Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to
get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of
shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign
volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles
Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings
over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at
the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age,
sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially
confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their
neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in
the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and
violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating
violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in
shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5
times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed
compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in
which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting
shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply
more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of
empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or
encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't,
Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry
that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have
an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says.
"This study is a beginning."

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy
and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to
consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. "It
affects others a heck of a lot more," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

RIGHT OR LEFT, DOESN'T MATTER?

 

Right or left doesn't matter. It is really up or down in politics When top level people look down, they see only shitheads; When the bottom level people look up, they see only assholes. You will Never see another Flow Chart that describes politics so clearly.

__._,_.___

 

.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama’s 2012 Strategy

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog Obama's 2012 Strategy by Scotty Starnes Scotty Starnes | March 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Tags: President Obama, war on Women | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-6Rl Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/obamas-2012-strategy/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Renaming Little Rock National Airport Adams Field

 

In all it's great wisdom the board of directors of the Little Rock airport has voted to rename the airport for Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

 

Commercial pilots often have nicknames for airorts and Little Rock's has been "The Rock". 

Since that will no longer work I suggest the new nickname be "BLUE DRESS"  national.  And if that doesn't work we can can

use "HILLBILLY" national.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

You Call This a War? I’ll Show You a War

"On Obama's fascist executive order, and the conservatives and liberals who long demanded it." -- Anthony Gregory

You Call This a War? I'll Show You a War
By Anthony Gregory | Tuesday March 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM PDT

In light of Obama's "National Defense Resources Preparedness" Order, I'd like to comment on a troubling trend I've seen in American discourse about war since 9/11. From left to right, it was often said that the U.S. government's interventions abroad as well as its activities at home did not rise to the level of drama and seriousness that typified previous U.S. wars. In particular, World War II has been brought up time and again as a model of which the current militarism has fallen far short. This observation has generally been given with the observer demonstrating palpable lament if not nostalgia.

The conservative hawks took up the call most loudly, at times decrying the modern American squeamishness about killing civilians. Although certainly Americans do not seem so sensitive to this concern that that are driven to the streets demanding peace amidst the many estimates ranging from a hundred thousand to a million civilian deaths caused by U.S. wars in the last decade, there is some truth to the comparison. In earlier generations, U.S. policy was simply to target civilians, destroying cities and villages not just wantonly but deliberately. The many, many thousands liquidated by U.S. firebombings in Japan were not "collateral damage." They were the product of a purposeful U.S. policy carried out exactly as it was intended to.

About six years ago, talk radio hosts frequently argued that the U.S. should treat all of Iraq the way Britain and the United States treated dozens of German cities, most famously Dresden. And the hope that the Bush administration would revive past precedents of warmaking was not limited to the topic of targeting civilians to be killed. Some have argued that the U.S. should increase spending on "defense" to the proportions familiar to the Cold War generations. Many called for the punishment of antiwar voices along the lines of what might have been expected in past U.S. wars. Others argued that the official alienation of ethnic minorities or others associated with "the enemy"­as had been done to Japanese-Americans or alleged communists­was more than warranted. A book called In Defense of Internment was eaten up vociferously by those in favor of such nationalistic nostalgia.

Not to be outdone, the liberals have had their own fit of disappointment in America's supposed failure to adhere to past traditions, and really make this war count. First it came in complaints that Bush did not engage in the types of national mobilization or Keynesian public works programs that glorious U.S. presidents initiated in the past. Then came the general accusation that America's war party itself was refusing to "sacrifice" enough in the midst of the war effort. Most on the progressive left, claiming to oppose war as they do, nevertheless admire the national unity that supposedly characterized (but in most cases did not in reality characterize) World War II. Taxes should be higher. The economy must be made the executive branch's domain. The military should be better cared for. And most disturbingly, national service­along with military conscription­should be made mandatory. Some advocated this measure in a straight-forward manner, believing that it would usher in a much-needed era of unification, patriotic identity, and service. Others favored national slavery as a means to ensure that pro-war politicians and leaders would only support wars that were "legitimate," the logic being that their kids would be forced to fight. Putting aside the utter moral bankruptcy of using a politician's powerless children as pawns in a game of chicken, as well as the implausibility that any draft would actually affect all equally, the fact remains that any rationale for forced labor to the state, including for the purposes of waging war, amounts to the total dismissal of the liberty of those being conscripted into service, and should be rejected for that reason alone.

In any event, all these lamentations that the U.S. has fallen short of its grandiose militarism of years past have for the most part brought me nausea and frustration, yet they also seem to carry some lessons with them. It is almost as though most Americans fail to understand that the U.S. is in fact at war. It might be a smaller drain on the gross domestic product than before. Fewer millions have died in these wars than in others. Our civil liberties, in some avenues­although not in all­are in better shape than in the worst Americans wars of yesteryear. But this idea that we are at peace is obviously wrong, yet seems implicit in the way many have talked about U.S. security policy for the last eleven years.

Consider this headline about Obama's new and frightening executive order: " Barack Obama Prepares for War Footing." This Huffington Post article helpfully sums up the disturbing elements of the order, both the fascist claims of executive authority over the lion's share of the physical economy (although Higgs puts this matter in pithier and sharper terminology) It also tells of the horrifying prospect that the president could reinstate the draft at any time. But the headline certainly implies that the U.S. is not at a war footing already. It clearly insinuates that the U.S. is now threatening to engage in an activity it was not already threatening to engage in. This is balderdash. Even in the isolated case being discussed­the possibility of a U.S. war with Iran­this was already the case. The U.S. labeled that regime part of the Axis of Evil a decade ago, has since likely been involved in covert war operations against that country, instituted numerous sanctions against its people, surrounds the nation with military bases that bestride the countryside of its westward and eastward neighbors, and is financing its main enemy in the region, Israel, to the tune of billions a year, giving assurances that in the event of a military conflict, the U.S. would side with Israel and perhaps even provide bunker-busting nuclear weapons.

Then there is the fact that the U.S. has been involved in active military operations without an instant of relent for years. Since 9/11, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and I'm sure some others that don't come immediately to mind have been the recipients of U.S. military bullets and bombs, and covert operations and U.S. military advisers have been deployed to many, many others.

The U.S. government has spent trillions on these wars; destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions; killed many thousands in Afghanistan, the longest U.S. war to date, and in Pakistan without any conceivable justification; unleashed an ethnic cleansing in Libya that has already depopulated an entire town; trashed habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, detained thousands of captives, many completely innocent and very few of them terrorists, often for years without meaningful oversight; tortured many hundreds of people, dozens of whom died in U.S. custody; shoveled many billions to military-industrial-complex firms, some that now permeate every major federal department with facilities in most states, and hundreds of others that are much smaller but exist solely because of the war on terror; nearly completely overturned all Fourth Amendment standards concerning national security; turned every American airport into a microcosm of a police state; ramped up funding to militarize nearly every police department in the country, giving them tanks, assault weapons and even unmanned drone technology; spied on rightwing tax protesters, leftwing antiwar activists, Muslims, Catholic charities, Quakers, and many others in the name of stopping terrorism; preempted one ridiculous "terror plot" after another, in almost every case setting up the suspect to plan violence he never would have without federal instigation; claimed the Stalinist authority, possessed by the president acting alone, to kill anyone on earth he deems a threat; made traveling to Mexico and Canada, a previously routine endeavor, into something out of an Orwell novel; and finally destroyed previously sacred (if inconsistently upheld) taboos on federal molesting of travelers, violations of financial privacy, interrogation techniques, Congressional war powers, and judicial due process.

Ah. But NOW we are on a war footing. And sadly, it is true that something has shifted with Obama's executive order. It is more out in the open than before that the entire U.S. economy operates as the discretion of America's rulers­just as in fascist Italy. It is now clearer than ever that the lives of American citizens can be sacrificed on the altar of Mars should the president decide that those registered in the Selective Service must go abroad and shoot at Iranians, whose country has not attacked America (or any other country, really) in centuries. All the economy, and all our lives and liberties, belong to the presidential state, as far as it's concerned. And where's the opposition party on this issue, one that would seem to make the importance of all others­certainly all others that are ever discussed on CNN­pale in comparison? I hear no criticism, and if it came it would be transparently disingenuous, since people like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have been calling for a "real war" for years. Yes, they are finally saying maybe the U.S. should leave Afghanistan, but this simply amounts to a concession that it's time for the empire to move on and crush another country.

Once again the U.S. hyperpower is ready to pounce. It smells Persian blood, and on the basis of a tissue of lies no less absurd and easily debunked than those that pulled America into war with Iraq, or wars with many other nations, the U.S. may very well jump into a conflict that develops into something that conservatives and liberals have long wanted­a dramatic sequel to the great crusades of America's most worshiped presidents. Conservatives will get their blood-letting. Liberals will get their collectivist sacrifice.

You call this a war? I'll show you a war, says the President. He with the Peace Prize appears unsatisfied with the relatively low-cost discrete militarism we've seen since 9/11. Unfortunately, so have many of his subjects, making his Order of last Friday all the more ominous.

http://blog.independent.org/2012/03/20/you-call-this-a-war-ill-show-you-a-war/

A re-elected Obama wouldn't be the end of liberty

A re-elected Obama wouldn't be the end of liberty
20 March 2012
Gene Healy

I yield to nobody in my conviction that Barack Obama's presidency has been a disaster for the Republic. Last week, in this space, I even suggested that some of his offenses rose to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Yet, try as I might, I can't convince myself that the 2012 election is a "hinge of history," and it's "game over" for liberty unless he's defeated. If Obama wins, the fight goes on; if he loses, don't pop the champagne corks just yet.

Consider that, since FDR, few second-term presidents have been capable of great mischief. Obama may have done most of the real damage he's capable of already.

Of course, there's still the matter of undoing the grave damage that's been done.

Mitt Romney has promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare (for which Romneycare served as a model) if he's elected. Obama's veto would be a serious obstacle to repeal, though not necessarily a fatal one, depending on what happens in the Supreme Court.

I asked Michael Cannon, Cato's health policy guru, "how much can be done with defunding if Obama gets re-elected?" Quite a bit, he says, as the health insurance exchanges "are crucial to Obamacare. If the states refuse to create them, the law says the feds can. But it provides zero funds. And good luck getting them through a GOP House."

Should the GOP take the presidency, unified Republican government will present its own challenges. The late Bill Niskanen, longtime chairman of the Cato Institute, noted that America "prospers most when excesses are curbed, and, if the numbers from the past 50 years are any indication, divided government is what curbs them."

Per Niskanen's calculations, since the end of World War II, unified governments have spent roughly three times as fast as divided ones, and they've been much more likely to waste blood and treasure abroad.

Maybe the days of the "K Street Project" are over, thanks to a Tea Party movement energized by Obama's abuses -- but they'll need to keep holding the Red Team's feet to the fire.

As law professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermuele point out in their book "Executive Unbound": "The continuity across presidencies is striking. Richard Nixon respected and advanced liberal Great Society programs ... [and] under Reagan, government spending continued its advance."

Obama continued the Bush bailouts, they further note, and he has "retained the main features of virtually every counterterror tool used by the Bush administration."

Indeed, there's something eerily mechanical in the way the modern state steadily expands regardless which party or president holds the office.

Last summer saw the Patriot Act renewed by presidential autopen, just weeks after SEAL Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden. As the terrorist threat receded, the perpetual War on Terror continued, with even American citizens subject to targeting by remote-controlled robot assassins.

In July, one of Washington's perennial budget fights presented an interesting wrinkle: It turned out that, if Congress failed to raise the debt limit by the statutory deadline, the executive branch could not stop spending even if it tried.

Spending would continue, Reuters reported, because Treasury would not be able to "re-program government computers that generate automatic payments as they fall due."

At home and abroad, FedGov is out of control, and it seems there's no manual override switch capable of shutting it down.

As others have observed, our government has become a runaway train -- and presidential elections increasingly look like a struggle to determine who gets to sit in front and pretend he's driving.

The point is to derail this juggernaut, and no single election can do that. Whatever happens in November, the work will have to go on.


Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of "The Cult of the Presidency."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/03/re-elected-obama-wouldnt-be-end-liberty/387856

Fwd: Latest Articles

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jamie Kirchick

Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
<http://gallery.mailchimp.com/64b898a0a81dd7326f504aa05/images/James_Kirchick.jpg>
Dear Friends,

Please find below a selection of my latest articles.

I would also like to announce the launch of my new website, www.jameskirchick.com, which features most of my written work over the past 5 years, including one or two pieces from my Yale days. I will use this site frequently to post my most recent articles, so if you simply can't wait for this regular email, check the site. 

I have also joined World Affairs Journal as a contributing editor. I've been writing for World Affairs for several years now and am delighted to become part of the publication in a more thoroughgoing capacity. I have revived my World Affairs blog, where I will be writing on a more regular basis, and I also suggest that you to check out the site read the work of my co-bloggers, whose expertise spans across the globe. 

Earlier this month, I was shocked to hear about the death of my friend Andrew Breitbart, a pioneering and controversial conservative internet entrepreneur and activist. I wrote a brief memory of him in Tablet, and recounted a junket we both took to Azerbaijan for World Affairs. 

The real scandal about Pat Buchanan's departure from MSNBC, I argue in the Columbia Journalism Review, was not that he was fired, but that the progressive network ever hired him in the first place. 

I recently returned from Hungary, and will be publishing a series of articles about the political situation there. The first appeared last week at Foreign Policy, and is a profile of the combative prime minister, Viktor Orban. 

For the Washington Post, I wrote about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's attempt to scuttle debate about gay rights at the United Nations. 

My monthly Ha'aretz column criticizes the Israeli Ambassador to Belarus for some comments he made last month. 

And in this month's Commentary, I examine the career of Seymour Hersh, one of the most unjustly revered journalists of the modern era. His career, however, has been full of distortions, sloppiness and lies. 

Best, 

Jamie


 follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend 
Copyright © 2012 James Kirchick, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you are on Jamie Kirchick's articles list.
Our mailing address is:
James Kirchick
Slavikova 23
Prague 12000
Add us to your address book
<http://gallery.mailchimp.com/089443193dd93823f3fed78b4/images/banner1.gif>
 unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

<http://mailchimp.us2.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=64b898a0a81dd7326f504aa05&id=6c0a6eab27&e=95fdfeaa2b>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Time for a Drink

"Some religious people always focus on the negative. They don't drink, dance, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do -- but then they want to spread the misery even if it means using the state to tell others how they should live. It reminds me of H.L. Mencken's famous definition of puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.""

Time for a Drink
by Laurence M. Vance, March 20, 2012

While eating in a restaurant in the Atlanta airport recently, I noticed that the restaurant's bar was closed and -- to make it perfectly clear -- all the chairs had been turned over and placed on the bar.

Now, although I don't frequent bars in airports or anywhere else, I was nevertheless intrigued. "The bar doesn't open until 12:30 on Sundays," said my waiter. But, as I found out later, it isn't just this particular airport bar that didn't open until Sunday afternoon. In Georgia, no alcohol may be served in restaurants or bars until after 12:30 on Sundays.

In fact, until just recently, alcohol sales in retail stores on Sundays were prohibited by the Georgia legislature. On April 28, 2011, Nathan Deal, Georgia's governor, signed legislation allowing local communities the option of voting on whether to continue the Sunday alcohol-sales ban in their cities and counties or to eliminate it. Georgia's previous governor, Sonny Perdue, had always pledged to veto any measure ending the ban on Sunday sales, but he left office on January 10, 2011, constitutionally ineligible to seek a third consecutive term.

On November 8, 2011 (the first election date available under state law), about 120 of Georgia's almost 700 cities and counties held a referendum on the matter of Sunday alcohol sales. In more than 100 communities that voted, the Sunday restriction was lifted, in many cases by large margins. The effective date of the repeal varied from November to February. Sunday sales in Georgia's capital and largest city, Atlanta, began on January 1, 2012.

The cost of having a single-issue ballot kept many communities from having such a referendum. However, on March 6, voters in some Georgia communities had more than a Republican presidential nominee to vote on in the Super Tuesday elections. In 16 cities and counties, there also appeared on the ballot the Sunday alcohol-sales question. The measure passed everywhere it was voted on except in the city of Jeffersonville, where it failed by one vote.

But Georgia is not alone when it comes to states that restrict alcohol sales on Sundays. Unlike Nevada and Louisiana, where beer, wine, and liquor sales are legal 24 hours a day, seven days a week, most states (or cities and counties that have been given a local option) restrict alcohol sales in some way on Sundays. A distinction is usually made between alcohol consumed on-premises and alcohol purchased for consumption off-premises. In Indiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Connecticut, the sale of alcohol is prohibited for consumption off-premises on Sunday. Most counties in Arkansas and Mississippi are the same way. In Colorado, the Sunday sales restriction wasn't lifted until 2008. Hard liquor cannot be sold for off-premise consumption on Sunday in Texas, Utah, North Carolina, or South Carolina. In Nebraska, there can be no on- or off-premises sales of hard liquor before noon on Sundays. No alcoholic beverages of any kind can be sold on- or off-premises before 1:00 p.m. on Sunday in West Virginia. Other states (and cities or counties) with Sunday restrictions generally have a later time on Sunday morning for alcohol sales (on- or off-premises) than during the other days of the week.

Why?

It can't possibly be because the states, counties, and municipalities are exercising what is commonly referred to as their police powers to protect the public's health, safety, and morals.

If there is something dangerous about drinking alcohol on Sunday morning before noon, then it is equally dangerous to drink alcohol before noon on any other day of the week. Yet most states with Sunday alcohol-sales restrictions generally allow the on-premises sale of alcohol the rest of the week sometime between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. But what is so magical about 6:00 a.m.? Is there really any difference between letting someone be served a drink at 5:30 a.m. instead of 6:00 a.m.? Some states prohibit the sale of alcohol only between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Do they not care about the health, safety, and morals of their citizens the other 20 hours of the day?

States are doing a poor job if they are protecting their citizens from the dangers of alcohol only during certain hours and on certain days. Shouldn't all states at least follow the model of Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee? Those states are "dry" by default; individual counties must vote to become "wet." Thirty other states allow their counties to go dry only by public referendum, but at least they give their counties that option. Seventeen states preclude any of their counties from going dry.

Consistency was never the hallmark of government at any level. In Wisconsin, one can be served alcohol until 2:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday, but until 2:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, with no ending time at all on New Year's Day. That seems counterintuitive, since the government is extending alcohol sales during the times when people are more likely to abuse alcohol. And why is it that casinos all along the Mississippi River are permitted to be open 24/7 and give free alcohol to gambling patrons all hours of the day and night? Many convenience stores also sell pornography in addition to beer and wine. There are no time restrictions on the purchase of pornography. And there are no laws that forbid the purchase of pornography on Sundays.

There is really only one reason that state and local governments and voters in counties and cities support restricting alcohol sales on Sundays: they are puritanical busybodies clinging to Prohibition- or Colonial America-era blue laws.

It was generally religious preferences that led Georgians to vote against the November referendum on the matter of Sunday alcohol sales. In the city of Snellville, James Freedle voted against the referendum, saying, "I don't think it's appropriate to drink on Sunday." In the city of Forest Park, Mayor and Sunday School teacher Corine Deyton, who also said she voted no, commented, "If you can't do without alcohol one day a week, there's something bad wrong with you." In rural Elbert County, one of the few areas where the referendum failed to pass, church pianist Patsy Scarborough pointedly said, "This nation has a trend of turning away from good morals. Americans need to be in church on Sunday, not out buying alcohol." "Thanks for voting no to sell alcohol on Sunday," read a sign on an Elbert County local church after the referendum failed.

But it's not just alcohol sales on Sunday. In some states and counties it is still illegal on Sunday to hunt, hold horse races, sell cars, or open a store before noon.

Now, as a religious person myself who does attend church on Sunday and doesn't purchase alcohol on Sunday or any other day of the week, I am sympathetic to those Georgians' views of church attendance and alcohol. That does not mean, however, that I believe that people who, for whatever reason, don't attend church on Sunday should be punished by not allowing them to buy a six-pack of beer at 7-Eleven on Sunday morning before they go fishing.

Some religious people always focus on the negative. They don't drink, dance, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do -- but then they want to spread the misery even if it means using the state to tell others how they should live. It reminds me of H.L. Mencken's famous definition of puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

The problem with alcohol prohibitionists -- religious or otherwise -- is that they, for whatever reason, have never accepted or been introduced to the philosophy of freedom. Restricting the sale of alcohol or any other product on Sunday is really a restriction on commerce, property, and freedom, things that Americans -- religious or otherwise -- say they hold dear.

In a free society, businesses make their own decisions as to the days and times when they will offer their products for sale, just as individual persons make their own decisions as to the day and time when, and place of business where, they will make purchases. In fact, a free society can't have it any other way.

No alcohol was consumed on Sunday during the writing of this article.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203q.asp

Fwd: The Spring Issue of TOS

----------


<http://www.boxbe.com/images/logo_dark_small.png> <http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc=10919142058_127112933> list@theobjectivestandard.com is not on your Guest List | Approve sender | Approve domain

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Michelle Antoinette

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/media-scrubs-malia-obamamexico-story-117970.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Justin Bieber Being Beaten To A Bloody Pulp

OT but I just couldn't resist.  

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/justin-bieber-being-beaten-to-a-bloody-pulp

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Bored Americans inhale cinnamon for kicks

Geeeeze.  And i thought we just listened to "Willy and the Hand Jive" as we played "Spank the Monkey".

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Bored Americans inhale cinnamon for kicks by Dr. Eowyn Are Americans so bored that, in addition to booze, marijuana, meth, cocaine, glue-sniffing, "whip-its" (the nitrous oxide "poppers" that sent Demi Moore to ER), they're now endangering their lives by inhaling cinnamon? Yes, cinnamon! It's not just kids and young people doing it. Even the idiotic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat, did it. Pat Quinn Nancy Keates reports for the Wall St. Journal, March 19, 2012: The governor of Illinois did it live on a radio show. Two NBA players were chastised for videotaping it. A school in Pennsylvania banned open-top boots because of it. What is it? Swallowing cinnamon. The so-called cinnamon challenge—a dare to swallow a spoonful of cinnamon without water—has gone viral and beyond. Though the challenge has been around for years, its popularity has spiked recently, to the amusement—or puzzlement—of many. Some 30,000 videos tagged "cinnamon challenge" have been uploaded on to YouTube. The most popular, with almost nine million views, was uploaded last month; it shows a woman with big earrings slurping a pile of brown powder from a soup ladle and immediately, dramatically, spitting it out. A fit of coughing follows. The difficulty is that the spice doesn't break down very fast and can get stuck in the throat, causing gagging and even vomiting. Doctors say this can be dangerous because the cinnamon can prevent air from reaching the lungs. "It is an obvious choking hazard and there is a risk of inhaling the dust. This certainly is not advisable," says a spokesman from the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president-elect for the American Academy of Family Physicians, says the cinnamon itself isn't dangerous—but inflammation of the lungs is a real possibility. That, and being laughed at, he says. As a result, schools from Alabama to Guam are warning parents and staff about the potential dangers of swallowing so much cinnamon at once. "The kids all know about this from the Internet but the parents have no idea," says Arthur Williams, principal at Huron High School in Ann Arbor, Mich., who emailed parents after a student was recently hospitalized for 4½ days because of lung trouble after trying the challenge. Pottstown Middle School in Pottstown, Pa., which has had three reported incidents of students taking the cinnamon challenge on campus since January, caught a student trying to smuggle a vial of cinnamon into school in a pair of boots. The school subsequently put a ban "open-top boots," also intended to stop cellphone smuggling. "Young people looking for an exciting challenge that could lead to danger is an age-old problem," says John Armato, 64, community relations director for the Pottstown School District. "It just spreads faster now." It isn't just kids who are doing it. Adults, too, often attract attention inhaling cinnamon. "He's unbelievable. I don't believe what he just did. The Governor, I bow before you," shouted Jonathon Brandmeier, host of WGN-AM radio in Chicago in February, after [Democrat] Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn swallowed cinnamon on air. Mr. Quinn casually raised the spoon to his mouth, ate the cinnamon and then took a big swig of bottled water without a twitch. He then recited a line he often uses: "The will of the people. The law of the land." A spokesperson for the governor says he was taken by surprise when asked to attempt the challenge. Some do it to raise their online presence. "I wanted the views. I have to do things like torture myself to keep people watching," says Colleen Ballinger, a 25-year-old comedian whose stage name is Miranda Sings, about her decision to upload her cinnamon challenge attempt. Ms. Ballinger makes money from a percentage of advertising on her YouTube videos. She has 90,000 subscribers to her YouTube channels and a total of 22 million views on her videos. A few weeks ago, hundreds of fans started asking her to take the cinnamon challenge, she says. Others advised against it. Ms. Ballinger did it anyway. "I thought everyone was being dramatic. But you really do feel like you're suffocating," she says. Her video garnered 70,000 views after one week of posting it. A video uploaded last fall by Washington Wizards players—guard Nick Young and center JaVale McGee—doing the cinnamon challenge was rebroadcast on ABC's "Good Morning America" as an example of what players were doing during the NBA lockout. The action begins with a close-up of teaspoonfuls of cinnamon and ends with Mr. McGee spitting it out and doubling over. "The biggest thing is they're not young players anymore. So they have to show the discipline, maturity, not only on the floor but off the floor," Flip Saunders, the team coach at the time, told reporters at a news conference about the video. A team spokesman declined to comment. A representative for Mr. Young declined to comment, and a representative for Mr. McGee didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Chuck Conry says he tried it because he also didn't think it could be as bad as everyone made it out to be. The 29-year-old caregiver and online film reviewer from Beech Grove, Tenn., who doesn't even like cinnamon, describes the experience as similar to "putting a big pile of dirt into your mouth, but with a burn to it." Once he started filming it, "there was no way I was going to spit it out." Twitter users offer themselves up as candidates to try the cinnamon challenge on the condition that they get a certain number of "RT"s or "retweets" by other Twitter users—a method of spreading a message more widely that can have the effect of gaining the original Tweeter more followers and earning them online recognition. The number of times "cinnamon challenge" was mentioned on Twitter went from fewer than 20 per day before December to around 1,000 per day, according to Topsy Labs, a social-media analytics firm in San Francisco. Then it started to really pick up, peaking at just under 70,000 mentions on Jan. 23. Cinnamon videos continue to roll in. Many of the videos uploaded on YouTube in the past couple of months are from several years ago. Helping fuel the fire is a Feb. 28 skit on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" getting attention online. Set up as a riff on the Academy Awards. Mr. Kimmel announced a new category: "Achievement in Cinnamontography" and showed three popular cinnamon challenge videos that were on YouTube. ~Eowyn Dr. Eowyn | March 20, 2012 at 9:26 am | Tags: cinnamon challenge, Illinois governor, Jimmy Kimmel, Pat Quinn | Categories: Children, Culture War, Health Care, Idiots, Insanity, Liberals/Democrats, Media, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-ddA Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/bored-americans-inhale-cinnamon-for-kicks/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Check Out The Hubcaps On This Politician

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/check-out-the-hubcaps-on-this-politician

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: They let him go

----------


Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
<http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs066/1105748125005/img/10.jpg>
<http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/spacer.gif>
Friends,

We're now learning that in May 2010, the main suspect from Operation Fast and Furious - Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta - was stopped near the Arizona/Mexico border with 74 rounds of ammunition and 9 cell phones.

Seems like that would be a good catch, right?

Think again.

Celis-Acosta was questioned that day, and then let go after a promise to "keep in touch" and cooperate. You can probably guess what happened next...

It wasn't until 9 months later in February 2011, a month after Fast and Furious was shut down, that he was finally arrested. That was after the death of Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, and countless others who have lost their lives in Mexico.

How much more will be uncovered before someone is finally held accountable?

-Paul
<https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/ic_fbk_36.png><https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/ic_twit_36.png>
<https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101093164665//jmml_opgr1_img10.gif>
<http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/spacer.gif>
Forward email
<http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/SafeUnsubscribe_Footer_Logo_New.png> <http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/CC_Footer_Logo_New.png>
This email was sent to majors.bruce@gmail.com by sheriffpaul@sheriffpaul.com |  
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Paid for by Paul for Congress | 270 E. Hunt Highway Suite 16, #103 | San Tan Valley | AZ | 85143
<http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?t=1109573030062.0.1105748125005.10902&ts=S0743&o=http://ui.constantcontact.com/images/p1x1.gif>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

FOBAMA GAS TOON

----------
 

 
 
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1362b053da885351&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21126320/grpspId=1705083764/msgId=374099/stime=1332160711/nc1=5758222/nc2=5898810/nc3=3848583>
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

] OBAMA GAS TOON

--
 

 
 
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1362b053da885351&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21126320/grpspId=1705083764/msgId=374099/stime=1332160711/nc1=5758222/nc2=5898810/nc3=3848583>
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[LA-F] If We Want Better Health Insurance For All, Why Are We Making It Illegal?

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/if-we-want-better-health-insurance-for-all-why-are-we-making-it-illegal


Press Release

For Immediate Release
Monday, March 12, 2012

If We Want Better Health Insurance For All, Why Are We Making It Illegal?

LP Chair: If We Want Better Health Insurance For All, Why Are We Making It Illegal?
WASHINGTON --  Libertarian National Committee Chair, Mark Hinkle, released the following statement today:
"While President Obama and the Republicans in Congress spend time debating whether religious groups must provide their employees free contraceptives, a far more fundamental issue is being ignored: if we want better health insurance for all, why are we making it illegal?
"ObamaCare, known in Massachusetts as RomneyCare, effectively outlaws true health insurance. Insurance, if you think about it, should exist to protect you against catastrophic expenditures. For example, car insurance doesn't cover the cost of gas and oil, as it would be outrageously expensive due to the incentive for increased driving. Similarly, health insurance should not cover ordinary and predictable costs, yet remains outrageously expensive because it does.
"Then why do consumers continue to buy overpriced insurance that covers predictable costs? Government. First, the senseless connection of health insurance to employment is the result of a system that taxes cash wages but not health benefits, punishing employees who would rather have higher cash wages while making their own personal choice of health coverage.  Second, special interests in every state have lobbied legislators to mandate coverage for their particular product or service. Finally, regulation not only drives up the cost of healthcare, but also restricts entry into the field, leading to even higher prices.
"The result is this: if you want inexpensive health insurance, but don't want coverage for alcoholism, weight loss programs and baldness treatments, and would prefer a deductible based on your personal finances: TOUGH. Even if you're not stuck with your employer's choices, the type of individually tailored coverage you want is illegal.
"Instead of ObamaRomneyCare, we need to decriminalize good health insurance. Eliminate the coverage mandates, the laws against purchasing health insurance across state lines, and the unfavorable tax treatment of personal insurance policies. Remove the regulations that block entry of new insurers, including charitable organizations which could provide catastrophic protection for the poor and the club-based insurance policies that were once popular before the insurance industry and American Medical Association both pushed to make them illegal.
"As for contraception? Women shouldn't need a permission slip from their doctor to have safe sex. Removing the prescription requirement would massively reduce the cost of contraceptives, making it far more affordable. In turn, this would ease the burden on groups such as Planned Parenthood that have long provided free contraceptives to those in need."








SHADOWKamen
GIF WARS: http://shadowkamen.tripod.com/index.htm

My groups:
Yahoo! Groups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anime-Manga-World/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Any_Discussion_2/
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantasy-SciFi/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hentai-Lovers_Unite/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Land-of-the-Free/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC-UT/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Theo-Talk-2/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Worldwide-Politics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anything_chat/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RHONDASCARTOONS/
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fowards/
FaceBook Groups:
AD2: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_161872343853575
Utah: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_179463152068117
Politics: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_122427211159914
N.C.: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_134688129917567
Sci-Fi: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_179733605411112
Utah politics: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129878500403611/
Ecchi: http://www.facebook.com/groups/160294867408256/

Send off-group messages to info_servo@yahoo.com





__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group
Subscribe:  libertarian-alliance-forum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:  libertarian-alliance-forum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

NB - The Libertarian Alliance does not necessarily approve of the above message.
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[GaysUnited] Will Comcast Make This The Last St. Patrick's Day Parade To Exclude Gays?

Tommy is one of those fascists who wants the government to monopolize streets, air, water, health care etc and then say since it belongs to the State you must obey the State when you are forced to use the things they have taken control of

This is why nazis like Tommy must be executed

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
> militants
> who want to change the definition of marriage
> ---
> it's already changed
>
> beating a dead horse tenderizes the meat
>
> On Mar 19, 5:16 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't have any issues with what one does behind closed doors now
>> PlainOl.  As a matter of fact and record,  I have been involved in the
>> legal defense of a number of individuals whose rights have been trampled
>> upon because of their sexuality.
>>
>> That's not the case here,  and that is not the case with those militants
>> who want to change the definition of marriage, but we've been down this
>> road......
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM, plainolamerican
>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Since when did Gays, Lesbians and Transgender folks get banned from
>> > marching in the St. Paddy's Day parade?
>> > ----
>> > the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay,
>> > Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston,  ruled parade organizers do have a
>> > legal right to decide who marches in the parade.
>> > Join the Impact, another gay, lesbian and transgender group in Boston,
>> > was also denied permission to walk in the parade this year. The Irish-
>> > American group marched in the parade in 1992 after obtaining a court
>> > order, but no gay or lesbian organization has walked since the Supreme
>> > Court ruling;
>>
>> > militant secular spin lies and prevaricate hogwash from
>> > again, the militant, homosexual agenda!
>> > ----
>> > find a deprogrammer fast!
>>
>> > That pretty much eliminates TommyTomTomForNews from marching,
>> > probably
>> > PlainOl too.
>> > ---
>> > gfy
>> > I haven't posted on any of tommys gay posts because I don't want to
>> > argue with you about homosexuality. I am not gay, don't care about
>> > their plight, or think I'm right and you're wrong ... I just find the
>> > religious right's position indefensible. Eventually, they are going to
>> > accept homos ... it's just going to take time.
>>
>> > On Mar 19, 4:15 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Since when did Gays, Lesbians and Transgender folks get banned from
>> > > marching in the St. Paddy's Day parade?
>>
>> > > Once again,  more militant secular spin lies and prevaricate hogwash from
>> > > again, the militant, homosexual agenda!
>>
>> > > The only restriction, against ANYONE or ANY GROUP,  is that this is a
>> > > family parade, and there will be no nekkidness,  there will be no
>> > > fornication,  there will be no one dressed in assless chaps,  or nekkid
>> > > Statues of Liberty.
>>
>> > > That pretty much eliminates TommyTomTomForNews from marching,  probably
>> > > PlainOl too.
>>
>> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:59 AM, plainolamerican <
>> > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > an embarrassment
>> > > > in a state where we now have marriage rights
>> > > > ---
>> > > > Irish and African-American lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
>> > > > queer (LGBTQ) communities have a lot in common when it comes to being
>> > > > excluded from the iconic institutions in their communities.
>>
>> > > > For LGBTQ African Americans, it's the Black Church, and for LGBTQ
>> > > > Irish Americans, it's the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
>>
>> > > > Unlike the Black Church, however, that has and continues to throw the
>> > > > Bible at its LGBTQ community to justify their exclusionary practices,
>> > > > the St. Patrick's Day parade committee uses the First Amendment,
>> > > > debating that they are constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of
>> > > > religion, speech and association, and the tenet separating church and
>> > > > state.
>>
>> > > > In 1994 Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade was canceled over this
>> > > > issue. The state's highest court ruled that the parade organizers
>> > > > could not ban members of the LGBTQ community from marching. But in a
>> > > > counter lawsuit, parade officials won, accusing LGBTQ Irish-Americans
>> > > > of violating their rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
>>
>> > > > On Mar 19, 10:37 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Will Comcast Make This The Last St. Patrick's Day Parade To Exclude
>> > Gays?
>>
>> > > > > -by Michelangelo Signorile
>>
>> > > > > It's 2012, and in the state of New York gays and lesbians have full
>> > > > > civil rights, including marriage equality. Moreover, gays are no
>> > > > > longer banned in the U.S. military. But they are still banned from
>> > > > > Fifth Avenue's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in an embarrassing
>> > > > > throwback for everyone involved.
>>
>> > > > > It's frankly appalling that NBC, and now its parent company Comcast,
>> > > > > still sells the broadcast rights (on its local affiliate, WNBC) to
>> > the
>> > > > > intolerant bunch that runs the parade (in 2007 that amount was
>> > > > > $300,000) and then helps the organizers sell advertising to major
>> > > > > companies. More than that, one of NBC's top executives, a man who
>> > aids
>> > > > > the organizers in getting those ad dollars, was chosen as this year's
>> > > > > Grand Marshal.
>>
>> > > > > As David Mixner notes, most New York politicians who support equality
>> > > > > won't march in the parade because of this bigotry. Last year, the
>> > > > > Irish Foreign Minister condemned the parade, and the President of
>> > > > > Ireland declined an invitation to be Grand Marshal. But Francis X.
>> > > > > Comerford, Chief Revenue Officer and President of Commercial
>> > > > > Operations for the NBC Owned Television Stations, has no problem
>> > > > > leading the parade as Grand Marshal.
>>
>> > > > > Groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
>> > > > > have criticized NBC for its relationship with the parade since the
>> > > > > early '90s. Other groups have protested the parade annually,
>> > sometimes
>> > > > > resulting in arrests, and this year the group Irish Queers will be
>> > > > > demonstrating once again. For years it's all been to no avail.
>>
>> > > > > But with Comcast now in charge after the controversial merger with
>> > NBC
>> > > > > was finalized, 2012 could be the last year in which gays are excluded
>> > > > > -- or the last year in which NBC is involved in the parade.
>>
>> > > > > There are a few reasons for this. One of them has to do with the
>> > terms
>> > > > > of the merger itself, in which Brian Roberts, chairman and CEO of
>> > > > > Comcast, testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he
>> > > > > vowed to adhere to diversity in every aspect of the company's
>> > business
>> > > > > dealings. From the company's own blog:
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>>
>>  beating-a-dead-horse.gif
>> 2212KViewDownload
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Secret De-Skunk Sauce Recipe

1L bottle (large) hydrogen peroxide

1L of water

1/2 box of baking soda

3 tablespoons of dish washing liquid (Dawn apparently works best)but any will do.
Stir together and start soak the dog in it - do this outside - by wetting his fur thoroughly and continuing to work it through with a rag for a minimum of 15 minutes keeping it away from his eyes and mouth.Followed by a final long rinse.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

One HAPPY Chicken!! --

 

http://www.terrisfp1.com/holidays/chick.html

"The Joy is in the Journey; The Destination is the Goal; The Beauty is in the Detours"
~ The BridgeWalker ~

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.