It Isn’t the Volume… It’s the Song

I have spent the better part of the last 15 months reveling in the sound of my own voice as I write a blog, hoping to change the world. Or at least the world of politics as we know it. Or at least the minds of a few people who can be reasoned with and who accept logic when it stares them in the face. For the record, I include all the readers of SUFA in that category. Not because we all agree and sing cumbayah together, obviously. But because we have come together, people of different points of view, and rationally discussed issues that matter to us. I believe that most Americans want the same things, albeit in different ways. Sure we have our moments of contention, but overall, I think the vibe here is good and we are making progress in understanding each other, and more importantly, in understanding Washington DC and the mess it has become. Don’t get me wrong, we have a long way to go in America. I need about 150 million reading SUFA to really make things change. Give me time…..

While reading different articles and blogs this evening (I try to read about 2-3 hours of stuff a day to keep my pulse on what everyone is saying), I came across yet another incoherent bag of drivel from Bob Cesca over at the Huffington Post. It is disturbing to think that this guy is so widely read, because of the blatantly false information that he peddles. After reading his verbal nonsense, I intentionally went looking for some conservative viewpoints that were similar. There were plenty to find. But I will readily admit that I could find NOTHING even close to the level of hatemongering that Cesca presented. The guy really is a piece of work. (As a side note, his attack on me last year brought us Mathius so we are indebted to him for that, but I still find it amazing that his piece stated that I did nothing to refute his facts when, in fact, my article did nothing BUT refute his facts. You can read it HERE. He refused to reply to me on my several attempts to engage him in respectful debate. He is a coward, like most liberals who write the kind of stuff he does, he is petrified of debating it publicly and being exposed as a partisan hack. Interesting how lost in his own reality he can be).


So what Cesca was writing about was the fact that Democrats need to get louder and more bold. They need to call out the GOP for what they are doing and saying. That might work if anything that he said about Republicans were actually true. I omitted his “extended screed” (like that Cesca?) where he basically just spouts common liberal rhetoric about GOP figures, as it was irrelevant. Here is what he had to say:

Here’s a major reason why the Republicans are still a viable party: they don’t mind getting loud. They’re willing to flagrantly lie out loud, while also making a huge production out of insignificant and contradictory nonsense that heretofore was never even considered to be a political trespass — shamelessly and unapologetically amplifying it all to a level of noise that forces the press and voters alike to pay attention.

The Democrats could learn a thing or two about this. More presently.

For all of their faults, the Republicans are absolutely using the whole political animal, so to speak. Like an ancient tribe of hunter-gatherers, they’re somehow able to butcher every carcass and turn all of the lies, gaffes and misstatements into something useful. Something that will command attention. Put another way, the Republican strategy seems to be: there’s no such thing as bad press, so get loud.

Followed by this nonsense:

Here’s where it gets crazy. The Republicans filibustered the jobs bill this week. They filibustered it. Do I need to spell out how wrong that is?

Now, I’ve been reluctant to rip into the Democrats, mainly because, despite myths to the contrary, Congress and the White House have been able to accomplish some pretty big goals in just a year. Positive goals. Accomplishments that will help real people.

The only problem is that they’re not loud enough about these things. They’re not loud enough about the Republican obstructionism and treachery. Consequently, other players are writing the script and the Obama administration, along with congressional Democrats, are being mischaracterized. By not fighting back against these mischaracterizations with the full force of their political majorities, they look weak.

Looking at the list of Democratic achievements along with the list of Republican lies and blunders, there’s obviously plenty of ammunition. But most of it is being allowed to rot on the vine — at least so far, even though November is growing larger in the window.

For example, that jobs bill filibuster. Those of us keeping up the congressional activity know about it, but how many rank and file voters know that the Republicans tried to block a bill that would create jobs in the aftermath of a deep recession? I have to ask: if the Republicans filibuster a jobs bill, and no one makes a big stink about it, does it make a sound?

If you can stomach it you can read the rest of Cesca’s nonsense here:  Bob Cesca: Time for the Democrats to Get Loud and Fearless

She's Not Loud and Bold Enough?

Now first, let me say I will make my main point of the article below, but I want to take a moment to dissect what Cesca is claiming here. First, he is claiming that the liberals in America, the Democrats, are not loud enough, not vocal enough, not pointing out whatever they can about Republicans enough. WHAT? Perhaps he has never heard of The Daily Kos, Code Pink, PETA, MSNBC (Olbermann and Matthews alone),, ACORN (and WALNUT), SEIU, ACLU, Rainbow/PUSH coalition, the New Black Panther Party, STORM, ELA, the Huffington Post, or even his own weekly nonsense. I think the left is more than vocal, and for the record every single bit as dishonest as the right.

As a prime example of the dishonesty of the left that can match the right is Cesca’s own mischaracterization of the GOP filibustering the “Jobs Bill”. That is literally how he spins this. It wasn’t a jobs bill, Bob. It was a liberal agenda bill. It had no hope of creating jobs. I will tell you what was being added to the “jobs bill”… an extension for the Patriot Act. How is that for a jobs bill? And that is another example of political punditry at work. Bob knows that if he simply calls it a jobs bill, it must be good right? Forget about whether the bill was actually any good or not. Forget about whether it would actually create jobs or not. If it said “jobs bill” at the top, and the GOP rejected it, they are obviously against Americans having jobs, and the Democrats should make this case loudly. In other words, Bob, what you are advocating is that your party boldly lie about the reality of the situation. Excellent strategy. Your party has been attempting that strategy along with the GOP for quite some time now. How’s that working out for you? Not so well, given the sheer amount of people that want to support all the tea party movement (even though we can only support some aspects of it as the rest is becoming GOP polluted).

So in seeking out GOP examples of this strategy, I visited a lot of sites. I could find the exact madness that Bob espouses but I found several stating that the GOP needs to get loud and bold in calling out the Democrats for what they are doing. For example there is this from a site called “The 1776 Blog”:

3. Kick, Scream and Yell.

The Democrats have control over ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, Hollywood and most newspapers and magazines. They consistently protest about everything from freeing Palestine (SEE: Lovely Liberal Protesters ) to saving the albino, long toothed bird moose (is that even real?). They scream for freedom of speech so long as it is their speech not descent ( SEE: Ignorant, brainwashed students ) and they are outspoken in their public speaking and indoctrination attempts.

Republicans need to start kicking, screaming and yelling at every opportunity. When one of our elected officials is invited to debate on a news program, they need treat the interview like a hostile interrogation (which it will be from practically every left leaning news organization) and fight tooth and nail on every issue debated. The reason the Left is being heard is because they are louder. Be loud. In the arena of ideas liberals will always lose because sob stories and a historically failed ideologies are not ideas just pander. I am not recommending a protest on every street corner (most Republicans have responsibilities and cannot drop everything to protest bread sales) but a united front and, yes, if the issue is important enough (fighting FOCA, National Healthcare, Stimulus) public protest, nationwide.

Read the rest at:  3 keys to ressurecting the Republican Party « The 1776 Blog

Now, I will say up front in reading more of this persons website, they are what appears to be a former Republican who is disenchanted with them as well. But, much as I have done, the author offers some advice for getting themselves back on track. And for the record, his other suggestions were really quite good. But he is suggesting that the GOP needs to get loud. Are we ignoring Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sean Hannity, years of Ann Coulter, Americans for Prosperity, NRA, or the rapidly expanding world of Twitter, where the GOP seems to have mastered the art of 140 character assassination?

I don’t think the GOP has any problem being loud and bold at this point either. And they don’t have any more interest in being honest when they they get vocal than the Democrats do. For the record, I don’t have a problem if the GOP wants to vocally oppose a bill because it is a bad bill, but it would be nice if instead of constantly just vocally opposing what the left is doing, if they would perhaps attempt to come up with some good solutions and be vocal about those instead. Just a thought.

But here is the reality for both the GOP and the Democrats…

It isn’t about the volume on the radio, it is about the song being played.

If either side of this fracas wants to actually get the American people to really be on their side, they have to change the message, not the volume. Because what is not resonating with the American people is the era of big government. The era of corporate cronyism. The era of the 20 second sound byte. The era of outright lies and inconvenient truths and misrepresentation and lies by omission that have become Washington DC.

Americans are beginning to understand the concept that every growth in government is a cut in our liberty. They are beginning to understand that no one in Washington DC has any interest in serving the people. They are beginning to understand that constantly growing taxes are eating into their ability to take care of themselves, and setting up a system where government is the only savior.

What Americans long for is a country where personal responsibility and individual responsibility become the standard again. I don’t want government to take care of anything for me. I understand that there are some things that, for now, we will continue to rely on government to accomplish for us. That is the reality. But the vast majority of what government does is not necessary, and not wanted by the average American. It eats away at our personal pride, our sense of fulfillment.

And that is why the tea party movement has gained such steam over the last year. It embraces a message that most Americans want to hear. Smaller government, lower taxes, more liberty, more freedom. That is the song we have had stuck in our head all day. And when it finally plays, we can’t seem to find a way to turn it up loud enough to drown out the 40 foot high speakers that the Democrats and GOP have cranked up at the party next door. So all you pundits on both sides of the DC aisles, stop believing that the problem is the volume. We hear what you are saying. We just think your song sucks.


  1. USW-“And that is why the tea party movement has gained such steam over the last year. It embraces a message that most Americans want to hear. Smaller government, lower taxes, more liberty, more freedom.”

    Exactly what the people wanted to here when Reagan won his first term.These simple facts are the reason why the GOP will come out ahead in the upcoming November elections.The GOP will attempt to embrace these items while the Democrats have shown they are all for more taxes, less liberty, less freedom and BIGGER GOVERNMENT with the current administrations past and current actions.

    • TC,

      I absolutely agree with every part of what you said. The question that I ask is whether the GOP will actually embrace these ideals or whether they will vocally embrace these ideals as a ploy to win votes. My fear is that the latter is true. The GOP was once considered the party of values, but they have gone far astray of those values. The test will be whether they return to them or just pretend to.

      I know you are working nights, as you mentioned it the other day. Hope your work night is going well. For me it is just that I seem to never sleep. I work what most would consider a second shift (I usually go in around 1:00pm and come home around 10:00pm). Which means I don’t sleep until around 4 or 4:30am usually. I dread the day when I have to revert to a normal schedule like everyone else. Running my own ship has its perks! 🙂


      • lol I meant to post my second remark before someone else posted USW as I read my post and realized the GOP motives would be in question!

      • I worked the 1400 to 2200 shift for six years when I was younger so I know what you mean.Nice hours.We called the second shift the party shift back then since when we got off the only thing open at 2200 was the bars and clubs and we had plenty of time to recoup before work! 🙂

        I work a rotating 12 hour shift now.Nights one week and days the next week.It’s a bit on the rough side to get used to but the way the rotation works you get two weekends off a month along with a eight day seven night stretch off so it’s as if you get a weeks worth of vacation every month even though you put in 36 hours one week and 48 hours the next!

    • Jeesh… need an edit button! what the people wanted to hear not here, but perhaps we want it here now to hear!

      I do believe the GOP to be the lesser of the two evils but don’t start bashing me for wanting them in power vs the dems.The GOP has their share of problems as well and need to get back to their base and stop earmarks and pork.

      Irregardless of what the left wants the public to think I firmly believe the majority of Americans view themselves more conservative than liberal.

      • Posting for comments.

      • Texaschem,

        Any time I hear somebody saying;

        “We need to cut …..(fill in blank)”….

        …I would love to hear what you would cut, and explain the consequences on the people dependent on that cut expenditure and what you recommend you would do to mitigate the political revolt that cut would cause.

        Standing around and crying “Cut the budget” with ignorance regarding the consequences is a waste of time and air. Unless you also include a plan regarding the mitigation of the political blow back, it will never happen by any political party

        I look forward to your thoughts.

        • We will actually be talking about this next week BF!

        • BF, there are many places government can cut that will not cause excessive screaming. Do we need tea pot museums, bridges to nowhere, planes that the military does not even want? Do cities need to build sports arenas for fat cat owners and multi-millionaire players? If arenas are such a good investment, then the players, owners and leagues should be lining up to invest. The arena is just another necessary component of the game, so cut the salaries and use that to build the arena like any other business would do.

          The issue above was school lunches/food stamps. Hunger in this country can be eliminated for a fraction of the cost of food stamps. Simply reserve a 15′ shelf unit in every store and stock it with free basic food items. These items can be taken by anyone but since they are basic will require some preparation. People will have to learn how to cook beens and potatos, etc. There would be limits on how much one could take at a given time. All items would be in plain USDA wrappers. Most of us would shun the shelf out of pride or desire for better quality. Food stamps would no longer be wasted on non-nutritional items.

          Another example I mentioned the other day was the homestead rebate in NJ. They overtax the citizens so they can rebate part of their real estate taxes. This is wasteful since there are adminstrative costs to collect and redistribute the money. Most people do not think about that part but if it is explained that way, they will accept it. The only losers are the bureaucrats in government. Tough shit.

          An example on the Federal level was Bush’s tax refund in early 2008. Had they just stopped collecting SS money for one month, they could have accomplished the same thing at virtually no cost to the government. Any time government gives back money, we lose.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The inherent problem with this approach is that even if waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency account for 25% of the overall budget, and you are able to cut waste, fraud, and inefficency by 25%, you have only cut the overall budget by 6.25%, which is not completely meaningless, but it certainly isn’t going to eliminate the deficit (which is about 45% of the currently proposed budget!!!)

            The only way to MEANINGFULLY cut the budget is to eliminate a lot of things entirely. If you do not do this, the deficit will still by sky-high. However, if you do eliminate things completely, you run into the very strong potential for exactly what BF is talking about.

            Also, in realistic terms, cutting even 6.25% from the projected budget is fantasy-land. At most, they might cut 3% out of it, and even that would be amazing.

            • I don’t know, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. 😆

              In fiscal 2000 before the Bush tax cuts, our government brought in $2.025 trillion in unified revenues while spending $1.789 trillion. Seven years later, before the recession hit, we received $2.568 trillion, a 27 percent increase. BUT, our expenditures rose to $2.729 trillion, a 53 percent rise.

              What this means is that our spending grew at TWICE THE RATE as tax receipts.

              And Zakaria and his ilk blame deficits on tax cuts!

              To further illustrate the stupidity on display, even with tax cuts, receipts grew faster than the rate of inflation. BUT, if our elected officials would have kept spending to the rate of inflation during this period, our outlays in 2007 would have totaled $2.154 trillion resulting in a surplus of $414 billion!

              Now, let’s look at what a recession and an almost unprecedented explosion in expenditures has done.

              In 2009, we brought in $2.105 trillion in tax receipts. Bear in mind that even with a recession this was still greater than BEFORE the Bush tax cuts were implemented. BUT, we spent $3.517 trillion, or 97 percent more than BEFORE the Bush tax cuts.

              If spending had been kept at the level of inflation during this period, outlays would have been $2.229 trillion producing a deficit of only $124 billion INSTEAD of the $1.413 trillion we generated.

              Read more:

          • Ty,

            You failed to understand my point.

            Cut whatever you want – it doesn’t matter.

            I am saying the people who lost their jobs, thus their homes, probably destroying their families will not let it happen without a fight.

            Do you honestly believe that all the people who depend on government money will just curl up into a ball in a corner and die?

            We are talking politics here, Ty.

            Politics is the theory of violence.

            People will not allow themselves to be destroyed without taking someone else with them.

            • BF, I got your point but do not sell the politicians short. They took the heat this summer on healthcare and stayed the course. So it can be done but it is not a one year process and it will require education of both the pols and the recipients. My approach would be first to go after the low hanging fruit. This is the earmarks and other pork. There is a lot of it, much buried in the sacred military budget where unneeded weapons systems are funded because of some factory in someone’s district.

              I gave an example of how food stamps can be wiped out while simultaneously saving money and preventing hunger. This was a study I read over 20 years ago. The need is still covered, but those that currently game the system, i.e. sell their food stamps to buy liquor, cigarettes, candy, and other junk food will the thwarted. There is some reeducation that needs to occur since cooking will be required.

              There is also much that can be done at the local and state levels as well. CA is a mess. We just learned that we spent $5.2M on 199 new vehicles for state parks, many which closed. We also spent $30M for new office furiture. All of this during a negative fiscal year. Yes it is small potatoes compared to the -$22B deficit but it is still waste. Ben Franklin said a penny saved is a penny earned. Save a million here and million there and soon we are talking real money.

              The alternative is to keep doing what we are doing and watch the whole thing collapse. What will the screams be then?

        • Never is a cousin to Ever, and we know how that works out.

          Careful oh wise pirate.

          The world has a way of surprising us all from time to time.

          • I am confident in the word “never” when it comes to politics and political parties.

            They are wholly predictable.

            I wouldn’t use it for the population in general.

            Only “they” are capable of the negation of never.

        • BF,

          Going to try an experiment here with you.Take all of these terms and toss them in a bag, shake them up.

          Infrastructure.Democratic Republic.
          Education.Intelligent Design.
          Social Security.Free Enterprise.
          Federal Reserve System.
          Income Tax.Laissez-faire.
          Term Limits.Lobbyist.
          Medicaid.Pork barrel spending.
          Lawyer.Securities and Exchange Commission.
          Tort reform.Nationalism.
          Autarky. (Yes that’s spelled correctly)

          Like my answer? 😉

    • Texchem,

      The problem though is that the promise was meaningless.

      Reagan raised the budget, expanded the government and increased the debt.

      Yet, he is regarded a hero of ‘small government’ simply because his mouth moved.

  2. Want some ACORN in your TEA?
    The administration is preparing to give a couple of billion to ACORN again.
    ACORN is well organized and will follow marching orders from the DNC or some other group that receives the daily message with six degrees of separation. They then donate time and money back to the same politicians that provided them all that cash. What a sweet deal.
    The TEA Party is not a party at all. It is a movement.
    Unfortunately it is one of many groups and movements made up of frustrated people holding “traditional” values. You know, the pariah’s of modern progressive society.
    ACORN will again solicit votes for cigarettes, Progressives will continue to divide and conquer the conservative majority into quibbling and ineffectual sub groups causing them to self destruct.
    The Democrats will continue to allow the “progressives” to hijack their party through Media Manipulation of the Intellectual Elite’s.
    The Republicans will eat their own through Media Manipulation of the Intellectual Elite’s.
    It’s gonna get ugly.

  3. Réfugiée says:

    Bonjour, mon cher USW–

    Big government vs. bigger government
    Controlling a set of behaviors vs. controlling a different set of behaviors
    Viciously bashing opponents vs. viciously bashing opponents
    Taking lots of our money vs. taking lots more of our money

    There appear to be minor differences between the two main parties, as though they are playing the same tune with varying degrees of success. They remind me of two rotten high school bands at a football game; I cringe at both performances, although one does seem to sound worse.

    True liberty, as discussed here so frequently, is scary. Would it be any scarier than the controlled disaster we now have? Is true liberty even possible in this country given the number of people who are dependent?

    Over the weekend I saw a story (which I can no longer find on three major news sites) about children going hungry while schools in the East have been closed by the snowstorms. A few years ago I visited a third-world country and saw people living in abject poverty. Children who went to a local (charity-sponsored) school got their best meals at the school. According to the article (as best I can remember), school meals are the only good nutrition many kids get here in the U.S. And this is only one program.

    • Réfugiée,

      Actually that sounds like what is going on in Indianapolis schools. The local paper has taken it upon itself to voice the concerns. They cite the fact that many kids don’t have proper nutrition and only function well if food is in front of them (snacks, etc). I agree that programs like this are necessary (my heart goes out to these kids), but at the same time, we need to be conscious of corruption in programs like welfare.

      What we need is responsible reform that keeps people from dying due to poverty while helping them become self-sustaining rather than keeping them on welfare for life. There was actually an article in the same paper that said people should not give to the poor exactly, but give to a charity that helps the poor. The professionals there can help them get on their feet rather than letting them make a life out of begging.

      I, at least, don’t want a dissolution of government or of the welfare system, but I do want reform. I want efficiency and personal responsibility to be the main concerns.

      • Réfugiée says:

        Bonjour JB,

        I don’t know what the solution is. In Michigan (from whence I am a réfugiée) the Family Independence Agency used to advertise on billboards to encourage people to apply for “the benefits to which you are entitled.” Michigan is in terrible shape economically, although things are not quite as bad as in California. (I try to keep an eye on conditions back in the ol’ state; we have family there.)

        Many years ago after a devastating flood (in another poor state – Mississippi) we took food stamps for a short time. I remember feeling very humiliated, although it was much worse for my mother. We did not think of this aid as an “entitlement,” but as a shameful act to which we were driven by desperation.

        This was over 30 years ago. Cultural attitudes toward “entitlements” have changed greatly. I don’t know how to encourage personal responsibility other than within one’s own circle, one person at a time.

        As for making an institutional change, are there any options other than:

        (1) From within – intrinsic motivation like my family’s in which we hated receiving aid and couldn’t wait to get away from it. (Also featured in Cinderella Man?)

        (2) From without – extrinsic motivation in which someone says “no more,” whether with announced time limits, benefit limits, or some other means.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I like how they call it the Family INDEPENDENCE Agency, and the main job of the agency seems to be encouraging people to BECOME DEPENDANT on the government.

          Bravo for Newspeak!

  4. I always hear a lot about the Republicans being the party of “No.” I have a few comments about that.

    1. Those who make the above statement don’t seem to care that the Democrats have been voting along party lines as well. Perhaps we should deem them the party of “Yes.” As in, being “Yes men” (and women) to the president. If a group of Dems had voted against health care (cough **Bayh** cough), the repubs wouldn’t have gotten the label.

    2. Let me make a hyperbolic example to prove my next point.

    Rep: I’m making a bill that allows murder on Tuesdays and every third Wednesday. What do I have to do to get your vote?

    Dem: I can’t vote for that!

    Rep: I’ll through in some spending increases on your pet project.

    Dem: I can’t vote for that!

    Rep: I’ll vote for your health care bill.

    Dem: I can’t vote for that!

    Rep: You’re being obstructionist and partisan!

    Isn’t this the same type of thing going on right now. Dems make a bill they like that opposes the values of conservatives and whine and complain when repubs don’t vote for it, even with tax cuts and whatnot. Goodness forbid any congressman should stand on principle!

    3. In reference to the “jobs bill,” Harry Reid has reserved all amendments to the bill for himself. That is, if anyone wants to add anything to the bill, they have to get his approval. Whose amendments do you think he will allow?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I have always heard that if you think something is a bad (or perhaps even terrible) idea, that “no” is a perfectly valid answer!


      • You’re just being obstructionist 😉

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yep, some things are worthy of obstruction!

          Obstruction is NOT the opposite of construction. DESTRUCTION is the opposite of Construction. A little obstruction never hurt anyone, and quite freqently has been know to PREVENT destruction!


  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    What jobs bill was he referring to? Anyone know?

  6. Ray….are we setting things up here? I have NOT seen the jobs bill in writing. I did see Harry Reid on TV briefly explaining that he pulled the “jobs bill” back to refine it and supposedly cut pork from it. Harry Reid cutting pork from any bill will be tantamount to believing the line, “I am Mr. Smith from the IRS. I am here to help you.” I have only “heard” about this bill but have not seen it.

  7. USW… nice article. I am not real sure what is going on right now. I am not sure of what “movement” is going anywhere except what my fiber starts. (Yes, 40 years of eating Old WWII K rations, C rations, and MRE’s has screwed up the system ).

    I do feel that the democrats have not gotten any messages. I also feel that the “entrenched” Repubs and Dems are still suffering from denial. They are not willing to believe that a whole lot of them are in trouble.

    There are a lot of angry people out there….probably more frustrated than angry. Blame who you want for the debacle that we are currently facing. Both sides are culprits. This country probably grew too fast. We got lazy and arrogant. We have an entitlement mentality but I see this mentality all over Europe as well. I firmly believe that Europe is a failed system. I do not care what economists write about it nor do I care what philosophers write about it and I do not care what the academia says about it. I have two eyes and a brain and have traveled extensively over there and can see what is happening with my own eyes.

    I wonder, that despite our own faults, if the United States is still not the best way to go. We are not even 300 years old and have accomplished more than the 10,000 years of world has produced. (This is, of course, MY opinion and I am entitled to it). I wonder why it is so important for the “left” to want to emulate Europe? I cannot see any system over there, including Austria and Switzerland, Finland, Sweden that offers anything that I want.

    I think that we have grown too fast and do not know how to handle success. Unfortunately, the successful in this country are too busy being successful and have allowed it to be hijacked by the…ummmm…politicians whom know nothing. We have allowed an Elite class to be developed in the political world and are allowing it to dictate to us.

    Why can’t the left and the right see which status has been developed in Washington? How can the left leaning “commoners” take up the mantra of the left leaning political crowd who claims the rich are the elite when by their very nature, they (politicians) have guaranteed salaries, guaranteed pension, guaranteed health care, automatic pay increases without voting on it, excluded form Social Security. etc. etc…….? Neither the right or the left are concerned about the “greater good” except to control the greater good and make them a mind numbed dependent bunch of morons. There is screaming about bonuses when Congress gets bigger bonuses…pork spending, ear marks, tax payer trips..are bonuses and they do not pay taxes on top of that. Who are the real criminals? Spending this country into oblivion on the foundation that they are helping the “greater good” is more criminal than the child molester or rapist or killer in jail. Both are a detriment to society….but I wonder which one is a bigger detriment? The current and past administrations, on their spending habits, have impacted more people negatively than any Charles Manson or Jim Jones.

    So, I am not sure what the message is out there right now. I do know this. Fact one: Most (over 80%) of the people that voted democrat are saying that they made a mistake. Fact Two: Most of the people that I know are beginning to actually look and search for viable candidates..if there are any. There are a few of us that are trying to organize and have done so and we are affecting elections and rule making at the lower levels.

    I have come to the conclusion that I have seen the true enemy and it is us. I just know there is growing anger out there and it is aimed at the politburo in total. Repubs/Dems/ all of them. But what to do is the problem. Sit back and do nothing? That is not what our founders intended. To sit back and wait and pick up the debris after a cataclysmic event? That is a cowards way out and, quite frankly, immoral. Anyone can do that and call it planning….but it does not make it so. ( And you know I am not talking about not planning to protect oneself ) I am talking about the person that says. “I will not get involved. I will sit back and wait for the “event” and then be opportunistic and make a fortune off other people’s demise.”

    We must get involved and we must try to change what we have. We must vote the bastards out of office, all of them, and try again. To sit back and do nothing…well, you might survive, but you will be as dead as a beaver hat… borrow a phrase from John “Duke” Wayne.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I can see one ATTEMPTED remedy via the ballot box, which is this:

      Vote ALL of the current bastards out, and make it clear to all 535 NEW BASTARDS that if they do not do what we want, they will suffer the same fate, and be booted out as well.

      Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that will work (hate to burst your bubble, but it hasn’t worked in the past, so it isn’t likely to work in the present or the future either).

      You believe that the problem is the current people running the system. I believe that the problem is systemic. If you are correct, voting the bastards out COULD work. If I am correct, it will be largely irrelevant which bastards you put into the system.

      Putting different bastards into the system might slow, or perhaps even cause a TEMPORARY reversal of the trends we see right now. However, I seriously doubt that such a reversal would be able to be made permanent the way that the system currently is.

      I HOPE that you are right and merely changing the cogs in the machine will fix the machine; unfortunately, it is possible that it is simply a flawed machine and is going to generate exactly these sorts of problems regardless of whether you put in “Cogswell’s Cogs” or “Spacely’s Space Sprockets”.

      • Some are doing it themselves. Looks like your Indiana Senator, PeterB is calling it quits.

        Democratic Sen. Bayh Will Not Seek Re-Election This Year

        Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this November, an unexpected decision that hands Republicans an opportunity for a pick-up in a year when Democrats are already defending several open Senate seats.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          When Bayh was governor of Indiana, he did a FAIRLY good job. However, that was easy for him. The economy was good the entire time he was in office, so he was able to increase spending and still leave the State with a large surplus. The Indiana Constitution prohibits deficit spending.

          As a senator, I think he has been little more than a yes-man for the Dems. I do not know whether this is due to natural proclivity, or due to pressure from the leadership, or a combination of the two.

          He didn’t seem like a COMPLETE lib-tard when he was governor of Indiana, but his voting record in the Senate sure makes him seem like one.

          He is still very popular in Indiana, and still viewed here as a “centrist fiscally responsible Democrat” in spite of the fact that his voting record shows nothing of the sort. He probably would have won re-election simply because even an accurate portrayal of his voting record would not have been enough to unseat him.

          I think that it is way past time for Dick Lugar to retire as well. He is a big-government Repub if there ever was one!

          Most people in Indiana (except the ones contaminated by proximity to Chicago) tend to be pretty independent/conservative, and yet our Senators are run-of-the-mill Statists (which is the main reason why I believe that whether you put in Cogswell’s Cogs or Spacely’s Space Sprockets it really won’t make much difference).

          • Rumors are rabid…

            Bayh apparently has a ton of money; run for President in the future?

            I’ve been on a couple sites where the Dems are starting to scamper for 2012 in case The One can’t be re-elected. Is Plan B to put someone else against him that is more centrist?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The rumor here is that they are indeed setting him up to run for President in 2012 if Obama is deemed to be “unreelectable”.

              The “centrist” Democrat from Indiana is being set up to be the Savior of the party if the Messiah thing doesn’t work out…


        • Kathy and Peter B,

          I was over at Atlas Shrugged where Pam put forth the possiblity that all the Dems that are not up for re-elction are part of a strategy. The Dems are trying to make it about the individual candidate rather than the party. By offering up unknowns or people with an acceptable/spinable record, the party will be able to keep their people in power. Of course, once the new folks get to work, they will toe the party line, and the Agenda moves on. So PeterB, we’ll still have the bastards…

      • Peter says: You believe that the problem is the current people running the system. I believe that the problem is systemic. If you are correct, voting the bastards out COULD work. If I am correct, it will be largely irrelevant which bastards you put into the system.

        D13 says: I actually think it is both, Peter, but your point is well taken. It has NOT worked in the past but the only other solution is do nothing. I am not made that way internally. I just cannot sit back and do nothing. I happen to think and believe that our system is the best…broken, yes…but still the best in my opinion. I know others do not share that opinion and that is ok by me. It would be historic if all the members were out of there…it will not happen, I am not naive…but I can do my part.

        Peter says: I HOPE that you are right and merely changing the cogs in the machine will fix the machine; unfortunately, it is possible that it is simply a flawed machine and is going to generate exactly these sorts of problems regardless of whether you put in “Cogswell’s Cogs” or “Spacely’s Space Sprockets”.

        D13 says: You could well be right. The machine could be flawed but what machine would replace it? I do not see one out there that I would buy as a replacement…do you? If it is to be rebuilt…then we rebuild it. I am as frustrated as to how as much as you or anyone…but like my golf game…it can never be conquered..just played….but I will keep swinging.

        Hope you and yours are doing well up there.I know I was complaining about a foot of snow that lasted only two days but that does not take anything from the several feet of non melting snow up there.


        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          We got a few more inches of snow today, it seems to be letting up now, but we are not predicted to get above freezing at all for the next week, so most of it will stay for now. No more major storms for the next week either… SUPPOSEDLY… we will see how that works out.

          My view of our system is actually this:

          The ORIGINAL DESIGN and the INTENT were pretty good (though not flawless). If we had stuck to the original design and intent, it would indeed be the best system out there BY FAR. Unfortunately, we have tried to emulate the statism and “soft-socialism” of much of Europe, with disaterous results.

          I tend to agree with BF. Once you decide to GIVE people food, water, clothing and shelter (their basic needs), then you have effectively done 2 things: You have eliminated their need for motivation, and you have turned them into tigers in a zoo.

          A tiger in a zoo is perfectly happy as long as it is comfortable and well-fed. However, take away that tiger’s comfort and food, and it won’t be long at all until that tiger starts attacking the zoo-keepers. We cannot take away the “free” food, water, clothing, and shelter that we have “given” to all of these people (or even significantly reduce it), or we will have a lot of angry tigers lashing out at their former zoo-keepers.

          This puts us in a convenient little Catch-22 (which is exactly what the progressives have intended all along I suspect)… we cannot afford to continue our current policies, but any attempt to reduce them will likely be met with major societal upheaval.

          Our ONLY hope is that people can learn to rely on themselves and each other without the intervention of the zoo-keepers. This is difficult when the zoo-keepers control the education and information that the tigers receive.

          This blog is certainly a good attempt to let some of the tigers see that they are much better off as free beasts than they could ever be as captives in a managed zoo, so at least there is some hope 🙂

    • D13,

      I agree with Peter.

      First, why would they be voted out? Who would vote them out?

      Look into your wallet – how much money do you get from the government? I know you get a lot – from some sort of benefit of being a military man.

      You are paid your Army retirement – and given your rank, it is not a small sneeze of loot!

      Your pension comes from the government.

      You probably have some sort of government health coverage as well.

      I will wager a donut that you do not believe government cuts should come out of your pocket. I wager another donut that you believe you “earned” your government money.

      Open up your insight and understand this:
      Everyone who receives any money from government believes exactly the same as you do about their own wallets.

      Now, who are you going to cut? You first, as they say!

      • BF: you break even on donuts. (If they are chocolate donuts, I could be sprinkles tho)…

        BF says: I will wager a donut that you do not believe government cuts should come out of your pocket.
        D13 says: You lose this one. If they were across the board and equal, I would have no problem.

        BF says: I wager another donut that you believe you “earned” your government money.

        D13 says: You win this one. I do, indeed, believe that I earned it. However, it is not my only income. I have various sources of income, legit, that I have put together over the years through the private sector, investments, business arrangements, etc…the latest being the anti aging process that is catching on fast.

        Bf says: Open up your insight and understand this:
        Everyone who receives any money from government believes exactly the same as you do about their own wallets. You first, as they say!

        D13 is amused: You will have to explain why this was aimed at me. I know not where you are coming from on this one.

        BF says: First, why would they be voted out? Who would vote them out?

        D13 says: The same people, including me, would vote them out. Why? Because it is broken and perhaps we need a clean sweep and try again. I do think that Peter is correct in his assessment that we could be voting in the same thing and it could just slow the process. I simply do not know the answer. History has shown that nothing much changes. Everyone thought Obama was going to be different and he is not. However, I do find it amusing of the sudden flight from the hill.

        BF says: You probably have some sort of government health coverage as well.

        D13 responds: I have VA coverage from past wounds and health related items of agent orange (Vietnam). I have private (non government) coverage for all other ailments. Why? Because the civilian medical coverage is faster…much faster but civilian coverage does not cover Agent Orange and its effects. But I do not understand the attack on my military work and related benefits. Where or what is the point you are trying to make?

        • D13

          D13 says: You lose this one. If they were across the board and equal, I would have no problem.

          Who’s definition of equal?

          Everyone takes a 50% cut? Well, you’re getting $100,000 now $50,000.

          Octo-mom is getting $25,000 and now $12,000.

          That’s equal? Ya think Octo-mom and Octo-dad are going to let that happen?

          There is no such thing as “equal” except in math.

          In human affairs, ‘equal’ is completely subjective and in the eye of the injured.

          D13 says: You win this one. I do, indeed, believe that I earned it.

          That is my point.

          Every person who receives money believes they have earned it.

          However, it is not my only income.

          That is not my point.

          My point is that you count money from government to be rightfully belonging in your wallet – exactly like 99.9% of everyone else who finds government money in their wallet.

          You will have to explain why this was aimed at me. I know not where you are coming from on this one.

          Not personal.

          You made a comment of “cut-cut-CUT!”

          I am saying “Where? Where? Where? without causing political collapse…”

          D13 says: The same people, including me, would vote them out.

          Tell me the truth.

          If a politician had a platform that said

          “…and to help balance the budget, I will cut military pay, eliminate military medical benefits, and reduce military pensions by 50%…”

          …you would vote for him.

          I do not think you would, and you know that such a platform would create such a national uproar, such a politician would be lucky to get out of the country alive.

          You know this.

          So do not offer fantastic solutions of budget control until a complementary plan of mitigating total politician disaster is first offered.

          You are talking politics, not economics. Therefore, you must handle the political problem first and then the economic problem.

          Any solution that tries to do this backwards will never be invoked.

          Because it is broken and perhaps we need a clean sweep and try again.

          Then the cities of America will burn. Millions will die.

          The United States of America will not survive.

          History has shown that nothing much changes. Everyone thought Obama was going to be different and he is not.

          That is exactly the point.

          It is not history that shows nothing changes – it is only providing the visualization, not the reason.

          The reason is because of the intractable political problem – and it will be avoided at all costs by the current politicians and forwarded to the next group….until it blows up.

          If you want to save the nation (I’d ask why, but that’s another question another day), then you must solve the intractable political problem first.

          Where or what is the point you are trying to make?

          For you to enlighten yourself on how other people will feel losing their government money by how you would feel losing your government money.

          If you would find such a situation unacceptable – expect anyone else to find it the same way.

          • You sure you do not have me confused with someone else? I am trying to figure out where I posted Cut Cut cut…..if I did say such a thing, I wonder in what context I said it, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out where I said it. However, there are lots of places to trim and cut budgets.

            As to the relative term of “equal”, you seem to contradict yourself, unless you are just using it as a talking point…. I have thought all along, that you were a proponent of equality among all. Equal taxes equal pain, equal rights….etc.

            To tax someone more simply because they make more is something I thought you were against. But, it seems to me, since you brought it up, that if we are to use percentages, then percentages apply across the board. To tax someone making $50,000 at an 18% rate and then tax someone making $1,000,000 at a 40% rate simply because they have more is not a fair way of doing things. You are simply penalizing someone for being successful. I happen to advocate a flat tax. Say 15% across the board whether you make one million dollars or ten dollars. I would apply the same theory to cuts. A 50% cut on one million dollars would probably have the same effect as a 50% cut on fifty thousand dollars. Not in dollars but living styles…both would have to lower them.

            BF says: For you to enlighten yourself on how other people will feel losing their government money by how you would feel losing your government money.

            D13 asks: I get your drift here, but, out of curiosity, are you lumping government money all in the same basket? Entitlement programs (money “given” to those who have not earned it vs money paid to those who have earned it?) Do you see the fact that it is government money…all the same?

          • @-BF,

            Ermmm…D-13 is a vetted military veteran.I would sincerely believe there to be a difference in your mind of that fact versus the freeriders of government money we have today.If not I can help point that out to you!

            By executive order, President Barack Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict “victims” in Gaza.

            The “presidential determination” which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.

            President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by “the urgent refugee and migration needs” of the “victims.”

            Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

            See the difference in government money BF?

  8. Posting for comments, thanks

  9. Name this tune.. nah nah nah nah hey hey bye bayh…

    It looks like Bayh is abandoning the partisan libs and didnt tell Reid and the report is saying that a source is saying that he did tell obama. Does anyone know of that source that says Bayh did tell obama?

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is off-topic (for today anyway), but I thought it was a GREAT example of exactly how raising minimum wage is a JOB KILLER.

  11. I see the whole Repub vs. Dems thing as a distraction to the people. The reality is it’s the people vs. government and always has been. As long as we can keep govt under the control of the people it serves us, but once it gains control over us it masters us.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      That is right Michelle,

      The people started losing the battle at least 150 years ago in this country (perhaps even earlier), and the battle was completely lost in 1913. The 1930’s and beyond have just been examples of the creeping (and creepy) attempts of the government to master us.

      According to the definition of “government” which most of us use here, it is not possible for the people to control the government (government is the institution with the self-proclaimed right to initiate the use of force against the non-violent). By that definition, how is it possible to control the thing?

  12. The Candidate who responds with “nothing” to the question:

    “What are you going to do FOR our state or your constituants”


    That ladies and gentlemen is how you identify the statists “at heart” from the rest. If they start talking about what “THEY” can or will do for you then send them packing. Obama was easy to see coming because he had a longer “what I will do” list than any in history.

    Vote for the man or woman who answers “nothing” or “start killing federal programs until nothing but defense is left, and then cut it in half”.

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello everyone

    Hope all had a good weekend, and hope you had a good Valentines Day with your sweetie.

    February 15, 2010 02:16 PM EST by John Stossel
    Entitled to a Five-bedroom House

    Many of our “leaders” want to make America more like Europe. When President Obama was in Europe, he praised the “social safety net that exists in almost all of Europe that doesn’t exist in the United States.”

    Vice president Joe Biden called paying higher taxes “patriotic.”

    Europe does have a bigger “social safety net.” But the gain comes with pain: Europe’s higher taxes and bigger government lead to slower job growth and higher unemployment. Politicians always claim that the safety-net will be limited to “necessities for the truly needy,” but such government programs always grow.

    An article in today’s UK Daily Mail illustrates how over time, welfare states begin to offer monstrous entitlements:

    A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 [$125,000] a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.

    Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney’s house and Lord’s cricket ground.
    She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

    The four-storey house in Maida Vale has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double living room… two large flat-screen televisions …

    Welfare fraud? No — the government stands by the payments:

    Miss Marjam said: ‘I moved here at the beginning of the month as I’m entitled to a five-bedroom house.

    ‘I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn’t have any houses big enough…

    A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said…”Only a very small minority of people receive such high rates of housing benefit.”

    And here I thought my free golf cart from the US government was a grotesque scam. Serious freeloaders should move to England.

  14. T-Ray,

    I got your point but do not sell the politicians short. They took the heat this summer on healthcare and stayed the course.

    There is a difference between adding a new program into a system and removing it from the system.

    If you thought that was ‘hot’, try removing a program. It will ‘melt’ the nation.

    So it can be done but it is not a one year process and it will require education of both the pols and the recipients.

    T-ray, ol’ boy, you don’t have years to reverse course – you have months, maybe weeks.

    My approach would be first to go after the low hanging fruit. This is the earmarks and other pork. There is a lot of it, much buried in the sacred military budget where unneeded weapons systems are funded because of some factory in someone’s district.

    You clip such fruit.

    15,000+ people are now unemployed in one city overnight, and are about to lose their homes.

    Another 1.5 million are watching you act, knowing they are next…

    Now, whatcha gonna do?

    I gave an example of how food stamps can be wiped out while simultaneously saving money and preventing hunger. This was a study I read over 20 years ago. The need is still covered, but those that currently game the system, i.e. sell their food stamps to buy liquor, cigarettes, candy, and other junk food will the thwarted. There is some reeducation that needs to occur since cooking will be required.

    Exactly my point.

    A plan – based on merely economics – and completely ignores the fundamental politics. Ergo, did not happen.

    The current system is retained because the knowledge to ‘thwart the system’ as you say is in place.

    How do you honestly believe the people who use food stamps for booze will act when you go and remove that from them?

    Do you think they may, oh, riot?

    No politician can survive the riot – therefore, lots of mouth moving but no action in the wheels. Nothing happened.

    Unless you handle the politics first, no government change of money will happen.

    It is a one-way street.

    There is also much that can be done at the local and state levels as well. CA is a mess. We just learned that we spent $5.2M on 199 new vehicles for state parks, many which closed. We also spent $30M for new office furiture. All of this during a negative fiscal year. Yes it is small potatoes compared to the -$22B deficit but it is still waste.

    But it kept a car dealer in business (who votes) and a office supplier company in business (who votes).

    Ben Franklin said a penny saved is a penny earned.

    Ah, the problem. You think government ‘earns’ its money.

    But it does not. Therefore, any lessons built upon that basis is irrelevant when speaking of government action.

    The alternative is to keep doing what we are doing and watch the whole thing collapse. What will the screams be then?

    But, T-ray, the “then” you speak is in the future – over the hill and around the corner – …. another ‘greater fool’s problem’.

    …as long as the problem is not today…

    … and that is the problem…

    …which is why there is no hope for the action you want.

    The game of politics is avoidance.

    You want them to act today, and THEY suffer the consequences today, for the benefit of some other fool tomorrow.

    You ask of them the impossible.

    • Flag, you paint a very negative picture of people. If the time frame you suggest is so short, then the riots should begin this summer. The country went through worse (at least compared to now) in the ’30s and most survived but with a new attitude about what was actually necessary for like. The problem is the pols who pander and buy votes with our money. That is what needs to change. The whole welfare, illegal alien, make work jobs business is just that buying votes or future votes.

      I am not advocating starving people. I would supply a means for sustenance should they need it so food riots will not be necessary. Will they riot over booze? I doubt it. Will they learn how to cook, earn money to buy their booze and sweets? Hopefully. This is one small step towards weening them off the public dole. I would be asking them to make no sacrifices that I have not already made. I get no government assistance. My company gets no government assistance (at least not directly). My wife is an invalid but does not get SSDI nor any other aid. I pay for daycare for her out of my pocket. I work full time. I do the cooking mostly from fresh or frozen foods. I do not use TV dinners or other ready made expensive meals. I have a big pot of chili in the crockpot now made from fresh tomatoes peppers, onion, etc. And I bake bread and pies (from apples I grow) too.

      I have raised 3 and educated 2.5 kids, the last is in the works. My kids can plant a garden, build a barn, repair cars, program computers, design chips and circuits, etc.

      How many times have I heard that government does not create jobs? But then you advocate keeping the make work government jobs that are in fact destroy more jobs in the private sector. Will there be temporary dislocations? Yes. Will there be riots? Only if there is absolutely no hope for improvement in the future.

      We can do nothing and watch it all collapse, which it will at the present rate of expenditures, or we can start to roll back the excesses, blow up a some sacred cows and start on the path to real recovery.

      • Hi T-Ray,

        You mention the people of the 30’s going through worse than we have now. For sometime, I’ve felt that as a people, Americans are very different than that generatiom you mention. I don’t think they were as spoiled as present day Americans are. Also, the people of that generation whom I have known, don’t have the entitlement mentality that many Americans have now. Should America find itself in a 1930’s type situation, I don’t think the people will cope with it as well as that other generation. Just my opinion….

        • Yes and no. Many do have the entitlement mentality. It was evident in N.O. after Katrina. I was mad that government did not get into N.O. faster but when the TV cameras did get to the convention center, I was very dissappointed in what I saw. People sitting on their butts griping, no camp/cook fires, no water boiling, no stills. Fundamental survival skills seemed to be missing. That was after only 4 days. It would remain to be seen if that would improve with time. Hunger can make people learn.

          Yet in other parts of the country, more rural and areas with work ethics, this would not happen. People are much more self reliant.

          The massive collapse that BF prophesizes is a low probability event in my opinion. Some remnant of goverment/order will survive. We may move to a barter system but goods and services will move albeit at a slower pace.

          • I hope you’re right about that collapse. I agree that there will be some who are self reliant. Its the ones who aren’t self reliant that will cause much of the trouble. How much of each catagory will we have I wonder. That so many Americans don’t see the on coming train leads me to believe that they won’t cope so well. By now, if you don’t see what’s coming, its because you’re simply incapable of critical thinking. Self reliant people tend to have the ability to think critcally, so they not?

            I came across this today.


            ….Ancient political thinkers wrote about basic human corruption. When exposed to money and power for any length of time, people tended to become spoiled. The occasion of this spoiling heralded bloody upheavals and revolutions. In America and Europe we have already seen a social revolution. The attitudes of our grandparents have been disputed and set aside – in matters of church, state and family. New attitudes have taken their place. Our grandparents were strict in ways we are not strict. They were disciplined in ways we are no longer capable of discipline. They were frugal, and the Great Depression was real to them. Today we borrow money, and we borrow again. We are addicted to debt…..

            • Cyndi,

              I think if they got exposed to money and power that they did not earn – causes corruption.

              If you earn your power – it means you accepted and disposed of your responsibilities very prudently. Power aggregates naturally to those who are capable and responsible.

              Same with money.

              I cannot see how responsible people would naturally become corrupted.

              However, if power and money are not earned, then the requisite responsibility and capability may not necessarily exist.

              • I agree with you. Sadly, many Americans haven’t had to really work and sacrifice for what they have.

                On another topic, I just found this. Literally just finished reading it and have not yet reflected on it. What are your thoughts? At first glance, there appears to be some truth to it. I’ve never heard of this Nyquist guy before….


                Mission Bulletin of Strategic Crisis Center
                Jeff Nyquist Mission Statement

                A grave strategic crisis is coming. The U.S. Congress has decided to allow the nation’s nuclear arsenal to sink into disrepair. At the same time, the president is eager to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, while Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces (not to mention what China is doing). It is possible, within a year, that America will have less than 400 strategic nuclear warheads. The strategic posture of the United States has become a makeshift affair; partly based on the dictates of political correctness, partly based on the false market optimism of a business community that wants to trade with Communist China. It does not occur to these businessmen that China is trading with them today in order to hang them tomorrow.

                Today’s strategic crisis is an intellectual crisis. It occurs because men have not studied the strategic situation with due diligence. They have abandoned common sense, and they have failed to name their enemies. The Islamic threat notwithstanding, the United States faces two powerful opponents: Russia and China. Due to the advance of “politically correct” thinking in Washington, and to the softening of the American psyche, few politicians are willing to admit that Russia and China are working against the security interests of the United States. Other countries, as well, are part of the Russian-Chinese alliance. These include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and others.

                It would seem, indeed, that the old Communist Bloc still exists, and is growing, especially in the Third World. Meanwhile, Communist influence in Europe is spreading through KGB-businesses, Russian organized crime, and agents of influence. Though former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact states have gained entry into NATO, the governments and economies of these countries are largely in the hands of Moscow’s agents. Even Lech Walesa in Poland has long since been exposed as an agent of the communist secret police. It is no wonder, therefore, that Russia and China are engaged in a military buildup while the strategic attention of the United States is focused on Iran and Afghanistan. A deception has been promulgated, and the United States has been taken for a ride.

                It now becomes evident, twenty years after the so-called collapse of communism, that America didn’t win the Cold War. The communist bloc merely reorganized itself under new banners and new slogans. The old ideology was outwardly abandoned to facilitate the interpenetration of East and West. It is an indisputable fact that the collapse of Communism in 1989 was part of a longstanding Kremlin plan. We know this from the testimony of defectors and researchers like Jan Sejna, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Vladimir Bukovsky. It was Bukovsky who acquired documents from the Communist Party Soviet Union archive proving the existence of the plan. We also know that this plan did not play out as envisioned. After the unification of Germany, the German people did not abandon NATO as Kremlin strategists had projected. The Kremlin’s miscalculation in this regard led to a major upset for the Soviet side, leading to a series of setbacks. To recover lost ground, the Kremlin strategists set to work after 1991. They built what has been called a KGB regime in Moscow. And they have been building an international alliance with which to change the global balance of power.

                Some historical background is necessary to understand how we got where we are today: In December 1961 a KGB major named Golitsyn defected to the United States with information about a Soviet long-range strategy. He provided the CIA with a package of documents, including one that described a new KGB directorate of disinformation (Department “D”). The document said that catching American spies was not the KGB’s primary concern. Better to create an elaborate web of disinformation “to negate and discredit authentic information the enemy has obtained.” The KGB’s tactic was to feed the CIA a steady diet of pleasing falsehoods. Eventually, the CIA would only believe stories tailored by the KGB. This, in turn, would allow Soviet agents to penetrate more easily into the heart of U.S. intelligence.

                Golitsyn warned the CIA that Soviet disinformation was carefully devised to support a long-range plan in which the balance of power would be inconspicuously shifted in favor of the communist bloc. With the exception of the CIA’s James Angleton, few credited Golitsyn’s warning. Having been disbelieved and cast aside, Golitsyn submitted a top secret manuscript to the CIA in 1982. According to this manuscript, by 1986 the Soviet Union would be led by a man “with a more liberal image.” This man would initiate “changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.” The Soviet system would be liberalized, and the liberalization “would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed…. The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government…. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited.”

                The CIA did not take Golitsyn’s manuscript seriously, and gave Golitsyn permission to publish it as a book, titled New Lies for Old, which appeared in 1984. It included 148 falsifiable predictions. According to researcher Mark Riebling “139 out of 148” of Golitsyn’s predictions “were fulfilled by the end of 1993 – an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent.” Did anyone agree with Golitsyn’s analysis, or approve his predictions at the time? Leading pundits and CIA analysts mocked Golitsyn’s work. “Unfortunate is the only term for this book,” wrote a CIA analyst in 1985. There were no CIA apologies tendered to Golitsyn when 139 of his predictions came true. By that time Golitsyn’s critics were busy congratulating themselves on winning the Cold War. The success of Soviet disinformation was total. From that point forward the world would only understand what the KGB wanted them to understand.

                According to the 1982 memoirs of a high-level Czechoslovakian defector named Jan Sejna,, “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts to conceal their objectives and further complicate the process of determining such objectives.” As a leading official, Sejna worked directly for the top level of the Czech communist government. In 1967 Sejna and his colleagues were briefed on Moscow’s strategy. “It had always been made clear that the Plan’s objectives were firm but the means and methods of achieving them were flexible,” wrote Sejna in his memoirs. “This flexibility often serves to confound Western political analysts, who tend to confuse a change in tactics with a profound change in … thinking.” Therefore, Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956 was a tactic and not a change of heart. According to Sejna, even though Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s crimes, the Kremlin had not abandoned Stalin’s objectives.

                While addressing Western ambassadors during a reception at the Polish Embassy in Moscow on 18 November 1956, Khrushchev publicly stated: “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” (“Мы вас похороним!”) On 24 July 1959 Khrushchev told visiting U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon that his grandchildren would live under communism. Two months later Khrushchev visited the United States where he made the exact same boast to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson. When Benson assured him the opposite, Khrushchev reportedly said: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

                Khrushchev’s intention was recently explained by the former deputy chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence service, Ion Pacepa, who made the following observation to the Czech-American researcher Robert Buchar: “The whole foreign policy of the Soviet bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world communism. KGB priority number one was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility.”

                It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism. Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work. Starting in February 1967 the Warsaw Pact countries received regular directives detailing their part in the overall Plan. “When my friends and I studied the Strategic Plan,” wrote Sejna, “our initial reactions were identical: we considered it quite unrealistic, especially in its timing, which we thought wildly optimistic.” Only after Sejna defected to the West did he change this opinion. “I could find no unity, no consistent objective or strategy among Western countries. It is not possible to fight the Soviet system and strategy with small tactical steps. For the first time I began to believe that the Soviet Union would be able to achieve her goals – something I had not believed in Czechoslovakia.”

                The Kremlin strategists envisioned that sometime after 1990 an economic and political sequence would unfold, leading to the collapse of the American economy and “the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government.” In September 1967 the Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee, Konstantin Katushev, arrived in Prague to orally brief the Czech communist leaders. The Czechs feared that an economic crisis in America would lead to the emergence of a right-wing regime. The United States could move to “either extreme,” Katushev admitted, “as … in the McCarthy period and the Vietnam War. If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution.”

                The Russian strategists foresaw that the American workforce would be facing a difficult situation in twenty to forty years. America’s enormous progress in technology, said Katushev, was a destabilizing influence because it led to underemployment by unskilled workers. “This phenomenon,” Katushev noted, “is one I consider the United States cannot deal with.” Though American workers could turn to the right, he added, “It’s more likely … that a progressive regime will emerge because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic elite and industrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.”

                In 1967 Soviet Marshal Matvei Zhakarov visited Prague to encourage the recruitment of “high-level agents of influence” in the rising elite of America’s universities, media and government. Moscow perceived that power was passing from the hands of the “old industrial plutocracy.” If the Soviet bloc could penetrate the U.S. media and academia, it would be easier to manipulate the society as a whole. While the Strategic Plan called for disrupting the U.S. economy and encouraging the election of a progressive presidential candidate, it also aimed at splitting the United States from Europe. According to Sejna, “The Russians planned to play upon the nationalist, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States.”

                In order to gain technology and money from the West, Moscow also planned to launch an unprecedented peace offensive, which would involve the liquidation of the communist bloc. About this plan, Sejna wrote: “The erosion of NATO begun in Phase Two [of the Plan] would be completed by the withdrawal of the United States from its commitment to the defense of Europe, and by European hostility to military expenditure, generated by economic recession and fanned by the efforts of the ‘progressive’ movements. To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defense arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.”

                In terms of operational details, the Plan relied on future sabotage and terrorist operations. These would benefit from the infiltration of organized crime and Soviet-sponsored drug trafficking. The Russian planners believed that the American economy could be sabotaged, that the CIA was effectively blind, and that drug trafficking could open a back door to America’s financial centers and geographical heartland. Sejna’s testimony on this subject was published in 1990 a book titled Red Cocaine, written by Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., with an introduction by Ray S. Cline, former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA.

                The role of terrorism was especially important to the thrust of the Strategic Plan. When researcher Robert Buchar asked Russian historian Vladimir Bukovsky whether the Soviets fathered modern terrorism, Bukovsky replied: “Oh definitely. I can show you hundreds of documents proving that. I mean how they supplied, trained, created and … control almost every terrorist organization on earth. I have these documents.”

                The former Deputy Director of the Romanian intelligence service, Ion Mihai Pacepa, has written about Russia’s involvement with international terrorism. “Today’s international terrorism,” he wrote in August 2006, “was conceived at the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB…. I witnessed its birth in my other life, as a Communist general.”

                In a 1987 book, titled Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, a Soviet military intelligence defector writing under the pen name Viktor Suvorov explained the ultimate purpose to which terrorism would be put to use. In Chapter 15 of the book, Suvorov listed various acts of economic sabotage and terrorism to be undertaken in advance of all-out war against the United States. “All these operations,” wrote Suvorov, “are known officially in the GRU as the ‘preparatory period,’ and unofficially as the ‘overture.’ The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each which may be the object of the next attack.” According to Suvorov, the overture is carried out by intelligence agents and by “mercenaries recruited by intermediaries.” The strategy they follow is known as “grey terror,” described by Suvorov as “a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union.” Instead, the terror is carried out in the name of “already existing extremist groups not connected in any way” with Russia. According to Suvorov, “The terrorist acts carried out in the course of the ‘overture’ require very few people, very few weapons and little equipment.” The example of 19 men with box-cutters comes to mind, though Suvorov lists “a screw driver, a box of matches or a glass ampoule.”

                In a July 2005 interview with the Polish Newspaper Rzeczpospolita, FSB/KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko alleged that al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman Al-Zawahri, was “an old agent of the FSB.” Political writer and former KGB officer, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, confirmed Litvinenko’s allegation, stating: “[Litvinenko] was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahri’s arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-97.” Preobrazhenskiy further stated: “At that time, Litvinenko was the Head of the Subdivision for Internationally Wanted Terrorists of the First Department of the Operative-Inquiry Directorate of the FSB Anti-Terrorist Department. He was ordered to undertake the delicate mission of securing Al-Zawahri from unintentional disclosure by the Russian police. Though Al-Zawahri had been brought to Russia by the FSB using a false passport, it was still possible for the police to learn about his arrival and report to Moscow for verification. Such a process could disclose Al-Zawahri as an FSB collaborator.”

                Litvinenko detailed Russia’s role as the originator of modern terrorism in his July 2005 interview with Rzeczpospolita: “I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB has been engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for half a year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, along with hits on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.” Litvinenko added that the agents of the KGB/FSB were “the bloodiest terrorist in the world.” He then listed Carlos Ilyich Ramiros (Carlos the Jackal), Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. According to Litvinenko, “all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their ‘intimate’ … relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups which are unsupervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR.”

                Asked if this terrorism continues under the post-Soviet leadership, Litvinenko warned that “the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop.” Roughly 16 months after his public statements about the KGB’s connection to Al Qaeda, Litvinenko was poisoned at the bar of a London hotel by Kremlin agents who put radioactive polonium-210 in his tea. He died in November 2006.

                The strategic crisis facing the United States is a life-and-death crisis. If we continue to ignore the growing evidence of danger, the free world may not survive. The Strategic Crisis Center wants to encourage widespread debate, involvement, and concern with these issues. Citizens need to get educated, they need to get involved, and they need to alert their neighbors, their friends, and their families to the danger

          • T-Ray!

            Hope you don’t mind me chiming in here?

            I have been doing a huge amount of research, which could fill two to three articles here if not more. I am deep into the economic situation, deep into many of the crazy sounding conspiracy theories that seem to be everywhere, deep into the housing market and what it’s future holds ECT.

            I’m putting a puzzle together based on factual information, not theories, that at some time in the near future will show the big picture. BF, based on my research to date, is much closer to what I think is on the horizon than many give him credit for. BF can back his own words up, but he has provided some good directions to search and learn from.

            I, at this point, don’t feel that my research would make for a good guest article, it’s very extensive, and not many would be interested in this type of conversation. What I can say, is that I’m very concerned about late Spring/early Summer of 2012. Economics and other past roads of events have put me, at least, with a time frame. Still working on what may happen, but the Dollar’s future is far from secure.

            Maybe some day I can get deeper into this here, and see what everyone thinks, but for now, it’s not all put together.



            • Hi G-Man,

              You might be interested in this…..I’m getting depressed reading these essays…..


              High Finance and Bolshevik Principles
              by J. R. Nyquist
              Weekly Column Published: 07.18.2008
              I t was Joshua Rosner, writing in the Financial Times on Tuesday, who said it best. “In a capitalist economy, losers are expected to take losses and winners to gain.” But that’s not the way it works today, is it? More than three Decades ago, Richard Nixon famously said: “We’re all Keynesians now.” In 2008 we can go further. If George Bush had Nixon’s grasp of affairs, he would be forced to admit: “We’ve all become socialists, despite our lip service to the free market.”

              Rosner says we have begun to nationalize bad assets. From there it is a small step to the nationalization of good assets. In fact, the two things logically entail one another. As Rosner asserts, we have officially lost faith in the market. We have lost faith in the source of our prosperity. We no longer abide the creative destruction of the market process. We do not want the suffering that naturally attends real growth. Good things and only good things are demanded. Losses are unacceptable, even though these always attend genuine achievement. Everybody has to be a winner. In today’s school system we find no child left behind, which exemplifies the ongoing catastrophe in American education.

              The logic of late capitalism (the declining form of capitalism) calls for the elimination of all suffering (and therefore, the elimination of real growth). This program is the basis of latter-day social democracy, which opposes the market because pain and tragedy are normal to the market system. Social democracy wants a world without failing corporations or banks. It is no wonder, then, that step-by-step they have ringed the market with “protections.” Today’s social democrat (and compassionate conservative) wants the benefits of the market without the pain of market process. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once wrote: “Men must choose between the market economy and socialism. They cannot evade deciding between these alternatives….” No pain, no gain.

              So there you have it. A decision has been made (and nearly everyone agrees), that pain must be nationalized. Ergo, bad assets must be nationalized because bad assets involve pain. Someone somewhere figured out that nationalizing a thing makes it go away. Take, for example, health care. You nationalize health care and it’s gone. You nationalize any industry and it withers away. Apply this redistributionist principle to all human suffering and, well, you have socialism.

              The process is logical, based on the human desire for a free pass. And so, we nationalize the losses from Bear Stearns. The FDIC kicks in over IndyMac. Taxpayers must pay for the mega-blunders of Fannie and Freddie. Where will it end? The redistribution of liabilities is the first step. Let everyone hurt a little, with responsibility shifted onto everybody (i.e., nobody in particular). Say goodbye to pain, but also say goodbye to the U.S. dollar.
              The collectivization of financial loss necessarily entails the collectivization of financial profit. As for freedom itself, the system of government brought in by the Founding Fathers cannot survive a general acceptance of Bolshevik financial practices. According to the Austrian economists, Ludwig von Mises, “Every step a government takes beyond … protecting the smooth operation of the market economy against aggression … is a step forward on a road that directly leads into the totalitarian system where there is no freedom at all.”

              If only the Bolsheviks had understood the reach of their principles in 1917. Think how differently they would have handled the early Soviet period. Their tendency was to bring about socialism in the clumsiest, most violent way. They put the cart before the horse, got angry when the cart didn’t move and shot the horse. None of this was necessary. All they needed was to wait for bourgeoisie to self-tenderize.

              The Bolsheviks didn’t need to storm the Winter Palace or starve the Kulaks. Purges and show trials were completely out of the way. All one needed to create a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was patience. The capitalists themselves, weakened by their own promotion of hedonism, would inevitably seek refuge in the nationalization of investment risk. Thus, socialism would be installed at one stroke in the name of saving capitalism. There was never any need to arm the proletariat or hang businessmen on street lamps. The businessmen will hang themselves, in due course, by demanding a Soviet style of government. The proper ingenuity of the Communist is nothing more than the anticipation of his victim’s suicidal impulses.

              One only has to wait for the FDIC to detonate beneath a floundering Republic. If anyone thought U.S. Treasury bonds are a riskless investment, think again. Am I suggesting the U.S. government will default on its obligations? In my opinion, no other outcome is imaginable. If you doubt this conclusion, try to imagine federal, state and local government paying off $10 trillion. It’s not going to happen, as the readiest method of default open to government is the debasement of the national currency. This means an end to American international power – financial and military. It means an end to the old international order, which has existed since 1945.
              It means global revolution. Wave hello to socialism.

      • T-Ray – Will you be my dad? ;=}

  15. from American Thinker

    February 15, 2010
    PA State GOP ignores tea partiers and endorses candidates as always
    Katy Abram
    The old guard establishment of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee has shown constituents this weekend that they no longer represent the voice of “we the people.” Pennsylvanians have been asking for an open primary, but in a unilateral decision Chairman Rob Gleason and the GOP made it clear this would not be the case. Protesters standing outside of the GOP meeting asking for an open primary were summarily dismissed as the GOP formally endorsed candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and the senate.

    This, unfortunately, is not new to Pennsylvania. But one would think they would have learned their lesson in 2004 after they disregarded the will of the people and anointed Senator Arlen Specter as the GOP candidate over a popular Pat Toomey. It is truly ironic the Party thinks they know what is best for our state when they made the most profound error in Pennsylvania’s Republican history by endorsing a progressive who was originally a Democrat. The Pennsylvania State GOP single handedly gave President Obama the 60th vote he needed to attempt to ram healthcare through this past year.

    Arguably citizens do vote for these “representatives”; but I have yet to remember a time when the GOP ever asked me who I support, let alone any of my neighbors. It is clear there is an agenda within the ranks of the Party to tap the shoulder of the next in line to run. I question when the Party chose to deviate from representing their constituents to instead representing their own self-interests. So quickly they forget that there are indeed other candidates running for the same position who may be better suited.

    We the people are no longer accepting the status quo. As I told Senator Specter at a town hall this summer, “You have awakened the sleeping giant. We are tired of this.” My statement goes for the State GOP Committee as well. Their ignorance of the movement that is occurring within the country today should be a wake up call to everyone. We the people will not go back into a political slumber much to the dismay of GOP leadership. I suggest they open their eyes and see the writing on the wall. It is as clear as day. But let me be clear… we are about to shake things up.

    Katy Abram is the Arlen Specter town hall attendee who told him he has “awakened a sleeping giant.” She can be followed at twitter/

  16. Hi Black Flag,

    Can you please expand on the “reverse course – you have months, maybe weeks” comment?



    • Weeks – the Greek crisis may badly tank the Euro – which may temporarily bolster the US$ …. or….tank it too.

      Months – the Commercial and Alt-A loans are coming due ~$1 trillion in losses. Thought the last one was bad? The economy was ‘healthy’ when it got hit. It’s now struggling – and about to be hit harder.

      • BF!

        Maybe you can confirm. I’ve read on several investment sites that we will have a small bubble (housing) this Spring, then a huge bubble (both comm and housing) in the eraly months of 2011. The 2011 one has been advertised as 50 to 100% worse than the most recent ones. Do you have any knowledge of this?


        • G-Man,

          Do you mean a bubble as in “up tick in sales and prices” or a bubble pop as in “deflate or collapse?”

          • I see the negative, so further down turn. I also see the big one in 2011, that will make this past one look like an afterthought!


      • Thanks BF. I’ve been following both of those developments and was wondering what your take on it is. I keep watching this debacle, expecting the whole thing to blow up, and yet it doesn’t. The thinking part of me says it can’t go on indefinately, then there’s the observational part of me that notices that it does indeed continue even when I think it can’t. Once in awhile, I can talk to my boyfriend and get some honest answers from him before his indoctrination puts up the defenses (I’ve found that asking him questions while he’s trying to control his 19′ saildboat thru 5-7′ swells is effective 8) ) It seems that deep down, he knows what’s coming and is resigned to it, but also believes that it is far off in the future because ‘people’ have been saying the end is near for 30 years and it hasn’t happened yet. Of course my take is that just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t. After all, just because someone hasn’t died yet, doesn’t mean they never will……

  17. T-Ray

    Flag, you paint a very negative picture of people.

    I don’t think so.

    I think it is very reasonable to assume normal average Joe will become very active and potentially violent upon those that threaten his life and family.

    A sudden, dramatic loss of income from government – money that by definition is not earned – will be devastating.

    If I lose my job, I can find another because I am capable.

    If I get money for doing nothing, and lose ‘that job’, what job I am capable of? If I was capable of filling in that income by a ‘real’ job, would I not have taken it? There is little hope for finding work by those that fall off government money.

    Helpless and hopeless, they have little other action to resort to….

    If the time frame you suggest is so short, then the riots should begin this summer.The country went through worse (at least compared to now) in the ’30s and most survived but with a new attitude about what was actually necessary for like.

    It was nothing like the 30’s. People lost their jobs today and got unemployment and welfare. This has delayed the reckoning – but not dispelled it.

    The problem is the pols who pander and buy votes with our money.

    I agree.

    That is what needs to change.

    To what? How?

    If a citizen votes himself money, how the heck are you going to convince him to not vote himself money?

    What possible bribe can you offer a man to STOP taking a bribe?

    I would supply a means for sustenance should they need it so food riots will not be necessary. Will they riot over booze? I doubt it.

    I do not. I would riot over beer 🙂

    I would be asking them to make no sacrifices that I have not already made.

    You are obviously not in the mind set of those that you are describing – which is the problem.

    Because you do not ‘need’ government money, you believe others can do without – willing to do what you are doing – but obviously they are not.

    If their own lives was insufficient to compel them to a different course of action, your example will be equally insufficient.

    But then you advocate keeping the make work government jobs that are in fact destroy more jobs in the private sector.

    No, T-ray. Do not mistaken what I am saying.

    I do not advocate any government action. It is all destructive.

    I am explaining my understanding of the consequences of cut backs.

    For myself, I have reviewed in detail the budget, the expenditures, the depth of the largess, the numbers of people affected, etc.

    I, myself, cannot see how it is possible for the government to make any meaningful cuts AND prevent political upheaval. One is certain to cause the other.

    I am hopeful someone may present a real plan – but so far, even Ron Paul’s, IMO, falls short. It will take too long.

    Many plans have merit – if they were started 10 or 20 years ago. But with 18 to 24 months from another hit, too little – too late.

    But this is merely my review and not obviously set in stone. I am merely acting a prophet -and a doomed one at that; one who can see the future but not any way to change it.

    We may move to a barter system but goods and services will move albeit at a slower pace.

    If we fall to a barter system, everyone but G-man will die. You will starve to death. I will starve to death. Millions will die – badly. Western civilization probably will end.

    Let us not hope a barter system becomes the means of economic trade in an advanced industrial nation.

  18. D13,

    I’d like to ask you something. Can I send you an email thru US Weapon?

  19. Sorry …but this topic relates a bit to the current one (since I do agree with USW that it’s not the volume but the song!)and I don’t want my response to Ray to not be seen if he doesn’t check an older topic post since it was at the end of its thread.From a reply to several replies in post #17 Guest Commentary: Glenn Beck is a LIAR!


    Ray stated: “Let me help you guys clear what I think you meant. If you are referring to the manner…” blah blah blah …”where is this listed or termed as official policy why do you think that matters tactically or strategically?”

    TexasChem replies…

    It is characteristic of the left to try to control reality with their use of language. This being part of the ongoing fascination with glib and articulacy; meaning intelligence and insight.”Oh mah’ gawsh yall he sounds so smart he must know fore x’actly’ what we be needn’ here in America!”

    First change “terrorism” to man-caused disaster.

    Then you can draw equivalence between terrorism and environmental concerns… and perhaps even the economy.

    But forgive me please I am rambling off topic…I seem to have forgotten the topic I was rebutting or have I?

    Let me clear up for you Ray, what I meant.

    This administrations picks of appointments to cabinet, federal agencies, SCOTUS and the brand new Czar-dom are so far left the majority of Americans have found themselves under the treatment of a chiropractor for neck pain from having to strain so hard to see what moonbat outrageous policy is going to be flung past them next!It’s like trying to watch a tennis match in which the players are using flubber flying at speeds in excess of 300 mph!

    For example instead of the “Department of Homeland Security” Janet Napolitano believes she works for the “Department of Unicorn Deflector Shield.”

    Do I need to debate the Somali pirates debacle in relation to the POTUS calling in the FBI or the constraints upon the military to get my meaning across to you?

    FACT: OBAMA appointed representatives to these agencies.

    FACT: OBAMAs’ appointees are there to press his policies and agenda.

    The stance from this administration points clearly and without a doubt to moving towards a law enforcement model when dealing with terrorists versus a military model in terms of policy.

    We are at war and hence any captures made should be treated as prisoners of war and tried and punished for their warcrimes against humanity.Period.Not treated and tried as a common street thug caught shoplifting.

  20. Texaschem,

    Ermmm…D-13 is a vetted military veteran.I would sincerely believe there to be a difference in your mind of that fact versus the freeriders of government money we have today.If not I can help point that out to you!

    I do not intend to slight him or anyone.

    However, there is a difference between him and a free-loader as you call them – both accept money taken from someone productive and given to a) someone whose purpose to consume wealth while destroying it or b) someone whose purpose is simply to consume wealth.

    It the scope of things, people in (b) are doing far less damage to civilization.

    The point that I am making is important.

    It is not what I believe is more ‘worthy’ to receive coerced loot – it is what the people who receive the loot believe.

    Though you call them ‘free loaders’, they call themselves ‘deserving’. You take from people what they believe they deserve and you will get blow-back.

    Ask Ida May Fuller, from Ludlow, Vermont, was the first recipient of monthly Social Security benefits. She received $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75.

    She would say “she deserved it”.

    If she and millions like her feel this way, how do you think the millions who thought they paid into such a system will feel when you tell them “Oh, too bad, so sorry!”

    See the difference in government money BF?

    Frankly, no.

    It all has to come from the same source, by the same principle ….

    ….- from the people by force.

    • @-BF

      Yet the reason behind the money allocation is the real issue.In this world we have need of a military and hence an obligation to provide for those that serve to protect us.I and the majority of Americans do not feel obligated to provide assistance to Ahmed the potential terrorist (because he can’t keep himself from lobbing rockets over the border at Israel), Ezal the crack head pink fluffy slipper wearing leech upon society,or Maya the welfare queen.

      • Again, my point.

        The person receiving the money holds the same view as you receiving money.

        They feel they ‘earned it’ or the ‘deserve it’.

        What YOU think they earned or deserve is irrelevant.

        You trying to remove what they think they deserve will cause political upheaval.

        Worrying about a few million, when the government spends over $500 million every 30 minutes is not going to solve anyone’s problem

        • @-BF,

          BF stated-“You trying to remove what they think they deserve will cause political upheaval.”

          Then perhaps the time has come for political upheaval.The current system is failing and we know if we do nothing at all it will fail.The only logical conclusion is to do something rather than nothing.The situation reminds me of a joke a good friend told me…

          Once upon a time there was a great flood next to a river.The inhabitants of this small town on the river were told to evacuate well before hand but an older gentleman refused saying God would protect him.

          A police officer drove up to his house and asked him to leave but the man refused saying “God will provide for me!”

          A few hours later the river flooded and as the man was watching out his window he could see the water rising up all the way to his front door.He decided to move to higher ground as it started entering his home.

          National guardsmen in an aluminum boat drove up as he was climbing to the top of his roof and offered to give him a ride but he refused once again saying “God will provide for me!”

          As the flood was in full force the man could hear the timbers cracking in his home as he lay on the roof!A helicopter spotted him on the roof and flew down lowering a safety basket.A rescueman leaned out of the helicopter telling the man to get in but he refused still saying “God will provide for me!”

          The mans home ended up coming apart and he drowned in the flood.When he got up to heaven the angel Michael asked him if there was anything he needed.The man said “Why yes I would like to speak with God!”Michael took the man to speak with God and God asked the man “Yes my son what is it you would ask?”The man asked God “Why didn’t you save me from the flood since I had shown so much faith?”

          God replied “Well you old fool I sent a policeman, a boat and a helicopter to save you but you refused it all!”

          • Texaschem

            Then perhaps the time has come for political upheaval.The current system is failing and we know if we do nothing at all it will fail.The only logical conclusion is to do something rather than nothing.

            My point precisely was for you to understand the consequences of action, Texaschem.

            As long as you understand you will probably toss the nation into political convulsions and probably so severe that what is now called the “Untied States of America” will not survive.

            You cannot hold action that will disrupt – potentially permanently – the Union and believe the Union will survive.

            You will not get both.

            And I agree, the latter – the survivability of the Union – is doomed anyway.

            God replied “Well you old fool I sent a policeman, a boat and a helicopter to save you but you refused it all!”


            Sadly, all rescue disappeared a decade ago and the barrel in the river we’ve been floating in is sinking and the edge of the Niagara falls is in view…and we have no oars to make it to shore.

    • Totally agree with BF. Removing the pork is not going to be like taking candy from a baby. People are so firmly entrenched in the entitlement mindset there will be a revolution if those entitlements are cut out without a scalpel and lots of anesthesia. If the middle class forces this, it’s going to tear the country apart.

      And we’re running out of time – we’re already so unsustainable. It’s a miserable situation of damed if we do, damned if we don’t.

      Lord help us all and I will join you, BF, in the beer riot. But…it’s gotta be good beer.

  21. I had to laugh.

    I was watching one of my favorite shows when I was a kid

    “The Time Tunnel”

    The first episode has a Senator coming down to see how the government’s money is being spent.

    Here is a complex, running for 10 years (according to the script), built completely underground, holding 12,000 people, multiple nuclear reactors and the most advanced technological breakthru – a time tunnel.

    The Senator says “I need to see what the American people spent (wait for it… its a HUGE amount of money) $6 billion on..!!”

    The characters gasp at the staggering sum … $6 billion!!!

    Today, that is merely 12 hours of the US government expeditures.

  22. USW

    I am posting this link here to keep from disrupting todays primary post on climate.

    Very long article that is most interesting regarding the Tea Party movement.

    • Hi JAC, Good find.

      As I have attended several tea party events, I would say this article depicts the movement pretty well. Many people, like myself, are getting involved for the first time ever. What it also shows is the attempts being made to highjack the movement and that will be a challenge. There will be tangents that go off and yet try to speak for the movement. I think Nashville was one of these. Early on, the groups that I am in contact with expressed their concern with how it was developing and then eventually removed their names from it completely.

      The talk of militias and such concern me. Overall though, the message I’ve heard repeated at the events is one consistent to what we discuss each and every day here at SUFA. While there will be those that try to label the movement as radicals, nut cases and worse, those that are active realize its more about an awakening and not liking what we see and wondering where we’ve been.

      I’m quite surprised the NYT ran this.

    • I agree with Kathy- Good find JAC

      The fact that the movement attracts many different groups doesn’t really concern me. Even if the messages get mixed . There are plenty of angles that can be taken because there is so much government. Let each group take which ever message they want and run with it. Kind of makes more sense anyway. I think one big attack on govt woould be less helpful because the media would call everyone crazy and stifle the effort.( which they have ) But if thousands of little groups just keep doing what they’re doing – gathering folks one by one – changing the mindset one by one – big things will happen. We see it happening already. Let it just keep simmering til Nov 2 and beyond. And by all means let the Tea Party be one big tent because Washington is one big mess with every party at fault.

      • Kathy and Anita:

        I agree entirely that the efforts need to continue to grow “organically”. Some will get coopted and then the disgruntled will just move to anohter. Leaving the establishment behind to hold the banner.

        I do get a kick out of how folks who have not lived in northern Idaho or eastern Washington try to describe it, however. The author was mixing up all kinds of things but that is to be expected.

        Regarding the “MILITIAS” I think we need to realize there are militias and then there are militias. Not all are bad or “whacko”. I attend some “conservative” and “liberty caucus” meetings where some of the old “militia” folks come and rant. The nice thing is everyone listens quietly and with respect. Then the next person discusses whats on their mind. Yet the mere fact these folks are allowed to talk has the local Republicans labeling the “conservative” group as right wing loons and radicals.

        Nuff to tick a fella off, if you know what I mean.

        Happy Tuesday Ladies.

%d bloggers like this: