Some Links to Those Who Write Here

OK, a long day coming to an end for me. Because I spent my evening at the hockey game and in the traffic leaving it, I simply don’t have the time to write a coherent post this evening. And as an interesting factor in the mix tonight, I am a bit intrigued with some of the discussion on last night’s post. So I am going to fill you all in on my night, offer some interesting reading from some of the folks who write blogs and also comment here, and then direct you to continuing the discussion that we started yesterday. 

bruins-benchSo let me tell you that the hockey game was awesome. My wife really came through in getting me tickets. We went to the game and found there were FAR fewer Bruins fans than we expected. I know we are in Carolina but there are a lot of transplanted northerners down here. However, we could count on our four hands the number of Bruins fans in the building. Our seats were absolutely awesome! We were sitting right next to the Bruins bench, literally close enough to touch them. Chara is every bit the giant monster that I imagined him to be (Chara is referred to by fans as “The Largest in Captivity”, standing 6’9″ and weighing 265, without skates or gear on. He is one of the largest hockey players I have ever seen). And if you have never seen a game from that close, right at the glass, it is amazing. I will share some better pictures as soon as I am able to get them downloaded from the camera. The ones here are just from my iPhone.

The Bruins jumped up 1-0 and thanks to some great goaltending went to the first intermission that way. The Canes scored twice in the second to take a 2-1 lead to the second intermission. The Bruins scored in the third period and we went to overtime tied at 2. The Canes scored about three minutes into overtime to get the win and a 2-1 series lead. Disappointing but a great game so I am not complaining. One of the guys on the Bruins bench decided to flip me a Stanley Cup Playoff puck, since I was wearing a B’s jersey, but his throw was errant and a Canes fan grabbed it and even when told it was being given to me by the Bruins bench he wouldn’t give it up. I went home empty-handed. Jerk.

charaOverall I have to say I was really disappointed with the Hurricanes fans. There is a line between good natured ribbing of opposing fans and being downright rude and ignorant. They crossed that line many times during the evening. Neither my wife or myself could go anywhere without people yelling at us that the “Bruins Suck”. They yelled from their cars on the way in and out. They yelled while I was in the bathroom. They yelled while we got drinks. On more than one occasion fans literally got in my face and yelled at me. My wife was proud of me for not hurting anyone. But I have to tell you, I really wanted to just destroy just one of them, and look at the rest of the crowd and state very matter of factly, “I am prepared to whip the ass of everyone in this arena if need be. I am not to be trifled with. I just want to enjoy a playoff hockey game. The next person to invade my personal space leaves in an ambulance.” Oh the fun that could have been had. But alas, I respected my wife’s wishes and behaved myself. Enough about the hockey game, but I had to share! It was exciting! Thanks Mrs. USWeapon!

As you all know there are several folks who participate in the discussions here who have subsequently started their own blogs to discuss the things they are passionate about. And every now and then I am going to give you a bit of a taste of their sites, because I want to help promote others who are taking the time to do what I do. To that end I am providing a paragraph from recent articles on their sites below with a link to go and finish the article there if you find it interesting. 

G.A. Rowe

If You Won’t Stand Up For Your Freedom . . . . .

Lets face it, apathy is the killer of freedom! No doubt about it. For those of us who have actually donned the uniform, taken the training and fought for freedom, believe in this country with all our heart. We have a real problem with those who seem to be in it only for what it can do for them. But that is the way it seems to be nowadays, this seems to be the era of take whatever you can get away with and never look back. But does it leave you with satisfaction and a liking of the person that you see in the mirror? Click below to continue…


Kent McManigal

Property rights explained as I see them

In a previous column I expressed an opinion that the majority disagreed with: That wherever you go, you take a you-shaped “bubble” of your property rights with you that no one has a right to violate even if they invite you onto their property.  I would like to expand on this idea a little.

If I invite others onto my property, I still retain ALL rights to my property.  My guests have no right to take, destroy, alter, or even “improve” my property in any way without my express permission.  However, my property rights do not extend into their personal property bubble while they are on my property.  Similar to the idea of a “force field”, they have a “rights shield” at all times.  Others can choose between two choices: to respect it, or to violate it. Click below to continue…

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Property rights explained as I see them


Obama’s First 100 Days

Well here we are.  Obama’s first 100 days.  Let’s look at a few of the colossal  Screw…. uh, hmmm, a few things that he has done in his first few days.

Let’s see.  First thing he does on taking office is order the closing of Guantanomo Bay Terrorist Stockyard… uh, I mean prison.  The only thing is, he doesn’t have any kind of plan for what he’s going to do with the DETAINEES (PC term for PRISONERS).  Bush was going to try them in a military court, which would probably have seen them convicted and sentenced to prison.  This, in my opinion, would have been the right course of action.  Not to mention, it would have kept them in the Bay, instead of where they’re going to probably end up now.  HERE!  Why here?  Because now we’re going to try them in Civil Court.  And we’re going to give them civilian attorneys for free, that you as an American Citizen would pay untold thousands to retain.  I would not be suprised if some of the bleeding heart lawyers did this pro bono. Click below to continue…

Obama’s First 100 Days « The Esom Hill Gazette

Jon Smith

Cut Your Losses

I had to take a break from my series’s that I am working on for a short comment on why I think the current government actions to boost the economy are so dangerous. It is not just that they bailouts are expensive and printing moeny will devalue the currency. Its not just the taxation and the long-term effects that bother me. It is also a short-term effect that will most definately hit us, and it will likely hit us within 5 years, unless other economy retarding policies are put in place that accellerate the problem. Click below to continue…

The Libertarian Blog » Cut Your Losses

faceoffSo there are some interesting readings for everyone since I am not writing anything new tonight. The phenomenal hockey game just took too much of my time. I will be back tomorrow night with another new and interesting topic! In the mean time, read those blogs above if you have a chance. And get involved in the discussions on last night’s article. I will be taking time tomorrow afternoon to reply to everyone on the comments they made there and to address BlackFlag and JAC personally since they have me a bit intrigued to go down the path they are talking about in discussion. 


  1. USW: I was re-reading the thread between you and BF late yesterday, to see if I could understand any better why you seemed to be not as, should I say, lucid as usual. You just seemed to be off your game. Now I get it.

    My dear friend, one should never, I repeat never, try to attempt using reason or logic or any other related brain function immediately following a sporting event that involves close scores, full contact, and jerk spectators. Trust me, I know first hand about this. It never works.

    It takes much longer for the adrenaline effect on the brain to subside than you think. Although I am sure you have had that experience as well. Remember the period of frustration with others and short temper, distraction and boredom following prolonged periods of high stress work? Same thing with watching sports, if your really into the game, just a reduced time frame.

    Sorry for running on with my advice column this A.M..
    Hope you had a good nights rest.

    • Black Flag says:

      Very good point – I am the same way after an intense Poker Game – I’m just not a nice person to be around for an hour or so after….

      • Black Flag says:

        Win or Lose, too.

        It’s best that I simply retire to my office with copious amounts of beer to cool down.

    • I am a an American Football Fanatic – I know that in some parts of this world they call soccer football so I had to be specific here.

      My team is the Seattle Seahawks – It isn’t easy being a Seahawks fan 😦

      I do not go to live games just for the same reason that you experienced at your hockey game – Only I do not have your control over temper at my Football games that you exhibited at your hockey game.

      Therefore I have relegated my game watching to televised games – Wife, dogs and kids leave the house until game is over, then give me 24 hours to cool down after a loss (which are many!).

  2. esomhillgazette says:

    Thanks for including me in your list of blogs. I have read the other 3 and they all bring interesting things to the table.

    I believe America is beginning to wake up to what our elected officials in Washington are doing, I just hope it’s not to slow or too late.

    Watching the news last night on Fox, I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the stupidity I saw talked about. Some things are just too stupid to even get mad at. First Congress is talking about getting involved in College Football, to force them to have a playoff system. Then one Congressman is trying to tell IHOP what kind of syrup they should have for their pancakes (yes, really). Our Government seems to not only be out of control, but also to have totally lost their minds.

    Also, Washington’s power grab is beginning to become obvious to even the most politically blind. Obama is now clearly trying to take over the Banking Industry. He will soon be taking over 2/3 of the American Auto Industry. We even have Senators talking of taking over the Newspaper Indusry through bailouts. And before anyone says that giving bailouts is not taking them over, I refer you to the 2 above.

    The Chrysler problem makes me angry beyond words. Why are they not being allowed to go into Normal Bankruptcy? Under Obama’s plan, which is weird to say the least, The UAW will own 55% of Chrysler PLUS we are going to give them 2.3 BILLION dollars. And if they emerge from Bankruptcy, we’ll give them 4.7 B more. Cerberus, the investor who actually owns Chrysler now, gets NOTHING! The others who invested or loaned Chrysler money to keep them afloat, were basically called theives by our President because they balked at 29c. on the dollar. Chrysler themselves promised these people they would be first in line if they went into Bankruptcy and under the Bankruptcy laws they would be. But the Administration insists on interfering where they have no business being.

    My question is, why is the Government involved in this to begin with? Who is giving Obama the Autority to hire and fire executives and make business decisions for companies? Why is the White House directly threatening and blackmailing the investors in Chrysler while giving the Union control of the company without requiring one single dime from them? We’re not even going to get our bailout money back! We’re even going to give the Union MORE money!

    This of course, is IF it is approved. Let’s all hope that it’s not. The plan the government has is completely insane. This is more of Obama returning his election favors. Another problem is that the DC politicians are apparently taking no notice whatsoever, or are looking at it with satisfaction. Chrysler’s investor’s are getting raped and the Union is getting the kiss. General Motors, with this fine example, is thinking of following Chrysler’s example now. And Obama is already lining his narrow ass up with their Union also. This is only natural since the Unions helped get him elected. Somebody please stop the madness!!

    PS. my sources for this were Fox, CBS, NBC, The Huffington Post, The NY Post.

    • Bama dad says:

      “My question is, why is the Government involved in this to begin with?”

      Does this news article from the Washington Examiner help with the why Esom?

      President Obama wants to make the United Auto Workers union the 55 percent owner of Chrysler. In that light, it’s worth looking at the UAW’s political activity.
      As usual, in the 2008 election cycle the United Auto Workers’ PAC gave 99% of its campaign contributions to Democrats. As I mention in my K Street column today, the PAC funded 42 Senate candidates, 41 of them Democrats. The other? Arlen Specter.
      From the Center for Responsive Politics’ website, here’s some data on the UAW’s PAC activity in 2008:
      * The PAC spent $ 13.1 million, making it the #14 PAC in the country, and placing it ahead of all business PACs except for the National Association of Realtors
      * $4.9 million in reported independent expenditures, all of it dedicated to helping elect Barack Obama
      * More than $2 million in direct contributions to candidates, with 99% of it going to Democrats

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I guess my question should be rephrased to say: Why is the Obama Administration involved in a business bankruptcy instead of simply letting them go through the Bankruptcy Court proceedings like any other business? I really know the answer. It is what you said Bama. He is involved because he owes the Unions.

        I wonder what the rest of the folks, including the States, are thinking right now about their bailout money? Looks like anyone who recieved money from either the Stimulus or through Bailout, are finding the chains that were attached to them.

        I’d rather have gone out of business than to now be finding myself bent over the Oval Office Desk like they are. (I would put a smiley face, but I don’t think it’s very funny since we’re next up after he gets done with business)

    • Esom,
      Much like you I am outraged with everything that is going on. The government is ridding us expeditely of our rights, laws, and civil liberties.

      Very interesting article:
      Driving through Tenaha, Texas, doesn’t pay for some,0,2572041.story

      Also, did you hear about the the incident in Lincoln, MI about a 17 year old girl being arrested for swearing during a 911.

      Let’s go through a quick checklist of goverment control since the beginning of 2009:
      •Unprecedented government control over the auto industry
      •Unprecedented government control over the financial industry
      •FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products-authority to regulate the manufacture and marketing of
      •Unprecedented takeover of food: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 or HR-875
      •Carbon Emission Tax or Pollution Tax
      •Unprecendent takeover of community/civil service: HR 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
      •Unprecendented takeover of religions facilities (churches)

      Soon takeovers:
      •2nd amendment: Gun rights (CIFTA Treaty)
      •One centralized bank (IMF)
      •One World Government
      •Amnesty (legalizing immigration)
      •Private Sector
      •1st amendment
      •Internet: Cybersecurity Act of 2009, HR 1966

      Let’s take a look of preparation so far:
      •Mock Trial of Mass vaccination (NJ)
      •Urban Warfare Drills
      •Mall Terrorist Drills

      And of course this list goes on and on and on…I am not on a conspiracy theory trip, I am on a reality trip. So much is going on and I make this point because I don’t want my comments to be dismissed because people fear that I am a conspiracy theorist.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Obama and Congress are coming out with new things every single day. I believe this is to keep us from concentrating on any single thing. Before one crisis or bill is digested, they come out with something else.

        Telling the public that we must do something about ___?___ right now is a crock. Not giving the public time to think to long about any one subject is the key to getting Obama’s dream Socialist State.

      • Nubian,

        I am a white male, and have been warned by friends who are cops about the Tenaha practice. It happens everywhere, to anyone. Do not give them permission to search your vehicle. Make them get a warrant. Do not resist. They can threaten many things, but a they can only arrest you. Then hope the judge and co. are not in on it as well.

  3. Rewind…back to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. In my post I mentioned the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. Please read below. I also posted my previous post.

    USW, I think we have a lot to worry about.

    HR 1966 IH
    111th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 1966
    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
    April 2, 2009
    Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL
    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.

    Congress finds the following:

    (1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
    (2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
    (3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
    (4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
    (5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
    (6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

    (a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

    ‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
    ‘(b) As used in this section–

    ‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
    ‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    ‘881. Cyberbullying.’.

    I thought this article was interesting USW since the topic of the day is the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Once you read this, I would like to ask, do you still think this act is something not to be worried about? Sounds like they are passing another law to make it easier to put people practicing there 1st amendment right in prison…or camps? A would like to ask to the list of extremist…cyberspace extremist…

    Is Your Blog a Weapon?
    Xeni Jardin
    May 5, 2009

    Law prof Eugene Volokh blogs about a U.S. House of Representatives bill proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others that could make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other web media “To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through “Severe, Repeated, and Hostile” Speech.” Oh lordy, there goes 4chan.

    Here’s the relevant text:

    Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….

    [“Communication”] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …

    [“Electronic means”] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

    Jacob Sullum at Reason thinks the proposed law is stupid, too.

    It was bad enough that a grandstanding U.S. attorney successfully prosecuted Lori Drew, a Missouri woman who participated in a cruel MySpace prank that apparently precipitated the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier, under an anti-hacking law that clearly was not intended for this sort of situation. Now Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and 14 of her colleagues want to make such prosecutions easier through a breathtakingly broad bill that would criminalize a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would make it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to transmit an electronic communication (”including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages”) “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person…to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Guantanamo Bay Terrorists: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?

    Sorry if this seems to be a hijack – but last I saw we have some of the most secure impenetrable prisons in the world on U.S. soil and we house some of the most deranged and dangerous criminals that have ever drawn breath. So now this crap from the GOP trying to scare people about sending the Gitmo shitbags to mainland US? Fear mongering from the extreme on either side makes people distrust you even more, even if you have a kernel of a valid point to start with.

    • Makes you think of the real purpose of the National Real ID Card.

    • Ray, There is supermax prison 5 miles from my house, with far worse and more dangerous people incarcerated there. I have no problem bringing the gitmo prisoners here to our prison.


      • esomhillgazette says:

        I don’t have a problem with them being sent here either. As a matter of fact, don’t put them in prison. Just send the bastards to Esom Hill. We’ll take good care of the poor unfortunates. 😀

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Am curious if these folks are required to perform hard labor at all. Letting them rot seems too easy.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          They may be editing the film that they release, but all I’ve ever seen them doing is sitting around.

          The one Republican I saw talking about the Gitmo boneheads was talking about the ones they plan to turn loose in the US, not detain. Have you seen others Ray?

          I don’t give a crap what prison they send them too, I just have a problem with them turning them loose here and then giving them Welfare, Medicaid and Food Stamps. Why should we provide them a living?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Any that are not going to be incarcerated should be sent back to where the came from.

  5. Rewind again…back to the good ol’ DHS. Just listening to Lou Dobbs and decided to research the topic. Back to the extremist conversation again…a new document that you all have to read. Once you read it, answer this question…Why wasn’t terrorist such as Al Quada, Taliban, and the Jihad not included in this documentation. Open your eyes people, we “Americans” are the enemy not the enemy in which we are fighting 2 wars. When will the people wake up and realize that we have been bamboozled!!!

    Click to access -hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

    • Add-on: FEMA National Level Exercise 2009

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I thought this interesting:

      “(U) rightwing
      (U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals
      who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily
      hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
      reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
      This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements
      that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to
      abortion or immigration.
      (also known as far right, extreme right)”

      I don’t see anything wrong with the rest of it. I don’t see anything wrong with the above part either. I just saw that, of all those definitions, this was the ONLY one that did not use the word “Violence” or “Violent” in it. Why? If they’re not violent, then why is it in there? Is it now illegal to have a different ideology from the mainstream? Hell, even the “Left-wing Extremism” definition used the word “Violent”. I’m not advocating a Conspiracy Theory, just curious why Right Wing Extremists weren’t classified as being violent, but are lumped in with the rest anyway.

      • I don’t see anything wrong with the rest of it. I don’t see anything wrong with the above part either.

        I am sorry, it bothers me…They list every type of American as an extremist even those that are law-abiding citizens (U) aboveground. And if you don’t fall into any of those categories you fall under “leaderless resistance”.

        You have sovereign citizen movement extremist, tax resistance movement extremist, special interest extremist, patriot movement extremist, lone wolf or lone terrorist, ect…now I understand that some of this groups could be extremist or terrorist like skinheads, prison gangs, ect…but when you put regular law-abiding citizens that are passionate and are apart of movements i.e. Animal Rights but don’t use violence to spread the message yet you still label them….that’s a problem. This document should open your eyes!

        • esomhillgazette says:

          The reason I don’t see anything wrong with it is that for every one of the definitions but the one I stated above, it says that they use violence to acheive their goals. We don’t use violence. We use simple words.

          I do think it interesting that the right wing extremists are listed with the rest but not described as being violent though. I suppose since all the Tea Partyers were called RWEs that we could be classified under that, couldn’t we? And US, Me, MadMom, Rowe, JAC, LOI, and BF could be called RWEs too I suppose.

          But as long as I can still type, I ain’t gonna stop voicing my opinion. So I guess if that’s the way they want it, they can lock me up with that 17 yr old boy under The Patriot Act. But I sure hope not. 😉

          • SFC Dick says:

            Esomhill, Sir.

            “And US, Me, MadMom, Rowe, JAC, LOI, and BF could be called RWEs too I suppose.”

            Ah, come on……



          • esomhillgazette says:

            SFC: Yeah, you should be on the list too. Hell, nearly everybody on this site should probably be on it. Leaving anyone off was pure tired fingers. I didn’t mean to insult anyone by not naming them. 😀

            • SFC Dick says:

              Man, ya don’t wanna be left off the list I tell ya.

              “Slaughtering more civilians, and destroying more infrastructure before 8 in the morning than most people do all day” U.S Army copyright ©1775

    • Trying to stay PC maybe? Or just not worried about the known terrorists out there, just tea party attending extremist americans and the more crazy ones. Funny how they lump everyone in but not the ones who should be on the list.

  6. TO ALL!!!! Just came across something worth watching. A 16 year old American was arrested months ago and is being held without due process. Go to;

    Follow their link to “Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process”.

    • Once this kid gets out, there should be one heck of a lawsuit, and I hope it gets to the Supreme Court.


    • esomhillgazette says:

      Even if he DID do this, which he apparently did NOT. Who gave these bastards the right to hold a 16 year old kid for months without due process? Oh, that’s right! The Patriot Act!

      You know, with the way the left screamed bloody murder over that stupid act, you would think one of the first things Obama would have done is asked for a repeal of it.

      I guess it’s different when HE’S in office, ain’t it?

    • I heard about this on Alex Jones radio show 3 days ago. The young child mother was talking to Alex and telling him what happened and questioning him on what she should do. It’s really sad!

      Here is the newpaper article:

      • Its not sad, its an outrage. Foreign combatants are going to be given rights denied to a minor US citizen. There is no reason he cannot be tried and held in our normal system. Are there any national secrets he might expose?

        I think I will write my senators. I don’t expect much, but damned if I won’t try.

  7. Thanks USW, for posting these links. I would like to suggest that everyone who has a blog link up with as many conservative, constitutional minded blogs as possible via your blog rolls. Link to the blogs on USW blog roll’s (mine is on there as well.) Our First Amendment rights are being assaulted by the current administration, little by little. We are now marginalized as right wing extremists according to the DHS, our blogs may be under attack if we cause anyone “emotional distress” (never mind my emotional distress as I watch the country transform before my eyes!), and the censorship of talk radio in some form is a very real threat. The MSM has been corrupted. The only way we can mobilize as one common voice is via the internet, but we have got to connect with as many similar groups as possible to spread the word. Even this means of communication may be under threat, as USW posted about the other day.

    I know, USW, that you have some plan of action in mind. My concern is that at the pace this administration is moving, our ability to mobilize in any form for the common good will be thwarted in short order. Educating, discussing ideas, and linking up is critical, but I intuitively feel that we cannot proceed as though we are in normal times, and can simply work within the normal constrains of the democratic process (vote them out, etc). The only way I have seen any changes come about is when people come out in force and vehemently protest an issue (the DC voucher program, Veteran’s healthcare, the prosecution of Bush administration official’s for torture, and local issues as well). Like BF mentioned the other day, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams, 1722 – 1803. The crooks in our government are getting away with no less than treason; they are shredding the Constitution. If we don’t get up and push back now, then we may never have the chance to rescue our freedom. I’m not ready to build my bunker just yet. Sorry for my rant! Can’t help it.

    • Madmom,
      Agree completely!

    • CA Mama says:

      Don’t apologize for speaking your mind, I think you wrote what many here are thinking. I think the DHS has a daily quota for seeing who else they can villify.

      Also, I just wanted to say a huge “THANK YOU” to all here who have blogs of your own…they’ve certainly helped this naiive citizen to stay abreast of the important issues and just how fragile our feedom is.

      I hope everyone has a terrific day!!

    • USWeapon says:


      I will reply to the other stuff when I have time. Just wanted to say sorry I didn’t add you to the list above. I tried to only have people that I have not actually linked to in the past. Yours is a great blog and, as such, I have linked there several times in articles. Just didn’t want you to think you weren’t still high on my list!

  8. More interesting readings. Research the Fairness Doctrine. Can anyone say, more regulated conditioning and infringement on 1st amendment rights!?

    On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:

    “ I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. ”

    When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:

    “ I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.[26] ”

    A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, “…we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.” Later in response to Press’s assertion that “…they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,” Senator Harkin responded, “Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.” [27]

    Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

    “ Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows. ”

    Clinton cited the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn’t reflect economic reality.[28]

    The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent libertarians and conservatives who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.[29] [30]

    On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[31] It could also include “government dictating content policy”.[32] The conservative Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.[33]

    On the February 16, 2009, Mark Fowler told Mark Levin on Levin’s talk radio program:

    “ I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press — and you’re included in that — the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period.[9] ”

    [edit] Suggested alternatives
    Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger “public interest” standards enforcement (with fines given to public broadcasting). [34]

    In June 2008, Barack Obama’s press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

    “ Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters … [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.[35] ”

    In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[36]

    [edit] Public opinion
    In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is “possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media” (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [37]

    [edit] Recent legislation
    In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican, Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from “using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.” [38] It was blocked, in part on grounds that “the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction”.

    In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742) [39] and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[40] It provided that:

    “ The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[41] ”

    Neither of these measures came to the floor of either house.

    In the current Congress, some members have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. [42] The Associated Press reported that the vote was:

    “ In part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time. ”

    The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. Carolina) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.[43]

    • SFC Dick says:


      I followed the link you posted about the traffic seizures and such.
      About all I can say is “yup’.
      You betchya, and those local, …police? ( screw it, call them what they are government gang lords) operate under the broadest sense of the powers granted them under the war on drugs.
      Ah, but don’t worry about it, they would never abuse those powers against law abiding citizens.
      You know what they say ‘
      “Those …“people”…had to be doing something to get pulled over for in the first place”
      “I never carry around that amount of cash; they had to be doing something illegal”
      And, not to be forgotten, the old standby…..
      “Of course, so what, they were all a bunch of ——– anyway”

      It’s really become a beautiful fucking country.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

  9. Black Flag says:

    Feds to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial
    Thursday, May 07, 2009
    The Associated Press

    The government will begin taking land from seven Somerset County property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.

    In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims’ families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.

    “But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful,” said the statement.

    The seven property owners own about 500 acres still needed for what will ultimately be a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the crash site near Shanksville, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

    “We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things,” park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.

    Two owners account for about 420 acres the park service plans to condemn, including Svonavec Inc. — which owns 275 acres that contain the impact site where 40 passengers and crew died on Sept. 11, 2001. About 150 acres are owned by a family that operates a scrap yard.

    “It’s absolutely a surprise. I’m shocked by it. I’m disappointed by it,” said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres — land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial.

    Oh, so nice – they won’t sell at OUR price, so we’ll steal it under threat of violence from them – because you can just not come to an agreement on certain things.

    And there are people who believe that government is the right thing to do…..

    • CA Mama says:

      Truly disturbing.

      So, I wonder if the fact that they oppose the government takeover of their land does that put them on the DHS watch list? Just wondering.

    • I started to right about this…thanks for reading my mind!

  10. Black Flag says:

    If your portfolio took a hit, you can have comfort that those that pay mega-thousands in investment fees got sideswiped too.

    What does it mean?

    It means you weren’t stupid. If the ‘smart money’ got creamed, it most certainly wasn’t your fault either.

    Knowing that you didn’t do something wrong does help get one get themselves up off the floor and dust off to try again.

    But, this time, trust YOURSELF first…. not the guys in the nice suits…

    • BF, I just have to ask. The following is excerpted from “Tyler Durdan’s” zerohedge blog. The article in question was posted this am, but it’s no longer there. (I spent too much time today looking for it)
      Governments which have promised to do “whatever it takes” to avoid their nightmare memory of the Great Depression are certainly being straightforward about the size and speed of what they are doing. The only thing that is missing, which is far from trivial, is any real analysis of the long-term impact of their actions. We really cannot understand the thinking behind the conviction on the part of policymakers and many investment managers that the unprecedented monetary ease and governmental borrowing will not cause significant debasement of purchasing power. It is as if they think there is nothing to learn from history, but they have not revealed any basis for this mindset.

      It took 20% interest rates in the early 1980s to wrestle down the inflation that kicked off in the late 1960s. It is unfathomable to consider what could happen in the ensuing stages of the current cycle, given the substantially greater excesses and lower discipline preceding this crisis. Moreover, the transition from deflation to inflation could be very abrupt. We really don’t know whether this is likely to occur in the next few months (doubt it, but not impossible), or in a year or two or later, but when it inevitably gets underway, it is bound to be a very large problem.
      right now the entire article can be found at
      … if you want to see it and it goes missing again, let me know, I have the text…

      returning to my thought…which is gold & the fiat dollar

      China and Russia were calling for a new reserve currency prior to G20, nothing formal came out of that, unless you count rumors -and a promise of major money to the IMF which Mr. Obama promptly requested of congress (sorry small rant). The ugliest rumor being that Mrs. Clinton’s Feb? trip to Beijing involved promising ‘IMMINENT DOMAIN OF THE USA TO CHINA AS COLLATERAL’ in return for continuing to buy our treasuries.

      The day you were discussing gold and the various banks and certificates, the spot price shot up – apparently because China had significantly increased its gold holdings. Recently, China called for ‘reform and a ”diverse and sound” international currency system’. They have since stopped or dramatically decreased purchases of US treasuries – (see headlines on today’s sales)..Is this as bad for the dollar as it appears to me? I’m thinking that the inflation predicted above is closer than indicated in the article.

      It appears to me that the equity markets are held together by old chewing gum, fraying baling twine and prayers that are rapidly turning into whimpers. (of course that may be too negative of a take…) Mr. Durden’s blog has a unique and educational perspective on recent market activity.

      What am I missing, not looking at? Am I adding 2 & 2 and coming up with 5?

      one more thing — For these types of discussions, are gold and bouillon two different things?
      😉 c

      • Black Flag says:

        Last question first –


        Bullion is typically certificates. Bullion usually, but not always, refers to large bars – 1Kg, 100oz, or larger.

        These are rarely delivered – offsetting buys/sells keeps them in the vault -though, recently, there have been more demands of delivery which has exhausted the Exchanges supply of some sizes.

        “Gold” could be certificates, but usually means Gold-in-Hand – coins, smaller bars (1/4oz up to 10oz) and jewelry.

        I urge Gold-in-Hand. Paper is just a piece of paper.

        The rest of your post, I’ll respond a bit later – I’m up to my eyeballs in stuff, and only popping in when I’m waiting on a computer to restart….

    • Except for George Soros.

  11. Thank you so much for the plug USW, I have been struggling to get online lately, and doing most of my writing offline. Hopefully that will be changing soon. I still read your articles, and they are getting more and more brilliant and more in depth. I hope to one day be able to put in the content that you do.

  12. Thanks

%d bloggers like this: