A Government Lost

Trying to formulate an idea for an article here at SUFA is no easy task. It seems we have talked almost everything to death, we don’t need to keep shooting the dead horse anymore. That means it’s time to tackle some tougher issues that many people either want to ignore, are completely blind to this, or don’t want to talk about such a troubling subject.  I’m not going to hide the fact that I do not like Obama and what he stands for.  Many people may read what I’m going to write and look at this as just another Obama bashing.  But, it is far from it.  It is also about the next President and the next one after that and so on.  This is all based on facts, not a dislike for Liberals or any one person.  This is about our Federal Government, as a whole.  Both sides of the political spectrum, everyone included.  Our form of Federal Government is derived by the people.  WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be in charge.  That’s the problem, we are not in charge of  “A Government Lost”.

Yesterday, our own Kathy posted this statement  “Did you ever think we’d get to this point – where states need to protect themselves from the Federal government with Anti-Drone legislation? So sad.”   It got me thinking about just how right she is.  I have picked out several subjects and articles to look at that will positively explain that we have lost control of our Federal Government (FG for short).

Let me begin with a subject that, in the past, I was very animated about, the use of drone strikes on foreign soil.  The one particular incident was the hit on Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. born citizen who was claimed to be a high ranking member of Al Qaeda.  I believe to this day that this attack resulted in the murder of a U.S. citizen.  I say that because we have a Constitution with a 5th Amendment that states,

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

So the position I hold is that the President had no legal authority to approve such an action against a U.S. citizen.  Hence, the President approved a murder of a U.S. citizen without due process as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.  This brings us to today.  (NaturalNews) The U.S. Justice Department has just released a 16-page memo outlining its justification for why President Obama can order drone killings of American citizens. The paper is a wild tour of bizarro-land justifications from a government that no longer abides by any Constitutional limits or even principles of human rights.

As NBC News frighteningly reports:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, the mouthpiece of tyranny and lawlessness in America today, added that “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.” (FreeBeacon.com)

Thus, the idea that an American citizen receives a trial by jury, a defense attorney, due process of law and an ability to face his accusers is utterly thrown out the window. What this memo essentially “legalizes” is the ability of the U.S. President to simply order the murder of anyone he names. No law needs to be followed. No arguments offered. There does not even need to be a single shred of evidence that this person has violated any law whatsoever. The decision process takes place in total secrecy and is not subject to judicial review of any kind.

I’m not sure where in the Constitution it says, “…unless a legal memo says otherwise.” The U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights lay out immutable rules, limits and guidelines for government. But when an oppressive government regime decides to utterly ignore the Constitution and the limits of power described therein, it become a dictatorial tyranny. We are there now in America.
Consider this: If the Obama administration can justify the drone killing of Americans, it could also justify all the following actions:• The use of military troops on the streets of America (in violation of Posse Comitatus).• The rounding up and internment of American citizens (into FEMA camps).• The government seizure of all private retirement funds and IRAs. (This is coming soon during the coming financial collapse.)• Government takeover of all farms, food, livestock and seeds. (This has already happened, actually. Click here for details.)• The “disappearing” of all political enemies, journalists and critics.• The arrest and imprisonment of all parents who do not vaccinate their children.• Government disarmament of the population; outlawing of all guns and ammo in the hands of private citizens.• Nullification of states’ rights and the rollout of an armed private “White House military” that occupies the streets of America.Heck, in fact, a President who can justify drone killings of American citizens could also justify a return to slavery — except this time, they’ll make it white people!. There’s nothing the Obama administration can’t justify if it’s already justifying killing American citizens outside the rule of law.

In other recent events, Race baiter  extraordinaire, Jesse Jackson asked for armed federal police to patrol Chicago after another senseless killing involving gang violence.  What is going on in Chicago and other cities like Detroit is a travesty.  Gang violence is out of control and the local governments are simply overwhelmed.  Solutions to this problem are many, but what is the solution that you think will work?  Thoughts on Mr. Jackson’s  idea’s:
(NaturalNews) Don’t say we didn’t warn ya, but now the long-anticipated plan for armed TSA agents to patrol U.S. cities has been invoked by none other than Jesse Jackson.   Today he called on President Obama to unleash “Homeland Security” on the streets of Chicago, a city racked by murders and violence even though it has the strictest gun laws in the country.  The only group within DHS that has the manpower to “occupy” a U.S. city is the TSA, a widely-hated government agency which has already begun running roadside checkpoints across the country.  Jackson’s call is essentially a demand that DHS send in armed agents (TSA with guns) because the situation is so bad in Chicago that “something must be done.  “But how did the situation in Chicago get so bad in the first place?  The city’s leaders disarmed all law-abiding citizens by passing outrageous gun control laws that gave criminals the upper hand.   By definition, criminals don’t follow gun laws, so they remain armed and more confident than ever. Police are outgunned and citizens are outgunned, and the result is that Chicago has the highest murder rate of any city in the world.  (This is called cause and effect.)   As even the mainstream media now admits, the murder rate in Chicago today is far worse than during the Al Capone “gangland” days.  “The surprising stats show the city is worse off now in the category of murder than at the height of the era that has driven Chicago’s reputation for almost a century, Capone’s ‘gangland’ Chicago,” reports ABC News.

What do these two subjects have in common?  One is the actions of the FG,  the other is a call for action.  None of this is Conspiracy Theory, it is factual.  We already know that the TSA defies the 4th Amendment at airports.  Nobody cries foul, so it continues.  We know that our current President and future Presidents will believe they have the authority to kill any U.S. citizen without Due Process.  I haven’t brought up the provisions of the NDAA hat allow for indefinite detention, also against the 5th Amendment that has passed CONGRESS!  I’m trying to keep this somewhat short, so I will just use those 3 examples as the main issues.  While one is but a request, it is something I believe will happen at some point in time.  My friends, we have lost our FG!  They no longer work for the people, they are “A Government Lost”
About these ads

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    :)

  2. You gotta love the hypocrisy of the left. Water boarding is terrible…it is torture…..it should not be done no matter how many lives it saves…..

    Then……..defending the use of drones to take out enemy leaders at the cost of innocent civilian lives on a 30 to 1 ratio. Violating the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to do so.

    Let me see if I understand this……capture a known enemy combatant, water board him, get the required information, and go and selectively hit the enemy……..or………….send in the drones and wipe out women and children to get one or two people……even an American Citizen.

    Sheesh.

  3. G,

    What’s the difference between Awlaki and Jimmy Lee Dykes, the Alabama hostage taker?

    • Nothing….both are dead.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Anita, One was a clear and present danger to an innocent, the other was driving a car. Big difference

      • The other was a traitor who took up arms against us. Do we have to wait til we are looking down the barrel of his gun? Bin Laden wasn’t firing at us..but you’re ok with him being dead. Awlaki was a danger to us, maybe not clear and present, but a danger. Can you agree with that?

  4. Question-Does everyone have a problem with the use of drone strikes in totality or simply the process by which it is approved?

    • My problem lies more in the extent drones are being used (and the massive civilian casualities resulting). I believe there is clearly a time and place where such strikes are necessary in the context of war and should be utilized to save American lives — what that ‘time and place’ is and to what extent drones should be relied upon….I don’t know.

      • But that’s the problem -this isn’t a conventional war. It’s a war against on organization not a Country. How do we fight this new type of war? I don’t know the answer to that question. But dropping bombs into Countries we aren’t at war with is a big deal. And if it is ever used it should be after major planning and under only very specific guidelines. I’m thinking we aren’t doing that.

        • That’s the real problem with the white paper — no specific guidelines as to the ‘proper’ use of drone strikes. This is what is sorely lacking and where I agree with you. As I said, there is most certainly a time and place where such strikes should be utilized. Where are the guidelines for what that time and place is/should be?

          • Therein lies the problem. Do not associate these drone strikes to the military. If the military were doing this….it would be surgical. These are CIA drones…… They simply do not care….and I can say that with conviction.

            • Perhaps that should be the first guideline.

              What exactly are the specific outlined duties of the CIA?

        • You are sounding like this is something new…we have been bombing countries we are not at war with for decades…..only the delivery method has changed.

    • I have a problem with drone strikes that are outside of a US war zone, examples are Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, etc.

      I have a problem with drones being used for surveillance on US territory where no laws exist to limit their use, examples are warrantless searches, weaponization, etc.

      • Nate…..shoot them down over private property…we will if we see them. Even drones used for geological surveys…they better have permission.

        • I suppose when it comes to this type of thing I am a mite naive. Perhaps it is simply that more information is getting out these days on what is going on. But it doesn’t seem that we have any clarifying guidelines for this type of actions. Or at the least I don’t know what they are or were. And the new ones seem lacking and just wrong.

          • Not sure How this got down here-but it belongs up there under D13′s post. It couldn’t possibly be that I pushed the wrong button. :)

  5. I think the drone strikes against US citizens in foreign countries is legal, but not for the Obama stated reasoning. It can only be legal as an act of war, as in the war on terrorism. Bush’s declared statement defines Obama’s actions. Foreign countries where the governments are not able to combat the terrorist organizations. This could not be applied in any country that can enforce it’s laws and compel an accused terrorist to appear in court and answer charges. This might mean several strikes in Pakistan were illegal, if a terrorist could appear before a judge who supported his organization, our legal issue would have to be with the corrupt government shielding the terrorist. Where the foreign gov. condones our strikes and wants our help in combating terrorist’s, it is legal. Where the foreign gov. objects, our issue is with that gov., as in war. If a gov. supports terrorists that are targeting the US, that gov. is the enemy.

    • The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill … A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured “dead or alive”. …

    • Bush and now Obama are trying to figure out how to fight this new type of war-which I think everyone will agree is hard to figure out. It makes sense to say “if a gov. supports terrorist, etc” but how do we actually make that decisions-what should the guidelines be-the rules the government should use to establish this as a fact- in order to limit their actions. The same goes with drones what are the guidelines that should be used to determine if we should act and if we act, under what conditions these actions are allowed.

      • Bush made a mistake in after the war, trying to nation build. The only way to do so is to fully commit as was done in Germany & Japan. We are now trying to buy good will & failing.
        Clinton cut human intelligence. Obama is doing the same, thinking drones will provide enough information. This will fail as id did for Clinton. May happen after Obama is out of office. I don’t think it’s a new type of war, it’s a very old one. What’s new is striking back and trying not to offend any other nations. It’s kinda funny, Obama made that speech in Egypt promising peace, then for four years did exactly the same thing Bush had done. American MSM reported glowing stories on the new Obama peace bringer. The rest of the world saw the same Chit, different @hole in charge.

        We do need a new drone policy. We also need a consistent foreign policy.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      LOI, Has Congress declared war officially?

      • Don’t use those pesky legal details against me. No, I think you are right, Bush made some speeches but war was declared on Afghanistan & Iraq. The President is granted power to conduct military operations for up to 60 days without consent of congress if we are or are about to be attacked.

        • Foreign policy challenges the separation of powers. The Presidency reigns supreme in foreign policy.[45] That one person should not commit the nation to war nor continue a war is valid and Constitutional.[46] However usually those raising Constitutional questions do so for political reasons.[47]

          Schlesinger writes:

          The weight of messianic globalism was indeed proving too much for the American Constitution. If this policy were vital to American survival, then a way would have to be found to make it constitutional; perhaps the Constitution itself would have to be revised. In fact, the policy of indiscriminate global intervention, far from strengthening American security, seemed rather to weaken it by involving the United States in remote, costly and mysterious wars, fought in ways that shamed the nation before the world and, even when thus fought, demonstrating only the inability of the most powerful nation on earth to subdue bands of guerrillas in black pajamas. When the grandiose policy did not promote national security and could not succeed in its own terms, would it not be better to pursue policies that did not deform and disable the Constitution?[48]

          Congress and the President should reduce US interests abroad and lower military spending. This would lower the pressure on the national government and allow Congress to act.[49] Only two requirements would be needed to resolve the situation. First, the President must report to Congress immediately with all information and justification when troops were sent into battle and continue while reporting during the conflict.

          Second, a joint declaration by Congress at anytime can terminate the conflict.[50] Another option during peacetimes is allowing Congress to control troops overseas.[51] The history of US war-making in the 20th century suggested that it was a shared power between the President and the Congress.[52]

          The CIA is exempt from Congressional oversight and spending rules and regulations.[53] If Congress wished to bring the CIA under control, it could prohibit covert operations except during wartime.[54]

          National emergency powers allow the President unilaterally to control any business activity or person within the country. Once a national emergency is proclaimed, it should get Congressional approval within 30 days if it is to remain in effect. A joint resolution of Congress should be able to cancel a national emergency.[55] The national emergency power can only be used when the nation is at risk of being lost. Only the Civil War, WWII and possibly the Cuban Missile Crisis qualify as true national emergencies. The national emergencies claimed by Jefferson, Truman and Nixon do not meet this standard.[56]

          Foreign policy conducted by the President only is self-defeating if the people do not support it. If the Congress does not understand the foreign policy neither will the people.[57]

          Presidential secrecy can be justified with either claims of national security or executive privilege. These claims do not rely on statues but they do depend on unchecked executive judgment. National security claims were developed from the classification of documents. Executive privilege claims were originally used by the President to protect personal communications from Congress.[58]

          As early as 1795 the following pattern recurred. First the President kept some facts secret when facing difficult foreign policy decisions. A citizen discovered these facts and felt it was their duty to make these facts public. A member of the free press then would disclose the facts.[59] By the 1950s, Congress was at odds with the military over secrecy. Reports on bows and arrows, shark repellent, and monkeys in outer space were classified secrets.[60] In 1966, a secret CIA memo complained that the publication of classified secrets could be successfully defended with the ‘public had a right to know’ argument.[61] By 1972 some newspaper clippings were deemed to be secret.[62]

  6. In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report — titled “Living Under Drones” — offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

    “TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.

    Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

  7. I’m gonna go in a different direction here-Chicago-how do we handle situations like Chicago-How did we fight Capone?

    • How did we fight Capone? Repeal of prohibition for one.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Chicago will be handled in a manner that sends a message to the people I think. There is much more to the story than just whats in this article. More to come :)

  8. Andrea Tantaros of The Five, had an interesting suggestion last night on the timing of this paper coming out and the DOJ’s response. She said she thought this might be a CYA for the O Adm. killing of Awlaki’s 16 yr. old son, where there was no linking of his involvement whatsoever to his father’s activities. An after the fact, “we can decide if someone is against us” tool to save their hides, as there was quite a bit of rumbling building up about this kid’s killing. (Note Gibb’s comment, that “he needs a more responsible father” as somehow justification….good lord!)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

  9. When will the insanity stop? When will people get over the fact that this president is bad – for our economy, for our freedom, for just about everything, in fact. And that he is black – but he is still bad. And it’s OK to acknowledge that.

    Here’s another stooge – his life has been comprised of hyping up guns and gangsters and movies about guns (Lethal Weapon 4 for one), and yet, here he is in a nauseating show of support for his boss? dad? the big O. (my apologies to Oscar Robertson…..)

    http://nation.foxnews.com/chris-rock/2013/02/06/chris-rock-president-our-bossour-dad

  10. And now this……..the LGBT community wanting to change term father to sperm donor. Really?

    • GRRRRRR! I know people might fight against it-but there truly is an inherent desire in children and in adults to know their biological fathers and mothers-a sense of loss if they do not and a sense of being abandoned and unloved if they do not have these without a good reason, like they died. One cannot chance these needs simply by changing terminology or accepting something less as socially acceptable. This does not mean other arrangements can’t provide a loving environment. But it is still an environment that is something less.

      Society should acknowledge these realities and quit trying to ignore there importance.

  11. Bottom Line says:

    You approach a man on the street holding a sign that reads “Pull my finger and get a surprise”

    You pull his finger, he punches you in the nose, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    You get up, complain, and pull his finger again.

    He then punches you in your nose again, knocks you down and takes some of your money while you are trying to regain your composure.

    … …

  12. Another fact for your almanac on the use of drones. The CIA is NOT bound by rules of engagement. The military is……..

  13. Not meaning to change the conversation today-just thought this might be something good to discuss next- I also think someone on here brought up this possibility a while back -don’t remember who.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/own-gun-time-to-buy-violence-insurance-california-democrats-say/

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    NEW DRONE POLICY

    Don’t let them run for public office AND don’t let them vote.

    • And she thinks this is a great thing.

      Buck, how about you? Are you OK with the idea that a political party has “everything on everybody” and can use that to get your vote?

      Not just in a soliciting money or contacting kind of way, but how about, as one of the commenters said, “we see you have porn on your computer – wouldn’t want that to get out would you???? We trust we have your vote.”

    • DOJ Sues Louisiana for Private, Confidential Voter Database
      VoteGuards.org Condemns Department of Justice Suit against Louisiana as Assault of Civil Liberties

      Baton Rouge, Louisiana (PRWEB) August 08, 2012

      The United States Department of Justice in effort with Project Vote and the NAACP has launched what electoral watchdog VoteGuards.org calls “a full assault on the civil liberties of all registered voters in Louisiana under the guise of voter disenfranchisement.” *

      The Department of Justice has demanded all data relating to all registered voters in Louisiana; current and former names, current and former addresses, current and former counties of residence, date of birth, full social security number, current and former driver’s license numbers, race and/or ethnicity, medical records, disability records, and all current and former internal identification numbers assigned to every single registered voter in the state.*

      Currently Louisiana ranks 4th in the Nation with over 84% of residents over 18 registered to vote and is regarded as one of the best election systems in the United States. Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler is vigorously fighting both the DOJ and NAACP/Project Vote Lawsuit. Schedler released this statement regarding the efforts of the Voter Participation Center in Louisiana.

      “The Department of Justice cannot come down to Louisiana and bully the state for vital voter information using only one section of voter registration law, but completely ignore the other sections. But unfortunately, that’s precisely what they’re doing,” said U.S. Senator David Vitter. “They’re allowing some states to keep felons, illegal aliens and dead people on their voter rolls – which is a clear violation of the law – while arm-twisting Louisiana to hand over private information about our registered voters.”

      This letter was release by Louisiana State Representative Chris Broadwater condemning the attack on Louisiana calling it an “overt war on our civil liberties by the Obama Administration.”

      VoteGuards.org is a citizen-led policy and grassroots advocacy effort to empower Americans to take action to preserve our rights and insure that the foundation of our democracy is sound, and to educate the public about attacks on the integrity of our civil liberties and voting rights — whether through diluting the privacy of our personal information or through unfair voter registration efforts which effectively rob us of having our votes count.

      The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Louisiana;

      Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00470-JJB-DLD

      http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9780759.htm

      And this is one of the ways he is doing it-using the power of the Department of “JUSTICE” I mean seriously they NEED all this information to do their job-I think not!!!!!!

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    I am hoping by this point in the day, that the meaning of the article was to inform that we are headed into a dangerous place with our FG. Drones are being used in U.S. airspace, by the CIA and the Feds. Just because you don’t see or hear them means nothing. This is warning #1 about tyranny at your doorstep. There are many more warnings and facts to come. I would hope that I can really open some eyes. Our nation has been kidnapped and we are not in control of our FG. That should scare the hell out of you. :(

  16. Global Warning Alert! New England is going to get some winter weather! First Sandy and now this? What more evidence do we need? This has, like, never, ever happened before – well at least not since last winter! LOL!

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/blizzard-to-bury-new-england-at-the-end-of-week/5673457

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Please note these very important facts about the TSA.

    Under Obama’s supervision, the Department of Homeland Security has been purchasing thousands of assault weapons, over a billion rounds of ammunition, of which 450 million are hollow-points, bulletproof vests, riot gear, bullet-proof traffic stops and other equipment one would readily associate with an army. Nearly 200,000 rounds of ammunition are specifically designed for sniper rifles. There are also plans to place 30,000 drones in our skies to spy on us.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9334/is-the-department-of-homeland-security-obamas-gestapo/#ixzz2K9pxeIV9

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Chicago is another subject that can be discussed. With their crime rate, how would you go about putting an end to all of this? Let me totally clear, most of our major inner city crime problems are caused by minorities, and mostly blacks in many cities. This is not a racist problem, this is a race problem that was caused by the government.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    DH: But that information had nothing to do with national security. I mean, how would this relate to DHS?

    RB: Now you’re giving me a headache [laughter]. Let me spell it out for you, and this is the crux of everything. We have Obama (or whatever his real name is) in the Oval Office. You’ve said it before, that America is a “captured operation.” Well, it is, and every top level operative at DHS and Justice knows it. They have his dossier.

    Think about Obama’s mother working in microfinance with Timothy Geithner’s father. What are the odds? And that’s just one “coincidence.”

    A lot of people won’t get this until it’s too late, or maybe never get it. But take a good look at Obama and the people who surround him. Look at the 2008 economic crisis under Bush. Look at the run up to where we’re at today. The orchestrated boom of the 1990′s. The GLB Act signed into law under Clinton that changed the complexion of our domestic economy. Look at the people who are still around, the architects of this. It’s a big lie! It’s all been rigged, and the insiders know this! Look at the continuity of agenda since “Bush senior.”

    Now listen to what I am telling you. This is a continuing operation that involves many of the same people on both sides of the aisle in Washington. This is one of the reasons why no one wants to talk about Obama’s past. He is the product of a continuing intelligence operation, put in power to oversee the dismantling of the U.S., with the economy being the lynchpin of our destruction. Obama, Jarrett, and the Clintons are in constant contact with all high level operatives inside the DHS. Perhaps not directly in all cases but through their contacts. They are working together to see to it that the U.S. economy is brought down, robbing the people of their wealth and then blaming partisan politics for the crash.

    For the first time in recent history, you’re going to see people hungry and out in the streets. Those unprepared or those thinking this is all [expletive deleted]. Desperate and begging for food. Think Katrina, but on a national scale. That’s what is being planned for Americans, and few people are willing to see what’s happening, or willing to believe it. Now here’s where DHS, my sources and information comes in.

    Everybody is looking at the gun “problem” in America. Fights over the Second Amendment. State laws that go against the Constitution. Blame it on Sandy Hook or Colorado. Tell people we need to be disarmed because it’s for the children. It’s all [expletive deleted]. Most people know it’s all [expletive deleted], but that’s where their rational assessment stops. Why do you think the people in power want to – no – need to disarm the public? It’s because they are planning an economic collapse, and an armed and informed populace is a danger to their plan.

    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7666

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Everyone should read this interview with a DHS insider. If he is right, we are in a world of trouble, if he is wrong, we are in a world of trouble.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Remember the DHS “INSIDER” who predicted Holder would be gone one year ago, last December?

        I think your “insiders” are just some pimply faced jackass living in his mom’s basement.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good Day Sir :) Hope all is well with you and the family!

          As I said, he could be right or wrong. I don’t take “sources” as credible until they are right. The problem I’m having with these “sources” and what they are saying, is IF they are right, many will have waited for the credibility issue to be resolved. By then it’s way too late.

          So, for better or worse, forget the source. Let’s concentrate on what is known facts and come to a rational and logical conclusion.

          I’m also trying to present as much info as possible, both fact and “insider” stuff that we can kick around, or just kick :lol:

  20. OMG! Pigs are flying, hell is frozen over. I agree with Ed Schultz on something! I’m proud of your guy, Buck!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/06/schultz_drone_rules_dont_meet_moral_or_constitutional_standard_we_expect.html

    • Told you so.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We agree :) What is your opinion of the Article. It was not meant to start partisan politics, but to stimulate the brain as to what is really going on in this country. Thoughts?

  21. Bottom Line says:

    G,

    Excellent article.

    I made the very same point to someone last night.

    It boggles my mind how people sit here and see it right in front of their faces, building up in preparation for enslavement, and do nothing except support more of the same increasing encroachment and violation.

    My above post was sarcasm, representative of such behavior.

    There are those of us who have been trying to tell others, screaming at the tip of our fingers with a keyboard, and those that continue to demand our enslavement.

    Discussing the reasons for use of drones on Americans is like discussing whether you want to get punched with a right or left hand. Nevermind the idea of not getting punched in the first place.

    !!! DUH PEOPLE !!! WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!

    • Bottom Line says:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks BL for the nice words. I sometimes wonder if anyone listens :roll: Even D13 has taken some strong actions, which should be an eye opener to the regulars here who have their doubts.

      I just continue to prepare. Reloading high powered rifle rounds everyday. Stocking up on those supply items as well. Putting in another big garden this spring. We have red tags to shoot a couple does this spring as well.

      I have a rule of thumb. If the MSM say it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s probably not a theory. If they cry racist about anything, never give it up freely. Understand and get mentally prepared to kill those who may attack your home, including those with badges and uniforms. Be ready for a race war, this may be part of the beginning of the really bad stuff. Get your relationship with God right for yourself, in whatever religion you practice. If you do not believe, you may be changing your mind in the near future, but that’s up to you!

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Another thought on the Drone discussion today. And the messed up Govt in general.

    Comments to the affect that you don’t know when use of drones should or should not be applied, who should or should not be killed or when and when not are indicative of a broader problem.

    Yes, I mean the one I used to hammer on all the time.

    Until you form a rational and defensible philosophical core, including the principles that support a consistent moral or ethical code, you cannot consistently answer questions like those surrounding the drones. You will always struggle with the answers.

    This same problem spills over into other issues, like what to do about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, etc, etc.. Those who call for limited govt but then want more govt for their pet issue, only allow the other side to build the big govt they hate.

    Freedom is messy and it carries risk and sometimes costs that are hard to bear. Relying of the FORCE of Govt to make life easy seems good for awhile. But in the end it ALWAYS goes bad.

    Now with that said I will concede there is one area the drones seem to create a fuzzy situation. But it is NOT the use of drones that creates this lack of clarity. It is our view on WAR. The ONLY way to justify killing an American without trial is to claim that he/she is a member of the opposing ARMY when engaged in a WAR. They must be a recognized combatant. The same standard should apply to anyone, not just Americans.

    A war on terror is NO WAR by any traditional sense. While I agree with using a “war footing” as a means of keeping our resources engaged and alert, that is NOT being in a state of WAR nor being AT WAR with anyone. Congressional authorities that include a “group” and all “affiliated groups” is simply way to general to meet the standard of war for a moral country. In my humble opinion.

    That is how we get drone strikes killing Americans, drones flying over American cities and drones killing innocent people in countries where we are NOT at war.

    Americans should be the most peaceful and law abiding people on the planet. But when we are attacked we should be the most ruthless SOB’s in the universe. It should not be “you are either with us or against us”. The doctrine should be “attack us and we will extinguish your blood line”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Your last paragraph is excellent! I only mentioned the NDAA and what it contains. I have not mentioned the Army manual that covers “re-education centers” and how they are run and for whom they are intended. I haven’t said much about the 7000 automatic AR type weapons the DHS has ordered. I really haven’t touched on the fact that the DHS has ordered and distributed 1.6 billion rounds of ammo throughout the country (and mostly near cities).

      These are all documented facts that I can link too if needed. Now, just from my readings, I hear from sources (yea, them again :) ) that many AF pilots are considering getting out because their training has involved striking U.S. citizens and cities! How about Obama asking high ranking military officers if they would fire on Americans as a litmus test for duty positions?

      Just some thoughts my friend. :)

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    Something to enjoy, my famous venison stew recipe! http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-recipe-log/#comment-932

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    More and more “let me see your papers”. Naziism is alive and well in this country. I wonder if the cops who are doing this realize this? http://www.prisonplanet.com/cops-man-random-revenue-enhancement-checkpoints-in-florida.html

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    This is an excellent article. It put a big :) on my face. http://www.naturalnews.com/038970_gun_control_backfired_America.html

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    Maybe it’s time to have this discussion as well. Ignoring it won’t work! http://lastresistance.com/1262/canadas-boy-scouts-warn-bsa-of-homosexual-infiltration/

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    Another slimeball group of politicians are trying to fleece Americans again. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/own-gun-time-to-buy-violence-insurance-california-democrats-say/

    This thinking is what will probably get this idea killed: Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance.

    Can we not do better than this? Is this what we have allowed politics to become? These idiots don’t know the difference between a right and a privilege. There is one moron who thinks an island in the Pacific can flip over if too many people get on one side of it :roll:

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. Bill introduced in Idaho that makes reading ‘Atlas Shrugged’ a requirement for graduation
    Rick Moran

    Reading Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” may become a requirement for high school graduation in Idaho if Coeur d’Alene Senator John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, decides to pursue the matter.

    Goedde introduced a bill with the requirement but doesn’t appear serious about pushing it:

    When Sen. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Goedde why he chose that particular book, Goedde said to laughter, “That book made my son a Republican.”

    Goedde said he doesn’t plan to press forward with the bill, but it was formally introduced in his committee Tuesday on a voice vote. He said he was sending a message to the State Board of Education, because he’s unhappy with its recent move to repeal a rule requiring two online courses to graduate from high school, and with its decision to back off on another planned rule regarding principal evaluations.

    “It was a shot over their bow just to let them know that there’s another way to adopt high school graduation requirements,” Goedde said after the meeting. “I don’t intend to schedule a hearing on it.”

    The 1957 novel has been embraced by libertarians and the tea party movement, in part for its opposition to “statism” and embrace of capitalism, as Rand expressed her philosophy of “objectivism,” focusing on “the morality of rational self-interest.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/bill_introduced_in_idaho_that_makes_reading_atlas_shrugged_a_requirement_for_graduation.html#ixzz2KDxLjmSu

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Tweet of the week, maybe the month:

    “Hollywood Nitwits: “You can’t blame movies for gun violence!” Really? Then why did Obama blame the Benghazi massacre on one? Liberalunatics!”

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    I have been contemplating how to deal with all the crime in Chicago and other cities. My decision came down to who would fix it the best, the people or the government. I decided the people should be empowered to defend themselves, property and neighborhoods. First, allow and fund all the citizens who can legally own a gun. Provide a shotgun and training, let the rest happen. When the criminals and gangs realize that they are getting scraped up at an alarming pace, the BS will end.

    Now, I know how the left thinks, this will be like the old West and a bloodbath. They have always been wrong and will be again. The threat will play a huge role in slowing crime. The rest will happen because criminals are stupid and deserve what they get.

    On a lighter note, the DHS has just purchased another 21.6 million rounds of ammo!

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition.html

  32. Perhaps someone has already posted this – if so, I apologize for the duplication. Not surprising to any of us here at SUFA, although there are probably still non-believers among us. I’m tired of this hunker-down feeling.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-06/guest-post-all-well

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Pretty much confirms what I see. Although I do see some bright spots in certain areas.

      I don’t like the tendency of this guy to generalize or stereotype those he feels are to blame.

      Yes there are Corporatists and they exist in both parties. But not all corporations are corporatist nor are they all corrupt.

      Not all Rich people are part of the great scam. Many have been crying out on this for years.

      Also on the housing. He makes it sound bad that investors are picking up distressed homes. This is actually a good thing and very normal. The real issue is the use of cheap govt money or favors to gain advantage in those transactions.

      Truth is that Govt regulations has slowed this normal work out of excess housing inventory.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    This is why the LEFT has been apoplectic about the R’s taking over so many state legislatures.

    Bwhahahahaha!

    Page 1
    How to Cure the Federal Fiscal Mess
    by Professor Rob Natelson
    Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence
    The Independence Institute
    727 E. 16th Ave., Denver CO 80203
    The Problem: A dysfunctional federal government headed toward bankruptcy with
    no plan to change course.
    The Solution: A tool the Founders themselves gave us so the people, acting through
    their state legislatures, can come to the rescue.
    The Background: Our American Founders knew that abuses might eventually creep
    into the system. So they added a vital safeguard to the Constitution: Article V,
    which empowers the people, through their state legislatures, to propose corrective
    amendments. The Founders inserted this procedure specifically for times when the
    federal government becomes abusive or dysfunctional.
    How It Works: At the request of their constituents, 2/3 of state legislatures (34 of
    50) pass resolutions called “applications.” They direct Congress to call a meeting of
    the states to propose one or more corrective amendments. The Constitution’s name
    for the meeting is “convention for proposing amendments.” Most applications call
    for a specific kind of amendment, such as a balanced budget amendment. About a
    third of the states already have passed balanced budget applications.
    When 34 legislatures apply, Congress is required to call the meeting. Congress
    specifies the time and place. All 50 state legislatures choose delegates to attend.
    (Delegates are called “commissioners”) At the convention, each state has one vote.
    The commissioners debate and decide whether to propose one or more amendments
    within their assigned topic. If they propose an amendment, then 3/4 of the states
    (38 of 50) must ratify it before it becomes law.
    How This Can Help: Sometimes our country has faced a crisis that only
    constitutional amendments can solve. Our Bill of Rights was a response to such a
    crisis. So was the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery, the
    amendments that guaranteed equal treatment for minorities, and the amendment
    that gave women the vote. In all these cases, Americans worked hard for reform,
    but it still took a constitutional amendment to do the job. Just speaking out and
    electing good people was not enough.
    How YOU Can Help: Contact your state lawmakers and tell them you want them to
    pass an application for one or more amendments to correct our federal fiscal
    problems. Consider asking for a balanced budget amendment
    (http://www.bba4usa.org/) or a similar proposal, such as the National Debt Relief
    Amendment (http://www.restoringfreedom.org/). Consider donating to the
    Independence Institute’s Article V proj

    By the way, I wanted to share a PREDICTION with ya’ll.

    Look for Mark Levin, the radio talking head and Charlie’s favorite, to propose something similar. Only he will have some “book” attached to the notion which requires people to give him $20.00. Yes, that is me trying sarcasm at its worst.

    You conservatives on SUFA notice how many “books” are written for your consumption and how they come flying out of the author’s minds so quickly? Oh, and how little information is actually contained within their covers.

    If you want to cause change I suggest you look into joining your local Tea Party Patriot type group. It usually doesn’t cost much but some time.

    • Another reason why I have not understood the “we won” argument of the left. On a Federal level, the House, which holds the purse strings, is R dominated.

      But more important perhaps – is what your article talks about. The states are overwhelmingly R.

      Someone once talked about keeping politics local (where is that shadowy guy, btw) and yeah for states’ rights!

      And it all comes back to that racist of all groups – the Tea Party!

  34. Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi
    12:05 PM, Feb 7, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

    Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”

    In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

    Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/panetta-obama-absent-night-benghazi_700405.html

  35. General on Benghazi: ‘We Never Received a Request for Support from the State Department’
    11:38 AM, Feb 7, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested “support” in Benghazi:

    “Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

    Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

    McCain iterrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

    “I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”

    “So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

    “I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-benghazi-we-never-received-request-support-state-department_700403.html

    Conclusions-Obama is not only not a leader, he obviously doesn’t even care.

    Hillary and the State Department-incompetent, unfeeling, idiots.

    • They need to have all these stooges together in front of them and question them together so they can’t pass the buck back and forth. Every single person that was involved in any of the decisions that were made (or not made) that evening.

      Also, they need to have all the survivors of that attack appear and give their statements.

      This is just BS through and through.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        You just reminded me of a true story, involving yours truly, that supports your notion.

        In one of my previous lives I dealt with several Federal agencies on key issues affecting my clients. Well on one of these the Fed agencies were real good at blaming the other agencies whenever you talked to them in private.

        Well one day a US Senator asked me to sit in on his little working committee to deal with this issue. He kicked of the discussion with the usual eloquence about solving problems and working together.

        The Fed Agency reps all got on the band wagon and after about 20 minutes of listening to them pat each other on the back I asked the Senator if I could offer up some information.

        He said yes and then I explained, using examples, how Agency A was trashing Agency C, and Agency B was trashing Agency A, and Agency C was trashing both the others and the Senator as well.

        Within 3 minutes of ending my presentation the Agency Reps were at each others throats and begging the Senator to believe them and not the other guys. It was like catching kids after they broke a window or ate all the cookies.

        The Senator, by the way, showed great leadership. After hearing the BS he simply snapped them to attention with a list of demands and ORDERS as to what they were all going to do next.

        It was one of those FUN days we get in a lifetime of work. :wink:

      • No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack
        Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton.

        12:55 PM, Feb 7, 2013 • By MICHAEL WARREN

        Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

        Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, “In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?”

        “We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.

        “And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?” Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this. Watch the video below:

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-word-hillary-during-benghazi-attack_700410.html

        • Outgoing CIA Chief: Obama Nowhere to Be Found Night of Benghazi Attack

          Katie Pavlich
          Katie Pavlich

          News Editor, Townhall

          Feb 07, 2013 02:45 PM EST

          Confirmed again: Obama missed his 3 a.m. phone call on 9/11/2012. Early Thursday morning during testimony on Capitol Hill, Panetta told Senators he did not speak with President Obama or anybody in the White House the night the terrorist attack was carried out on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, leaving four Americans dead including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

          “He knew generally what was deployed out there but as to specifics about time, etc., etc., he left that up to us.”

          Panetta argued Obama relied on the Defense Department to work with the State Department on the issue.

          Senator Kelly Ayotte asked Panetta if President Obama followed up with him about the status of the attack throughout the night, the answer was no.

          Meanwhile, General Dempsey said the State Department never sent a request for military backup before, during or after attack occured.

          “Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

          Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

          McCain iterrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

          “I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”

          “So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

          “I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

          Two weeks ago when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified about Benghazi, she said she was in contact with the White House about the attack throughout the night.

          Clinton testified she spoke to National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, then-CIA director Gen. David Petraeus, who had a compound in Benghazi, and the White House.

          She said U.S. officials participated in talks about what to do in a secure video conference with senior officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the Defense Department.

          “I spoke to President Obama later in the day,” she said.

          As I’ve said since the beginning of this mess, those men were left to die that night and the President of the United States didn’t bother to ask about details.

          http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/07/outgoing-cia-chief-obama-nowhere-to-be-found-night-of-benghazi-attack-n1507558

          I have to agree Kathy-a lot of passing the buck. And a lot of out right contradictions. Someones lying.

          • Panetta says Clinton and Obama were both AWOL that night.Flashback to 2008 campaign. Seems as though neither of them were ready for that 3 am phone call.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              What else can we expect from them? This was a hit, by our government, if that ain’t clear by now, people are blind.

  36. gmanfortruth says:
  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. Look. If you allow them to take away or regulate or explain or memo away one of your Rights guaranteed to you in the Constitution, then what’s to stop them from doing the smae thing to another of your Rights?

    Your Bill of Rights are not a list of things that the Government gives you. They are a list of things that the Government cannot take away from you. That were yours already, given to you by the Creator and not subject to interpretation or forfeit BY the Government.

    Or at least, apparently, that is how it was supposed to be.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Esom my Georgian friend. That is EXACTLY what it was intended to be.

      I smell baseball season in the air. Has the kid fully recovered?

      • Howdy JAC! My youngun’ is fully ready and rarin’ to go. He has worked out all year in preparation for just this time of year. And he is one year stronger and bigger. He has been working with his cousin the Pro ball player too, and has improved a lot with his basics and skills.

        You know I am starting to wonder how much longer we’re going to have our Rights? Liberals and other just plain idiots just don’t seem to understand that taking away the 2nd will just be the first of your rights to vanish.

        I wonder what people like Al Sharphead would think if they took away his Freedom of Speech Right to vomit his drivel? Or took ol’ Jesse Jackson’s Right to call hisself a Reverend because he no longer had Freedom of Religion? Or maybe a criminals Right to due process? (wait, they’re already doing that ;) )

  39. Bottom Line says:

    I don’t watch a lot of TV, but this morning I had the opportunity to catch Obama speaking on a few things. I get the feeling he was being sincere, and probably of better character than he has been given credit for.

    It caused me to consider his position, as well as the position of many others. It caused me to consider, as a reminder, that we are all just humans, and how much it must suck to be in such a position of leadership.

    As frustrated and critical as I/we are sometimes, I must say…it can’t be anything near easy to be in the position of having so many depend on you for answers.

    In addition, with respect to this whole drone use issue(among others), it is a sign of the times, and just how far gone we are as a society, as a species.

    I mean, to think that there is a justification, in the minds of some, to have drones patrolling our skies, and to kill without fully examining the situation….it says a lot, and only feeds this viscous cycle we’re caught in.

    It is time that, we as a species, stop what we’re doing and take the time to re-evaluate, to try to understand how we got to this point. Because we are headed in the wrong direction that I fear will eventually lead to our demise.

    That is one of the reasons that I appreciate SUFA, because that is essentially what we are doing here. As frustrated and impatient as we get with each other sometimes, it is still doing some good.

    I think it is important that we do not waiver in our search for solutions.

    God help us all.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Live Report:

    Many of Tomorrow’s flights throughout the northeast are being cancelled right now due to the pending snow storm.

    This report from D.C..

    Just in case any of you had plans on escaping the asylum tomorrow. Looks like they have you captured.

  41. Bottom Line;

    Now, would you like to drop the straw-man tactic and get back to the original premise with regard to human rights, or just drop it altogether?

    Sure – as long as you drop your straw-tactics as well.

    Let’s deal in the real world. You don’t like the US Government – or government in general. So name the society – the time/place – where, in your opinion – the principles of free will and basic human rights, the concept of being civilized, and the fundamental difference between right/wrong were best adhered too.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Todd, You make a good point. But, I can think of some recent finding of a lost tribe down in South America. Little is known of this tribe, but it seems they have done quite well without “our” interference.

      In our real world, we have lots of problems, and thinking of Europe and right here in the U.S., I would say we could be just fine without the governments. I can only think of a few things that the Feds could do, on a part time basis, that we need (speaking of Congress and the Prez). Maintain our interstate highways is one. Make sure that everyone who paid into SS and Medicare is paid back, with interest, Ensure we have a trained military to protect against invasion (bring all of them home), and, stay out of our business and business’s. We can handle it from there! :)

      • Gman,

        I can think of some recent finding of a lost tribe down in South America. Little is known of this tribe, but it seems they have done quite well without “our” interference.

        Sure, if you like living in huts and being a hunter/gatherer…well, maybe you’d enjoy that!

        But remember, no internet and no GUNS. You’d have to use a spear.

        And I’ll bet they have some sort of rules/government!

        • Bottom Line says:

          Todd,

          Again, you use straw man tactics by insinuating that government is necessary to have a technologically advanced/modern standard of living.

          Try again.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Todd,

            Further,…

            I have come to the conclusion that you are either …

            A – as intelligent as you claim to be, fully aware of what a straw man argument is, and intentionally using the tactic as an attempt to obfuscate.

            …or…

            B – just plain stupid

            I am inclined to go with the former, which, of course, prompts me to wonder ‘why?’

            Is it possible that you are one of those paid plants assigned to sabotage conservative blogs as mentioned in the article that G posted?

          • I suspect that Todd is not insinuating anything -it is what he believes. It is what many people believe.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Todd,

      Understand that I am not what you may consider antisocial. I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. I rather like order, although I do understand chaos quite well.

      My issue is when people use coercion/force to encroach upon the rights of others. It is at which point that a person or group of people decide they know what is best for others and force it upon them that I have issue with.

      In the real world, people have God given basic natural inalienable rights that should be respected.

      Just for the sake of clarity, I will simplify and explain exactly where I am coming from.

      I think the line is drawn in the difference between minding your own business, and minding the business of others. If they are not somehow encroaching upon your rights, you have no business minding their business.

      Live your life, and allow others to live theirs. Live and let live…very very simple. Why is it that so many have such a hard time with this?

      You continue to challenge the idea that people cannot live without being forced into following rules that are in contrast with respect for basic human rights. So long as society rejects such an idea, it cannot exist.

      If you care to read throughout history, you can see for yourself there are countless examples of what you are asking of me. I suppose I could humor you and go on a research fit for hours digging up specific examples of such, …but why should I?

      Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of minding your own business?

      Further,…

      A straw-man argument is when you argue a different premise or logic than what was originally posited by your opponent.

      For example, if I argue that apples are red, and you respond with oranges are not red, You have presented a straw man argument.

      Another example would be if I were to argue that apples are red and you respond with apples are delicious.

      The original argument was that apples are red, thus anything other than arguing the color of apples is a straw man.

      A legitimate counter claim would be to say that not all apples are red as some are green.

      • Bottom Line,

        I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order.

        But the minute someone does that, they will infringe on someone else.

        My issue is when people use coercion/force to encroach upon the rights of others. It is at which point that a person or group of people decide they know what is best for others and force it upon them that I have issue with.

        If you “organize and form rules”, you’re going to infringe on someone else. It’s just a fact – someone isn’t going to like the rules…

        I think the line is drawn in the difference between minding your own business, and minding the business of others.

        If you’re going to mind your own business, why do you needs rules? By definition rules are “a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.”

        The “rules of chess” is a good examples. If you and I are going to play chess, we have to agree to and follow the rules. Otherwise, on my first move, my Queen will jump across the board and take out your King. I win! If you try to “force” the rules on me, you’re encroach upon my “right” to play “chess” anyway I want too…

        You continue to challenge the idea that people cannot live without being forced into following rules that are in contrast with respect for basic human rights. So long as society rejects such an idea, it cannot exist.

        No, you have it backwards. It’s not that “people cannot live without being forced into following rules”, it’s that people choose to create rules to help maintain order in society. It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want, someone will create rules (government). It’s human nature.

        If you care to read throughout history, you can see for yourself there are countless examples of what you are asking of me. I suppose I could humor you and go on a research fit for hours digging up specific examples of such

        If there are countless examples, why would it take you hours of research? You expect me to do the hours of research to prove your point?

        …but why should I?

        To back up your assumptions with facts.

        Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of minding your own business?

        No, I do it all the time. How about you? You seem to want to force your version of “society” on everyone else.

        A straw-man argument…

        Yes, I’m familiar with the straw-man argument. It’s a common “tool” here to change the direction of a discussion.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Todd,

          ” I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. ”
          ” But the minute someone does that, they will infringe on someone else. ”

          You incorrectly suggest that rules violate, when they do not have to. There are such things mutually beneficial rules. An example would be a rule against theft, because theft is a violation of property rights. Everyone has property rights, thus everyone benefits equally by a rule against violating property rights.

          But everyone understands that theft is wrong, and thus a rule against it is, arguably, unnecessary. I cite my personal favorite, “The Golden Rule”

          ” If you’re going to mind your own business, why do you needs rules? ”

          EXACTLY!

          I’m impressed, Todd. I think you’re actually starting to get it.

          ” By definition rules are “a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc ”

          Where does it state or require people to be violated?

          ” If you and I are going to play chess, we have to agree to and follow the rules. ”

          Yes. We do so because it is mutually beneficial to have rules that make it a logical challenge as our mutual goal is to have a challenging game.

          “No, you have it backwards. It’s not that “people cannot live without being forced into following rules” ”

          Where did I state this?

          ” …it’s that people choose to create rules to help maintain order in society. ”

          Yes. And if you care to reference above, you will see that I stated that ” I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. ”

          ” It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want, someone will create rules (government). It’s human nature. ”

          Then what is the point? Are you suggesting that life is about obedience to rules that violate us?

          I will argue that it is human nature to seek out a way to get along, and that overgrown out of control coercive government is a failed attempt to do so. Our society is a good example.

          ” If there are countless examples, why would it take you hours of research?

          (Seriously? Are you drunk?)

          Because there are many. If you have 500K beans, why would it take more than a day to count them?

          “You expect me to do the hours of research to prove your point? ”

          You are the one that originally asked for examples. If you are so curious, why can’t you look for yourself.

          ” To back up your assumptions with facts. ”

          You mean to do the research you are unwilling to do to answer your own inquiry.

          ” No, I do it all the time. How about you? You seem to want to force your version of “society” on everyone else. ”

          Really? Lol. You apparently are ignorant of the definition of coercive force and confuse it with logical pleas to try to convince others that coercion is unnecessary. Re-read above and you will notice that.

          ” Yes, I’m familiar with the straw-man argument. It’s a common “tool” here to change the direction of a discussion. ”

          Indeed you are, as you are the one that consistently uses a straw man tactic. If I cared to take the time to do so, I can clearly and concisely demonstrate how almost every single one of your points is as such. It is actually getting ridiculous, and I don’t think anyone is falling for it.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    Just a note about the ex-cop at war with the LAPD. He is serious and well trained, I wouldn’t want to be anyone named in his letter. Watching the news, the cops give the impression they are in control, what a joke, they are scared shitless. None of them will sleep till he is caught or killed, or found dead. I think he will strike at night, move quickly and wait. He may not strike for several days or weeks, letting them get complacent.

    He is already a cult hero!

    • Define cult hero! I find the mere idea the word hero is applied to this man much more scary than the man his self.

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Hey Todd! Yes, we are so dangerous, Wahahahaha! http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-control-advocate-goes-on-gun-rampage.html

    He’s an Obama lover! A Piers Morgan lover and clearly a Liberal. You Libby’s can’t seem to handle having guns, can you? Those who want gun control are the one’s who need controlled, what a shame!

  44. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      They are MORONS.

      More over, they are ARROGANT MORONS.

      In the name of transparency they will destroy transparency and freedom on the internet.

  45. gmanfortruth says:
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers

%d bloggers like this: