a bayonet thrust for the bubble to burst and the monster to spring forth before our eyes.” Marx was right about some things, and that was one of them.

                  It’s a lesson progressives should keep in mind as they behold the rise of Donald Trump. An American dictatorship is now a realistic possibility, because 80 years of progressive politics have left us with its vital elements fully contained within our system of government. Since the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, progressive presidents have been loosening the Constitution’s constraints on executive power, Obama most of all. We could soon find that the only things standing between us and the bubble’s bursting are the forbearance and wisdom of Donald Trump.

                  Consider the precedent set by two Obama actions: the DAPA executive amnesty of illegal immigrants and the “suspension” of the business mandate under Obamacare. Both orders relied on incidental executive powers: prosecutorial discretion and administrative impossibility, respectively. The problem was that Obama used them prospectively, to apply to circumstances that didn’t exist yet. The power to suspend the operation of a law prospectively is a legislative power, as Obama himself acknowledged when be bragged, after the immigration order, “I changed the law.”

                  RELATED: Donald Trump: Thin-Skinned Tyrant

                  There is in the Anglo-American tradition a clear precedent for the executive’s power to suspend the law. Under the royal “prerogative of suspension,” the British monarch could summarily “suspend” the operation of any law at any time. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 did away with that power. And as we know from the records of the Philadelphia Convention, the original Constitution carefully circumscribed the veto precisely in order to ensure that the president would never exercise such a power.

                  So how far does this newfound suspension power go? Think about the business-mandate penalty in Obamacare: Unless you’re a small company, you have to offer health insurance to your employees or pay a $3,000 tax. The tax liability is created by operation of law, but Obama announced that it wouldn’t be collected for several years, and — abracadabra — the liability vanished from financial statements across the land.

                  RELATED: Trumpism Is Just Two-Bit Caesarism

                  So if Obama can eliminate statutory tax obligations by the stroke of a pen, would a future Republican president be able to eliminate taxes that he doesn’t like, such as the capital-gains or corporate-income tax? Obama was asked that question in a 60 Minutes interview, and he answered simply, “No.” He didn’t explain why not, but the reason is not hard to divine: There was public support for both the immigration order and the business-mandate suspension, whereas a unilateral suspension of the capital-gains tax would probably be deeply unpopular. Thus, the only constraint on this newfound suspension power is political, not constitutional.

                  That’s in harmony with the view of left-wing law professors such as Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner, who believe that Congress could delegate all legislative authority to the president, without concern for the Constitution’s separation of powers, because political constraints will be enough to prevent the establishment of a dictatorship. One wonders if Vermeule and Posner are having second thoughts now. “Shame is our most powerful restraint on politicians who would find success through demagoguery,” wrote Ezra Klein at Vox. But of course that’s no restraint at all for a demagogue, which was the point of constitutional limits.

                  Only a small fraction of our laws are passed by Congress. The vast majority are enacted as ‘rulemaking’ by regulatory agencies.

                  Most Americans probably don’t realize that only a small fraction of our laws are passed by Congress. The vast majority are enacted as “rulemaking” by regulatory agencies in the executive branch, pursuant to congressional delegations of legislative authority. The Obama administration has been particularly virulent in this respect, with executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency enacting transformative regulations that would never pass in any Congress.

                  In the case of Yakus v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court decided that it didn’t need to worry about Congress’s delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch, because both Congress and the federal courts were in a position to police what the executive does with those delegations. This rationale has been abundantly refuted in the decades since. Congress is never in a position to block an agency rule, except in the rare circumstance that the president’s own party rebels against him. And the Court uses the pose of “deference” to justify letting the political branches do exactly as they please, concerned most of all with preserving the Court’s own popular legitimacy.

                  The Congress that wrote the Clean Air Act would never have imagined that the EPA would one day use it to seize control of America’s electricity generation from the states, as its Clean Power Plan envisions. Yet now, even a large majority of Congress can’t stop the rule. Normally, a two-thirds majority is required to pass a bill over a presidential veto, but delegation flips that obstacle upside down: In the case of agency rules, a two-thirds majority is required to block a regulation over the president’s veto. Through a clever delegation, any president can collude with Congress to impose law on future Congresses. That is exactly the purpose of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Dodd-Frank. The CFPB will be creating law and adjudicating on autopilot, with its own revenue stream, subject to no political control whatsoever, until a president and a congressional supermajority can combine to kill it.

                  EDITORIAL: Against Trump

                  With Congress powerless to stop what the president does with delegated authorities, the last line of defense is the federal courts. That, alas, has proved to be no defense at all. In the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that an executive agency’s interpretation of its own enabling statute is due broad deference, if there is any “rational basis” at all for that interpretation. Incredibly, the Chevron rule even applies to agency determinations regarding the scope of their own powers. Many Americans would be embarrassed to learn (as I was in law school) the contortions of sophistry and solipsism that federal courts are willing to perform in order to let agencies escape the limits in their enabling statutes. Chevron contains another lesson, too: It was hailed at the time as a victory for Ronald Reagan against crusading environmentalists, because political short-sightedness afflicts us all. The Supreme Court dealt the EPA’s clean-power plan a potentially fatal blow this week, when it decided to delay implementation of the rule until the legal challenges have run their course, but that is a function of Obama’s appetite for testing the high court’s deference to the limit.

                  Another crucial constitutional limit that progressives have systematically dismantled is the principle, nearly universal in properly functioning societies, of non-circumvention. The principle holds that government cannot accomplish, through coercive indirection, something that it is forbidden from doing directly.

                  RELATED: Translating ‘Make America Great’ Into English

                  Like most other limits on government power, the non-circumvention principle was substantially weakened by the New Deal. The most significant result has been “cooperative federalism,” the slow federal takeover of state agencies. The federal government uses conditional grants of money to the states, and conditional grants of permission for state agencies to implement federal regulations, in order to shape state spending and regulation in ways that everyone agrees it would not be able to do directly.

                  The Clean Power Plan uses the EPA’s control over coal-fired electrical generation to impose cap-and-trade or its equivalent on the areas of each state’s economy that fall outside the EPA’s jurisdiction. Likewise, the Department of Education has no jurisdiction to regulate American universities but is using its monopoly of federal student aid to force all universities to adopt the same definition of “credit hour.” These are just two examples among many of the executive branch’s escaping both the non-circumvention principle and the limits on congressional delegations simultaneously.

                  The progressive cookbook is full of recipes for the dictator of the future.

                  The progressive cookbook is full of recipes for the dictator of the future. Take, for example, Obama’s masterful use of regulatory uncertainty to achieve his goals, in defiance not just of Congress but of the federal courts. In the months after the Gulf oil spill, Obama imposed a moratorium on all offshore drilling, despite the fact that most of those operations were at stages of drilling in which there was virtually no chance of a spill. When one court tossed the moratorium out, the Obama administration came back with a modified version that actually expanded the moratorium; and by the time that one was tossed out, Obama simply slow-walked the needed permits. He had achieved his objective, which was to chase most of the Gulf’s deep-sea drilling rigs to other parts of the world.

                  Obama has demonstrated a willingness to use his constitutional powers against political opponents, as shown by the IRS persecution of tea-party groups, and by selective prosecutions — for example, targeting Senator Bob Menendez for accepting favors in connection with official duties, but not Hillary Clinton; or General David Petraeus for misuse of classified information, but not Hillary Clinton. Only Obama’s forbearance and wisdom, such as they are, have kept him from taking the approach of Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chávez and overtly intimidating critics by threatening their economic interests. With that in mind, consider Donald Trump’s attempt, before a recent Fox News GOP debate, to get anchor Megyn Kelly fired, or at least withdrawn from moderating the debate, as a condition of his participation. Imagine what he might do once armed with the powers of Obama’s post-constitutional presidency.

                  To accomplish their vision of social justice, progressives needed to do away with constitutional limits on government power. Sooner or later, they will wish they hadn’t, for the bane and enlightenment of us all.

                  — Mario Loyola, an NR contributing editor, is senior fellow at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.


                  more less
                  Pundit Post
                  active a minute ago

                      I have been challenged on numerous occassions on the "trust & honesty" factor of Hillary Clinton. I've been called numerous names(none which i will repeat again) I've been "charged, judged,and sentenced for simply supporting my choice for President.

                      What's up with that folks?

                      You have folks voting for and supporting an openly bigoted, amongst other things running for president, with absolutely NO details on his plan to lead, guide, and govern this great nation, other than.. "I'll do great things for the Vets, Blacks, Women, etc, etc,...

                      And folks get Mad @ me for my Support of Hillary,

                      Well, Sorry Y'all i will take my chances on Hillary , before Trump on any given day of the Election season and beyond

                      A billion $$$ can certainly buy apprentices to do the "dirty" work of "mudslinging and character assassination.!

                      I still FIRMLY stand by my "Woman" and truly believe all these attacks are "fear-based"

                      Not One Conservative Pundit or otherwise can honestly tell me that Any candidate on the GOP side can defeat her in the General Elections.

                      IF indeed Hillary has so much baggage, it shouls be EASY to beat her in November.. No?

                      You have Conservatives working feverishly behind the scenes to prevent her on being the DNC nominee, Folks trying to pit liberals against each other.. Pathetic to say the least!.

                      Now, i don't think She's the Perfect Candidate ! She's FAR from that !, No one Candidate on EITHER side is Perfect!, But Always Liberal Progressive Dayne Griffith will take my chances with her.. regardless on what anyone thinks of me or call me... all the negative names I've been called is a "Badge of Honor", and i wear it Proud as my "opearation Iraqi Freedom" USMC ribbon!

                      All this is just a giant GOP "smokescreen of Chracter Assassination in the First degree!

                      Hillary 2016 !!!

                      Here we go... Super Tuesday !

                      WARNING: These Are MY personal opinion, not all will agree or disagree. If you disagree.. simply post your rebuttals !


                      more less
                      active 60 minutes ago

                          Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) keeps saying that America's frackers are "saving Western Civilization."

                          That may be a trifle overblown, but just think for a minute about what today's low oil prices--and the stated ability of America's frackers to double our current output once prices once again creep upward--have done:

                          1) First, for you greeenies, fracking has done more than any single factor to reduce America's carbon emissions--BELOW the point where the 1998 Kyoto treaty (which Congress never ratified, but still, just as a benchmark) envisioned them.

                          2) Cheap oil has drastically reduced the reach and capabilities of unfriendly countries and petro-states--i.e. their ability to cause trouble; "Now the entire geopolitical landscape is tilted by the prospect of oil prices staying low for a long time and draining money away from oligarchs and meddlers that have interests often antithetical to America’s." (see the linked article)

                          3) Perhaps most important for most of us, it has somewhat mitigated the damage to our economy done by the current administration and given all of us a virtual cost-of-living income boost, at a time when few of us are seeing any income boost.


                          more less
                          active 5 minutes ago

                              The rumors that have been swirling around the physics community for week have turned out to be true, gravity waves have been detected, validating yet again that that Einstein was on to something.


                              more less
                              active 2 hours ago

                                  Right, this is starting to get painful.

                                  First this.........

                                  Then there was this..

                                  Now we have this....

                                  And people are still putting Millions of Dollars into his Campaign.

                                  I mean it isn't the first time a Bush was part of a campaign costing Millions with no Victory...

                                  more less
                                  active 4 minutes ago


                                  Awwww. Isn't that sweet? Cliven Bundy, landing in Portland to go help the Final Four at Malheur, was arrested by the FBI on the same charges as his sons (although referring to the 2014 stand-off at his ranch) and taken to the same jail where Ammon and Ryan are being held. I think it's very nice of the feds to promote family togetherness in this way, don't you?

                                  more less

                                  Posts Stream

                                  Yabberz Search

                                  Topics Found



                                  Load More Posts
                                  This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home

                                      Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                      Click to confirm you want to see post

                                      more less
                                          more less

                                          Block User

                                          This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock the user, visit the blocked user listed on your about me page.
                                          Last Heard: a minute ago
                                          Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                          Followers: 100
                                          Points: 100,000