Guest Commentary: “What A Free Society Might Look Like”

guest-commentaryWe reach another Friday Night Guest Commentary. I have had several submissions lately and I have unfortunately not been finding the time to review them and work on them and then all the sudden it is the last minute. I was afraid today would be another of those times. I had a hectic day, with Mrs. Weapon having a major surgery this morning (she is recovering fine). But then I remembered that I had a guest commentary that I had been working on earlier this week and I already had the “go ahead” to post it when I felt it was ready. That kind of made what has been a really miserable night just a little bit more tolerable. And to top it off I thought that this particular guest commentary was especially interesting given the conversations we have been having lately. It is a great thought exercise from DKII. And I get the privilege of sharing it with all of you tonight!

DKII has been a reader and commenter here for quite some time. And I must add that he regularly sends me interesting stuff to read, with well thought out comments to go with it to boot! Black Flag has continually challenged us to imagine a world without the government. Many of us are not ready to make that leap quite yet, but it is a nice dream to have. I have challenged myself to ponder what that might look like. However, I have never taken the time to sit down and write out my thoughts on the matter. Fortunately for all of us, DKII did not suffer from whatever ailment kept me from doing so. As a result we have an interesting look at a first pass at a “Free Society”. I understand that there are flaws that everyone will be leaping to point out, but he deserves big kudos for writing this up and offering it to all of you, who he is well aware are all going to tear it up! But I personally think that this could spin up some great conversations, and I believe it so much that I am also going to make sure I remind everyone to continue to discuss in this thread into next week.

What a Free Society Might Look Like


As a thought exercise, I’m going to define an organization that could, in theory, replace the governmental structure currently in place.

Rule #1: Membership is both voluntary and restricted.

Members of the organization may leave at any time, taking their property with them. Similarly, the organization may expulse any member for violating its rules. This rule is a direct consequence of the right to free association, and applies equally to the members and the organization. In other words, membership in the organization is a two-way contract that may be terminated at any time by either party.

The organization would thus not necessarily have a contiguous land mass defining its borders. Most organizations don’t, and in today’s electronic age a contiguous land mass is less necessary (though still helpful for defense and transportation of goods).

Those who are not members of the organization, may be members of another organization, or of none at all. Participation in multiple organizations is allowable only if each organization allows it, since membership in an organization is restricted.

This is the only rule necessary to define an organization. Everything else is up to the organization to decide. In order to have a moral organization, however, an additional rule is necessary:

Rule #2: The organization may not impose on non-members, but may defend members from external imposition.

The first part is to reduce the need for the second. A corollary is for the organization to require the same of its members, but this is not actually necessary – the immoral acts should be correctly attributed to the individuals of the organization, not to the organization itself.

Now, why does this second rule only apply to interactions with non-members?

First, since participation in the organization is both voluntary and restricted, then the organization can do whatever it wants to its members, and members can do whatever they want to each other. Note the following consequences of imposition by either the organization on its members or a member on other members:

  • If a member is imposed upon to the point that the imposition outweighs the benefits of membership in the organization, then the member will leave, whether that imposition comes from the organization itself or another member.
  • If a member acts aggregiously outside the rules set forth by the organization, then the member will be expelled.
  • If an organization operates in a way that continuously causesmore members to leave than join, it will die on its own or be rendered irrelevant.

The existence of the first rule automatically maintains a certain civility within the organization’s membership; the second rule is only necessary for the organization to have a moral basis in its dealings with non-members. Many people instantly try to jump to specifics to show how a free society wouldn’t work. We need to tax everyone to pay for the police, or the military, or the poor, or whatever pet cause people have to which they can’t convince people to voluntary contribute. Instead, let’s look at a currently operating example of a modern, large-scale organization that satisfies the first rule, and see if it is able to function internally, and is able to satisfy the second rule externally.

Members of this organization can leave at will, though to date no one has. Members must petition to join, satisfy certain conditions before being allowed to join, and agree to obey the rules of the organization or risk expulsion. So clearly it satisfies the first rule.

The organization’s dealings with non-members has been mixed. Consider the following four scenarios, where the organization recognizes a “married couple” as a single unit:

Scenario #1: A member couple is going through a messy divorce. One partner wants the marriage to continue and persists in repressing and persecuting the other partner, who wishes to leave. The organization stands by and does nothing, but a sub-group of members located in the area decides to intervene and forcibly separate the sparring couple. Though the partner who wished to leave has since declared independence both from the abusive relationship and the organization, the organization itself has not recognized the change in status (even though many of its members have, particularly the local neighbors). The status of the situation is still not resolved.

Scenario #2: Another member couple is fighting over who gets to keep the owned land in their divorce. Fighting breaks out; the organization does not intervene, though some of its members do independently. One partner in the couple eventually takes control over most of the land, with the other partner is confined to a small piece of property nearby offshore. Both partners still claim to own the entirety of the land in dispute. The partner confined to the small island was expulsed from the organization despite being one of its original members, and the other partner was allowed to join the organization instead. Members of the organization have recently taken steps to prevent another outbreak of fighting between the two from occurring. The organization itself has taken no further action on the situation and has no official dealings with the now non-member on the small island, though it does condemn any aggressive actions against the non-member.

Scenario #3: The organization steps in to mediate a conflict among a member couple, dividing the disputed land into multiple partitions. One partner accepts the plan, the other rejects it; the former eventually takes most of the land by force, with the rest of the land taken by other members. The other partner, who did not agree to the plan, has been recognized by the organization as a separate non-member entity, granted an “observer” status in the organization as a non-member, and been critical of any imposition by members on the non-member, except for the strictest observances of self-defense from clear and present dangers.

Scenario #4: A religious figure declines to be a member of the organization. Due to the figure’s status within the predominant religion in the area and peaceful nature, the organization has had no inclination to impose upon the non-member; nor have any of its members.

It would seem, that the organization is cautious about interfering in the internal conflicts of its members, and promotes a non-violent (though not always tolerant) attitude towards all non-members, regardless of their current status. Thus it can be seen to follow the second rule, even if all of its members do not.

Internally, the organization has no unified military or police force, leaving its members to handle such issues for themselves, either by self-reliance or hired services. Its main powers consist of exercising the right to free association by restricting trade to members who violate certain moral rules, and rarely authorizing force by members against other members. Otherwise, it has many committees, councils, and conferences at which it issues statements in order to try and sway public opinion for or against certain issues, and creates policies that its members can choose to or not to follow. Individual members who initiate violence against others are chastised and outcast, with the organization occassionally advising its members not to trade with the offenders.

The organization is run off of the donations of its members, with donations by the wealthier members funding both operations and aid to the poorer members or to those members in need of temporary help due to some disaster. Several of the organization’s richest members, all original founders of the organization, have a permanent veto in any important decision. Nearly all who are eligible to join the organization have done so. To date, no member has left the organization voluntarily, so the internal governance of the organization is a light enough touch that all members have unanimously decided that the benefits of membership are worth the costs.

You’ve probably figured it out by now, particularly with that last paragraph. I’m talking about the United Nations, in so far as it relates to the individual nations that make up its membership (and those who don’t) – bonus points for correctly identifying each of the four scenarios outlined above.

I’ve seen many complain about how the UN should or shouldn’t do certain things, or how it has no real power, or how it should or shouldn’t be interfering in local affairs. Yet what I discovered is that because the UN basically has no real power over its members and has a voluntary, restricted membership, then its members are free in every sense of the word. Of course, though the nations are free, the people of those nations aren’t necessarily truly free, but one could learn a lot from the UN:

  • The UN governs most of the world without concern for actual territory. Thus a government does not necessarily have to have jurisdiction over a continuous landmass, particularly in the age of wireless data transmission and air travel.
  • The veto power among the five strongest founding members prevents most radical policies. Imagine if the five longest-tenured Senators, or Senators from the five states paying the highest taxes per capita, each had veto powers over any legislation – regardless of political party.
  • Voluntary membership ensures that the organization is not tyrannical; near-100% membership rate proves that membership is beneficial despite the organization being a virtual monopoly on world governance.
  • The UN doesn’t actually do much – it transfers money around between its members and issues policies for its members to act upon at will. The actual governing falls to a more local level.

Imagine then, if your local government were organized like the UN. Then the local goverments organized together under a state run the same way. Then the states organize together under a federal government run the same way, which in turn joins the UN. In practical terms, such a system would be very difficult to implement, and many services would suffer, at least short-term, compared to the status quo – yet, the members of the UN seem content with it. So what’s wrong with this scenario? (Plenty, I’m sure, but please discuss!)

For reference, the UN charter can be found here: Charter of the United Nations



  1. Thanks for posting, I hope it at least passes the initial sniff test. Never sure what comes out in my writing when I take too much time thinking about something before solidifying it into text.

    Subscribing to comments now, will catch up in the morning, ‘night all.

    • PS: For the record, I first started thinking about this when I heard someone (probably Black Flag) talking about examining the relations between the European countries in the Middle Ages, then eventually wondered if the same relationship still applied today.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Dear DKII,

      To me, this sounds like Panarchism.

      From Wiki:

      Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual’s right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word “panarchy” was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt in an article called “Panarchy” published in 1860.[1] The word “panarchy” has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word “panarchism” referring to the original definition by de Puydt.

      DePudyt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that “governmental competition” would permit “as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever he invented” to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: “Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members.”

      Panarchism has been espoused by socialist, anarchist and libertarian-leaning individuals, including those promoting secession from existing states and those advocating creation of new micronations. Max Nettlau in the early 1900s and John Zube in the latter part of the century wrote extensively on the concept in articles found on Panarchy.Org.

      Two similar ideas are “Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions” (FOCJ) advocated by Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Reiner Eichenberger and “multigovernment” advocated by Le Grande Day and others.


      I stumbled across Panarchism during some research (just last weekend) that I’m doing on “Types of Government”. I’m writing my own little reference book so that I can obtain a better understanding. Please note that I am only STARTING on my research…and Wiki has been my starting point.

      Frankly, I had never heard of this type of a Government and I was fascinated by it.

      Do you see the U.S. Constitution being the foundation that all of these “miro” governments are required to follow? Just curious — because my initial critism of this type of government throws many red flags of concern out such as would a person be prevented from membership to a certain “sect” due to race or sex? Could “sects” be set-up whose guiding principles are of strange beliefs that cause strange and illegal behaviours. (As if we don’t have that already with some religions.)

      Logistically, I have a million questions related to this. I personally find it amazing that you write on this subject as I was just questionning my husband about his thoughts on this as we were driving to our pool party last weekend. I will be watching the various posts today intensely to see if it makes more sense to me.

      Lastly, DKII…I ask that if Panarchism is not what you were thinking, then please do set the record straight. I don’t want to be the cause of your excellent and interesting article to be waylaid.

      Best Regards to all!

      • Actually RS that sounds like a pretty good description, though I’d never heard the term before.

        As for how you would control the “micro-governments” – you wouldn’t. What they voluntarily do to each other is none of your business, as long as anyone is free to leave. What they do to other groups would be treated the same way you treat any stranger/individual interacting with you.

    • Th UN indeed imposes its views upon non members all the time. Be that for humanitarian reasons or not, it indeed tried to impose a global will upon those who do not recognize it as having any authority upon themselves. Second, my brother has been on as many UN Peace Keeping Missions as anyone you are likely to meet anywhere on this globe and he’d be the first to tell you of the frustration their pathetic Political Correctness has forced him and his to witness atrocities without “permission” to protect those to whom these unspeakable acts are being committed upon. He lost nearly a third of his men to non-renewal come contract time from Bosnia/Croatia not because they were afraid to fight injustice but because they were not allowed to. The UN itself is an organization that remains broken under that umbrella of political correctness. All the petty dictators of the world must have to take a Valium or 6 to keep from hysterical fits of laughter each time they enter the place.

      • Right Alan but if you look at it as a macrocosm of the UN’s interactions with the member states, rather than at an individual level, the UN shouldn’t necessarily be getting involved in the internal struggles of its members, nor must it necessarily actively defend others from transgressions of its members (it can do so merely by threatening to remove violent aggressors from its membership).

        • To those at the top, membership costs more than it gives while those at the bottom are all about what they can get. This type of organization is an ideal and an impractical one at that. NATO was much more than the UN when it first fired up. Unfortunately as the EU becomes more liberal, the idea of associating in such a manner with America has become passe. As I see it, if America becomes another EU type country your standard of living and by osmosis my own drops substantially. I’m from Belfast and my parents both chose to stay in Canada when it was safe for my father to go back to the isle because the life we kids would have here was superior to “back home”. Europe for the majority is the acceptance of mediocrity not excellence. I sure wish people would actually comprehend this.

  2. I have issues with the UN and some of their proclamations though. Especially their interference in parental rights.

    Some of the things they suggest increase freedom in some countries but decrease it in others. Your idea seems somewhat reasonable, but I also have major problems with some of the notions.

    What happens to the organization when the top donors remove themselves from the organization? If the United States were to remove itself from the UN it would cause a critical financial hardship on the entire organization.

    % of the operating budget of the UN
    United States 22.00%
    Japan 16.624%
    Germany 8.577%
    United Kingdom 6.642%
    France 6.301%
    Italy 5.079%
    Canada 2.977%
    Spain 2.968%
    China 2.667%
    Mexico 2.257%

    Would the organization require current members to “donate” (i.e. tax) more money to maintain the status of the organization? Or would they reduce their expenditures (like a business or household)? Other members may decide to leave based on one of the core members deciding to leave, without funding the organization has no ability to do anything.

    Also, I have this feeling that the UN could end up operating more like an oligarchy. With a core group determining everything and the other nations having to deal with it. Maybe things would be different if there were many independent “organizations” that would exist at the same time that would create competition for members. With the current state of things its more like you are with us or against us.

    One thing you said “The UN doesn’t actually do much – it transfers money around between its members and issues policies for its members to act upon at will.” That doesn’t work for some things though, if the United States ratifies a treaty issued by the UN then it becomes law in the United States. If another country ratifies a treaty issued by the UN it may or may not affect the lives of the people, it depends upon the previous set up laws within that country.

    I think I may be focusing more on the UN instead of the idea at hand. But it tends to be the easiest thing for me to wrap my head around. I’ll check in with more thoughts later, I have a small civil independent conflict going on between my daughters that prevents coherent thought.

    • In our defense, Canada is a little country population wise but account for the soldiery we send into UN situations. We’re not handing over buckets of currency but we are our best citizens lives. Anyone with a fat bank account can cut a check, that’s safe! Anyone willing to get their hands dirty gets my respect.

      • Alan:

        If you guys could just dump Quebec and then drop the whole “socialism” thing you wouldn’t be a “little country” for very long.

        In fact you would be the most prosperous country on earth in a very short time.

        Of course we would have to beef up Border Security to keep all the vagrants from sneeking in along the southern border.

        The best to you and yours this Sat.

        • Feel good article from Canada Free Press:

          “President Barack Obama delivered a speech at the Pentagon on the eighth anniversary of the attacks. If the Pentagon had any significance as being the headquarters of the most powerful military in the world, Obama didn’t see fit to mention it. No doubt the Pentagon was chosen as the locale of the 9/11 speech only because it was a “crime scene”. While the president made passing reference to the almost 3,000 people who lost their lives back in 2001, he made no reference to the men and women in the military that are fighting America’s enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama used the opportunity to push his domestic agenda, especially health care, building schools and creating green jobs as if these things have anything to do with the tragedy eight years ago. His main emphasis was on his wish to have people perform public service which we have recently learned includes bringing under aged girls from El Salvador to the US illegally to work as prostitutes or presumably to “service the public”. Somehow in Obama’s mind by turning every September 11 into a day to focus on public service or another Earth Day, the victims of the attacks are somehow honored.

          Meanwhile in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper spent part of Friday at the National Military Cemetery in Ottawa. Speaking near the memorial to honor the 24 Canadians who died in the World Trade Center buildings and on the doomed aircraft, Harper not only honored the victims of the attacks but the brave men and women in Canada’s military who have made great sacrifices in Afghanistan to prevent “such a dark day from ever re-occurring.” Harper also said that time has not lessened the impact of the events of September 11, 2001, something that is apparently lost on the current occupant of the Oval Office.”

          Our PM is more American than your POTUS! Now that’s saying something.

          • Big THANK YOU to our friends to the north.

          • I am so embarrassed. What an ass.

          • Obama is truly and magnificently a moron of the first magnitude. How he was elected to the office of POTUS should be the shame of the population who voted for him.

            His remarks and recognition of 9/11 was an embarrassment to his alleged country and a humiliation to the men and women who defend our nation.

            No suprise there though as he is just being Obama. He has had plenty of time since taking office to show his true colors to us all.

            I am ashamed of this administration to the core of my being.

    • And the problem with pulling out of the UN is what? I think it would be great to kick them out of New York, save the money spent to maintain it. I have worked many years with the UN in foreign countries and it is a joke.

      How about all member countries pay equally to keep it? But I would still be against it. It has no useful function except great parties.

      • GreaterGoodscs says:

        D13, as a former New Yorker, I agree with kicking it out (the UN); make it a casino … or a parking garage … the UN is the most useless building/organization on the face of the earth.

        that and domed football stadiums …

        • I like the scenario from the movie “Heavy Metal”, turn the building into low cost housing, and let the city have it.

          • Better yet make it an office building only available to the uber capitalists. If you do a contracted anual with performance base bonuses, come on in!

    • If the top donors leave, then either others pick up the slack, expenses are cut, or the organization falls apart and a new one will take its place (or everyone goes their separate ways into true “anarchism”). That’s why the voluntary/restricted membership rule is the key, because if the members (whether the top donors or the poorest member) aren’t satisfied then they’ll leave and potentially set off a chain reaction unless the organization holds itself to certain standards.

      The main flaw with the example that I can see, is that the UN’s “voluntary” membership hasn’t really been tested fully yet (no secession movement).

    • Sorry Edward, missed some of the other comments:

      Also, I have this feeling that the UN could end up operating more like an oligarchy. With a core group determining everything and the other nations having to deal with it. Maybe things would be different if there were many independent “organizations” that would exist at the same time that would create competition for members. With the current state of things its more like you are with us or against us.

      Currently the UN offers enough advantages that it operates as a near-monopoly (there is another group of non-UN members that have banded together but the name escapes me at the moment). The advantages of consolidation have so far outweighed the disadvantages from lack of healthy competition. But there is technically no restriction on breakaway or additional organizations, should the need arise. But as I mentioned, the UN as an organization hasn’t really been tested yet. As for it becoming an oligarchy, or even an outright monarchy – if the people could opt out of government, a benevolent monarchy is not necessarily a bad way to go, and a malevolent monarchy would soon find itself without any subjects.

      One thing you said “The UN doesn’t actually do much – it transfers money around between its members and issues policies for its members to act upon at will.” That doesn’t work for some things though, if the United States ratifies a treaty issued by the UN then it becomes law in the United States. If another country ratifies a treaty issued by the UN it may or may not affect the lives of the people, it depends upon the previous set up laws within that country.

      On examining the UN, treat the nations as individuals. A nation ratifying a UN treaty is basically someone agreeing to do something and signing a contract. How that affects the sub-units within the nations is not really part of this structure (unless you have the cascading groups of sub-organizations set up). A nation who ratifies a UN treaty and does not actually follow it, would risk expulsion, face other kinds of “internal enforcement”, and generally become less trustworthy for future agreements.

      I think I may be focusing more on the UN instead of the idea at hand. But it tends to be the easiest thing for me to wrap my head around. I’ll check in with more thoughts later, I have a small civil independent conflict going on between my daughters that prevents coherent thought.

      The UN example is meant more as an illustration than as an exact specification, yes. The key point, in my mind, is the idea of a group with voluntary and restricted (bidirectionally voluntary) membership.

  3. DKII…..interesting. I would really have to think through this today but interesting.

    • DKII:

      What would these “organizations” be responsible for doing?

      The answer to that is needed to understand what it is that an “organization” would be “enforcing” against non-members.

      Then of course, how do they enforce against non-members or “other organizations” that may be imposing upon their members?

      It seems to me that even as an ideal this would not be consistant with human nature. We tend to be “geographic” in our nature, at least most of the time. Obviously we will get up and move, sometimes in large numbers. But generally we tend to look for a place to “camp” and then stay there if it will support our needs.

      I think we also tend to congregate into tribes or groups with similar values and nature. While some of us are quite happy trooping around unattached to place and community, most humans tend to congregate. This tendency to congregation is a characteristic that benefits the long term vitality of humans. Specialization and protection against attack from “outsiders” or “predators” are a couple of key benefits.

      So the big question is whether global real time communications can replace the traditional human need for geography. Can like minded people “congregate” or form a “community” that serves the same traditional purposes without the commonality of geography.

      I see many huge problems with your model but would like others, including you, to start digging into them. My questions above will help focus in this regard. But I would like to personaly commend you for your effort and offer you this.

      Your model contains within it what I think is a key ingredient, or concept, for the structure that will create a free society. This means that you have worked hard in your thinking and you are now formulating your ideas around the concept of true freedom.

      I am off to the gym to watch coverage of the Tea Party in D.C.. No TV at my house. I will return later today to discuss this with you and anyone else interested.

      Thanks for sharing your ideas. This is how a TRUE REVOLUTION begins.


      • My understanding is that these organizations would interact with non-members in the same way that non-members would interact with each other. The main external “enforcement” of an organization would be withholding of trade of its members and public statements.Non-members or other organizations imposing on one organization’s members would be a “self-defense” situation. Similar to if I personally hired a security force to defend my property. Of course an organization could be set up that has no mutual self-defense option, depending on the demand of its members.

        The “co-location” principle of most communities is probably the biggest obstacle in my mind. Particularly with many local services such as police and fire generally serving a limited local area and funded by a contiguous community. However organization membership doesn’t necessarily have to be exclusive – I can also join a local group that donates some amount of money to fund a local security force/neighborhood watch group, as long as both organizations allowed the “dual citizenship” of sorts. I think the modern advantages of tele-communications, internet, electronic funds transfer, etc., combined with fast/easy/cheap air travel offset the geographic issue somewhat – I’m closer to people met all over the country, online and otherwise, than I am to most of my neighbors, personally. And you can perhaps consider this blog a non-geographic community of sorts as well. In the end I feel that geographic proximity to your organization members would end up as a market force (with people willing to “pay” or put up with more to join a group with your neighbors) rather than as a strict requirement.

      • I’m trying to wrap my mind around this discussion, am having problems but Churches seem to be organizations that are more set up with individuals in mind. They are supported with voluntary donations not fees and there purpose is to support the church, help members when needed, promote faith and to do charitable work.

        • They also have a larger organization that brings the individual churches together to made decisions that effect all the churches but the individual churches are free to follow this larger organization or to leave.

        • Structure

          Printable Version
          The structure
          John the Baptist depicted with a Baptist cross

          John the Baptist with a Baptist cross ©

          In the Baptist movement everyone is equal. There is no hierarchy of bishops or priests exercising authority over members. Baptists reject the idea that authority flows down from previous church leaders who can be traced back to the apostles in apostolic succession.

          Baptists are congregational: each church is self-governing and self-supporting, made up of members, each with a role to play. The churches encourage those attending to become church members through baptism. This entitles them to vote at the church meeting where all decisions are made. Final authority rests not with the minister or deacons but with church members at the meeting. It appoints ministers, elders, deacons and others who take a leadership role, agree financial policy and determine mission strategy.

          Despite their autonomy, local Baptist churches have always come together in regional, national and international associations for support and fellowship. Baptists believe that churches should not live in isolation but be interdependent.

  4. I’ve decided that I am not such a big fan of this idea.

    Let’s say you put a lot of time, effort, and money into this organization and then it switches directions on you (like so many citizens feel about the USA). You are left with nothing if you make the decision to leave. You are morally bankrupt if you decide to stay. You are screwed.

    Let’s say the US pulls out of the UN. What, in the end, did we get for our money? We would have been better off declaring ourselves KINGS of the world and being a benevolent dictator, which we would not be.

    • One of the economic mistakes people most commonly make is an attachment to money they have already spent and lost. Get over it and move on, don’t think you need to stay because of the money you have put into it in the past.

      • Agreed. Spilled milk. If you need to find value in the purchase, rejoice in finding out doing more for the global “common good” both monetarily, in personnel and equipment than any other country ON EARTH got you nothing but disdain and ridicule for your efforts. I would dare Oba-moron to try spinning that factual beacon into another “it’s the conservatives’ fault”. The absolute is that to the global socialists, America will never be spreading around enough of its wealth to satisfy them. So long as you have a dollar they don’t, America will always be the greedy capitalists. Look only to AIG and the EU’s spin on whose billions saved their banks for merely the latest of many.

      • Chris Devine says:

        In economics that is called a sunk cost. It’s like sitting through a crappy movie just so you “get your money’s worth.” It would make more sense to leave and do something productive. It’s also the real meaning behind the phrase “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” (i.e., even if a meal is free you are engaged in consumption, not production, while eating it).

      • Well said, Kent. I have a dear friend who is from China. She used to work at American Express and then at GE Money. She holds two Master’s degrees. One in maths and the other in statistics. She’s no dummy. She and I were discussing some of China’s recent economic actions. Her position is China has too much invested in the US economy to pull the rug out from under us. My position is China should save its self and cut us off now. We agreed it would be very painful for China to do this. My point was China can have some pain now, or a lot more pain later. When we go down, China will take a huge hit. So what will China do? Fuss over the ‘sunk’ cost, or will they ‘get over it’ and move on? If I were China, I’d go with the the ‘get over it and move on option.

        • I always look at China’s foreign investment fund and the direction it is gazing. I knew we in Canada were in for a bumpy one when Russia’s potash came under the eye. The only bit of luck for us is the Russians want foreign investment but are unwilling to allow foreign investors to actually own. They’d rather take the investments as preorders on a low and fixed commodity price.

          Hell the looming trade war Obama will spark to satiate his union debts has the potential to cripple what’s left of America’s free market system. Why he’s actually doing this and what the repercussions are should be the subject on everyone’s mind.

  5. I am still mulling this over. I pretty much despise the UN because of their anti-gun advocacy (among other things), which they expect all “member nations” to impose on those they rule. That, and the fact that the UN is financed with stolen money. Stolen by governments from the people who are cursed to live on land illegitimately claimed by that particular government. Since all land on Earth is claimed illegitimately by some government one can’t “like it or leave it”.

    Perhaps the problem is that when talking about the UN, we are not talking about an organization that involves voluntary interactions between individuals, but an organization that involves interactions between illegitimate coercive gangs.

    • Kent, you are correct but I think to give this idea due and fair evaluation we should NOT use the UN as an example. Except as an organization without geographic boundaries, turf to govern.

      I do not think such an organization or organizations could be considered government and would thus “govern” nothing.

      But I am still having problems witht the nature of humans to occupy geography and exactly what such organizations would be needed for and how they “enforce” or “defend” themselves.

      In short, I am still mulling as well, although sceptical.


      • Of course, individuals occupying territory is completely separate (and opposite) to organizations and governments claiming and coercively occupying territory that is already privately owned. I also don’t think organizations can legitimately “defend” themselves. Only individuals can.


  7. DKII,

    A good article! Interesting and thought provoking, and it comes from a very different direction. So, I’ve got nothing. Its hard for me to get past the UN is a joke to most of its member countries.
    They can us it for their benefit, and use it to hamstring the US and western nations. The Iraq war might not have even happened if China, France and Russia had not opposed further sanctions. Of course, they were making illegal but substantial profits by violating the “food for oil” program.

    Another example, the UN World Conference Against Racism, etc. in Durban, South Africa on Sept. 1, 2001. Fidel Castro and others railed against ONLY the US and Israel as racist, imperialist predators, and demanded reparations from America for Africans enslaved 200 years ago (it should be noted that Cuba imported more slaves than the entire America). Colin Powell left with the US delegation in protest. I think about the same thing happened during Durban II.

    If the UN is a model for a co-operative society, then it is an example of what does not work, comparable to communism, the theory sounds great, but in the real world, just doesn’t work.

    BTW, the NRA called yesterday, big scare, Mexico thru the UN is seeking a global gun ban that our gun hating house and senate are sure to ratify.

    • Good Morning, LOI: I have nothing but disdain for the UN. The concept was good but the reality of it is…it simply does not work. Every country in there has robbed it through the very programs that they set up. It is a sham, a pariah, and a blot upon the very “human” decency that it is supposed to help protect. It has no power and if it tries to inject power, it is simply ignored with no consequence other than a “stern warning” and then if that does not work, it is a “stern written warning”….

      If the UN wants to really do something….shut down the North Korean missile tests and nuclear program or the Iranian program, however, to do that is to recognize that neither program is for peaceful purposes. Does it not sound reasonable, that in a voluntary program, if Iran’s (for example)”peaceful nuclear program” really is for peace (insert hysterical laughter here), then why would it not set the example for the world and invite the UN into the country to monitor its activities? WOW, what a concept…here is a chance for a Muslim country, to prove to the world that it is peaceful…here is a chance for the Islamic heirarchy to further its cause…here is a way to ensure stability in the region and set an example to be followed, and ultimately become an equal power in the world…PEACEFULLY…not take advantage of the voluntary way? The reality of it is….it will not happen. Then we will all be “SHOCKED” when it is set off.

      Unfortunately the reality of the situation is going to be nasty. It is like the school bully going unchallenged until the bigger guy steps in. The administration does nothing, does not throw the bully out, does not affect his grade…does not isolate him…just tries to “reason” with him and get laughed at and then proceeds to be a bigger bully.

      Damn it is frustrating but the reality of the world is that the concept of voluntary action, while good blogging and coffee circle discussion, will not happen and it cannot happen. The reason it will not happen is that there is no resolve..the reason it cannot happen, is there is no consequence.

      What a sad commentary.


      • D13,

        Yes, it is sad the misery the UN causes. We would be better of to partially withdraw from them, leave an observer instead of an ambassador, do not vote on anything, just issue statements on what the US position is, and what action we intend to take. No more asking them to agree with us.

        It also shows me a large society could not function in this manner,
        just as socialism or communism are doomed models.

  8. For those who do not understand that “regulation” begets “corruption” take a look at this article.

    Then you need to think of the complete and final implications.

    We Are So Screwed

  9. Morning All

    Just thought I’d drop in and say HI. There is a new web site that just came out, don’t know if anybody saw it or heard about it, but I signed on.

    The site is call:

    I think it was put out by the guy who was told by Reid, that he hoped he’d fail in the newspaper business from Las Vegas. I’m not really sure thoguh.

    Hope all is having a nice day.


  10. Bonjour, tout le monde–

    Merci, DKII, for your article. When I consider the U.N. I have difficulty being objective. When they condemn evil actions I’m pleased, and when they propose or promote “politically correct” ideas I am annoyed.

    Their role as an “advisory board” always reminds me of a quote I saw somewhere and am unable to attribute: “How many divisions has the Pope?” It’s all very well to promote or condemn specific actions, but why bother unless one is prepared to back up one’s views with force? Is it done merely for the sake of appearances?

    However, if an organization is prepared to use violence to enforce its tenets, true freedom is probably about to be trampled upon (according to BF).

    Therefore, I still can’t wrap my mind around how a truly free society would work. The description I liked best was a science fiction story which relied upon abundant resources (no scarcity), advanced technology (how convenient) and small population.

    Bon weekend!

  11. I think this is just ridiculous to have Joe Wilson apologize again, but this time on the senate floor. Hey, he apologized to Obama, and Biden, plus wrote a letter of apology, what more do these people want. Just what kind of punishment are they talking about giving him? Please, give me a break, it’s done, it’s over, time to move on.


    Rep. Joe Wilson said Sunday that he will not apologize on the House floor for his outburst during President Obama’s health care address, even though Democratic leaders have threatened to formally discipline him if he does not.

    Wilson noted that he already apologized directly to the White House after shouting, “You lie,” to the president during his Wednesday address to a joint session of Congress. The outburst triggered a political firestorm, but Wilson told “FOX News Sunday” that Democrats are just “playing politics” by trying to drag out the issue and force another apology.

    “I’ve apologized one time. The apology was accepted by the president, the vice president. … I am not apologizing again,” he told “FOX News Sunday.” “I believe that is sufficient.”

    Wilson said he would “never do something like that again,” but continued to defend himself.

    The South Carolina Republican on Wednesday accused the president of lying for claiming his health care reform plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

    “I believe in the truth. What I heard was not true,” Wilson explained Sunday. “I believe (Obama) was misstating the facts.”

    Wilson said he felt “provoked” and attributed the outburst to a “town hall moment,” referring to the town hall meetings where constituents frequently shouted out their frustrations over health care reform.

    While Democrats’ health care plans do not provide for coverage of illegal immigrants, they also do not include verification mechanisms for determining legal status — Republicans have long said this leaves open the door for illegal immigrants to obtain coverage on taxpayer dollars.

    But Wilson said he was proven right, since the Senate Finance Committee and the White House are now considering such verification mechanisms and other stricter measures.

    Aside from his apology to the White House, Wilson also issued a written statement apologizing for his outburst on Wednesday.

    But while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated immediately afterward that Wilson had done enough, Democratic leadership has since decided to seek a public apology from Wilson to his colleagues on the House floor.

    If he does not, a resolution to punish him could come as early as Tuesday.

  12. As patriotic Americans, it is our duty to follow in the footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of America. By the grace of God, we each shoulder the responsibility to protect and preserve our great Nation. Therein, we each proudly rise up and Pledge our Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    On the other hand, many of us see the Democratic and Republican Parties abandoning the principals as set forth by the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. At the very least, most of us already know the Democratic and Republican Parties no longer place much value on the “Will of the People”. Not to mention, these two political parties have recently given us Presidential advisors referred to as Czars; an ever increasing and nearly insurmountable debt; two active Wars, and they are moving more rapidly than ever into a socialist form of government.

    The Democratic and Republican parties have clearly set their own agendas over the “Will of the People”. More importantly, they collaborate together forever increasing power over the people. An example, they, by and large, pick the candidates they want us to vote for in Federal Elections as evidenced by the national debates that do not allow “third-party” candidates a voice in our election process. The two parties are one and the same, the Republican Party was started 78 years after the birth of our great Nation and later split into what is now the Democratic Party. This is a power our founding fathers never condoned or wanted for themselves, our Nation, and the American people. Again by the grace of God, our founding fathers left us the means to form our own political parties to counter vent and restore our government back to the people.

    As a family man, a father of two and a grandfather of two with another grandchild on the way, I must admit I’ve hardly ever voted in my life, and I never will like politics. Nevertheless, I foresee the eventual downfall of this Nation unless something is done in the very near future. The only hope is another political party built on the values and principals this great Nation was founded on. Not being overly surprised, I couldn’t find such a political party to join and give my support. This realization happened about the same time one of my daughters told me I was going to be a grandfather again, so I reluctantly decided to begin forming the Democratic Reform Party. The date was on or about August 28, 2009, and since then I’ve learned I can use all the advice and help in forming this political party into what our founding fathers would be proud of.

    In short, I pray you will join in building this new political party. Together, despite the perception that Washington cannot be changed, we can restore our Nation back to a, “Government by the People, for the People”.

    Please feel free to contact me.

    Thank you, and God Bless America.

    Eric C. Pearson
    Web site:
    Home Phone: (615) 883-8670

  13. 10 Truths About Marriage

    Marriage is a covenant not simply a contract.

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) These words predate all governments reminding us that the institution of marriage is God ordained and defined.

    Amidst high divorce rates and an unprecedented effort to redefine marriage, I propose 10 truths about marriage:

    1.Marriage is a covenant not simply a contract.
    2.One must not redefine original intent without the permission of the author.
    3.All indicators point toward the emotional, social and economic benefits of marriage.
    4.The virtues of commitment and faithfulness must be reclaimed in America.
    5.The state of the union is no stronger than the union of our marriages.
    6.The marriage penalty tax is contrary to the values we claim to embrace.
    7.There is no greater weapon against child poverty and crime than healthy marriages.
    8.Strengthen marriage and you strengthen the family.
    9.Strengthen families and you strengthen a nation.
    10.The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either.

    Dr. Francis Schaeffer once said, “If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions.” The definition of marriage was established by an authority higher than that of any government and more sacred than that of any opinion poll. America loses her moorings when we lose our absolutes.

    • Too many men see marriage as getting a full-time prostitute and too many women see marriage as winning the lottery.

      • ooohhhh, ouch Kent!

      • And how do you view marriage Kent? Or is that a no no question for you?

        • I didn’t say I view marriage that way, but I did marry two women who viewed it like that. They were sorely disappointed in me because of that.

          I don’t think marriage is right for me, though. I married the wrong people twice, and the right person, who I would have married in a heart-beat (and still would, if circumstances permitted it), left me and married a friend of mine because I was gun-shy after two disasters. So, marriage has left me devestated three times (and financially cleaned out twice).

          • Don’t feel alone, Kent. I’ve had the same thing happen to me, though I don’t think I’ll ever marry again. As a woman, not only was I viewed as an at home hooker, but an at home hooker with a paycheck to be spent at leisure. I’ve come to the conclusion that most people view marrigae as an entitlement program for their personal benefit.

            • This is for both you and Kent, and please don’t take this the wrong, because that’s not how I mean it.

              You both sound bitter about marriage, and I can’t say I blame either one of you. But, not everybody sees marriage that way. I have been married to the same guy for 40 next month, and yes we have had our turbulence in those years. Won’t go into any details yet.

              My brother in law is on his 4th wife, and I really think this one is the best one he had. He cheated on his first wife, but she cheated too. They were together for 10 years, produced 2 kids, ended up getting divorced. His second marriage was doomed from the beginning. She had 4 kids from a previous marriage, his 2, nobody got a long with anybody. They divorced after 2 years. His 3rd wife was a very jealous person, he couldn’t even look at another woman without her thinking something was going on. Divorced after 5 years. How they stayed together that long was anybody’s guess.

              But this one he is married to now, is really good for him. They are both in the music business, have their own band, she is a music administrator for their church as well as doing other various jobs. She brought him into culture, something he didn’t have before, as well as him being involved in her opera, and art. She has 2 daughters from her first marriage, this is her second. Her first husband died from cancer. But, they do have a strong marriage, neither one even thinks about going outside the marriage.
              Her girls and his kids all get along quite well each other, although they are older and have families of their own.

              My husband cheated on me when we were married for 10 years, so to get revenge on him, I had one too. He filed for divorce, I moved out, but that only lasted for 3 months. Moved back home, we worked out everything, and have been together ever since. Neither one of us cheated again.

              I guess what I’m saying, is that marriage isn’t for everybody, and no matter what you do to try and make it work, doesn’t help. I’m sorry that it didn’t work out for either one of you, and I hope that some day, you both will meet some body and will be happy again.

              I guess that’s all I have to say about that.

              • HI Judy,

                I don’t believe everybody feels that way, just most of the ones I’ve known. Am I bitter about marraige? Hell yeah, I am. The last one gets credit for that. We had The Talk before we got married, and he sat there telling me what I wanted to hear just so I’d marry him. He even admitted it 11 years later! I can’t allow myself to go through that again. I’ve been together with a wonderful man for four years. He treats me well, but I’m terrified to make it offical. Marriage can be a wonderful thing IF both people are honest with each other and themselves, AND are committed to the relationship. I’m too old to risk/lose everything AGAIN. I can’t have anymore kids so there’s no reason for me to sign the dotted line. I’m wonderfully suited marriage, I just don’t want it anymore.

              • Marriage is probably the only thing I really am bitter over. I also get disgusted over the term “cheating”, since if monogamy wasn’t agreed to, or if there is no sexual relationship, there is no such thing as “cheating”. Or, if your wife tells you for 10 years to “go out and find a girlfriend so you will leave me alone”. See, all the political stuff doesn’t get to me, but this has me feeling sick to my stomach. :S

              • Cyndi P- I have an “Unfortunate Truth” that it seems your husband used against you: “Women don’t want to hear the truth. They want you to tell them what they want to hear, and then make it true.” Some dishonest guys use that fact to get what they want. I’m sorry it happened to you.

              • Thanks, Kent. I’m one of those rare females who WANTS to hear the truth and not some pretty lie. Most folks who know me, know I’m pretty ornery, especially for a female. At the time of the talk, Chris knew I’d left two husbands already. I asked him how he knew I wouldn’t leave him too. This was my firing a warning shot across his bow, as it were. Now, I would think that most men who had already been through a divorce, would have paid attention to that remark and accompanying stare down. He looked me directly in the eyes and said he’d never do anything to make me want to leave. I’ll give him a little credit on that answer. After 8 years of keeping a roof over his head and putting up with his BS attitude, I’d be damned if I was moving out of the house I paid for.

                Okay, I’ll go take my sedative now… 😉

          • Wow. One and done, things get better every single year. Can you die of contentment?

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hey Kent, Cyndi and Judy!

        Hope you are having a wonderful day/evening!

        I am on my 3rd Marriage. After the disasterous 2nd marriage, I swore that I would never marry again. And then I met John.

        1st Husband and I are still friends…we should have never married…but we did get an awesome daughter out of it.

        2nd Husband and I are at each other’s throats. He is a horrible and mean-spirited person and I’m sure that he says that I’m horrible too! We did manage to have two wonderful kids though.

        3rd Husband (John) is doing just fine! Sure, I get annoyed with him over silly $hit, but we have common “base values/morals”. Politically, we are very much alike; he’s very intelligent (which was a must for me! the other 2 weren’t total idiots, they just made some really bad decisions that were idiotic); he was raised Catholic – I was raised Methodist — we’ve agreed on Episcopal; he treats my children with respect (another must for me!). He has given me the gift of passion (which I never had before). He’s very level-headed (I’m more emotional – but that could be a “female” thing in general). We both revel in our 2nd Amendment Rights. Neither one of us are into drugs and we basically just want to be left alone to live our lives to the best of our ability. He likes his quiet time and I like my quiet time…we have our own activities that neither one of us resent the other for.

        I went through quite a bit of counseling between the 2nd and 3rd. I think my problem was that I saw in my previous husbands what I will call “potential”. I didn’t see the situation for the what it really was. Even though I had red flags prior to marrying them, I thought that their “potential” was greater than our differences or that their “potential” was greater than what I define and consider character flaws…These character flaws may not be flaws in the eyes of others, but they are in my eyes. One of them didn’t know if he were AC, DC or both, the other had a bit of a sniffing problem if you get my drift. Richmond Spitfire is a stubborn lady and when she sets her mind to something, it’s hard to change her direction — surprisingly, she is mellowing with age though! 😉

        After two unsuccessful attempts, I’ve finally wizened up to the fact that you just can’t change someone no matter how kind, thoughtful, mean or spiteful you are. It just doesn’t work. You make a committment to work with what you have or you don’t…(i.e. $hit or get off the pot).

        Kent…I think your statement about men having a full-time prostitute in a wife and women winning the lottery in a husband is GENERALLY true. I think that there are some who enter matrimony for these reasons + a host of other reasons. Personally, I have never entered marriage thinking that I won the “fiscal” lottery; my lottery winnings were more of the “emotional” type. I’ve always made more money than my spouses (ha…maybe they thought they were winning the lottery).

        Richmond Spitfire loves being married…She loves knowing that there is another person that she can rely on…She loves that she can have a well-rounded intimate relationship with another person…she personally feels that this is right for her — It doesn’t take a piece of paper though for this feeling to suddenly make it’s appearance.

        I wish all of you a wonderful evening/day!

        Best Regards,

        • Hi RS,

          I guess I was guilty of the ‘potential’ issue too. Marriage #1 was just to get away from home. Stupid, I know. Marriage #2 was definately for the potential. I saw some problems there but I thought he out grow them. WRONG! Live and learn. Marriage #3 was based on lies. His. My big mistake was letting a nice looking, charming man tell me what I wanted to hear, and then BELIEVING him. Won’t make that mistake again. Maybe that’s why Obama’s charms don’t work on me. Been there, done that.

          • Cyndi and all,

            I think a lot of marriage problems start in high school. You start dating, and do not see anyone else. We do the same as adults, on date leads to another, and after a few weeks, you are going steady. Many will continue this for months into years, with what is not the right person, but because of habit, or whatever silly reason, we don’t end it, and move on.

            This behavior is close to my first marriage. My second started a little better. While dating, I warned all that I was not ready to get serious. And I refused to do any of the acting or change my behavior to be more attractive to my dates. She orders tea, I order a beer, I am what I am, like me for that or don’t.

            Second marriage is going strong after two kids and ten years. She was putting herself thru college, and displayed an independence streak I admired then, and am stuck with now. Her part, she has not tried to change me much, we have had bumps, but real communication got us past all that. I also made sure she knew how to shoot, and she is very good with her Glock 26.

            • My wife and I are working on 22 years. 22 Long, long, years.

              I wouldn’t take a million dollars for her. And I wouldn’t give a nickel for a million just like her.

              After 22 years I find I am just too damn tired to start over. 🙂 (just kidding)

              We did get married too fast though, like most. If anything ever happens to her, I would not get married again. I never want to have to start over and I am far too set in my ways to ever change.

            • LOI

              Nothing wrong with High School sweethearts, I took my wife on her first date 39 years ago. After 36 years of marriage to her I would do it all over again. To us marriage is about love, respect, commitment, communication, work and mutual responsibility. I or my wife did not vow to marry as long as things were easy; we made a life time commitment to each other and work to accomplish that. We hope for many more years of this life’s journey together because grandkids are great.

          • Ephesians 5:22-33

            22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

            25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

            This worked for two thousand years. So what happened to change that? My wife firmly believes that the women’s liberation movement was the prime destroyer of the family structure in the USA. Which then led to the loss of morality and values.

            If men and women follow the meaning of the above bible verse a lot of problems can be avoided. We try at my home and when we follow what God’s word says to do then things go much more smoothly. But it all starts with the man loving and respecting his wife. You cannot view your wife as a prostitute if you truly love and respect her. A wife that truly is loved and respected by her husband is usually one happy wife.

            • I agree, Edward. If a man loves and respect his wife, she will be happy. It also hleps if the man acts like a man rather than a man-child.

              • Exactly!

                Its past time for men to MAN UP. Too many men put their hobbies, entertainment, friends, selfish desires, etc…. before their families. Those things are what boys and teens focus on that you need to leave behind when you become a husband and father.

              • The main problem I have is balancing time between my wife and kids. My wife tends to win out more than she should just because her unhappiness tends to affect the family more. Not giving enough time to the kids is a problem that could have long term consequences though.

              • A Universal Law

                Happy wife, happy family, happy life – in that order, it seems.

                (Kent, I’m sure you can understand why that 150 years it was the norm for a man to have mistresses….)

  14. Off Topic, but of interest to some…..

    I’ve got that sick feeling in my stomach again…

    • Barney wasn’t back onto that “loans to those who can’t possibly afford such” bandwagon near the beginning of this year for nothing. There’s a whole lot of violins being played while New Rome burns.

      • I wondered what was up with that at the time. You’d think people would have wised up by now. I can see that some haven’t. Get ready for another round of grab your ankles…..

        • Cyndi,

          A good find, and I agree, the government has helped these banks grow too large. They, and Goldman-Sachs need to be broken up into smaller businesses, and Freddie/Fannie.

  15. I’m answering you both down here.

    Cyndi, if you’re happy with the man you’re with, and happy with the way things are, then I’m happy for you, and I’m glad that you have some one who treats you good. Has he asked you to marry him, or question you as to why you shy away from marriage again? Or does he know the reason? It’s hard to find some one these days who does treat you good, and will be there for you. Hang on to him Cyndi, don’t let him go, sounds like you found a good one.

    Kent, why do you think women don’t want to hear the truth? Not all women seek to get revenge. What happened to me and my husband was just plain stupid on both out parts, we’ve learned our lesson. But like I said, that was a long time ago. Heck, he’ll be 63 in Jan. and I’ll be 58 in November, we’re too old to go through that again. I got married at 17, and maybe that was too young, I don’t know, but something must have worked out right. Why do you get disgusted with the word “cheating” Kent? That’s what it is if you go outside the marriage, right. And yes, when me and husband cheated on each other back then, there was sex between me and the other guy, just as there was with my husband and the other woman. So, yes we cheated on each other, wouldn’t you say.

    If I had to do it all over again there would have been NO cheating from either of us. But it happened, can’t change that fact, it’s all behind us, and neither one of us ever. ever brings it up. WHY? What good would it do anyway. We have too many other things to worry about, like what’s happening with this country for starters.

    • Thanks, Judy. Barry knows exactly what my issue is. I’m not one to hold things in 😉 He hasn’t ‘asked’, and if he did, I’d say no. We both deserve better than a marriage where one partner is still licking wounds. My biggest fear is loosing my independence. I like being able to have my own thoughts, and do what I think is in my best interest. I’ll give you a current example. Barry thinks Obama is the best thing to ever happen to humanity. I’m being to think Obama may be the anti-Christ. 🙂 I’m seriously considering permantly moving to another country, even if it means giving up my American citizenship. Obama, his czars frighten AND his millions of supporters frighten me that much. Barry and I are currently working/living in the Marshall Islands. At some time, our jobs here will end, and we’ll have to leave. We both own houses in central Florida. He has no doubt that he’ll be living in his house again. I haven’t decided what I’ll be doing. Now, if we’re married, that’s going to be a big problem for me. How can I marry a man who is so smitten with Obama? I really believe he’s just being willfully blind. He lives his life according to conservative principles but always defends and supports Obama and the Dems. This is a huge disconnect. Barry and I have known each other almost 10 years, so I’d say we’re fairly well aquainted. I don’t know how we’ll resolve this one.

      • Cyndi

        That is a tough one there. I have to ask. How do you two get along then if he is pro Obama and you’re not? Or do you keep the political scene out of the relationship? Me and Jim do not like what Obama is doing to this country, and he often said, time to move to another country as well. He always brings up Australia and saying he’d like to mover there,especially now. Don’t know what that place would be like to live in, but wouldn’t mind going there some day for a vacation.

        I guess the thing with you and Barry is something that you both have to work out, and what would be best for the two of you. I would hate to see a breakup because of political differences there. But you sound like a smart women Cyndi, and I’m sure you will do the right thing. I know this is going to sound rather silly, but have you ever heard of people being married, but not living with each other and still living in their own houses? I’m not saying do something like that, heck why get married if that’s what you’re going to do, right?

        If you two have known each other that long, and have been together for 4, then I say do what ever you can to save this relationship, maybe even keeping political out of it, if you can. That’s one thing I don’t discuss with relatives , that and religion. Well, except withing my immediate family. I’ll talk religion, and politics with my 2 son’s and husband, and that’s as far as it goes.

        My brother in law, Jim’s older brother voted for Obama, and every once in a while I will ask him how he likes this change we’re having, he just laughs, and walks away. I feel like slapping him on the back of the head once in awhile for doing that.

        I have to agree with you about Obama being the anti-christ. I don’t think I’ve heard one word out of his mouth about being proud of this country, not none. How can he be proud of our troops, when he can’t be proud of this country. I have to put a lot of the blame on the younger generation who voted for him. All they heard was the word change, didn’t know any of his issues, and what he stood for, only that he said he would change this country, and that he did, for the worse too.

        • Hi Judy,

          Barry and I have had some very heated discussions about politics. Needless to say, we rarely, if ever, discuss it anymore. He’s told me on a couple of occassions that if I don’t like what Obama is doing, then I should leave America. Needless to say, I don’t appreciate hearing that from the man I love, and I believe that if I did just that, he’d miss me. I’m quite surprised that he’d say that because when I was considering taking this overseas job, he said something similar because I wanted to move in with him and rent or sell my house. He told me his days of living with someone were over, and that as far as I was concerned, there were “always the islands”. Imagine his displeasure when the job offer came and I accepted. I was here 16 months before he arrived for his job. You’d think he’d know me better than to say stupid thoughtless words like that. I guess some men are slow learners. 😉 He doesn’t know that I’m looking around. If and when the times comes, I’ll tell him. He can do whatever he wants. If he chooses to serve his master in Washington that’s his choice. I’ll miss him.

          • Cyndi, sounds like your relationship is kind of fizzling out, am I reading that right or what. I know you love him, but what would happen if you do meet somebody else, then what? Would stay with Barry in the hopes of things changing or would you take that chance with another man? Especially if you’re not really sure about what you have now. And if you did meet somebody else, learning about him, and feeling like your falling in love with him, but still staying with Barry, and things begin to fall apart, but then that other guy is no longer there, then what?

            I know that politics can ruin a relationship, especially when two people absolutely disagree with each other about the other side, and no matter what they do to try and save that relationship, nothing helps. Sometimes, I really hate politics, gets in the way of a lot of things, even friendships.

            • I don’t know that its fizzling out. We get along wonderfully so long as we don’t discuss politics. If we just had a run of the mill crappy president and his administration, it wouldn’t be a big deal to me. We have something really bad/evil right now that will either make or break this country. If I’m right about what is being done, Barry will eventually have to deal with the consequences. He’ll never admit to me that I was right, but he’ll probably go along with my plans. If I’m wrong, and Obama really is the best thing since sliced bread, I can accept that, admit Barry was right, and on we go together.

              As for meeting someone else, I was here by myself for 16 months and wasn’t tempted in the least. There’s a local expression of “The odds are good, but the goods are odd”. This is an uncommon location. Sort of an island of misfit people rather than toys. I’m 47 years old, a bit over weight, out spoken and politically very incorrect. The men don’t exactly line up, if you know what I mean. Even if they did, I’m too bitter to fall for a line of crap from someone who just wants to get ‘some’. When I divorced my ex, I was ready to spend the rest of my life alone. I got lucky with Barry but if it doesn’t work out, I’m fine on my own. I’d rather be alone, than wish that I were.

              • I’m sorry, I guess I misunderstood you then. Cyndi if you don’t mind me saying, you really sound like a feisty gal, and I think that sometimes that is a rare find in a woman. I too try and speak my peace, but I also try and not hurt anybody;’s feelings, at least not intentionally that it.

                I feel, if someone doesn’t like what I have to say, or how I feel about things, and they always try and have an argument with me about things, then I don’t want that kind of person in my life, I can do without them. I get tired of always arguing with people. Especially when it comes to political stuff.

                I am 57 years old, will be 58 in November, short, 4’11”, I shrank over the years. Used to be 5’1/2″. I come from a family that is stocky, not fat or overweight, just stocky, every single one of my family members on both sides are like that.

                Anyway, it didn’t stop Jim from asking me to marry him. I have become more independent over the years, because sometimes I can’t count on him for certain things, and I think if anything happened, I would be able to be by myself. Wouldn’t like it, but I would manage. But, I do have my son’s, and I don’t know what I would do without them.

                I’ll be back shortly, mom needs a bath, and I have to clean up the kitchen after dinner. Don’t go away,okay.

              • Feisty, eh? Some would would say that. Other’s have said much less flattering, but I’ll go with fiesty 😉

                I try to be respectful of others when disagreeing with, them. Sometimes I cross the line but always give an apology IF it is due. However, some folks can just kiss my plump behind.

                I get tired of arguing about everything too, and also won’t have someone in my life who has no respect for me or my opinions. I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree with folks. Problem is, some folks can’t accept that. I’ll never forget telling my second husband several years after our divorce that I wasn’t bothered about something ( I don’t recall what it was). He was so surprised that I didn’t want to argue. I told him that if I’d wanted to spend the rest of my life fighting with him, I never would have left him in the first place. He was stunned. The peace lasted two or three years until he started up wtih me again. By then, our daughter was 18 and I told him off. We haven’t spoken since. Life’s good! 🙂

    • The reason I don’t think women want the truth is due to the reaction I get everytime I tell it. They even seem to reinterpret what guys really say until it means what they want to hear. In my case, anyway.

      If you had an agreement that there was to be no sex with anyone other than one another, then, yes you cheated. “Cheating” is not always about sex. “Cheating” means breaking the rules, right? Well, if you did not agree to the rules to begin with, or if the rules were changed mid-game, how can you “cheat”? Also, if there is no sexual relationship in the marriage, there is nothing to “cheat on” sexually.

      The first marriage made me despise monogamy. I had no problem with it until then. I was a virgin on my wedding night, so I wasn’t missing what I never had.

      I may be able to live monogamously, but I hate it with a purple passion. That bit of information doesn’t usually go over well with people who have been led to believe that “monogamy is the only way”. For some people it undoubtedly is. For others, no.

      Now, possibly if I hadn’t lost the love-of-my-life to a “friend” who just agreed to marry her ASAP, I might feel differently about marriage. I did want to marry her, I was just not wanting to rush into anything. I had absolutely no doubt that she was “the one” I would be with til the day I died, and I had never felt that way about anyone before. I don’t know.

      This is one thing I can’t shut off the emotional response long enough to think rationally about. I guess this is the “ugly side” of me.

      • Hey Kent, it’s nice to see a guy with the emotions you have, and I have to say, that I agree with Cyndi here about maybe your friend did you a favor. Yes, it’s true, you never forget that one true love you lost, probably never will either.

        But never, ever, let anyone tell you that having emotions is the ugly side of you, don’t even tell yourself that. I would much rather see a man with his true emotions come out, that to hide them. I too am an emotional person, and I think that sometimes I let my emotions get in the way of things, especially when I try and express myself. But, that’s the way I’ve always been and that’s the way I’ll always be. I can’t being myself to be a bitch, it’s not in me. Oh, I try, but then I feel guilty about it.

  16. Kent,

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think your alleged friend probably did you a favor. If she was “the one”, she probably would have given you the time you needed, and she certainly wouldn’t have run into the arms of your best friend. Are they still togther?

    • He wasn’t my best friend. He was my “mini-me”. Long story….
      They are still together. They have been married about 4 years now. Just a few months after they married she told me she understood too late why I was hesitant to get married because she had realized marriage was a “pain in the ###”. She says she wishes they could really connect.

      I have tried to tell myself that I am better off without her. I just don’t believe myself. You can’t tell your heart who to love, or to stop loving just because it should.

      Also, a year after she left I got myself into a really bad “relationship” that I am still in (and won’t get out of for a variety of reasons). That doesn’t help the situation any.

      • No you can’t tell your heart who to love, or to stop loving because it should. I think everybody at one time or another has had that happened to them Kent. Loving some one so hard, and then losing them is something you will never forget. It’s like with your first love, you never forget that.

        I’m sorry to hear that you’re in a bad relationship, and I truly hope that things will or can get better for you Kent, really I do. Or can they? I think two people make the relationship what it is, whether it’s bad or good. Only those two people can do what ever it takes to make that relationship work or not.No relationship can be one sided, right. There again, I guess I could be wrong.

        If I get a chance I would like to tell the story of my oldest son and what happened after he got married in 2004, but I don’t have the time right now. Will you be here later? I will tell it then.

        • Things can’t get better. She lied about everything she was (even her name), so I never knew who the “real her” was until it was too late. There is no relationship since I don’t know who she is, and don’t like any of the things I do know. I actually live with the worst enemy I have ever had. We have nothing at all in common, except our daughter.

          She is an exceptionally accomplished liar, and it is now off-limits to ever mention any of her lies, even the ones I am still dealing with the consequences of. I haven’t caught her in any big lies since our daughter was born. I suppose she got what she wanted.

          Yet, she thinks everything is fine until she whines too much about me not “working on our relationship”, then she acts like she never had a clue how I feel. It happens once every 6 months or so. I have a LOT of patience.

          I could tell you the whole story (it is very long, with a lot of gory details, covering 2 years), but you probably wouldn’t believe it. It sounds like the plot of a really bad soap opera. I think I have already said way too much, anyway, and am guilty of threadjacking, and this is making me dwell on something I don’t enjoy thinking about. So, I think I’ll just sign off and say nothing more about it.

          Good night, folks.

          • Kent, You’d be surprised what I believe. If you see this in the morning,, I would like to say, maybe sometime you can tell your story, that’s if you want too. would really like to hear about it.

            Good night Kent
            Hope tomorrow will be a better day for you.


      • Kent,

        Its none of my business and I won’t be offended if you don’t answer, but why do you stay in such a relationship? Are there children involved?

        • One child. She just turned two.

          • Hang in there, Kent. Your baby will thank you for it later. If her mom is what you say, and I do not doubt you, then your little girl is really going to need you.

            • I know. If it weren’t for her, I’d be LONG gone. I am a full-time “Mr. Mom” and wouldn’t trade a moment of my time with her for anything. But I admit, the loneliness is sometimes pretty hard to deal with. A 2 yr-old just isn’t much company sometimes.

              • I understand, but she’ll be grown up before you know it. Look on the bright side; you have us for intellectual stimulation. I wish I’d spent more time ejoying my daughter when she was youger. She’s 21 now and I miss her terribly I told her that a few weeks ago, and she told me I am a wonderful mom and that I did a good job. Her words make me feel so good. So remember Kent, your little girl loves you, and though its hard now, when she grows up, all that love and hard work will come back you. So whenever you feel tired, lonely and stressed just know that you are giving her something no one else can. She will love you for it. What could be better? Not a thing. 🙂

              • Richmond Spitfire says:


                I totally agree! My daughter (19) tells me now that she loves me and that I’ve done a great job with her…From the time she was 12 to 18, I wasn’t so sure though…It was like an alien inhabited her body!

                Best Regards,

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Kent…She’s adorable! Looks like a very happy little girl!

              • Thanks. She is happy most of the time.

  17. And as long as we’re on the topic of love and marriage, my step-son called on Friday night. He lives in Boise with his gf of a year. He asked her to marry him and she said yes! I might have a shot at being a gramma after all! Oh no! I’m not old enough to be a gramma! 😉

    • Hey Willo

      And how old is too old to be a grandma? We keep telling our son’s hurry up, we’re not getting any younger here. Would like to have one before we leave this earth. They just laugh at us. My oldest son lives with a gal who has 3 boys, and they’ve been together for 3 years, but they are too busy with their military lives to think about anything else right now. And our youngest son is too busy in pre-med and then going into medical school to think about things like that. He has a sort of girlfriend, but nothing serious anyway. He said getting into med-school is top of his list right now.

      So if you’re going to be a grandma sometime, spoil your grandchild when that day comes, doesn’t matter how old you are. Remember Loretta Lynn was 29 when she became a grandmother for the first time.

    • HI Willo,

      You may feel too young to be a grandma, but I don’t get the feeling your going to let that stop you from ejoying it! I hope you get lots of little ones to spoil rotten!


    • Richmond Spitfire says:


      Congrats! I hope you have many grandkids to cuddle!

      Best Regards,

  18. Will be back later, have dinner to prepare, and animals to feed.

  19. Cyndi, if you’re still on, left you an answer above. So, what should we talk about now, or should we stay with the same subject, you pick, I’m game.

    • Hey Judy,

      I don’t know how much time I’ll have. It’ll a work day for me and I’ve been a naughty little lady, so far as the IT gods at work go. A few weeks ago I was searching for a news article on the $550 billion that vaporized out of the market last September, and got a virus on my work PC. Ooops. The security guys picked up my computer and took away. Needless to say, there has been much speculation as whether I will remain employed here. I think I’ll be okay but I’m being VERY careful with my computer use at work. We’re allowed to use it for personal reasons on a non interference basis, but as usual, I don’t trust ’em. So…..

      I’m getting quite concerned about what’s been going on with the markets. I’m afraid the bottom is about to fall out again. I feel like I’ve been preparing for a hurricane. I’ve got some practise with that. Its like the storm is almost here and I’m trying to think if I’ve got all my preps done.

  20. Well, here’s some more good news from the best of Obama. I signed the petition a while back when they sent me this before. Thought I’d pass this along to all.

    Semper Fi – Now Just Die
    Obama Pushes Euthanasia on Veterans

    SEATTLE, WA HOT PETITION to STOP OBAMA’S SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER. Please select, sign, and WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to all 52 “Blue-Dog” House Democrats and/or all 100 Senators, right away (saving you hours of labor!) We’ve already sent over 400,000 faxes, can you help us reach 1,000,000? The campaign is working and Americans are responding now lets make it work in the Senate. WSJ: Obama and Shinseki now pressuring Veterans toward Euthanasia

    The Wall Street Journal just published a shocking editorial written by a respected University President, confirming the Obama Administration is now using VA hospitals to order doctors to pressure all military veterans to sign “pull the plug” do-not-resuscitate orders, hastening their premature deaths through mandatory “end of life” counseling.

    President Jim Towey of Saint Vincent’s College, founder of the non-profit “Aging With Dignity” and former White House Director of faith based initiatives, wrote a blistering expose entitled “The Death Book For Veterans,” revealing President Obama’s new Veterans Administration (VA) directive, presumably signed by VA Secretary, General (ret.) Eric Shinseki, which mandates all veterans’ primary care physicians must graphically discuss “end of life planning” with all VA patients (not merely those nearing death), and must refer them to “Your Life, Your Choices,” a book that openly encourages Euthanasia and was written with guidance from the group formerly known as the Hemlock Society. That same pro-suicide group now boasts on their web-site of directly leading the charge to ensure “end of life counseling” is mandated in the Obamacare bill, HR 3200.

    On page 21 of the Shinseki-mandated Veteran’s Euthanasia book, all military veterans are encouraged to complete a checklist of various scenarios, to decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.” For example, the booklet asks veterans 7 questions pressuring veterans to sign a “living will” that authorizes doctors to terminate your life, if you are:

    1. Living in a nursing home?

    2. Being in a wheelchair?

    3. Not able to “shake the blues?”

    4. Ever heard anyone say, “If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug?”

    5. No longer able to contribute to your family’s well-being?

    6. Are you a severe financial burden to your family?

    7. Do you cause severe emotional burden for your family?

    “This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable,” says Towey, “Worse, a July 2009 VA directive (presumably signed by Shinseki) instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to ‘Your Life, Your Choices.’ (the Euthanasia booklet.) Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition-all patients. America’s 24 million veterans deserve better.” Towey recommends a “five wishes” living-will document that does not pressure suicide.

    But instead the Hemlock Society booklet is now MANDATED for doctor referral to all patients in all VA hospitals, heaping more evidence upon the growing list of proofs that the Obama Administration is LYING TO THE PUBLIC by denying their health care plan pushes Euthanasia on the elderly. They already do it today. Just imagine if ALL hospitals become government-run like the VA.

    • Well, Judy….the answer to your 7 topics is very easy….If the answer is yes, vote again for Obama and Pelosi and crew. Can you imagine what a second term would be like, knowing that there is no third term and no consequence? Unless, of course, ACORN is engaged to rig more elections and do what CHAVEZ did and make sure you cannot get voted out.

      • Good morning D13

        I didn’t vote for Obama and his crew in the first place. You couldn’t pay me enough to vote for any of them.

        • Oh, I know that you did not vote for him. What is getting ironic, I am finding it harder to find people that will claim that they have. At least on this blog, it is easy to to figure it out but those that did are consistent in their stance. What I am finding, all of a sudden, Obama is not staying a house hold word….

  21. Posting for comments. Busy weekend, looking forward to talking about the ACORN mess this week.


    • Won’t THAT be interesting. I will wonder how many people will step up and say that ACORN is misunderstood and has done good things. I have guns loaded and ready to fire if it becomes a topic.


  22. Good Morning Folks:

    Suggest you start your day with this article about ACORN. Pay special attention to the older story linking Ameri Corp and Acorn.

    • Very interesting. However, I am going to be interested in seeing how may will discount these stories because of the author.

      Nice reference, JAC… you you my friend?

      • I am well this morning Colonel, thanks for asking.

        Looks like you have gotten the much needed rain. Hope it comes in amounts usable and not over abundant.

        Hoping to finish pruning of a vastly overgrown apple tree today.

        Hope your weekend was up to expectations.

      • V E R Y interesting…

      • I saw this one coming when I heard the fellows explanation as to why he thought it was legal. He stated the law only covered audio recordings not video. But then the video includes the audio.

        I hope he goes to trial and the jury lets him off. The citizens of Maryland can send a message to the tyrants.

      • Oh my, some of the bloggers are already tossing out the race card. I wonder how long it will take for a Politician or ACORN themselves to do the same.

        • Interesting how the race card is being played when it was a white prostitute and white pimp…perhaps the “other” racial classes want an exclusive on the prostitute/pimp thing?

          • The reason it is racist per the blogger is that: they choose to be a prostitute/pimp meaning they equate being black to these “professions”

    • JAC,

      I do think the ACORN situation is interesting, kinda waiting to see what else happens. Beck has been spanking Obama’s people. I wonder if he is about to have an accident? And there is a lot going on, makes me think smoke and mirrors, what is going on that I do not know about? Obama has signed a tariff against China on tire imports they claim is illegal by WTO rules. Obama did make a statement against the Anti- abortion killing. Have not seen any comment from him concerning ACORN or the 1-2 million Tax Tea party protesters. If over one million people march on Washington, is the president normally silent?

      NYT Reports Rally Crowd in Thousands, Daily Mail Says Two Million

      It goes without saying the Obama-loving media are going to do everything in their power to downplay Saturday’s Taxpayer March on Washington, and the New York Times is certainly living down to such expectations.

      As evidence, consider the Times headline,”Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government.”


      That’s certainly not how Britain’s Daily Mail saw it (h/t NBer MrShy and reader Keith Brown):

      Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as “Obamacare makes me sick” as they protested the president’s health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

      The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.

      By contrast, the Times reported:

      The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands, though the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd.

      • LOI

        You know I looked all weekend for a single report with an “estimated number”.

        The only thing I found was “thousands”, “several blocks long” and “tens of thousands”.

        Funny how any other event immediately has an official Park Service estimate attached but not this.

        The video coverage was all at ground level and I saw no pictures to show how expansive, or not, the crowd was.

        I did hear one person say they “covered the mall”. Well the “mall” is huge so that would be many, many thousands.

        I would think 2 million is way off though. That would be more than was there for Mr. Obama’s innauguration.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi JAC,

          I saw a report on FOX where the reporter said that the distance between the Capitol and the Washington Monument is a mile long. He indicated that the crowd stretched that entire length.

          Hope you are doing well today! Big hugs!


      • Hi guys! Here’s a link from Mitt Romney’s page. His mother-in-law was there 🙂
        I was listening to WJR today (Detroit talk radio) and there were a lot of calls from people who had headed to DC for the rally. I wish I could have been there too.

        Funny how Gibbs stated that the White House didn’t know anything about a rally.
        You Lie!


        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Willo,

          I’d like to point out that in “pre” denying their knowledge of the 9/12 March on DC, then this administration is admitting its culpability of ineptness. So…truth of the matter…either this administration is a pack of liars or it is inept.

          Best Regards,

  23. In the midst of all the debate over healthcare reform, the Left and their media minions conveniently ignore an irrefutable fact: many Americans can’t “afford” health insurance because they’d rather spend their money on other things.

    Those include such “necessities” as fancy cars, big screen TV sets, iPhones and their monthly fees, designer jeans, and — ahem — alcohol.

    With this in mind, the good folks at Reason TV have created a marvelous video that nicely defines who many of the currently uninsured are

    President Obama’s prime-time health insurance speech underscored an important point: No American should have to choose between health insurance and paying rent, between health insurance and getting groceries — or getting drunk, getting designer jeans, or protein powder.

    We hear so much about hardworking Americans who need health insurance, but what about the rest of us? Millions of uninsured Americans could afford health insurance, but it would mean giving up some really cool stuff. Support President Obama’s plan to cover all Americans, because no American should have to choose between health insurance and protein powder.


    • Yes, I’ve wondered how many of those who declared bankruptcy because of medical bills could have had coverage and chose not to.

  24. Here’s some more, not so light reading this morning.

    Make sure you read both of the first two articles. They cover some of the key, core, issues we touch on here.

    This comes courtesy of a reference made by Kent on his site.

    • GOOD ARTICLES!! I most thuroughly enjoyed them. They were very articulate and easy to understand. Agree 100%.

      • Don’t be so quick to agree 100% my dear Georgian. Else you will have to change the color of your flag.

        In case you missed it, Mr. Rose made a case for NOT VOTING as part of the second article.

        Hope your weekend was great.

        • I know he made a case for not voting. I still agree with him though. Voting hasn’t been working so good lately has it? I’m tired of voting for $hit or $hittier.

          He and BF make a compelling case for not bothering to vote, do they not?

          My weekend was good, hope yours was too. Bad news though. So far, frost got everyones peaches in the spring. Still searching for good ones.

  25. For those who wish to continue discussing the Health Care B.S.

    Here’s support for something I brought up some time ago and which B.F. has been pounding on.

    So inconvenient when facts and reason get in the way of bankrupt ideology.

  26. Life of Illusion,

    On Friday you posted:

    Did you happen to notice poverty is now rising? Funny it didn’t happen during the Bush years. Hell, lets blame him anyway.

    I’m not sure where you get your information, but I think you should look at what the census data from the Bush years shows:

    Some highlights:

    On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

    The Census’ final report card on Bush’s record presents an intriguing backdrop to today’s economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama’s combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush’s two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

    Today’s report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

    That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms

    although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole – the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record – average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion.

    The NOT so Funny thing is that it poverty did raise during the Bush years, but most Republicans / Conservatives choose to ignore that.

    • The truly sad thing Todd is that the conclusions you reference here are not connected to reality.

      There is a premise being made here that TAX CUTS are responsibe for economic down turn, decreased real income and increased poverty levels.

      There is no cause/effect relationship to support this premise yet it is accepted and spread by folks like yourself who are not willing to do real analysis of the situation.

      By the way, the use of “median income” ingnores the growth in “other benefits” which have increased over time. It also ignores the reduction that occured on key “cost of living” items, up until the big oil jump. Which in turn kicked food and anything transported up with it.

      The decline in “inflation adjusted median income” started along time ago. There may be ups and downs along the way but the trend has been down since around 1970 as I recall.

      • JAC,
        There is not a premise being made here that TAX CUTS are responsible for economic down turn, decreased real income and increased poverty levels.

        The premise is that TAX CUTS are responsible for economic growth and increased real income that benefit primarily the middle and upper class, and not the working and lower class.

        The problem with “Trickle Down Economics” is that very little trickles down.

        You can try to justify it or marginalize it with “other benefits” and reductions in “cost of living”, but that doesn’t hide the fact that median income decreased and poverty increased under Bush, at the same time Republicans/Conservatives were extolling the virtues of tax cuts and trickle down economics.

        Yes, the decline in “inflation adjusted median income” started in the 1970’s, but it was accelerated by Reagan & Bush, then slowed and corrected by Clinton, and then re-accelerated by Bush.

        See a pattern?

        Or is that just a coincidence to you?

        • Todd

          Here’s an IQ test.

          You live in a tax-free country – there is no income tax corporate or personal.

          You host a business meeting that costs $10,000.

          How much can you claim on your income tax as a deduction?

          • Let’s see, since it’s a tax-free country – there is no income tax corporate or personal, I imagine I can’t claim any of the $10,000 as a deduction since there aren’t income taxes…

            I suppose you’re gonna say that means I don’t have an IQ?? 🙂

            • Bingo.

              So, if a country gives a tax-credit or tax-break, do the people who pay little or no tax benefit?

              Conversely, would tax-breaks etc. benefit only those that pay tax?

              Further, what happens with more money in your pocket? You either spend it or you save it.

              If you spend it, it goes to a product, jobs, etc.

              If you save it, it goes into a bank, who lends it to a business to expand and make products, jobs etc.

              Unless you stuff it in a mattress of course…. (or buy gold)

              Now, if the tax break was fake as I suggest to JAC, then nothing will happen since money returned on one hand was stolen by the other hand – net nothing (except deceit).

              Now, given that Bush increased spending (thus draining the capital markets of business) there would be a contraction of economy as government consumes the capital by delivering to uneconomical segments of society.

              So, Todd tax cuts did nothing and the increased spending of government ate the capital that business required – ending with economic stagnation and contraction.

              • PS: You have a great IQ!

              • I get suspicious when you start playing “nice”! 🙂

              • Black Flag,

                So, Todd tax cuts did nothing and the increased spending of government ate the capital that business required – ending with economic stagnation and contraction.

                The tax cuts certainly did increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

                Whether they’ll be able to retain that wealth thru the economic stagnation and contraction will be another story…

        • But under the second Bush, everyone got a tax cut. Not just the rich.

          And just for the record, the POTUS has very little to do with the economy, except through forumlation of Regulations. This takes time. One year for the regulations and another 8 to 20 months for the effect to work its way into the economy.

          The real effect comes from Legislation. Clinton didn’t do anything to help the economy. A combined Clinton and Republican Congress DID make a difference. But they also set the stage for the next disaster.

          Oh, and of course the bigest factor is Fed Policy, which neither POTUS or Congress control.

          Given your argument it appears that you think “trickle down” means that the money is given to the lower income. Your argument ignores the economic growth that occured as a result of tax cuts. Total employement went up. That means that tax cuts resulted in greater investment and job creation. Some went to increased wages and benefits.

          Once again, the implication of this article was to link the tax cuts to decline in standard of living for the middle and lower income groups. It doesn’t wash with reality of cause and effect.

          The one truth is that “tax cuts are not a silver bullet”. Economic health is much more complicated and tax cuts will only go so far if the rest of the body is infected, as it is now.

          Aside from all the economic mumbo jumbo there is the little ethical issue that tax cuts are simply letting people keep their OWN money to do with it what they choose. Tax cuts are the only MORAL action taken by our govt in many years.

          • “Tax cuts” without context are always a good thing.

            This is not a good thing within the context.

            The tax cut reduced government revenue – but the government did not cut back any expenditures – it increased them

            It used the tax cuts as an illusion – bait and switch – a shell game, and thus an act of evil upon the people.

            It made it appear that they were getting something – when, in fact, they were being robbed blind.

            The tax revenue was clawed back by fiat and inflationary forces that devastated (and will devastate) the people.

            If the people were given a tax bill equal to the government spending – without fiat inflation tactics – there would revolts in the street.

            Instead they are given ‘tax cuts’ – hiding the economic horror being dealt to them.

            This was not an moral act – it was a deception, distortion and illusion…an economic lie.

            • Tax cuts are a moral act.

              Failure to reduce spending as needed to balance the budget is an immoral act.

              It still amazes me how many folks were declaring the economy as healthy when we had 1) tax cuts 2) interest rates at all time lows, 3) lowest unemployment in recent history and yet inflation was running at modern lows.

              When the economy has been flushed with money and inflation is not growing there is serious rot hidden in the trunk of the tree. The kind of rot that causes the tree to topple in the next big wind storm.

              The worst of the storm has yet to arrive.

              • I cannot see how an act that was meant to divert attention and disguise an immoral action could be moral?

                Intention, though not an excuse, does matter.

              • I thought it was you who said intentions don’t matter, the only thing real is the action.

                Stealing is immoral. Not stealing is moral, regardless of the reason.

                Good vs. bad, right vs. wrong. All go to the action, not the intent. Thus it is the action we write our laws to, or at least we should return to, not the intent.

                In either regard, Bush II’s tax cuts were done to keep a promise based on his belief they are a good thing. I have found evidence to that effect and none to the motive of being deliberately diceitful. Greenspan even tried to talk him out of them.

                I do believe you once mentioned that you can have a moral act by an immoral person.

          • JAC,
            You talk about your dislike for both political parties, but you defend the Republicans quite a bit, while laying the blame on the Democrats. Why is that?

            The Bush Tax cuts were heavily weighted in favor of the rich. I don’t have the nbrs right now, but I’ll find them if you want.

            If it takes 1-2 years for POTUS’s policies to take effect, then Clinton gets credit for 2001-02, and Bush for 2009-10. That doesn’t look any better for Bush.

            And that means 2009-10 is not Obama’s fault…

            Clinton and the Republican congress worked together to eliminate the deficit. Bush and the Republican Congress managed to recreate the deficit and take it to new heights.

            My argument is not that “trickle down” means that the money is given to the lower income. It’s that the workers should share in the economic benefits they help create. Under Bush that did not occur.

            Total employment went up, but there was no increase in wages and benefits.

            The implication of this article is that under Bush, the middle and lower income groups did not benefit from the economic growth.

            It doesn’t wash with reality of cause and effect.

            Please explain to me the real cause and effect?

            Aside from all the economic mumbo jumbo there is the little ethical issue that tax cuts are simply letting people keep their OWN money to do with it what they choose. Tax cuts are the only MORAL action taken by our govt in many years.

            I disagree, when those tax cuts benefit the wealthy and at the expense of the poor.

    • Todd,

      Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I will look into this when I have a bit more time. May wait to comment, as a lot of this is in that guest article. I do look forward to the discussion we may have then, as it appears you have done some research.

      BTW, Bush was not naked, just wearing on of those hospital gowns, open in the back, should never have been parading about in public, on a windy street
      like that. Don’t ask me what the ‘ell he was thinking.

  27. And this ladies and gentelmen, is why “we are so screwed”.

    Until the majority, who can scare the crap out of the electeds, figures out that we can’t afford anymore Govt Reform we stand little chance of freedom.

    Left wing radio talking heads discussed this very issue following Mr. Obama’s speech. Their conclusion was, well we may have to compromise to get something passed but “at least we will have gotten our foot in the door”.

    Yes, that is a quote.

    • JAC,

      Agree, anything they pass will have hidden loopholes designed to allow them to expand whatever is passed. There are provisions in the house bill that provides 10 billion for existing health care plans needing bailout, mostly unions like GM & Chrysler. Other provisions penalize non-union health plans and give unions exemptions.

      Even ABC says abortion may be allowed in the house bill.

      “Yet, according to an article at, this could be another example of the President playing fast and loose with the facts

      While the original bills both in the House and Senate never explicitly addressed abortion, Section 1714 of the House bill, H.R. 3200, does talk about family planning for women on Medicaid, the existing federal-state health care program for the poor.

      Section 1714 would make states automatically eligible for matching federal funds if they wanted to offer family planning services to women who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money. Currently, states wanting to pursue this approach need a special waiver from the federal government.

      The piece elaborated:

      Current law says federal funds cannot be used for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

      But under health care reform plans, lower income Americans would have their health care subsidized by the government, and they would be allowed to pick a health care plan that covers abortion.

      Not what Obama and the Democrats are claiming, is it?

      So, it is unclear whether taxpayers could ultimately fund abortions through these reforms or not.

      As such, despite what Obama said Wednesday, healthcare reform MIGHT result in federal dollars funding abortions.”

      • LOI

        I am thinking that “any” bill will have to allow insurance coverage for abortions. We must remember that there are true medical reasons for such a procedure. Remember the heart felt discussion with the Doctor on this site months ago?

        I see no way for it to define the difference between medical need and convenience. That would be admitting the govt is going to get between the patient and doctor. Mr. Obama promised he wouldn’t do that.

        If they prohibit abortion in the bill, then that means the govt will be getting between the patient and doctor, and in fact deciding what medical care is allowed (“death panels”). Mr. Obama promised he wouldn’t do that.

        I do love so watching the pragmatists struggling in the mud pit they themselves created. It would be absolutely funny, if only it wasn’t our future than hangs in the balance.

        • Actually, I disagree, when they made abortions legal, it made guidelines necessary-if they are going to pay for abortions than they should have to follow whatever guidelines are put into the bill-such as only when the mothers life is in danger, and I don’t mean emotionally, physical life.

  28. Well, busy weekend dealing with Earthquakes….

    Learned a lot from the weekend’s plan testing – and had a hoot!

    Caught up on a lot of reading that was piling up – got into a great book The Black Swan – it will be going up on USWep required reading blog.

    The author decimates Socialism and any Economic Central Planning – permanently – and does so without math or economic theory! (It isn’t the purpose of his book – it is an observation he made in the back of a taxi cab….) I’ll expand on his discussion later…

    Going over this post and responses…..

  29. Watching

  30. Should Justice Investigate ACORN? You Decide:

    On Thursday, two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes. On Friday, after another secretly shot videotape surfaced showing the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington, the officers were also fired. In light of these developments do you feel the Justice Department should launch a full investigation into the group’s dealings and leadership?

    On Thursday, two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes. On Friday, after another secretly shot videotape surfaced showing the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington, the officers were also fired.

  31. You Decide: Yes or No.

    I say no, not yet.

    – September 14, 2009
    Back On Track?

    A year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers touched off massive taxpayer-funded government bailouts of the financial and auto industries, do you feel the U.S. economy is back on the right track?

    A year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers touched off massive taxpayer-funded government bailouts of the financial and auto industries..

  32. Richmond Spitfire says:

    RE: I love my Health Insurance!

    Hi all,

    I just want you to know that I really do love my health insurance and will be totally PO’d should it be waylaid by BHO (Believes Himself Omnipotent).

    As most of you are aware, I had my Gall Bladder removed in June – met all of my deductibles…Well…I ended up going to the Rheumotologist this past Friday. I have Osteoarthritis (knees), Fibromyalgia and a “locked” shoulder. The doc ordered up an x-ray and gave me a steroid shot in my shoulder with directive to see a Physical Therapist 3 x week for 4 weeks.

    Cost for all of this:

    $25.00 Co-Pay to the Rheumatologist
    Zilch for the X-Ray at the Hospital
    Zilch for 12 visits to the PT–she’ll probably increase the # of visits, but will still be -0-
    $10.00 Co-Pay for my Monthly Script for Anti-Inflammatory.

    Wow…it works for me!

    Best Regards to all,

  33. I just received this from a friend of mine, who in turn got it from somebody. Do with it what you want, in other words, either you believe this or not. I am merely passing it along.

    Subject: Letter sent to Senator Bayh from a doctor in Indianapolis

    I can verify that there is an actual Dr. Stephen E Fraser from Indianapolis that exists. Hope you find this interesting.
    You better pray for perfect health the rest of your life!
    Subject: An Indianapolis Doctor’s Letter to Sen. Bayh about the Healthcare Bill (Note: Dr.. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN)
    Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to our other representatives. Stephen Fraser
    July 23, 2009

    Senator Bayh,

    As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

    I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
    Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

    Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

    Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

    Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

    Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

    Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

    Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your banks accounts for elective funds transfer.

    Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

    Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

    Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation: illegal aliens.

    Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – your Health care WILL be rationed.
    Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

    Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

    Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

    Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

    Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

    Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
    Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business’s with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

    Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

    Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

    Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

    Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that!
    Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.
    Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same!

    Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, proffession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

    Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

    Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

    Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

    Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

    Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.

    Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

    Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.
    Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!

    Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.
    Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

    Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

    Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy – Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

    Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

    Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
    Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)

    Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

    Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

    Page 429 Lines 10-12: “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!

    Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
    Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

    Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

    Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

    Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.
    Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

    Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

    Furthermore, If you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.


    Stephen E Fraser MD

  34. Some folks nervous over the trade war….

  35. Edward and Alan F.

    I have issues with the UN and some of their proclamations though. Especially their interference in parental rights.

    DKIII example is just that – it is not an essay on whether the UN is good or bad or any of its policies are good or bad – it is a real world example of how sovereigns organize themselves in cooperation.

    Freedom of association of freemen will not eliminate human problems or human suffering – but neither has coercive force and violence of governments.

    What the freedom of association provides is the most moral and effective framework to address these problems. It doesn’t mean that the problem is solvable today (or if ever…).

    What happens to the organization when the top donors remove themselves from the organization?

    The organization would require to redefine itself or terminate

    If the United States were to remove itself from the UN it would cause a critical financial hardship on the entire organization.

    Give that the USA has been delinquent in paying its dues, I believe the UN has ‘figured out’ how to survive donorship.

    Would the organization require current members to “donate” (i.e. tax) more money to maintain the status of the organization? Or would they reduce their expenditures (like a business or household)? Other members may decide to leave based on one of the core members deciding to leave, without funding the organization has no ability to do anything.

    Who knows?

    One can speculate how an entity will deal with “this issue” or “that issue” – but that is not the point of this essay.

    It is, to me, an example of how – in the real world – free people associate and solve problems between them.


    The main flaw with the example that I can see, is that the UN’s “voluntary” membership hasn’t really been tested fully yet (no secession movement).

    I think it is an example of its success – not a flaw.
    As you pointed out, if it had no value, membership would dissolve. Obviously, it appears to have value.


    . Specialization and protection against attack from “outsiders” or “predators” are a couple of key benefits.

    So the big question is whether global real time communications can replace the traditional human need for geography. Can like minded people “congregate” or form a “community” that serves the same traditional purposes without the commonality of geography.

    I believe there is an over-emphasis of ‘geography’ – the modern world is turning this less and less as ‘critical’ and becoming just ‘important’.

    I see many huge problems with your model

    Whereas, I do not.

    I think the big challenge is our own bias and mentality – where we see nations are sovereign, we seem to have a huge problem in seeing individuals as sovereign – and thus, applying these very real world examples to ourselves.

    But I would like to personaly commend you for your effort and offer you this.

    I heartly agree.

    Brilliant done, DKIII

    (Which of course, simply means – I could not have done a better job 😉 )

    The “co-location” principle of most communities is probably the biggest obstacle in my mind.

    I do not.

    We have to understand that people live where the live for a reason – it is not ‘haphazard’.

    It is VERY unlikely you live “here” while holding a dramatically different attitude, language, culture, and point of view from your immediate neighbors. You and your neighbors are probably very close in many areas of life.

    Since you can’t take the land with you – if you find yourself in a serious conflict over one of these items of life – it is likely you will move to an area where you are more compatible.

    You won’t be forced to leave however the comfort of your life will be severely impacted to the point where it probably is a benefit to do so.

    The point I see you making is the freedom to do so without threat, coercion or violence.


    Let’s say you put a lot of time, effort, and money into this organization and then it switches directions on you (like so many citizens feel about the USA). You are left with nothing if you make the decision to leave. You are morally bankrupt if you decide to stay. You are screwed.

    Welcome to freedom, Edward.

    Sometimes your effort is for naught. That leaves it wholly up to you to whether you want to risk that effort, no?


    I am still mulling this over. I pretty much despise the UN because of their anti-gun advocacy (among other things), which they expect all “member nations” to impose on those they rule. That, and the fact that the UN is financed with stolen money. Stolen by governments from the people who are cursed to live on land illegitimately claimed by that particular government. Since all land on Earth is claimed illegitimately by some government one can’t “like it or leave it”.
    Perhaps the problem is that when talking about the UN, we are not talking about an organization that involves voluntary interactions between individuals, but an organization that involves interactions between illegitimate coercive gangs.

    I share your repulsion however look beyond that.

    Nations claim sovereignty.

    So look up the real world example of how sovereigns deal with each other and apply that lesson to how sovereign individuals may interact with each other.

    There are a lot of lessons in the interactions between nations that can be directly applied and understood to be interactions between sovereign individuals – such as the extreme acts of courtesy and protocol in dialogues (like ambassadors and diplomats)…

  36. Kathy

    Carry over

    Hey BF, listened to a special on 9-11 tonight. When building 7 finally fell, the announcer said they’d been given notice sometime earlier that it was going to go; I believe all your links are just miscommunications – instead of hearing, “it’s going to fall” in the panic and chaos of the day, they heard, “it fell”, when it actually had not happened yet.

    Of course someone told them in advance – because they said it fell before it did.

    The question, Kathy, is How did they know?

    No steel structure – in all history prior to and after 9/11 – has ever collapsed due to fire

    What is the basis of this “knowing” then? How does someone “Predict” a collapse – when NO SUCH THING HAS EVER HAPPENED?

    Where did such perfect foreknowledge come from?

    Consider these facts – did you hear about the collapse of WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6? These buildings were directly adjectent to WTC 1 and 2 – struck directly by their collapses. They were wholly engulfed in fire as well as suffered extreme structural damage

    You did not hear about it, because they did not collapse. They were eventually demolished weeks later.

    Yet, the building across the street – with minor damage and minor fire – that was reinforced to withstand a nuclear near-miss falls on queue.

  37. A man who, literally, changed the world as we know it for the benefit of all mankind

    Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the “Green Revolution” for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal.

    Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. “I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?” Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press.

    The article reported that Borlaug is “not sure, and he doesn’t think the science is, either.” Borlaug added, “How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it’s not a driving force?” We don’t even know how much.”

  38. Interesting pic of Co2 hot spots…

    It appears deserts are the problem….

    • Interesting, what/why the red spot in Canada, is that not an ice flow area?
      Notice the number of red(hi) spots in China vs USA.
      I thought the rain forests would be higher.

      • Isn’t that spot – in the middle of an Ice field – interesting?! 🙂

        Rain forests should have low Co2 (Co2 eaters).

        Yes, notice the lack of Co2 hotspots in USA – except over the desert.

        • Response to LOI, who replied in the wrong place

          25% as reported by UN’s non-scientific study….


          Cannot confirm or deny, except to say that they say what you say, but whether what they say is right, I dunna know. 🙂

          But true – the deserts are the biggest producers …it seems…

          • Lower areas of conversion/consumption by ye old leafy greens or simply what a city, desert and ice flow have in common? I made a riddle.


          I have been hearing that the size of deserts were increasing-this seems to be contradicting that information. ?????????

          • What’s the day of the week?

            The story will change every Wed…. 😉

            There is no real measure of what classifies “desert” or not at the edge.

            We know desert when we see it.

            We know not-desert when we see it.

            We do not know what ‘nearly a desert’ vs. ‘nearly no longer a desert’ looks like….


          Could this explain nothing in the rain forests?

          Data are excluded where the associated radiance spectra are saturated, and where noise is relatively large due to weak ground surface reflection.

          Sounds like they’re still calibrating the instruments:

          High concentrations are observed over continental China and Central Africa, which may be caused by measurement interference due to the presence of atmospheric dust. Asian dust (yellow sands) were observed over continental China during the observation period, and the existence of dust storm-like and smoke-like phenomena were observed in the relevant locations in Africa. Future investigation is required to understand these errors. Data calibration, processing parameter adjustment, and product validation required for quantitative discussion of the analysis results, will be carried out in the future.

          There’s also a Methane Map – maybe the Hotspot in northern Canada is from perma-frost melting…

          Or maybe it’s Alan F… 🙂

    • Oh yeah, and the artic is ICE FREE as of today…

      So take that all you global warming skeptics!!

      • Of course, Todd, read the rest of the article that explains the sensor went bonkers on the satellite imagery…

        …its fixed now.

        • I know – just having FUN!!

          But that headline sure jumped out at me…

          I’m predicting Greenland will be ice free tomorrow…I have to get busy with Photo Shop!!

        • I saw an interesting commercial last night on the comedy channel, warning about polar bear extinction and asking for $18 a month to help fight climate change. 1970 polar bear pop.,5,000, current pop., 25,000. Kept waiting for the punch line, but they were serious.

        • Sure but when has faulty equipment made the data unusable when all it takes is a taste of mathematical fiction?

  39. The Matthias Chronicles

    Why I oppose ObamaCare

    by Mar Matthias Darin

    Lock up the kiddies… This ain’t gonna be pretty!

    My opposition to the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 or ObamaCare as its commonly referred to, is not political. My opposition to this Pelosi-Reid frankenstien is purely based upon substanance.

    An Examiner analysis of the 15 firms on the National Law Journal’s “2008 Plaintiff’s Hot List” shows that for 2009, their employees have contributed $636,305 to federal politicians and PACs. Only $4,875 of that amount has gone to Republicans, meaning that the nation\u2019s top trial lawyers are giving more than 99 percent Democratic this year. The PAC for the American Association of Justice, the top trial lawyer lobbying group, has been marginally more balanced, giving Democrats a mere 96 percent of its $627,000 in contributions.

    I came across this and just had to share, where oh where is Matt today?

    • Matthias is, of course, a distant cousin of mine – the black sheep in the family though.

      I have not been around today because, alas, work is a cruel master. I’ll probably be somewhat sparse this week (crunch time in a big project). I will, however, be searching for my name in the threads in case anyone directs anything to me – I can usually spare time for a quick response.

      Best to all, and I hope Mrs. Weapon’s recovery goes very well.


  40. A long but entertaining article, from the Bobo Files

    Dear Friend, Family, or Complete Stranger whose e-mail address happens to be in my possession,

    Two weeks ago, I received the “longest most important e-mail ” that David Axelrod has ever sent. I was flattered to learn that President Obama’s closest political adviser considered me a friend. I know this because he started the letter with the salutation “Dear Friend”. Later I was disappointed to learn that he did not sent this e-mail to only his friends. In fact the e-mail was sent to any e-mail address that could be either be legitimately or illegitimately acquired by the chief White House political officer. No matter. I still appreciate the sentiment.

  41. China urges its citizens to purchase gold and silver

    • And this is a way for China to reduce the impact of a potential fall or collapse of the dollar?

      • Yes.

        and No.

        China is in trouble too.

        They are not geniuses at economics – they read the same fallacies of Keynes as Americans did.

        They have gone into huge financial “incentives” on the yuan to keep it at par with the US$.

        However, China sits more on a revolutionary knife edge then America. A billion rioting Chinese – highly concentrated in cities – would end the political power of an Elite.

        It is the government’s way to save their own people from the government’s folly.

        Consider if only 0.1% of the Chinese follow through – that would -literally- triple the spot price of precious metals.

        So, I wonder what we should do – today -?

  42. I wish I could claim credit for this one but somebody else penned the statement below.

    Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose chairman says he

    doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  43. Obama Criticizes Republicans for Blocking Health Care Bill
    In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Obama says Republican who are opposing the overhaul of the nation’s health care system are doing it for political gain.

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said he is confident Congress will pass “a good health care bill,” as months of rancor over reforming the nation’s health care system seemed to be easing Sunday, with the White House playing down an immediate role for a government insurance option.

    At the same time, Obama was critical of Republican opponents who he said were trying to block an overhaul of the nation’s health care system for political gain.

    “I believe that we will have enough votes to pass not just any health care bill, but a good health care bill that helps the American people, reduces costs, actually over the long-term controls our deficit. I’m confident that we’ve got that,” Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes. “There are those in the Republican party who think the best thing to do is just to kill reform. That that will be good politics.”

    Obama has retaken the offensive on his key domestic policy issue, most notably with a speech last week to both houses of Congress. And sought to turn down the heat over a government-run health insurance plan.

    “The public option is only a means to that end and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal,” he said.

    Obama is trying to push opposing lawmakers away from positions — both left and right — that were threatening stalemate. That’s what happened when Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, tried to push through an overhaul in the 1990s.

    Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, drove home that point again Sunday.

    The president “prefers the public option,” Gibbs said. “However, he said what’s most important is choice and competition.”

    And Sen. Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican who could be the party’s only senator who votes with Democrats, believes choice and competition can be ensured without the public option.

    “It’s not on the table. And it won’t be,” she said Sunday. “We’ll be using the co-op as an option at this point, as the means for injecting competition in the process,” she said.

    Snowe sits on a six-member panel — three from each party — of the Senate Finance Committee that is writing a version of the health care overhaul bill.

    Instead of the government running a program that provides low-cost health insurance, Snowe and fellow negotiators are considering a not-for-profit cooperative system. Those backing the measure contend it would substantially lower health insurance premiums by cutting out private-industry profits and guarantee coverage to all who want it.

    Such systems exist in some areas of the country but their success has been spotty.

    And Obama will have to be convinced that such a plan can succeed.

    “I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn’t work,” Obama told CBS. “You know, I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.”

    Obama wants to make sure that any overhaul imposes strict measures to ban companies from refusing insurance to people with existing medical conditions, dropping coverage when policyholders become ill and imposing caps on what a person can claim for one illness or in his lifetime.

    He told CBS he didn’t want Americans to say in the future: “‘You know what? This hasn’t reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around.’

    “I’m the one who’s going to be held responsible,” Obama said. “So I have every incentive to get this right.”

    Obama is trying to sweeten the deal for Republicans by indicating he is open to their ideas.

    In his Wednesday speech and again in the CBS interview, the president signaled he was open the idea of so-called tort reform. Under current practice, doctors and hospitals must pay huge amounts to insure themselves against malpractice lawsuits by patients seeking large court-ordered settlements for poor treatment.

    Democrats, thanks to heavy backing from lawyers, have not supported Republican efforts to limit such payments. Doctors — and Republican politicians — say the current system drives up costs through unneeded medical procedures ordered by physicians who fear being sued.

    “I would be willing to … consider any ideas out there that would actually work in terms of reducing costs, improving the quality of patient care,” Obama said in the Sunday interview, which was taped Friday.

    While he said he did not back limits on court-ordered rewards for malpractice, he said “there are a range of ideas that are out there, offered by doctors’ organizations like the AMA (American Medical Association), that I think we can explore.”

    Gibbs spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Snowe appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

    • Funny-in all these months that they have been talking about health care-has he in some way been prevented from exploring tort reform.

    • He has “indicated” that he would work with Republicans. That’s far different from saying that he actually WILL work with Republicans.

      The master of the shell game is back at work.

      We are GOING to wind up with this shoved down our throats whether we want it or not.

      I’m sure the poor and worthless will be dancing in the streets when the Messiah gets them “free” health care. (he said sarcastically with a snarl) 👿

  44. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Got this in email…

    A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

    A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

    So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

    They claim 700,000 vehicles so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

    That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

    5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

    More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

    So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

    We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

    How good a deal was that ???

    They’ll probably do a great job with health care though!!

    Best Regards,

    • RS,

      You could have saved yourself a lot of work.

      Here is the Universal Equation (for future reference).


      “Gp” is “government program”
      “E” is the “economic benefit”


      The Cash for Clunkers was a scam to artificially raise automobile sales immediately after a bail out. The new “quarterly” numbers were supposed to show that, post-bailout, the car companies flourished.

      It was for propaganda.

      • I think it was also to buy votes. A good find Spitfire!

      • Don’t they have now, cash for appliances, or did that go out the window? Haven’t heard anything else on that lately.

        • I haven’t heard about that one, but it wouldn’t suprise me at all.

          • Heard it here a couple weeks ago on the news, not unless it was something appliances dealers were just doing here in Reno, not really sure. But, I do remember hearing about it though.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Judy…

          My husband mentioned something to me about that…Totally sucks…I’m always a day late and $ short!

          Replaced washer/dryer/refrigerator last year!

          Guess you are a day late too…just replacing your washer & dryer.

          Sorry 😦

          Best Regards,

          P.S. Do you use Facebook? If you’d like to friend me, you can find me under

          • Hi RS

            Yes I use face book, and thank you, I’ll do just that.

            So you saw that I had to buy myself a new washer and dryer huh. Went to Best Buy, paid cash for them, didn’t want any monthly payments. Jim paid for the washer, I paid for the dryer, got them both for under $600.00, can’t beat that. But, they were the cheapest ones on the floor. I don’t need all those fancy gadgets on them, the simpler,the better. Hey, as long as my clothes get clean, that’s all I care about.

    • You have to include the life of the vehicle and if you really want accuracy also cost of ownership. Even with that on Obama’s side, he’s still way out there on the benefit of it. Imagine what that money could have done for public transportation, absent of wasting time/money on make believe green tech that is.

      • Yeah, maybe they could have added another track to the train line running by the Cat Houses in Nevada. Then they could run in two directions at the same time, cutting the waiting time for passengers.

  45. The War on Free Speech
    By ramparts360

    No thinking allowed! Tom Winter at Human Events reports the Chicago Way of strong arming conservative views off the playing field:

    Human EventsYou may recall that, just over a year ago, the federal government’s taxpayer-subsidized mail-delivery monopoly — aka the United States Postal Service — hit us with a whopping 20 percent rate increase that drove up our annual delivery costs by more than $120,000.

    Well, believe it or not, they’ve just done it again.

    That’s right: the USPS is hitting us with yet another postal increase that will jack up our annual delivery costs by an additional $51,568.

    Together, this one-two punch of rate hikes amounts to more than $170,000 in increased annual delivery costs — a staggering sum that we simply can’t afford.

    Now, it’s outrageous enough that the USPS can continually jack up our rates without fearing any loss of our business to more cost-efficient competitors — something it can do ONLY because federal law effectively protects it from private competition.

    But what really burns me up is that these increases are part of a new rate system that was designed in part by lobbyists for liberal media giant Time Warner and other large publishers to benefit themselves at the expense of smaller competitors such as HUMAN EVENTS.

    Time WarnerSo instead of Time Warner’s mailing costs ratcheting up like ours, the cost of delivering liberal Time magazine and other Big Media publications will increase at about half the rate hike forced on HUMAN EVENTS (and that’s after some of those publications actually had a decrease in postage costs last year!).

    I have gotten emails from Human Events asking for contributions to help offset their increased mailing expenses. Illusion

  46. Venezuela to Develop Nuclear Energy With Russian Help

    Any bets on how soon the mantra of “they’re building a BOMB” will start?

    • Why would they even need one? Certainly not for America under the current incarnation of POTUS. Texas is in greater danger from Washington than Venezuela. Homeland is likely watching for Texas starting its very own state nuclear program and is ready to pounce.

  47. Obama to impose strict tariffs on Chinese tires,0,7273504.story

    Trade war with China – where the USA has no money and China has trillions….

    …Obama learned nothing in school?

    • Cyndi posted a similar story on #35 today. I commented to JAC on this, that I think it may be a smoke and mirrors move. Never let a crisis be wasted, even if you have to instigate said crisis.

      Its a sure thing that Obama has an agenda. What he is hoping to accomplish remains a mystery. Getting the Stimulus Act passed after the housing bubble
      has the US sitting on the brink of the dollar falling or failing. Passing healthcare or cap and trade could trigger the fall, and so could a trade war
      with China. So the question is, is Obama deliberately trying to destroy our economy?

      • No, he isn’t.

        They do not know what to do.

        Imagine a solider manning a 50-caliber gun aimed at a persistent and approaching enemy – clicking the trigger over and over – in disbelief that there are no more rounds left to fire…..

  48. Obama Admits Rep. Wilson Was Right
    Date: 9/14/2009 8:49:47 AM

    by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issue Analysis

    The White House has now conceded that Rep. Joe Wilson was exactly right when he accused President Obama of lying when Mr. Obama denied that illegal aliens would be covered under the government takeover of health care.

    Wilson knew that every attempt to deny coverage to “undocumented immigrants” had been voted down by Democrats, and that there was no verification method or enforcement mechanism in place to keep them from getting taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

    Last night, the White House caved, releasing a statement saying that the administration is now backing a proposal that says, “Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange,” and specifically mentions the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) that states currently use to make sure illegals don’t consume taxpayer-funded benefits that are reserved for legal residents.

    The bottom line here is that if Rep. Wilson hadn’t “called out” the president, this concession never would have occurred. It turns out that everybody who supports sound immigration policy but who condemned the Congressman – including House Republicans that forced Wilson to apologize publicly – now owes him an apology. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

  49. Jericho Fire Chief Shot by Officers in Court will be Charged

    Here’s another bizarro followup….

    Fire Chief – outnumbered 6 to 1 in court by the cops who are stealing the folks money through a ticketing scheme – was attacked and shot in the back while in court by the cops – is now being charged with battery on a police officer……

  50. Intellectual Ideologues
    Date: 9/14/2009 9:12:21 AM

    by Jerry Richardson

    Who? Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein. Who are they? They are the most dangerous leftwing duo to hold the reins of executive political power in American history. Obama and Sunstein potentially represent the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution that America has every faced.

    Yes, perhaps even more dangerous than Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR] during the 1940s heyday of progressivism. [Note: Keep in mind that many modern liberals (including Hillary Clinton) now refer to themselves as progressives.]

    Obama studied FDR’s first 100 days in office, and expressed a desire to emulate FDR’s administration:

    “There’s a new book out about FDR’s first 100 days and what you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate [emphasis mine], is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again.” – Reference (1) at bottom.

    Because of his leftwing ideology, and his desire to emulate FDR, we can expect Obama to study and attempt to implement many of the progressive ideas formulated by FDR. Among the ideas that will be simpatico with Obama will be FDR’s concept of an Economic Bill of Rights. This wide-ranging, socialist declaration contains most of progressivism’s core political and economic desires, stated as rights.

    The following quote is an excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union.

    “In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are [Note: This is a representative list, not the total.]:

    · The right to a useful and remunerative job…

    · The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    · The right of every family to a decent home;

    · The right to adequate medical care and…to…enjoy good health;

    · The right to adequate protection from…unemployment;

    · The right to a good education.”

    Probably no one believes that the so-called rights listed above are not good. They are. But in our non-socialist, Constitutional form of government, they are NOT rights, they are benefits. Some intellectuals such as Cass Sunstein have labeled these positive rights in contradistinction to the rights in the Bill of Rights that are then labeled negative rights (non-interference rights).

    But whether you call them benefits or positive rights, they cost money and hence they must be paid for by someone. The inescapable and critical issue is who pays. There is never a free lunch in any economic system. Our current systems of government wisely necessitates that individuals who want benefits, such as those in the partial list of FDR’s economic rights, must pay for them, and not expect the government to pay.

    Sunstein, confirmed by the Senate (9/10/09), is now head of The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which makes him the Regulatory Czar. Sunstein was a Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School before joining his former friend from the University of Chicago Law School, Barack Obama, in Obama’s administration. Sunstein will exercise regulatory authority over all rules that come out of the executive branch of government: Executive Office of the President plus fifteen Departments, which includes the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice (includes the FBI and the BATF), the Department of Treasury (includes the IRS), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, and nine other Departments.

    Together Obama and Sunstein will exercise virtually unchallenged, jaw-dropping power via executive regulation. We know little about Obama, and less about Sunstein. How do we describe or categorize these men so as to have a chance to anticipate the possible danger they may represent? Perhaps the best way to understand them is as classic examples of intellectuals. Here’s how I would define that:

    Intellectual: A person who is capable of dedicating himself to reshaping the world, according to his own ideas so as to conform the world, and other people, to his own ideology.

    Intellectuals can be seriously dangerous! Karl Marx was such a person. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was such a person. Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein? Let’s look.

    What are some common beliefs that have been historically held by intellectuals? One of the best sources for information on this subject can be found in the excellent book, Intellectuals written by Paul Johnson. Here is a quote from Johnson’s book:

    “The inquiry begins with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), who was the first of the modern intellectuals, their archetype and in many ways the most influential of them all…Rousseau was the first to combine all the salient characteristics of the modern Promethean: the assertion of his right to reject the existing order in its entirety; confidence in his capacity to refashion it from the bottom in accordance with principles of his own devising; belief that this could be achieved by the political process [emphasis mine]…He believed he had a unique love for humanity and had been endowed with unprecedented gifts and insights [emphasis mine] to increase its felicity.” – Reference (2) at bottom.

    What are some of the stated beliefs of Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein that are consistent with the description of the prototypical intellectual [Rousseau] quoted above?

    Here is Cass Sunstein on the concept of economic rights as first articulated by FDR in 1944:

    “My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights [emphasis mine]. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.” – Reference (3) at bottom.

    Sunstein is all about what he calls positive rights as opposed to the negative rights (right of non-inference) specified in the Constitution:

    “The Cost of Rights [book authored by Cass Sunstein and Stephen Holmes] has a fairly clear goal, which is to eliminate even the possibility of making a conceptual distinction between ‘‘negative rights’’ to noninterference (e.g., the right not to be murdered or the right to free exercise of religion) and ‘‘positive rights’’ or ‘‘welfare rights’’ (e.g., the right to a subsidized education or to a house built at someone else’s expense) [Emphasis mine]. – Reference (4) at bottom.

    “Why should we be governed by people long dead? [Emphasis mine] … In any case, the group that ratified the Constitution included just a small subset of the society; it excluded all women, the vast majority of African Americans, many of those without property, and numerous others who were not permitted to vote.” – Reference (5) at bottom.

    It is difficult to view Sunstein’s statements above as anything other than his rejecting “…the existing order…” and his having “…confidence in his capacity to refashion it [the Constitution] from the bottom in accordance with principles of his own devising…” Cass Sunstein is an intellectual.

    And Barack Obama.

    “It [the Constitution] is an imperfect document.” – Reference (6) at bottom.

    “…the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court. We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy [Emphasis mine], to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand [Emphasis mine]what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges [Emphasis mine].” – Reference (7) at bottom.

    It is unmistakable clear from the two quotes above that Barack Obama views the Constitution as needing major change, “It is an imperfect document.” Equally disturbing, when Obama decides that he will use the criterion of empathy instead of the criterion of impartiality, he is discarding the rule of law for the rule of whim and is positioning to ”… refashion it [the Constitution] from the bottom in accordance with principles of his own devising…” Barack Obama is an intellectual.

    How do we counter intellectuals? View all interactions, even listening to them or reading their words, as personal and collective struggle. Realize that we cannot effectively resist intellectuals with an empty head; we must counter ideas with better ideas. Where do we get those ideas? We read. We study. Start with the Bible, it’s basic. Read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers. Resolve not to be decked by a sucker-punch idea thrown by a glib intellectual.

    How have we as a nation become so vulnerable to manipulation by intellectual con-artists? Simple. Too many of us have defaulted too much civic thinking to few politicians. We need to seriously restudy and remaster the ideas upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded. Consider the following reported conservation that Benjamin Franklin had at the close of the Constitutional convention:

    Lady: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    “If you can keep it.” Keeping our Republic will take more than wishful thinking, it will take more than politicians, it will require the persistent application of clear and powerful ideas from multiple citizens.

    • As long as the People abide by this:

      “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote”

      ….nothing will change.

  51. Obama Raises Tariffs; Hello, Second Great Depression?
    Date: 9/14/2009 8:59:15 AM

    by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issue Analysis

    One of the enduring myths of American politics is that President Herbert Hoover tried to deal with the stock market crash of 1929 using free market methods, which so miserably failed that FDR had to come along and save America with a gargantuan expansion of the central government.

    But Hoover actually raised taxes on the wealthy and slapped protectionist tariffs on foreign imports in a vain attempt to revive the American economy.

    These efforts were such dismal failures that FDR actually campaigned against Hoover, believe it or not, on a campaign of smaller government and lower taxes.

    Hoover’s tax increases and protectionist policies almost certainly made things worse, and when FDR compounded the problem by immediately forgetting all about his campaign promises, what was a plain old depression deepened until it became the Great Depression.

    Obama is marching down exactly the same road that disastrously extended the depth and length of the economic downturn of the 1930s. He has now slapped a tariff on the importation of inexpensive tires from Chinese manufacturers, which of course hurts the very people he claims he’s trying to help, low income Americans.

    The Chinese government is already growling in response, and likely to make moves that will close Chinese markets to American goods, thus hurting more American businesses and needlessly prolonging our economic slump.

    Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, and whatever else President Obama is, it is clear that he is not a student of history. Batten down the hatches, America – your president is continuing to destroy your economy.


    The Truth About the Health Care Bills

    Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

    To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

    The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

    However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

    The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

    This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

    If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

    So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

    I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

    For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

    And another to the Bill of Rights:

    There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

    Michael Connelly

    Retired attorney,

    Constitutional Law Instructor

    Carrollton, Texas


    Wow~! now MIT has the live lectures on iTunes … for free!

  54. So, other than Edward, whose complaints were more along the line of funding….

    …where are the rest of the complaints to DKIIis everyone agreeing with DKII that this a viable example of a free society organization? … that if one was presented, they’d join?

    • ..and someone better start giving complaints with strong arguments attached…

      …or else I’ll be really upset…

      …if all it took was one, very well articulated example from real life to convince all of you… then all the thousands of words I’ve typed here has been a royal waste of time~! 🙂

  55. I thought this was interesting.

    I am going to tell you a story about two pledges.

    The first was written in 1892 and has been recited by America’s public school children ever since. Some of the words have changed since then but it remains virtually the same pledge written over 100 years ago.

    The second is a pledge recently shown by video, with the permission of the local PTA, to elementary schoolchildren in Salt Lake City in 2009. It was written and produced by Hollywood celebrities, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher both devout disciples of Barack Obama.

    The first pledge as you may have already guessed is the Pledge of Allegiance. The Moore-Kutcher video should be called “The Pledge to Obama.”

    The video opens with that stylized portrait of Obama from the campaign and uses a quote from Harry Truman saying that the presidency is the “loneliest job in the world.” It then moves to a line that says “We’d like you to know…You are not alone.”

    After that we see a parade of Hollywood celebrities most of whom will never be remembered 30 years from now, making pledges about how they will help him. They pledge everything from using plastic bags at the grocery store to advancing stem cell research and my favorite, pledging to “sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid”. Cars are not obnoxious—self-righteous Hollywood celebrities are.

    It looks harmless enough until you realize that they all appear to be making pledges to Obama himself like swearing an oath to king or dictator. And it ends with Demi Moore and Kutcher saying “I pledge to be a servant to my president and all mankind”.

    “Servant” to my president? Since when did we start pledging allegiance to a person in this country?

    Just by coincidence about a week ago I found on YouTube a video from 40 years ago by that great American original Red Skelton. For those too young to remember, Red was one of the funniest comedians and entertainers of his era. And like many of his contemporaries–John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Ronald Reagan–he was an unabashed patriot.

    The year was 1969 and like today America was tiring of a war and the very foundations of the society were being challenged. Red took the time on his very popular prime time television show to tell a story of how he learned the true meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance from an old teacher of his from his boyhood.

    In it Red extols the virtues of freedom embodied in the Pledge.

    The Moore-Kutcher pledge never mentions America or freedom. Their pledge is to man and a movement while Red’s is to the flag and the ideals it represents.

    But I guess this is what we can expect from liberals who for years have disdained the symbols of America and derided the belief in American Exceptionalism that many of their fellow citizens hold dear. They have systematically changed our educational system so that American Exceptionalism is no longer taught, and it has been replaced with a version of American history that emphasizes America’s faults and failures and not its virtues and triumphs. So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when a local PTA thinks it is appropriate for young impressionable children to see this propaganda.

    The left’s version of America is that we are just one of many nations on the planet and that we must atone for all the evil we have caused in the world, hence Obama’s penchant for apologizing about something every time he goes abroad.– They put seem to put more faith in the United Nations than the United States.

    American Exceptionalism is the belief that America has a special role to play in the world and is unique in that it was founded on a set of ideals and not by common heritage, ethnicity, or the presence of a hereditary ruler and ruling class. To be an American is to bear allegiance to this set of ideals whether you can trace your roots to the nation’s founding or you arrived here a few years ago and just recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time as a naturalized American when you took your citizenship oath last week.

    Both pledges are linked below.

    Which pledge do you believe in? The one dedicated to our flag and the ideals it stands for or the one dedicated to a single individual and a political agenda?

    Time to choose.

    1) Moore-Kutcher “pledge”

    2) Red Skelton “pledge”

    • Red’s (transcription)

      “I’ve been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester

      and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you.

      If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?”


      me, an individual, a committee of one.


      dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.


      my love and my devotion.

      To the flag

      our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever

      she waves, there’s respect because your loyalty has given

      her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody’s job!


      that means that we have all come together.


      individual communities that have united into 48 great states.

      Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and

      purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to

      a common purpose, and that’s love for country.

      And to the republic

      a state in which sovereign power is

      invested in representatives chosen by the

      people to govern. And government is the people

      and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from

      the leaders to the people.

      For which it stands, one nation

      one nation, meaning “so

      blessed by God”


      incapable of being divided.

      With liberty

      which is freedom — the right of power to live one’s

      own life without threats, fear or some sort of


      And Justice

      the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

      For all

      which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your

      country as it is mine.


      Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country

      and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance…


      Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said

      that is a prayer

      and that would be eliminated from schools too?

      • *Now, I am not in favor of such a Pledge either; for power is not invested into a representative – it is held solely by the individual – nor to a flag, other than one of my own making (easy formula, too! …1/ get fabric 2/ dye black 3/ allow to dry 4/ fly at will)

        — however, the alternative is VERY dangerous to give a pledge to a mere man – that is how Hitler kept his power, by requiring the Army to place its pledge directly to him…..

    • The Pledge Video Transcript

      Message on Screen: “They say that the job of the president is the loneliest in the world.” -Harry S. Truman

      Obama Voiceover: So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

      Eva Mendes: I pledge.

      Cameron Diaz: I pledge.

      Demi Moore: I pledge.

      Courtney Cox: To help end hunger in America.

      David Arquette: By supporting Feeding America and our local food bank.

      Kenna Zemedkun: I pledge.

      Dakota Fanning: I pledge.

      Demi Moore: To smile more.

      Eva Longoria: To laugh more.

      Jaime Pressley: To love more.

      William Adams (Will.I.Am): I pledge.

      Eva Mendes: To volunteer more of my time to children battling serious illnesses.

      Unknown Minute 0:53: With The Art of Elysium.

      Nicole Richie: I pledge.

      Ashlee Simpson: To be a great mother.

      Joel Madden: To be a great father.

      Lucy Liu: To continue working with UNICEF to make the world a better place for all our children.

      Minute 1:02

      Alyssa Milano: To be the voice for those who have no voice.

      Kerry Washington: I pledge.

      Sophia Bush: I pledge.

      Michael Strahan: To consider myself an American. Not an African-American.

      Ashton Kutcher: To always represent my country with pride, dignity, and honesty.

      Kevin Connolly: I pledge to go to

      Rex Lee: And find a service project I am passionate about.

      Anthony Kiedis: I pledge allegiance to the funk. To the United Funk of Funkadelica.

      Jason Bateman: I pledge.

      Joel Schumacher: To never give anyone the finger when I’m driving again.

      Jenna Elfman: To always find the humor in everything.

      Molly Sims: I pledge.

      Soleil Moon Frye: To help find a cure for Alzheimer’s.

      Anthony Kiedis: To care for America’s elderly. [Of which he is one. -Ed.]

      Peter Krause: To make sure that senior citizens have access to healthcare.

      Soleil Moon Frye: So that our next generation’s memories will not be forgotten.

      Eva Longoria: I pledge.

      Brittany Snow: To bring awareness to mental disease.

      Gina Gershon: To advance stem cell research.

      Matt Dallas: To spread the awareness of autism.

      Kat Dennings: I pledge.

      Michael Strahan: To show more love to strangers.

      Ioan Gruffudd: To meet my neighbors.

      Rex Lee: To find out their names.

      Cameron Diaz: I’m going to give them a smile.

      Tatyana Ali: And ask them how I can be of service to them.

      Sarah Wayne Callies: I pledge.

      Josh Groban: I pledge.

      Minute 2:00

      Rumer Willis: To be a better mentor toward my younger sisters.

      Hill Harper: To continue to be a mentor to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

      Michelle Trachtenberg: I pledge.

      Rita Wilson: To reduce my use of plastic.

      Eva Mendes: By starting with using less bottled water.

      Eva Longoria: To plant 500 trees this year to help our planet.

      Michelle Trachtenberg: To be more green.

      Laura Linney: To no longer use the plastic bags at the grocery store.

      Archie Kao: To consume less and cultivate more.

      Cameron Diaz: So that we are on this planet forever.

      Jason Bateman: For the environment I pledge to flush only after a “deuce,” never a “single.”

      Courtney Cox: I pledge.

      David Arquette: I pledge.

      Sean Combs: I pledge to turn the lights off. Because I used to leave the lights on, but we want to conserve energy, so I’m going to turn the lights off. You turn the lights off.

      Melissa Leo: I pledge.

      Hart Bochner: I pledge.

      Kevin Zegers: To sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid.

      George Lopez: To drive slower and not to use as much gas.

      Laura Linney: I pledge to volunteer my time.

      Josh Groban: To express the importance of arts education in our schools.

      John Singleton: To sell a culture of intelligence instead of ignorance.

      Julia Ormond: I pledge.

      Jaime Pressley: To help children understand that just because they come from a small place doesn’t mean they can’t dream big.

      Shohrah Aghdashloo: I pledge.

      Minute 3:00

      Rhona Mitra: To work to make good the 200 year-old promise to end slavery.

      Ashton Kutcher: To the abolition of 21st century slavery.

      Demi Moore: To free one million people from slavery in the next five years.

      Kerry Washington: To fight.

      Enrique Murciano: To become aware.

      Cameron Diaz: To educate.

      Hayden Panettiere: To not give up.

      Kenna Zemedkun: To defend.

      Scout Willis: Issues that I care about.

      Anthony Kiedis: I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.

      Ashlee Simpson: I pledge.

      William Adams (Will.I.Am): To change how I live.

      Aaron Eckhart: To be a better person.

      Dakota Fanning: To never stop learning and growing each and every day.

      Nicole Richie: Every day.

      Robin Wright Penn: I pledge to commit to my own change before I ask others to change.

      Kenna Zemedkun: To be the change.

      Demi Moore: To be the change.

      Marissa Tomei: To integrate into my heart what I already know in my head, which is that we’re all in this together.

      Sean Combs: Imagine what could happen next.

      Aaron Eckhart: What’s your pledge?

      Gina Gershon: What’s your pledge?

      Ashton Kutcher: I know you got a pledge. What’s your pledge?

      Kevin Connolly: You got a pledge?

      Bryce Dallas Howard: What’s your pledge?

      Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore in unison: I pledge.

      Demi Moore: To be a servant to our president.

      Ashton: And all mankind.

      All Speakers in Unison: Because together we can, together we are, and together we can be the change that we seek.

  56. Global Tax Thuggery
    From the desk of Richard Rahn on Fri, 2009-09-11 09:58

    Do you think the Internal Revenue Service should have the right to share your tax information with foreign governments — even ones run by thugs and those that engage in human rights abuses and/or suppress freedom in their countries?

    A meeting was held in Mexico City last week under the auspices of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose implicit goal is to create a global high-tax cartel.

  57. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore in unison: I pledge.

    Demi Moore: To be a servant to our president.

    Ashton: And all mankind.

    Demi and Ashton,

    Can you come over and cook dinner for me?

  58. CIA Job Opening:
    > The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all the background
    > checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3
    > finalists..Two men and a woman.
    > For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a large
    > metal door and handed him a gun. “We must know that you will
    > follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside
    > the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair.. Kill Her!!”
    > The man said,”You can’t be serious. I could never shoot my wife.”
    > The agent said, “Then you’re not the right man for this job. Take
    > your wife and go home.”
    > The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun
    > and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man
    > came out w ith tears in his eyes, ” I tried, but I can’t kill my
    > wife.”
    > The agent said, “You don’t have what it takes. Take your wife and
    > go home.”
    > Finally, it was the woman’s turn. She was given the same
    > instructions, to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into
    > the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard
    > screaming, crashing, banging on the walls.
    > After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and
    > there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow. “The gun was
    > loaded with blanks” she said. “I had to beat him to death with the
    > chair.”
    > Moral:
    > Women are evil.
    > Don’t mess with them.

    • A Catholic priest and a nun were taking a rare afternoon off and enjoying a round of golf. The priest stepped up to the first tee and took a mighty swing. He missed the ball entirely and said “Shit, I missed.”

      The good Sister told him to watch his language.

      On his next swing, he missed again. “Shit, I missed.”

      “Father, I’m not going to play with you if you keep swearing,” the nun said tartly.

      The priest promised to do better and the round continued. On the fourth tee, he misses again. The usual comment followed.

      Sister is really mad now and says, “Father John, God is going to strike you dead if you keep swearing like that.”

      On the next tee, Father John swings and misses again. “Shit, I missed.”

      A terrible rumble is heard and a gigantic bolt of lightning comes out of the sky and strikes Sister Marie dead in her tracks.

      And from the sky comes a booming voice .

      “Shit, I missed.”

      • A father and son went hunting together for the first time. The
        father said “Stay here and be very QUIET, I’ll be across the field.”
        A little while later, the father heard a bloodcurdling scream and
        ran back to his son. “What’s wrong?” the father asked. “I told you
        to be quiet.” The boy, bless his heart, answered,
        “Look, I was quiet when the snake slithered across my feet.
        I was quiet when the bear breathed down my neck.
        I didn’t move a muscle when the skunk climbed over my shoulder.
        I closed my eyes and held my breath when the wasp stung me.
        I didn’t cough when I swallowed the gnat.
        I didn’t cuss or scratch when the poison oak started itching.
        But when the two squirrels crawled up my pant legs and
        one of them said, ‘Should we eat them here or take them with us?’
        I guess I just panicked.

    • “Women are evil”

      Do not kid yourself.

      True story.

      A mafia Don was assassinated, and his wife took control of the ‘business’.

      She began slaughtering her opposition – including the family – wife, children, uncles, etc.

      She was eventually ‘put down’ — because “she took it all too seriously

      • Loving Husband Ed was in trouble. He forgot his wedding anniversary.
        His wife was really angry. She told him “Tomorrow morning, I expect to find a gift in the driveway that goes from 0 to 200 in 6 seconds

        The next morning Ed got up early and left for work. When his wife woke up, she looked out the window and sure enough there was a small box gift-wrapped in the middle of the driveway.
        Confused, the wife put on her robe and ran out to the driveway, brought the box back in the house.

        She opened it and found a brand new CHROME PLATED bathroom scale.

        And to all, a good night.

      • Hey, Hey, Hey, Not all women are evil.

        • Yes, they are!

          Most just hide the fact better than others.

          • Are you saying I am? Now you know better than to say that. I’m one of the least evil people you’d ever meet. I don’t like evil, it’s evil.

          • …neither is my wife (as far as I know, at this time….)

            • I think you’d know it by now BF. How long you been married? I don’t have it in me to be evil. As far as I can remember, I have always been a timid, shy person, until I got older, now I speak my mind, but it doesn’t make me an evil person.

              I could not in all good conscience be an evil person, or do evil to anybody, that’s not in me. Hopefully, with all the conversations we have had, you know that.

              • Yes, of course 🙂

                And I guess after 14 years …. but you never know…:)

              • Try being married for 40, then if you don’t know by then, I guess you never will.

                I don’t think you have anything to worry about BF, the way you talk about her and your daughter, I know you have nothing but LOVE for them. Right.

                And thank you for realizing that I’m not an evil person, neither are you. I can tell.

  59. Just got this sent to me. What do you guys think about it?

    Subject: It has begun… REFUSE NEW COINS

    If this is true – I’m not a happy camper


    This simple action will make a strong statement. Please help do this.. Refuse to accept these when they are handed to you.
    I received one from the Post Office as change and I asked for a dollar bill instead. The lady just smiled and said ‘way to go’ , so she had read this e -mail. Please help out…our world is in enough trouble without this too!!!!!

    U.S. Government to Release New Dollar Coins
    You guessed it
    If ever there was a reason to boycott something, THIS IS IT!!!!


    Together we can force them out of circulation…

    Please send to all on your mailing list!!!

    • …but why not go to a gold dealer, hand in your dollars and get something real that would not require you to trust even God….

      • Come on BF, it’s for those who don’t like see that changed because, some don’t like what In God We Trust stands for. It’s like with the Pledge of Allegiance, just because one person who didn’t want his daughter to say it, now it seems that everybody thinks that way.

        I for one, do not.


        Glad you’re back. missed you over the weekend.

        • Judy,

          I am not one to be cynical . . . I do not want to become isolated in that way.

          But, politically and culturally, in very deliberate ways, we as a political nation have openly and proudly pushed God out of the way in so many ways . . . I am not surprised at this effort . . . not pleased, but not surprised.

          At this point, I think it more fruitful to pray for the heart of the nation, rather than petitions . . .

          Thankful for His longsuffering nature.

          And, my friend Black Flag, it is better to trust in God than in one’s riches . . .

          • Reading The Black Swan

            He tells a story about a story….

            A ship is going to wreck – and the Captain tells the passengers to pray for their lives….

            …some survivors make it to shore, and thank God for their lives….

            …but what about those that prayed and died?

            • There is more to this life than this life itself.

              • As Hume said…

                “Prove it”

              • You have already decided that you will not believe . . . so I will not be able to “prove” anything to you, but I will offer words from Paul: “For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” (Romans 14:8) And that is my attitude for survival and prosperity today.

    • It’s on the outer edge. And they STILL aren’t worth anything. 🙂

      • Hi Kent

        How are you doing today? Hope you’re doing better after that conversation last night. I promise not to say anything about, okay.

        • I’m OK. Still lonely, but not as much as last night.
          Just got home from the park where my daughter dumped a handful of gravel into my boot. She played; I picked up litter. She is getting so brave about climbing that my heart stays in my throat. (We almost wore our pirate hats at her insistance, but she changed her mind at the last minute and wanted to wear her pink hat -so I got to wear my “normal” hat.) Then we got home and I let her play with her word flashcards with the two dozen or so words she can read. Now she is playing with a book of stickers. While I rest. Typical day.

          • That’s great Kent, and it sounds like you are the typical father, who is very proud and loving to your daughter.

            Yes, kids can be trying when they want to do new things, especially climbing. When my 2 son’s were little, I could swear they were part monkey. They would climb way high in trees or whatever they could climb on, but I would just sit there and watch, and hope they wouldn’t fall. But, that’s the way kids learn. Just one thing though, okay, don’t hoover over her, but don’t let her out of your sight either.

            Oh my goodness, what are you going to do when she gets older and starts dating? I bet you’ll give every guy the big lecture, right. Don’t blame you, all dad’s are that way with their daughters. I know, she’s only 2, but the years go by so fast. My oldest son just turned 27 and my youngest will be 24 in November.

            Hey, if you ever want to talk about anything like this, I’ll be more than happy to listen. I’m great at that. Or so, I’ve been told anyway. Just a thought here.

            • Well, I actually went through some of that with my older kids already. I have a son who is 22 and a daughter who is 18. They lived with their mom in another state so I never had to give “the talk”. Not that I would have given the normal “talk” anyway. Their mom kind of didn’t “parent” very well, and my older daughter has been on her own since she was 14- but she always knew she could come live with me. Guess who she refused to be around… and it wasn’t me. Anyway…..
              I am not overprotective, although I do worry. A lot. But, more than anything, I want my kids to know that I love them and that they have what it takes to make it on their own, and know that the risks are there, and every action has consequences. Neither of my kids have reproduced (or even gotten close), yet my (right-wing religious Southern Baptist) sister’s 15 yr-old daughter is pregnant. You just never know.

              • We always told our son’s that they can come and talk to us about anything, no matter what. And you know what, they do. I didn’t want to be one of those mom’s who is afraid to talk to their kids about anything, and that includes sex.

                We have had some really intense talks about things, and I think that helped in making me closer to them. I’m a mom first, then their friend second. I didn’t want them to be afraid of talking about anything, and they know they can always come to me or their dad about what ever is bothering them.

                When my oldest son got married, his then wife knew he was in the military, and anything could change at any time. And they did.

                He got stationed in Ft Irwin Ca, and was there for 2 years. Things were fine with them when he came home on weekends, or they met each other in Bishop. But, when his stint was done, and he came home, then things started going downhill.

                She couldn’t understand why Christopher wanted to spend time with his brother when he came home on leave, and again when he came home home Iraq for 2 weeks. She wanted him to spend every waking minute with her. She would call all over the place looking for him. She got mad when he spent money on anything, but it was okay for her too.

                They started arguing about anything and everything. Finally he couldn’t take it anymore and left. She looked like Jennifer Lover Hewitt believe t or not. Anyway, they were only married for a little over a year, and are now divorced. He now is going, living that is with a gal who was married, has 3 boys, is in the military as well, and thy have more in common, and likes than he did with his wife.

                So, back to the talking thing. That’s the stuff he would talk to me about, not so much with his dad though. I don’t think he would understand the way I did.

                Always have open communication with her, and always tell her she can come to you about anything without judging her. BTW, it’s not too late for you and your older kids Kent. Open that line of communication, let them know you’re there for them.

              • I have a pretty good relationship with my older daughter. We have deep talks and she trusts me a lot more than she trusts her mom. My son is incredibly intelligent, but sort of emotionally withdrawn and doesn’t really connect with anyone too well. I suspect he has Asperger’s Syndrome, but I am not a doctor. I tried to tell his mom this when he was very young, but she flipped out that I suggested it. Anyway, I do try, and I think he knows he can come to me about anything.

              • I’m glad to hear that you have an open relationship with your older kids.

                Not all parents have that. I didn’t have that with my mom, but I had more of an opened one with my dad. Not about everything, but with a lot. I have to move down, I can’t stand these squishy spots. Will continue below.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:


              I always have a wide-array of handguns out, lovingly cleaning them when my daughter goes on a date.

              Best Regards,

              • I wouldn’t even have to get any guns “out”, since they are everywhere…. plus the walls are covered with knives, swords, a batleth, … and I have been told that the way I dress combined with my height is “imposing”. If I had room to display my animal skull collection, that would add a certain air as well.

              • My dad just sat around in his boxers and frowned at guys-seemed to work

          • Kent, Being a Dad is awesome, being a single Dad is more challenging than fighting in a war. I know, been there and still dealing with it. teenage girls are a challenge!!!


            • Hi G, how ya doing? Has it warmed up any there? Cold here today, but suppose to climb back in the 90’s by this weekend. I’m thrilled. Suppose to go to the air races this weekend, and I hope it’s not too hot.


            • Well, I’m not exactly a single dad, since her mom does live here and bring home a paycheck. I will admit she doesn’t “parent” too much, though.

              • But Kent, you are, and you seem to be the main parent here, and it seems like you’re doing a great job. You’re loving, caring, and sound like a fun dad.


    We keep talking about the race card being thrown-I’d like to introduce you to a couple men who are racist-Willie Harrington and his campaign manager. Although compared to Willie’s normal diatribe this is tame.

  61. I just heard that Patrick Swazey just died. Sorry to hear that, but he was bad with cancer and all. I always liked him, thought he was a good actor.

    • Thanks for the input, always liked him as an actor as well. May God bless his family in their time of need.


      • Yes, definitely, Bless him and his family. At least he’s not in pain anymore.

        He was a great dancer too. I liked him in Dirt Dancing. Did you know his wife taught John Travolta dancing for Saturday Night Fever?

    • I met him and had a scene with him in a movie (me, only a background extra).

      Too young to die….

  62. Just A Citizen

    I thought it was you who said intentions don’t matter, the only thing real is the action.

    I believe I said intentions cannot be used to be exculpatory for immoral action; if the intention is evil, then so is the result.

    The means matters. If the means – including the intention – is evil – the end will be evil.

    Stealing is immoral. Not stealing is moral, regardless of the reason.

    Returning your stolen bicycle so that I can fool you in stealing your car is immoral.

    Good vs. bad, right vs. wrong. All go to the action, not the intent. Thus it is the action we write our laws to, or at least we should return to, not the intent.

    But we do write our laws based on intent. It does matter whether I intended to kill you or did not intend to kill you.

    In either regard, Bush II’s tax cuts were done to keep a promise based on his belief they are a good thing. I have found evidence to that effect and none to the motive of being deliberately diceitful. Greenspan even tried to talk him out of them.

    The deceit is deep, old friend.

    As I said – if he cuts taxes but does not cut expenses – he is fooling you (maybe himself…shrug…).

    To do so, when you know it will not make a difference is duplicitous.

    I do believe you once mentioned that you can have a moral act by an immoral person.

    I did. Evil people aren’t evil every second of their lives.

    However, his action (or his advisers) was laced with deceit.

    • “Returning your stolen bicycle so that I can fool you in stealing your car is immoral.”

      Your example does not fit and thus leads to a different conclusion.

      If you do not steal my bicycle and do not steal my car you have carried out a moral act, or in reality a non act which is moral. I care not that you did not steal because you are a fool or rightous or fear jail. Your act was moral even if you are not.

      Since our money is ours a tax cut is not returning our money, it is an act, or actually a non-act, of not stealing. Your example uses the same error the left likes to use with tax cuts, when they call them a “cost” to the government.

      Excuse me? Not stealing my money is a cost?

      I agree our laws to use “intent” but they didn’t always. The determination of intent is only needed at the broadest level. It is to determine if the act itself was immoral. Killing someone by a true accident is stupid but not immoral. Killing them on purpose is immoral.

      Not killing someone because I fear jail is still a moral act by an immoral person.

      I think we need to focus on the outcomes and the intent separately in determing who we are dealing with and how we may deal with them.

      I do not think Bush II or his advisors were intentionally deceiving us or themselves. I do believe they deceived themselves long ago and may actually be STUPID. I think they Don’t Think, they just DO. That deadly Pragmatism again, you know!

      I watched a video interview this weekend with that fellow who plays Borat and some Congressman from Calif. The congressman was explaining that a larger federal debt makes our country wealthier. It was quite obviouse this guy believed in what he was saying. I am now thinking that what appears as conspiracies to us may actually be the combination of chaos theory working its magic in concert with true IDIOTS. I am not even sure chaos theory works in a world run by delusional idiots who act in an irrational and irresponsible manner all the time.

      • “Returning your stolen bicycle so that I can fool you in stealing your car is immoral.”

        Your example does not fit and thus leads to a different conclusion.

        If you do not steal my bicycle and do not steal my car you have carried out a moral act, or in reality a non act which is moral.

        I cannot judge a non-action – it does not exist to judge.

        “Not stealing” is not moral nor immoral – it is ‘nothing’ – it does not exist in reality – no action has occurred.

        I care not that you did not steal because you are a fool or rightous or fear jail. Your act was moral even if you are not.

        The ONLY time such is if YOU INTENDED to steal and begin the motions to do so – and then stopped and reversed yourself.

        The former was immoral – the reversal was moral IF that is where it stopped.

        But if I intended to steal your bike, and then stopped …. because I changed my mind to steal your car…. the whole scenario, start to finish was immoral.

        If I stole your bike and while leaving, noticed your car, returned your bike and stole your car…the whole scenario, start to finish was immoral.

        Killing someone by a true accident is stupid but not immoral. Killing them on purpose is immoral.

        We judge that killing by accident is immoral – you are a criminal (by negligence, not by intent)

        I think we need to focus on the outcomes and the intent separately in determing who we are dealing with and how we may deal with them.

        Often, all we have is the outcome to judge, since intent can be obscure.

        However, intent is vital – not in an exculpatory sense, but an inculpatory sense.

        Intent does not excuse immoral or evil outcome, however, evil intent makes all outcomes evil – even if the outcome appears to be innocent.

        If I convince you of my sincerity of helping the poor so to get you put money into an (mis)adventure of mine – you cannot judge my sincerity as moral. It was used to deceive you to take your money, even if some poor people happened to be helped by my action!

        I do not think Bush II or his advisors were intentionally deceiving us or themselves.

        These are not stupid people.

        They know government does not earn. If you give ‘back from this hand’, the other hand ‘must steal’ if you do not lower expenditures.

        They knew they were stealing from the prosperity of the people – they were more evil in trying to hide it.

        I watched a video interview this weekend with that fellow who plays Borat and some Congressman from Calif. The congressman was explaining that a larger federal debt makes our country wealthier.

        The Congressman simply reads the GNP.

        The GNP includes government expenditures, not its debt or direct inflation.

        If today, the government spends a trillion, the GNP goes up a trillion. A year later, inflation takes it away … but that is a year away.

        For a year, the GNP is up by a trillion.

        He may be an economic idiot and not understand the implications of such action, but he can most certainly prove by a common standard that he is right.

    • On the Tax Cut issue I also offer this.

      The Tax Cut was a moral act. It was a decision to not steal.

      The failure to cut costs to balance the budget may not have been immoral in itself but it was certainly unethical.

      The combination of the two acts results in an unethical and immoral act.

      Half a glass of clear water and half a glass of sewage is …………………. sewage.

      But the half that was clear water was clean, clear, cool water. It was not sewage.

      • It was done to deceive – that 1) the economy was stronger than it was 2) the money would come from cuts

        Neither was true.

  63. Kent continuing down here.

    My mother was a very closed person, and I mean closed. She never talked to with me or my sister about anything. I learned what I needed to know from my sister. She is 5 years older then me, and for some reason , she seemed to know quite a bit. My mom never talked to me about when a girl had her first period, or wearing a bra, or even bout sex. My dad said, he was lucky they had us 3 kids when they did. My mom wasn’t a very loving person, still isn’t really.

    I think she was and is that way, because of her mother. My mom never, ever spanked us either, even though her dad would beat the crap out of her mother and her oldest sister. My dad was somewhat mistreated when he was young too. His mother would beat the crap out of him even though his younger sister and brother would do something wrong. He asked her one day a couple years before she died, why she did that. Her answer was, because that happened to her when she was young, and she thought that was the way you raised kids. My dad never, ever laid a hand on us because of that. He told me, that when he got married, and had kids, that he would never hit his kids because of what happened to him. But, there was just one time, when he and my older brother went at it, and that was the only time that ever happened.

    I used to put my boys on time out. Fat lot of good that did. When ever I would discipline them, they would always laugh at me. But then all I had to say was, Wait until your dad gets home, then they would be as good as gold. Their dad never hit them or anything, just talk to them, or just sit there and stare at them, and they would be good. We were determined to never hit out kids. Oh, and occasional smack every once in a while, but not hitting.

    • My first wife had a rough childhood, which may have caused a lot of her problems. She wouldn’t discipline the kids, until they would push her buttons too much, then she’d go ballistic on them and go way too far in “disciplining”. I just kept things nipped in the bud, and neither me or the kids would get too upset about it. My son, though…. if he ever got disciplined in any way, he just withdrew completely into himself. Nothing affected him because the outside world wasn’t that important. He couldn’t understand the difference between TV/movies or books and reality. I think he is getting better at that, but he still has a hard time relating to people.

      My older daughter tells me all the time that I am the only person she feels she can really talk to, and the one she feels closest to. Her mom refuses to discuss anything that makes her uncomfortable. She also kicked her out of the house when she was 11, and made her live with my parents. I never understood how someone could do that to their kid. (She said she had to choose between her new husband and our daughter, and she chose the husband.) My daughter has recently gotten back with a boyfriend who I don’t like. She moved in with him about a month ago. I didn’t say anything about it, but she knows I don’t care for him due to things he has said and done. But, I told her my approval isn’t necessary, I trust her to run her own life, and I am always here for her no matter what. I also told her I will never be rude or unpleasant to him unless he hurts her. Then all bets are off.

      My youngest is really a pretty good kid. She is usually helpful and so far hasn’t tried testing me too much. She is too smart for her own good, though.

  64. Well, I’m going for the night. America’s Got Talent is on in a half hour and I want to watch. I hope my guy Kevin Skinner makes it through.

    Kent been nice talking with you about things, I enjoyed it. Let’s do it again. You take Care, okay.

    BF, will be looking for an answer from you with what we were talking about earlier too. Can’t just leave it unfinished. OKAY.
    If you’re here tomorrow, hope to talk with you then. If you’re not, I’ll assume that you had to bug out real quick like. You know what I mean.
    You take care too.

    To everybody else out there, I bid you all a good night.


  65. Todd

    Black Flag,

    So, Todd tax cuts did nothing and the increased spending of government ate the capital that business required – ending with economic stagnation and contraction.

    The tax cuts certainly did increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Whether they’ll be able to retain that wealth thru the economic stagnation and contraction will be another story…

    I don’t how to say this nicely.

    Your understanding of wealth and expenses defies economic sense.

    First, tax cuts are monies return by the government to those that earned it. Tax decreases their wealth – 100% tax cut would only deliver exactly the wealth that the person earned and not a penny more.

    Those that receive benefits from the government greater than the inputs are those that gain wealth from government.

    Returning what is earned to those that earn it does not decrease the wealth of those that did not earn it – unless those that are tax-eaters faced cut backs.

    They did not.

  66. Todd

    The Bush Tax cuts were heavily weighted in favor of the rich. I don’t have the nbrs right now, but I’ll find them if you want.

    Time to test that IQ again.

    If the ‘rich’ pay most of the taxes, any tax cut will benefit them the most.

    Leverage up is Leverage down, Todd~

    If it takes 1-2 years for POTUS’s policies to take effect, then Clinton gets credit for 2001-02, and Bush for 2009-10. That doesn’t look any better for Bush.

    And that means 2009-10 is not Obama’s fault…

    It’s the government’s fault.

    The biggest issue I have is the myopic view that the President runs the government.

    He does not.

    And neither does Congress.

    It matters not who sits in what seat, the country would have exactly what we got now.

    Clinton and the Republican congress worked together to eliminate the deficit.

    The great lie.

    No they did not. They stole from Social Service trust funds – replacing cash with non-negotiable treasury debt.

    Did you not read the post above where I lamented that no body is going to read that link? You’re one of them -obviously- that didn’t read that link.

    My argument is not that “trickle down” means that the money is given to the lower income. It’s that the workers should share in the economic benefits they help create. Under Bush that did not occur.

    A worker shares in the economic benefits they create by an economic process called wages.

    Total employment went up, but there was no increase in wages and benefits.

    The implication of this article is that under Bush, the middle and lower income groups did not benefit from the economic growth.

    Nor did they under Clinton, nor will they under Obama.

    ….because there was no economic growth! (duh)

    Fiat creation does not ‘grow’ an economy – no more than spending off of your credit card makes you rich.

    Please explain to me the real cause and effect?

    When government prints money to cover its expanding expenses, it creates an illusion that is systemic in an economy – that illusion is growth. But it is only an illusion.

    As the economy comes to terms to that illusion, you have economic collapse.

    I disagree, when those tax cuts benefit the wealthy and at the expense of the poor.

    Read read post above.

  67. anoninnc

    You have already decided that you will not believe . . .

    The Universe is not built on ‘belief’ – but Natural Law and as such is knowable.

    It is inconceivable that any “God” would require sheer faith without proof when the entire Universe exists on demonstration of cause and effect.

    so I will not be able to “prove” anything to you, but I will offer words from Paul: “For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” (Romans 14:8) And that is my attitude for survival and prosperity today.

    We are the Universe; though we are merely an momentary expression that is conscious, even then we are still the Universe.

    • I agree with you that it doesn’t just take faith to know that God exists but it takes faith to humble yourself enough to go to the Lord and admit that you are a sinner and want and need him-at that point, in my experience He gives you the proof but it is a proof that only you can feel and know, no one else can give that proof to you or prove it to you. Bible scholars and historians can probably give you enough facts to open your mind to the possibility, although just looking at the world does that for me.

  68. Since no one offered to point out what the four scenarios actually correspond to, I can only assume that they were so easy that no one bothered to point it out, or so vague that no one could figure out what they were supposed to represent. I highly suspect the former.

    • DKII,
      Here’s my best shot:

      1. Northern Ireland & Britain

      2. China & Tiawan

      3. Isreal & Palestine

      4. Vatican

      • Close; the first one is actually supposed to be Serbia/Kosovo, though I don’t guarantee that I summarized the history correctly.

  69. A new real world blog is on the way….stay tuned……The truth is awaiting and a new conservative party needs a leader….He is on the way…..

%d bloggers like this: