An Open Thread and Some Announcements

Let me first say congratulations to any Packers fans who may be checking in. As a rabid Ravens fan, I am certainly no fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers. I personally believe Baltimore v. Pittsburgh is the best rivalry in the NFL right now. I like Aaron Rodgers. I think the kid is a class act. But I have to be honest and say that I didn’t think that the Packers would be able to overcome Pittsburgh’s defense. I was obviously wrong. The Packers played a hell of a game and absolutely earned that Super Bowl Trophy. Now that I have that out of the way, I have a few announcements as to who some of the new writers at SUFA are going to be. After I do that this can become an open thread to continue discussions. For the rest of this week I intend to do open mic to post on Wednesday morning and then I have an article written to post on Thursday morning. Beginning next week we will start working in some of the other writers and work to create a schedule around that!

I have thus far extended offers to seven individuals who I am interested in having as contributors on Stand Up For America. I am happy to say that six of them have accepted my offer. My offer, to be clear, is that I will give them a forum in which they can be chastised by everyone who reads their articles and in exchange they will receive nothing in compensation. Not a great deal for them! But I do believe that we are going to all benefit from the differing perspectives, alternative topics, and the more regular new content here at SUFA.

So who are the fascinating new authors at SUFA? Some you already know because they are beginning to show up on the sidebar. In addition to myself, we will now be adding the following as regular contributors to Stand Up For America:


Jon Smith

Life of Illusion

Common Man


In addition to having those five confirmed as regular contributors (meaning that they will be offering new content on a regularly scheduled basis), we also have added another writer as a contributor on an as requested basis. The one, the only:

Black Flag

I am excited about every single one of these new writers becoming regular contributors to Stand Up For America. Let’s face it, every one of them writes enough in the comments every week to have been considered regular contributors for quite some time here at SUFA.

Beginning next week we will be starting to put together the regular schedule for these fine authors. With the current crop of authors I intend for each of the regulars to contribute an article every other week. Obviously that won’t always happen, but hey, they aren’t getting paid all that well! Each of them brings unique talents and perspectives to us here at SUFA. So what I am thinking right now is that I will regularly post an article from myself on Monday morning and I will post an open mic thread like I was usually doing except it will be on Wednesday mornings. One Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday mornings you will see articles from these new contributors. And we will mix in Black Flag and guest commentaries from others when needed and warranted.

As for everyone else. The offer remains for all those who are interested. If you are interested in writing regularly here at SUFA, please, please, please contact me and let’s talk about it. Right now I would really like to add another 4 writers so that it makes it so that each of the writers only has to write every three weeks instead of two. Don’t be shy.

And this does not eliminate the guest commentaries! For all of you who may have something to say but feel that you are unable at this time to commit to writing regularly, please write guest commentaries. I would really like to always have a few guest commentary pieces waiting in the wings so that when someone is unable to write we can still have something to post. I especially urge those on the left to take some time and compose a post or two. I think I speak for a lot of SUFA readers when I say that we really are interested in hearing what you think and debating it on a higher level.

So thank you to those who have already chosen to become contributing authors at SUFA and I look forward to hearing from anyone else who may be interested. Please don’t think that because I haven’t contacted you already that I am not interested in you. I just haven’t taken the time to sit down and write more emails!

Now that all that is covered please feel free to use this thread as an open thread to continue conversations or start new ones! That last thread was getting long!


  1. 😉

  2. gmanfortruth says:


    • gmanfortruth says:







  3. Nostalgia Time…………………….how many here remember the”spud gun”? Otherwise know as the potato gun…..stick the barrell into a potato, extract it, aim and shoot….a “potato” bullet zings out. I just found my old one. From around 1958 or 1960.

    • I bought a 2 & 4″ pvc pipe and coupling, 4″ cap and an gas grill ignighter a few weeks ago. Debating on installing a butane port, or just use hairspray? My first time to build one.
      Any do’s or don’ts?

      • Be careful?

        I think that the only thing you would need to be careful on is the ability to clear the line or the pvc pipe. Make sure that you shut off the source and allow the remaining butane to burn in the pipe.

        If you want me to tell you how to make a weapon out of it, I can….you want a peaceful purpose…this is beyond my pay grade.

    • Nostalgia Time ah yes back in the day when boys were boys, it’s a wonder we survived to adulthood. Potato guns were great with no flack from the parents until we shot a hole through an interior door, then it was a trip to the switch tree. The day we made a mortar was a grand day. In dads shop was 3’ of 2”galvanized pipe threaded on one end that we capped with a threaded cap. Next we raided all the 2” flat washers along with threaded bolts, nuts and made shells about 3” long with a washer on either end bolted down with nuts. Each shell took 2 flat washers, one bolt and 4 nuts, so we used them all. Next we mounted our tube on a homemade bipod and the shelling began. My brother would light a M80 (back when a M80 was a M80) drop it down the tube, then I would drop in a shell and wait for the boom. Them suckers would fly 800 to 900 feet before they hit the ground. Thing were good until dad needed some bolts and 2” flat washers a few weeks later, then back to the tree we went. Our best caper was when we bought half dozen boxes of kitchen matches to play with. Me and my best friend along with his brother took knifes and scraped all the match powder off the matches along with some gun powder we got out of some shotgun shells and put it in a small pipe that we capped on either end to see if it would explode. In case it did we built our ignition fire in the end of the culvert to his house so as not to get any one hurt (what clear thinkers we were). Much to our surprise it exploded quite violently and removed part of the end of the culvert in the process. Well to say the least it was another trip to the tree. Back then life sure was fun.

    • We used to tape the old-style soda cans together and make tennis ball cannons.

    • Just recently I went to the worlds largest swap meet at Quartzsite, AZ and believe it or not there was one guy selling Potato Guns for a buck. still in the original `60’s packaging!

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Accessing WikiLeaks Violates Espionage Act, USAF Says
    February 7th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood
    Updated below

    Americans who have accessed the WikiLeaks web site may have violated the Espionage Act, under an extreme interpretation of the law advanced by Air Force officials last week.

    Many government agencies have instructed their employees not to download classified materials from the WikiLeaks web site onto unclassified computer systems. The government’s position is that although the material is in the public domain, its classification status is unaffected. Therefore, to preserve the integrity of unclassified systems, the leaked classified information should not be accessed on such systems. If it is accessed, it should be deleted.

    But on February 3, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base issued startling new guidance stating that the leaked documents are protected by the Espionage Act and that accessing them under any circumstances is against the law, not simply a violation of government computer security policy.

    “According to AFMC’s legal office, Air Force members — military or civilian — may not legally access WikiLeaks at home on their personal, non-governmental computers, either. To do so would not only violate the SECAF [Secretary of the Air Force] guidance on this issue,… it would also subject the violator to prosecution for violation of espionage under the Espionage Act,” the AFMC legal office said.

    Then, in an astounding interpretive leap, the AFMC went on to say that similar prohibitions apply to the relatives of Air Force employees.

    “If a family member of an Air Force employee accesses WikiLeaks on a home computer, the family member may be subject to prosecution for espionage under U.S. Code Title 18 Section 793.”

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      So if I read a story in the NYT or WashPost or Mother Jones or…..that is referenced by the “according to anonymous sources who do not wish to be quoted discussing sensitive matters…” am I also breaking the law?

      What a crock of shit.

      There is a long history of supposed “legit” news sources publishing classified material.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Morning Ray 🙂

        Personnally, I see this as a set up. A false Flag if you will. Once something is released that actually does some damage, then the Feds will attack free Press with some draconian law, that only allows Fed approved news about the Feds and their actions. On more step up them stairs 👿

        Hope your day is well. This damn Global Warming dropped anothe 4 inches of snow last night, and it’s frigid cold, windchills tonight around -15. BRRR!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          We only picked up some rain from the same storm – melting the buildup of snow a little but everything just looks nasty now.

          I don’t mind the cold too much. Just crank the woodstove instead of burning more oil.

          The more secrets we have the more secrets are going to get exposed.

          I don’t mind seeing sausage made if you know what I mean.

      • I’d say this is a perfect example of Progressive thought on the Right-attack the government power-take away a right or tweek it.

      • “an extreme interpretation of the law advanced by Air Force officials”

        That kinda concerns me. Why is the air force making such a statement instead of Dept. of Justice, FBI or Homeland?

        “An Air Force spokesman stated blogger LOI was found to be in violation of the Espionage Act, and since the Air Force has no police powers, they eliminated the threat by means of a laser-guided bomb. The Air Force regrets the loss of life of a dog who was in his company at that time.”

    • riiiiight! Good luck with those prosecutions.

      @LOI – The USAF is likely directing this topic to their members and their families (as under military regulations the military member can be held responsible for the behavior of their dependents). Any “prosecution” of a civilian would have to be referred to the DOJ.

      I’d also love to see the government lock up a third or more of the nation who have likely already made at least one foray over to wikileaks to see what all the fuss is about.

  5. gmanfortruth says:


    Jacob Sullum
    Feb 8, 2011

    Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton’s response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president (emphasis added):

    Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

    Clinton: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

    Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a “risk premium” that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood. The 35,000 or so prohibition-related deaths that Mexico has seen since President Felipe Calderon began a crackdown on drugs in 2006 are one consequence of the volatile situation created by the government’s arbitrary dictates regarding psychoactive substances. Pace Clinton, the way to “stop” the violent thugs who profit from prohibition is not to mindlessly maintain the policy that enriches them.

    [via the Drug War Chronicle]

    • gmanfortruth says:

      “There is just too much money in it”

      Yep, if drugs were legallized the CIA would lose their secret funding and the Feds would have to find another useless way to suck money from the people. Telling statement,

    • Truthseeker says:

      If it was legalized and the flat tax was in place, then that would generate a lot of income for the government (since nobody can dodge a flat tax). This would not only increase the treasury, but would reduce the great burdeon on our prison/jail system and people would not have to fear paying people “under the table”.

      But that would just make sense. I say who cares what people do on their spare time as long as it does not affect me and my family.

      • While I agree there would be some cost reduction from enforcing laws against possession/purchase/use of some drug and also the costs of any crime directly related to buying /possessing/using some drug – there will still be costs for the crime that won’t disappear. Users who can’t afford the legal dope will continue committing crimes to get the money to buy it just as they do now, as well – IMHO – of the costs in drug influenced incidents.

        I wrote on legalizing marijuana in a post and that thinking would also – IMHO – apply to other legalization of drugs.

    • Question;

      Does making it legal make it right?

      Here is another equally brilliant idea – There are way too many people crowding death row in all our prisons, so why don’t we just make murder legal and relieve the taxpayer burden on housing all those inmates on death row?

      Does making it legal make it right?

      Better yet, lets put a tax on murder so that will increase the federal coffers so the feds can fund all those social programs like medicinal MJ.

      Does making it legal make it right?

      Only the incredibly stupid will answer in the affirmative!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Illegal drug use = murder? Apples and oranges PD.
        But that wasn’t my point of the post at all (legallizing drugs, I don’t use them so I don’t care). My point was Hillary’s comment, “there is just too much money in it” almost as if she (or the Feds) had a monetary interest in keeping it illegal.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Does making something ILLEGAL make it WRONG???

        No, there are WAY TOO MANY THINGS which are not MORALLY WRONG AT ALL that are nonetheless ILLEGAL.

        So, I ask you again, does making something ILLEGAL make it WRONG???

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Seems the science is far from settled. 👿
    Steven Goddard
    Real Science
    Feb 8, 2011

    James Overland 2004 :
    When scientists trained their analytical tools on the North Pole and its environs, they quantified the local knowledge: The polar ice cap is 40 percent thinner and millions of acres smaller than it was in the 1970s.

    What happens at the North Pole can affect the rest of the planet, potentially altering the course of the Gulf Stream, which moderates climate from the East Coast of the United States to the British Isles. Closer to home, the jet stream that dictates much of Seattle’s weather can be diverted when the polar vortex speeds up.

    “It’s probably contributing to the fact that it’s warmer and we’ve been getting less snow,” Overland said.

    James Overland 2011 :
    Our region experienced record snowfall last winter, topping the charts dating at least as far back as the late 1800s. In all, more than six feet of snow fell at sites such as Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. Extreme weather nailed other U.S. cities last winter, too, and swaths of Europe saw unprecedented snowfalls and record cold temperatures. This year, the nation’s capital has suffered one unusually severe storm. Parts of the East Coast from Atlanta to Boston have been experiencing blizzard conditions. Last week, a vast swath of the country’s midsection and East Coast got deluged with sleet and snow, paralyzing travel. What gives?

    To understand how warming and snowstorms may be connected, it helps to start with the epicenter of winter weather. Around the North Pole, some of the world’s coldest air currents blow in what’s typically a tight loop known as the polar vortex. Air masses inside the vortex tend to have not only low temperatures but also low barometric pressures compared with air outside the vortex. The surrounding high-pressure zones push in on the vortex from all sides, helping the cold air stay where it belongs, at the top of the world.


    The root of the problem, Overland says, is melting sea ice. Sea ice forms in the Arctic Ocean during the cold, dark days of fall and winter and hangs around, melting slowly but not completely vanishing, throughout the summer. In recent years, more sea ice has melted during the warm months than can be replenished during the chillier ones.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This has already been laughed at/completely debunked by plenty of ACTUAL scientists, so I feel no need to respond other than that.

  7. I was mostly in favor of a new treaty, mainly because we have way too many A-bombs. I would hope such a treaty did not include revealing the UK’s defenses, without their permission. And this would not be any different in 1991 or today.

    Telegraph Falsely Reports “US Secretly Agreed” To “Tell Russia Britain’s Nuclear Secrets”

    Telegraph: “The US Secretly Agreed To Give The Russians Sensitive Information On Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent.” A February 4 article in the U.K. newspaper The Telegraph claimed that “[t]he US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.” The article further claimed, “Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.” The article referenced leaked cables indicating that the United States provided Russia with information regarding the transfer of Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) to the United Kingdom. [The Telegraph, 2/4/11, cables accessed 2/7/11]
    In Fact, The Information Released Was In Compliance With Existing Treaty Elements

    1991 START Treaty Language Requires Notification For “Movement Of Items Subject To The Limitations Provided For In The Treaty.” The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) requires both the United States and Russia to provide detailed information regarding the transfer of items. According to the treaty:

  8. Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
    Published: February 7, 2011

    SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

    Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

    It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

    “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

    “Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

    Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

    “I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

    The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

    The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

    “If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

    “Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

    Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”

    Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.

    “Thus,” they conclude, “the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.” Instead of presuming discrimination in science or expecting the sexes to show equal interest in every discipline, the Cornell researchers say, universities should make it easier for women in any field to combine scholarship with family responsibilities.

    Can social scientists open up to outsiders’ ideas? Dr. Haidt was optimistic enough to title his speech “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” urging his colleagues to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values. To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

    For a tribal-moral community, the social psychologists in Dr. Haidt’s audience seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument. Some said he overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020. The society’s executive committee didn’t endorse Dr. Haidt’s numerical goal, but it did vote to put a statement on the group’s home page welcoming psychologists with “diverse perspectives.” It also made a change on the “Diversity Initiatives” page — a two-letter correction of what it called a grammatical glitch, although others might see it as more of a Freudian slip.

    In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”

    As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No wonder the science of Psychology is so srewed up, it’s by Liberal shrinks who are nuts themselves. 😆

    • Just read this article on another site. It makes sense in a way. Can you imagine someone going in for counseling and being told their problems are because of their lack of personal responsibility?

      The more I read and learn the more I believe there is a something very different between the “right” and “left” brain.

    • This is what happens in a PC world where all the people pushing PC don’t see thier own bias and don’t let people discuss topics that are not PC.

  9. Testing…..had to change the name to be accepted to Word Press….this is a test. It is not approved by the US government or its affiliates. This is only a test.

  10. Good morning all…..I have changed the name to reflect what was necesary to log in at Word Press. d13thecolonel will be the new name when logged in….

    SO…..USW……please go to moderation and authorize the new name….thanking you in advance.

  11. Ray Hawkins says:

    Hopes of a Charlie Stella contributing authorship officially dashed? Bummer.

    Contributors of a feather have flocked together?



    • Easily solved by STEPPING UP.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Should we grab some bootstraps or something else macho like that first?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I don’t think any of my past articles were an attack on the Left, were they?

          • Ray Hawkins says:



            Not sure what is meant.

            I think you generally despise “the Left” no?

            But you’re usually an equal opportunity commentator.

            I think the contributorship is heavily right leaning.

            No biggie.

            Its always sorta been that way.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              @Ray, I don’t despise the left, I’m trying hard to understand them and their beliefs. I don’t agree with the tactics they use to achieve their goals, and in many cases, their self blindness to what is going on around them. I think you’ll see that when my article comes up in the near future. What my fear is, that we are no the verge of a political civil war, right v. left. I hope it stays non-violent, but not seeing going that way.

        • NOPE!

          Just pick up a pen. Or, your keyboard.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I suffer from keyboardis interruptis.

            I seem to start writing something valuable and then verbally ejaculate all over everything………

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Zit Ants Juice

    • I would not say that hopes are officially dashed yet. He has not shown interest but he may just not have seen it yet!

  12. Ray Hawkins says:

    Obama Administration Won’t Endorse Calls For Immediate Resignation Of President Mubabrak

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is urging Egyptian leaders to include more people in a national dialogue on reform but won’t endorse demands from protesters for the immediate resignation of embattled President Hosni Mubarak…

    • Ray Hawkins says:


      Let’s “talk” about this more. Can we have Oprah intervene and maybe do a roundtable on the View?

      There is no reason Mubarek cannot step aside while aggressive work is done to ensure a fair and proper election in the Fall.

      This is a turning into a major fail for POTUS.

      Not good.

    • Ray

      Do you think POTUS should publicly call for Mubarak to step down?

      Do you agree with the “public” statements released by the Administration on this so far?

      Curious what you think the public vs. private approach should have been.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        We’re talking about one of the great communicators of the last 50 or so years…..

        Privately you push for this guy to step down. Push hard.

        Publicly you use those crafty speech writers to position things more hands off.

        A publicly aggressive approach is more likely to backfire I would think.

        The public statements to date (I am grossly generalizing) were lukewarm enough to keep us from seen as too meddling.

        The approach now just doesn’t seem consistent and more likely to inflame imho. I think those people are tired of talk.

        The snake head has merely shed some skin thus far.

        What are you thinking JAC?

        • Ray

          I think what ever you do it has to stay behind closed doors.

          And as you say, the public statements remain objective and non committal.

          Given Mubarak’s help to the USA in the region I am not sure I would have “pushed hard” for him to leave. But certainly would have given “advice and suggestions” that might help him exit with honor in tact.

          We are already viewed as bullies in much of that part of the world and it seems we need to back away from telling people what to do. More actual diplomacy if you will.

          I wonder to what extent Wikileaks plays a role now in affecting diplomatic discussions behind closed doors vs. those that are discussed in public.

          I think Mr. Obama started out correctly but many later statements started sounding like HE was making decisions in Egypt. The Admin. let to much information out. I think their “spin room” was not contained.

          Not an unusual thing to happen when your staff are in the middle of mid term turnover.

    • What right does the united states have to tell egypt what to do with their government. What is wrong with publically stating that the united states is willing to work with the current and future leaders of egypt.

      • Naten,

        The US has no right – but it has a massive national interest – given that the US is a puppet of Israel.

        Israel requires a subdued Egypt. Without the requirement to defend it’s Eastern border, Israel has had a free hand to attack and invade Lebanon and Palestine with impunity.

        A resurgent Egypt dulls the Israeli blade. Israel cannot antagonize her neighbors with the Egyptian Army as a threat.

        Thus, what is key to Israel is key to the USA, which makes Egypt’s machinations important to the US government.

        • just want to remember who won last time Egypt and Israel were at war. I don’t think the winner would change if it happened again.

          • Naten,

            Please do remember what happened.

            Egypt almost won – but due to sheer luck, the Egyptian army bypassed a recon of Israelis – the luck; two edges of two Egypt divisions lost contact and created a gap in the lines – just large enough to miss the Israelis.

            Israelis exploited this gap and penetrated to the Suez and overran the SAM sites that protected the Egyptians from the IAF.

            Inexplicably, the Egyptians in the field failed to inform their command of this disaster until days after – far too late for the Egyptians to respond.

            Yom Kipper exposed the Israeli weaknesses – a heavy reliance on air power and thinly stretched combat lines. These defects are systemic and still exist.

        • Flag, you really seem to hate Israel, and I get what you’re saying and you’re not wrong.

          You’re not wrong.


          But, can you please make some acknowledgement of the fact that Israel is responding to violence with escalating violence which begets more violence, etc. While, certainly, it has been.. thugish.. in places, it’s neighbors are not innocent victims in the issues.

          You say they have free hand to attack and invade Palestine as if Palestine doesn’t routinely launch rockets over the Israeli border into civilian populations, or send over individuals with bombs strapped to their chests who kill dozens in restaurants and market places.

          What would you have Israel do? Nothing? Beg? Plead? Try to reason with the mad-men who are behind this? Of course they’re going to respond with violence.

          So where did it start? Did the Jews oppress the Arabs? Did the Arabs oppress the Jews? Did the Jews steal their land? Was it Jewish land first? Which came first? Arab military aggression or Israeli military aggression?

          It’s a chicken/egg problem. Certainly, CERTAINLY, Israel could have made better choices, but I don’t think that you’re being fair to them either.

          • Mathius,

            First, I do not “hate” Israel.

            I am unjaded in seeing their actions in the region as ultimately suicidal.

            can you please make some acknowledgement of the fact that Israel is responding to violence with escalating violence which begets more violence, etc.

            Your perception is opaque, not clear.

            The fact is, Israel is the hegemony. As I’ve presented in the past, the hegemony acts, the weaker powers react.

            If you see the circle of violence, its source is Israeli action and as such, its ending will be a result of a choice of Israel to unilaterally withdraw and cease its hostile action.

            The “tit for tat” can only stop when the hegemony refuses to “tat” – the weaker power will tend to react as not to provoke a “tat”. This is the pause that may create a condition for peace.

            You say they have free hand to attack and invade Palestine as if Palestine doesn’t routinely launch rockets over the Israeli border into civilian populations, or send over individuals with bombs strapped to their chests who kill dozens in restaurants and market places.

            The weaker power – overrun and oppressed by the hegemony – has only one of two choices:

            If they will never surrender, you will suffer their resistance.

            What would you have Israel do? Nothing?

            As already pointed out, the hegemony is always the ACTION, and the weaker power always REACTS.

            Thus, it requires Israel to chose its ACTION – if it wants peace, then its actions are required to select peace. If it wants territory, its actions will select not peace but conflict.

            So where did it start?

            The day the Europeans colonized the region.

            Did the Jews oppress the Arabs?

            After 1945, yes.

            Did the Arabs oppress the Jews?

            For hundreds of years, they lived peacefully side-by-side.

            Did the Jews steal their land?

            After 1948, yes.
            Before 1948, the land was stolen by the British and given away.

            Was it Jewish land first?

            No, it was Egyptian first.

            Which came first? Arab military aggression or Israeli military aggression?

            European aggression came first.

            It’s a chicken/egg problem.

            No, it is not. The cause/effect is very clear if one removes the frosted glasses of western propaganda.

            Fair? What is fair? I care not for “fair”.

            I care for RIGHT.

            • As already pointed out, the hegemony is always the ACTION, and the weaker power always REACTS. I’m not sure I agree with this theory.

              A weaker power may goad a stronger power for a number of reasons.

              You didn’t really clarify what you think they should do.. you said “choose peace,” but how should they go about doing this?

              Refuse to respond when Hezbola launches rockets over the border into civilian neighborhoods?

              Refuse to respond when suicide bombers blow themselves up in crowded markets or restaurants?

              Refuse to respond when the president of a powerful neighbor calls for all Muslims to drive the Jews into the sea?

              What ACTION should Israel take? “Choose peace” isn’t an action, per say.

            • BF,

              Over time I have often seen you state this position that the hegenomy must act first and is therefore the one in control. You thus put all the onus on the side you dislike and, in my opinion, leave no culpability for the other side.

              I would like to see you write an article on that topic. Why is Israel the hegemonic power? Why does that mean they must act nice first (because thus far it feels like the answer to that is because BF thinks so)? Why so often does violence on one side of the issue get a pass from you while the slightest indication of violence on the other will be offered as a justification for grand scales of violence on the other.

              I know that you have hit on some of this in the past but I think an overall article for discussion would be a great addition to our discussions. Just a thought.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        No right per se.

        We have a diplomatic and security interest no doubt.

      • There is even more to that. Having trained many Egyptian Officers and paramilitary forces, the primary weapons are United States weapons. The US gives 1.3 billion in military aid annually….and even more. The bulk of the armor is the M1A1 Abrams followed by it supporting personnel carriers. The bulk of the air force is F16. The bulk of the heavy navy is Perry class. The army and paramilitary forces are US trained with advisors on the ground. The primary objective is securing the Suez without having to have a full time carrier attack group patrolling the area just for that. The loss of Egypt for security purposes is pretty dramatic. egypt also relies on about 3 billion in other aid.

        Mubarak is an ass. He is a petty dictator that needs to go. The Egyptian Military is more involved than the world knows and the Egyptian military does not hate Israel at all. Egypt and Israel hold joint exercdises all the time and the armor of Egypt is replacing all of he outdated Soviet equipment with American armor. France, Italy, England, and China also contribute equipment but it is or was being rapidly updated to American style armor and aircraft. The main reason is so that Israel and Egypt will be consistent in maintenance and reciprocal units.

        Several of the joint exercises are aimed at joining together to protect the Suez…..against any type of closing or threat from Iran or other rogue types that claim that they can close the Suez. the Us is very integral in helping egypt develop a carrier group but that is in the planning stage right now.

        So, the loss of Egypt would not be a good thing. There are many other issues as well on the economic side and investment that is already there. So, to just let Egypt swing in the wind……I do not thing is a good thing. The world knows that Obama is all bluster and no substance. I do not profess to know what the answer is, but I fear the signal he is sending right now is one of weakness and not leadership.

        To those of you who think this Muslim Brotherhood is a problem… is not. The Egyptian army leadership will not allow it.

        • D13 gives a good “boots on the ground” perspective.

          Nassar wanted to toss out the Soviets and go it alone. He could not. The reason:

          “Where will we get our spare parts for our aircraft and tanks???”

          The leadership of Egypt – whoever that may be – will want to toss out the US. They will face the same problem:

          “Where will we get our spare parts for our aircraft and tanks???”

          What China – she may surprise the West with “magnanimously” supplying said parts….

          • You are quite correct. Keep an eye on China. Caveat……I wonder when it cones to seperating the wheat from the chaff (to coin a well used phrse)…I wonder if the Egyptian Army leadershp would support a China move.

            I did not see this personally but have been reliably informed that Egypt and China have been at odds lately. do not know the reason, but all Chinese military naval advisors have been tossed out and the new Chinese frigates that were ordered have been cancelled.

            Interesting developments.

            @ BF….I wonder how strong (politically) the Egyptian Military really is? I think pretty strong….just a hunch.

        • D13

          Curios as to what you think the military’s political allegience is?

          Obviously they will want to remain in power. They have played the objective third party card in grand fashion.

          But can they keep that position? Is it now similar to what we think our military postions would be, or would they actually step up and take over the government if they think it is necessary.

          So many questions…

          How the heck does Egypt solve its problem of so many unemployed and disaffected young men?

          • Hi JAC…we are expecting another winter storm. This time….ice. Three inches of it….forecast.

            The Egyptian Army has indeed played a third party to a certain degree. I think that they know a sudden departure of Mubarak would creat a vacuum that they do not want and if that vacuum did exist, I think they move. However, I do not see nor think that they actually want the throne….but wish to be the power behind the throne. It has been my experience that the majority of the senior officers in the Egyptian heirarchy are moderate to conservative in nature but publicly are non commital. So, they will back a leader who thinks like them and be the power behind him. They will pay appropraite lip service to this Muslim Broherhood but Egypt, per capita, is not fundamentalist. They wish to keep some identity but they are Western influenced.

            Their big problem is solving unemployment and the age of the unemployed. Just yesterday, Mubarak gave a 15% raise to all the government employees and the “revolution” suddenly lost one third of its supporters. I think that the Army will sit by to protecting the Presidency for now and let the protesters keep marching until they run out of steam. Mubarak is finished….the time factor is what is the main issue now.

            So, I conclude that the Egyptian Military has its political allegiance to maintaining a staus quo for a short time. They will back a moderate/conservative leader over Mubarak but will keep the crowds in check and the pertinent areas guarded for awhile. I would suggest that Mubarak keep his promises and act quickly on releasing some freedoms. (Internet, media, tv) Once the banks open back up and the markets restock…the steam will be gone….but his regime must stay away and he must step down as soon as possible.

        • D13 says; “To those of you who think this Muslim Brotherhood is a problem… is not. The Egyptian army leadership will not allow it.”

          Papadawg says; “The Brotherhood of Islam (now renamed to Muslim Brotherhood) has always had its feet embedded in the Egyptian army. Who do you think was behind the the Sadat assassination?”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The US pays Egypt $2 Billion per year plus, for NOTHING.

        The US expects that the LEAST that that $2 Billion per year will buy is “the right to tell Egypt what do do with their government”.

        It is an ancient game that is played by many governments.

  13. I’m wondering why I didn’t get first billing on the sidebar…..??


    • I would have thought smokey was a republican anyways for two reasons.

      1) He supports campfires which emit evil carbon dioxide.
      2) He is for personal responsibility in preventing forest fires.

  14. Test

  15. Black Flag,

    Re: Israel

    Israel has “stolen” land from the neighboring Arab populations. It did so 63 years ago. The land was given to them by Europeans. So, I think the first thing I need to clarify is this:

    In a discussion a while ago about property, you made the claim that receipt of stolen goods is not immoral – that is, you did not actually steal anything, but paid a price and received something. I tried to get some sense of what recourse the original owner might have against the current owner (to get his property back), but you (if I remember correctly – please tell me if I have this wrong) suggested that there is no direct recourse. The original owner has a claim only against the thief. This, of course, is according to your theory of morality, not US law.

    Do I have this correct? I think we need to start here.

    • Mathius,

      In a discussion a while ago about property, you made the claim that receipt of stolen goods is not immoral – that is, you did not actually steal anything, but paid a price and received something. I tried to get some sense of what recourse the original owner might have against the current owner (to get his property back), but you (if I remember correctly – please tell me if I have this wrong) suggested that there is no direct recourse. The original owner has a claim only against the thief.

      No, that is not correct.

      It rests upon (1) whether you know its stolen (2) whether you know who owned it (3) whether there is a means to justly return or compensate for the loss.

      Further, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand – this is NOT a discussion of judgment as I pointed out.

      You were discussing solution to conflict and if you wish to justify why you still want to maintain conflict then you are not finding a solution whatsoever.

  16. Thanks USW…it actually works.

  17. Can’t resist, here is a funny.

    Two hillbillies walk into a bar and while having a shot of whisky, they
    talk about their moonshine operation.

    Suddenly, a woman at a nearby table, who is eating a sandwich, begins
    to cough. And, after a minute or so, it becomes apparent that she is in
    real distress. One of the hillbillies looks at her and says, ‘Kin ya

    The woman shakes her head no. Then he asks, ‘Kin ya breathe?’

    The woman begins to turn blue and shakes her head no.

    The hillbilly walks over to the woman, lifts up her dress, yanks down
    her drawers and quickly gives her right butt cheek a lick with his tongue.
    The woman is so shocked that she has a violent spasm and the obstruction
    flies out of her mouth. As she begins to breathe again,
    the Hillbilly walks slowly back to the bar.

    His partner says, ‘Ya know, I’d heerd of that there ‘Hind Lick
    Maneuver’ but I ain’t niver seed nobody do it!’

  18. Black Flag,

    Re: Israel

    Where does history start?

    You claim the land belonged to the Arabs, but of course it has changed hands dozens of times. What Arabs have a rightful claim to the land occupied by Israel? Why do they have this claim and no one else? Is Israel’s claim wholly illegitimate? Why?

    • Mathius,

      Where does history start?

      At the beginning, of course.

      You claim the land belonged to the Arabs, but of course it has changed hands dozens of times.

      What Arabs have a rightful claim to the land occupied by Israel?

      Because they lived there.

      Arabs do not care what the name of the country is called – they’ve seen it change hundreds of times … what does it matter?

      They do care about their homes.

      Why do they have this claim and no one else?

      Because they lived in that house

      Is Israel’s claim wholly illegitimate? Why?

      (1) The British had no right to give what is not theirs to others who did not live there.
      (2) 1948 Nuremberg made it illegal for any nation to claim land by conquest – it is a war crime.
      (3) If one accepts the UN mandate as a point in time, the mandate itself specifically prohibits Israeli action prior and subsequent to its independence in 1948.

      The fact is, by folly, theft, murder and vicious crime, Israel exists. If it wishes to survive in the next 50 years, it must come to grips with itself.

      At this time, there are no allies in the region, and the day the US is unable to project itself into the region will be the first of the last days of Israel.

      • It is their home because they lived there. – BF

        The Jews live there, therefore it is their home. -Mathius

        You are an idiot. – BF

        Oh? – Mathius

        Yes. The Israelis took the homes belonging to the Arabs. That is theft. Just because they live there now doesn’t make it theirs. – BF

        But the Arabs had to take it from someone else. They haven’t been there for the whole of human history. They had to have taken it from someone else. Therefore, according to you, it didn’t belong to them. So how can I steal something from you that you don’t own? – Mathius

        Did I get your side about right? You are starting the clock at the point in time where the direct descendants of the occupants in 1948 acquired the homes. Back it up another hundred years and where are you?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Hell, just for fun, back it up 5000 years and where are you… what about 10,000 years?

          The whole argument is actually quite silly if you think about it.

          If the Bible is historically accurate AT ALL, then both the Jews and the Muslims are direct descendents of Abram (or Abraham) through either Isaac or Ishamael.

          According to ancient tradition, the land would “belong” to the descendents either of the eldest son, or perhaps the descendents of both sons.

          Any argument that claims that “the Jews have no legitimate claim” to Israel or Jerusalem is a false argument.

          Any argument that claims that “the Palestinians or Arabs have no legitimate claim to the land comprising Israel or Jerusalem” is ALSO a false argument.

          The problem is NOT “who does that hunk of land belong to”.

          It “belongs” to people who are all descended from the same line, but unfortunately those descendents have split into two irreconcileable factions due to RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES which at one point in history (albeit a long time ago) DID NOT EXIST.

          So, in essence, the CORRECT ANSWER is that BOTH SIDES can make a pretty darn legitimate claim to the land, because all of them can claim to be descended from Abraham one way or another, assuming that that part of the Bible is even remotely historically correct, and not just a bunch of made-up BS.

  19. Mathius,

    I’m not sure I agree with this theory.

    That’s good – it needs to be flushed out in detail so disagreement is a typical and successful way to do that.

    A weaker power may goad a stronger power for a number of reasons.

    That is irrational.

    They are a weaker power for a reason – that reason: the stronger power has an asymmetrical capability to overwhelm and destroy the weaker power – that is the definition of Weak vs Strong.

    “You kill one, we kill thousands”

    Thus, the only reason a weaker power undertakes this asymmetrical risk is by reacting to a provocation of the superior power

    If you are Goliath and I am David, it does not cross my mind to engage Goliath! David does not consider invading Goliath for fun!

    But when Goliath invades David (the action), David has only one of two -exclusive- options:

    If you measure any such conflict, you will find this cause/effect.

    Name one weaker power that – for no provocation – attacked a stronger power.

    You didn’t really clarify what you think they should do.. you said “choose peace,” but how should they go about doing this?

    How about not killing women and children, destroying their homes, stealing their land, kicking them into ghettos, and embargo supplies?

    I’ll bet that stopping that will go a looonnnnggg way toward peace.

    Refuse to respond when Hezbola launches rockets over the border into civilian neighborhoods?

    Why does Hezbollah exist? Do you think they grew out of thin air because they “hate Jews”?

    …or do you think they grew out of the slaughter of Sabra?

    Refuse to respond when suicide bombers blow themselves up in crowded markets or restaurants?

    How about not blowing up buildings full of families?

    Israeli missile attack destroys Chyah appartment blocks in Beirut

    The Israeli military launched a powerful, accurate, state-of-the-art American missile at an apartment block in a busy residential area of Beirut last night, crushing Lebanese families to death in their own homes.

    Refuse to respond when the president of a powerful neighbor calls for all Muslims to drive the Jews into the sea?

    “The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs.” — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

    We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
    — David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

    What ACTION should Israel take? “Choose peace” isn’t an action, per say.

    If “peace” is not chosen, then conflict is guaranteed until:
    (1) the weaker power capitulates and surrenders (or is genocided into oblivion)
    (2) the hegemony relents.

    There is no third option.

    leave no culpability for the other side.

    I do not judge, USWep – which is required if one is to assign culpability.

    If your goal is to justify violence, as presented by Mathius, yourself, D13, LOI, etc. – it is easy for either side to do. No brain required here.

    But if your goal is peace, then it must ALWAYS beign with an action of the hegemony.

    As I repeat, if you demand it start from the weaker power, the condition you are demanding is surrender.

    If you acknowledge that the weaker party will never surrender, then the condition you demand from the weaker power cannot ever, ever, happen. The process cannot start from the weaker party.

    If it cannot start from the weaker power, it must start from the hegemony.

    There is only one path here.

    Why is Israel the hegemonic power?

    They wield the full military, diplomatic and political might of the USA.

    Why does that mean they must act nice first (because thus far it feels like the answer to that is because BF thinks so)?

    Nice?? … a term that is undefined.

    They must act in a manner for peace and not in a manner of conflict.

    Why so often does violence on one side of the issue get a pass from you while the slightest indication of violence on the other will be offered as a justification for grand scales of violence on the other.

    Justify = Judge – and I have already explained I am not judging here.

    Explain – and if one avoids understanding the plain and obvious explanation while attempting to judge, the conflict will continue unabated.

    I know that you have hit on some of this in the past but I think an overall article for discussion would be a great addition to our discussions. Just a thought.

    It is a book worth’s of dialogue – perhaps I can write a synopsis.

    • Thus, the only reason a weaker power undertakes this asymmetrical risk is by reacting to a provocation of the superior power Wrong.

      Israel has some self control. Whether this is because the ethos of the Jewish people does not permit miss annihilation of another peoples or because doing so would turn world opinion against them, it does not matter. The point is that there are constraints on what Israel is willing to do.

      Israel will not use it’s nuclear weapons except as a last ditch effort in self-defense.

      Israel will not seize control of Tehran. And if it did, it would relinquish it as soon as humanly possible. They don’t have the manpower to hold it, and world opinion would never allow it anyway.

      Etc, etc.

      You, in your rush to hold asymmetric power as an unlimited factor, forget that there are caps on the use of that power.

      It is within the power of Israel to kill 10,000 Arab civilians per Israeli civilian, but the will to do so does not exist.

      And the Arab nations know this.

      They know that they can poke Israel in the eye and the self-imposed and world-opinion-imposed caps will prevent too much of a disproportionate response.

      So, the Arabs launch a few missiles, the Israelis invade.

      But the Israelis don’t kill all Arabs – something that is certainly within their abilities. And the Israelis don’t wipe out the entire government – something that is certainly within their abilities.

      But the aggression shown by Israel gives rise to resentment.

      And that resentment is used to solidify power behind the extremists.

      And the extremists then poke Israel in the eye again in order to perpetuate the cycle.

      Do you think that, if there were no missile launches or suicide bombers or military threats that Israel would attack these people anyway?

    • Sabra and Shantilla (sp?) were travesties. Something which the Jewish people will always bear as a stain on their collective conscience. The Jews are not innocent.

      Nobody is claiming they are.

      But you seem to be cherry picking Israeli war-crimes while ignoring Arab war-crimes.

    • What does it mean to “act in a manner for peace and not in a manner of conflict”?

      What should the Israelis do?

      Pack up and move? Reparations? Apologize? What?

      Should they all leave their homes, march to Masada and hole up until the Muslims have forgiven them?


      • To clarify, you said a lot “stop doing X”.. and I agree with them. But that’s not the entirety of the problem and we both know it. It’s a symptom.

        They’re overreacting, erroring, miscalculating, et cetera. They did not set out at Sabra and Shantilla to facilitate mass-murder. That does not excuse it, however.

        But telling them to stop that is like telling people that it’s ok to drive cars, but they should never crash them. Well, in the real world, it’s going to happen occasionally.

        Should they also stop the actions which were behind the ones you listed?

        Stop killing innocents – they’re trying to kill the guilty, but the guilty are hiding behind the innocent. So should they stop trying to kill the guilty?

        Stop blocking supplies – they are trying to block weapons, but supplies also get blocked as an unintended consequence. So should they stop trying to block weapons?

        What specific actions should they undertake? And what intentional actions should they stop?

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    A different look at the OKC bombing. Interesting article! False Flag maybe?

    New documents released under the Freedom of Information Act confirm that the FBI received a phone call the day before the Oklahoma City bombing warning that the attack was imminent, and that the feds tried to reach a deal with bomber Terry Nichols to take the death penalty off the table if he admitted making the call.

    The documents were released to Salt Lake City lawyer Jesse Trentadue, who in the course of of a 15 year battle in trying to ascertain why his brother was tortured to death during an FBI interrogation related to the case, has all but proven the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Building was an inside job run by FBI agents who were handling Timothy McVeigh.

  21. Black Flag,

    Re: Israel

    Force begets force. Violence begets violence.

    If Israel were to take up a 100% defensive posture – that is, no operations beyond it’s borders. Do you believe the violence from the other side(s) would fizzle out?

    Or would it continue unabated because many of those attacking Israel* believe it is their holy duty to kill the Jews and impose Sharia law on the Holy Land? And would they** hold to 63 year old claims for land and attack unabated until they have required what they lost?

    When they attack Israel and are killed, will their children and widows believe or care that Israel acted in self defense, or will they raise another generation bent on revenge for the fallen, perpetuating a hate-spiral? “The Zionists*** kill my father (never mind that he was trying to blow up civilians in a discotheque****)! I will dedicate my life to killing as many Zionists as I can in revenge!” Or do you believe fatherless children will make the distinction – which way has the historical trend gone?

    Given this, is the only course for “choosing peace,” according to you, to vacate the country and abandon all Israeli land. Or do you believe that the people who have been fighting this war on the Arab side for the last six decades will decide to just stop and make nice once Israel goes on the defense?

    *I’m talking here about the crazy Muslims, not your run of the mill Muslim.
    **I’m talking here about the crazed displaced Arabs.
    ***Used interchangeable with Israel
    ****Seriously, it’s 2011.. why do discotheques still exist?

    • Sorry for butting in (not really)…but I think you need to also follow the money….the funding.

      Matt says: “If Israel were to take up a 100% defensive posture – that is, no operations beyond it’s borders. Do you believe the violence from the other side(s) would fizzle out?”

      D13 (shortened from d13thecolonel) thinks: No. Nothing will stop in a pure defensive posture. Israel will have to stop building apartment buildings, and return to 1947 lines and give up all conquered lands from the 1967 war. (Which would be wrong for them to do, in my opinion.)

      Matt asks: “When they attack Israel and are killed, will their children and widows believe or care that Israel acted in self defense, or will they raise another generation bent on revenge for the fallen, perpetuating a hate-spiral? “The Zionists*** kill my father”

      D13 says: Nope. They will always believe that they died for cause and that cause is much older than 63 years.”

      Matt asks: “do you believe fatherless children will make the distinction”?

      D13 surmises: Nope. They will be raised as warriors.

      And finally, the token Jew, asks: ” do you believe that the people who have been fighting this war on the Arab side for the last six decades will decide to just stop and make nice once Israel goes on the defense?”

      D13 concludes: ” Sadly……no. If Israel ceased to exist today, there will be a new target. If the US ceased to exist today, there will be a new target. If the US pulled completely out of the mideast, denounced hedgemony, did not fund Israel and moved Israel to North Dakota… will not cease.”

      • Colonel,

        My impression, which I’ve stated before, is that, like the USSR, the radical leaders in the middle east require the US and/or Israel to be the bogeymen to focus attention externally rather than internally in order to consolidate power and suppress dissension.

        They say: It’s not our fault that you are poor, illiterate, etc! It’s the fault of those people over there who are not like you! And you must obey us because we are at war!

        So, quietly, they poke the “others” with a sick to provoke a response which they can point to in order to justify this belief.

        ie, fund a terrorist group to kill innocents, which results in a military response which inadvertently may kill some innocents. Then point at those deaths and say “See! See! The Jews are murderers! We need to kill them!”

        Your take?

        • Certainly a take on things that is as good as any other and it has been done before. Every time, the big kid on the block is going to get blamed. Why? Simply because he is the biggest kid. Let us revisit very quickly the WWII. Many have said that America provoked Japan into the war because of cutting of Japan’s oil through the Ductch East Indies…etc. What is NOT said…is why the US did this. They joined several others because of Japans Imperial takeovers and raping of the East for the 10 years prior to any reaction from the US. Yamamoto’s own writings depict that Hawaii and the US fleet was going to be attacked and destroyed anyway without any interdiction in the oil embargo. BUT…several, including many on here, claim it was the United States that started WWII with Japan and that is simply a bald faced crock of shit. War was inevitable. BUT because the US was a power house in the economic scales…it waas a whipping boy. Not unlike Israel and the US today. It is convenient and will not go away. The US will always be the bad boy because we are the toughest. Israel will always be the bad boy because they are supported bythe United States. No one mentions hedgemony by other states….Iran, China, India……


          In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.

          On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.

          Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon “all parties” to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as “mere scraps of paper” and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that “the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve.” That would be the English Channel.

          Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?

          • LOI,

            Why not?

            Britain wanted to reserve an “out”

            • He’s saying that, if Britain had taken a harder line, they may have gotten their out by forcing Germany to back down.

              Not sure I agree with it in this case though.. Germany had to take out France before Russia mobilize or they’d face a western power on one front (even though it was French) and 6mm soldiers on another. There was no way to win that.

              One could argue that the invasion of Belgium by German in WWI was really a question of self-defense. There was no way to attack the French without going through Belgium and still win a victory before Russia got up to speed.

              Backing Germany into a corner, in this case, wouldn’t have helped because Germany was already in a corner.

              But his point is correct, even if the example is flawed.

          • Truthseeker says:

            They had to go around Frances Maginot Line as it was impenatrable (sp?) from the front. So they had to go through belgium to get around it.

            I have been to the Maginot Line and it is quite impressive (and cold)!

            • TS,

              The Maginot line was never breached. It held out for months after the surrender of France, before it finally submitted to the inevitable.

            • The last only capitulated on 10 July 1940, after a request from General Alphonse Joseph Georges, and only then under protest.

              Of the 58 major fortifications on the Maginot Line, just 10 were captured by the Wehrmacht in battle.

              In this respect, it can be said that the Maginot Line did its job.

  22. Just announced on the news: The White House has requested that the Patriot Act be extended to the end of 2013. They specifically said the roving wiretaps should continue unabated. (Their words, not ours).

    That rumble you feel in the ground is Buck, Ray, Todd, etc…going WTF?

    • And me..

      He’s got some ‘splaining to do..

      • Buck the Wala says:


      • Me too, my friend. I am not and never have been a supporter or advocate of the Patriot Act…..I just don’t have the same amount of heartburn that you have. 🙂 Like the Health Care Bill….there are some good points but most of it is bad.

        And for you, Buck……other than mandates and forcing national health care, it is the taxing attachments that has me more upset than anything else…..that and the so called…and denied…death panels. and… my parents have received their counseling notices already.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          All together now….There…Are…No…Death…Panels! 🙂

          Care to scan and post one of the counseling notices? Or do you have a link to one? I’d be curious to give it a read through.

          • As would I. The way it’s been portrayed, you’d think the left is trying to convince granny to kill herself.

          • Adding, good to know that the government is being efficient about getting those notices out. Just goes to prove that the government is not completely incompetent after all!

          • Ah but Buck…..If I cannot get the thing scanned to put on here….I will transcribe it for you. It is quite explicit on and I quote…..” end of Life counseling”…who does it and when.

          • gmanfortruth says:
          • Of course there are.

            Just as they exist within insurance companies today.

            End of life counseling is needed for granny to handle the stress of being denied life saving medical care. Her cost/benefit ratio just didn’t make the grade.

            • JAC: “End of life counseling is needed for granny to handle the stress of being denied life saving medical care.”

              PS: I don’t normally get frustrated at comments, but I must say JAC, this one doesn’t sit well with me. What makes you think it’s only granny who may need end of life counseling – also called advanced directive planning?

              I must confess that I wonder if people really understand what advance directive planning really is all about?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Until people start to realize that the Feds are NOT out to help the citizens, but rather empower and enrich, the sooner people can lose the left/right fake power struggle in politics.

      • Congress & All Presidential Administration’s Views of the The Constitution:

        It has become a document only to be followed when it suits the purposes of the politician(s) arguing the lawfulness and righteousness of the legislation they are supporting/backing/proposing.

        I have faith they’ll screw over anyone to meet their own goals and desires.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, What’s your opinion on this statement “Whoever controls the money, controls the nation. Whoever controls the food, controls the people.”

      • Whoever controls the terminology controls the debate.

        Whoever controls the past controls the present.

        Whoever controls the raptors controls whatever he wants to control.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Who controls the money????

        The Federal Reserve.

        Who is the Federal Reserve???

        Hint… they are NOT (at least officially) part of the GOVERNMENT (this is important by the way). If you do not KNOW who they are, I suggest you do some research and FIND OUT (again, this is important!).

        Who controls the food?

        Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Monsanto. (With some help from others, but these are the big 2 when it comes to controlling the food).

        If you don’t know much about ADM and Monsanto, I would suggest you do some research. (Again, this is important).

        There are MANY reasons that people here on this site advocate as much self-sufficiency as you can personally handle, preferably up to and including the ability to be completely self-sufficient if necessary. Once you really find out who the Federal Reserve, ADM and Monsanto are, I am sure your desire to become much more self-sufficient will probably skyrocket.

      • I think on the surface, those statements are correct..however, don’t you think that there is a lot to be said that both are controlled by a few and the few are entertwined?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I absolutely think that. And they are pulling the strings of the puppets in DC. The FR, a non govt. central bank (with share holders) own the money, and as of recently, own more US debt than China. Big Agri wants to control the food, they are not their yet, and they intertwined with the FR, they pulled the strings and we now have two Food laws that gives the govt, to control ALL veggies and fruits if they chose. They will make this happen, by a fake terrror attack (E coli) sometime in the next two years. Then we can only purchase govt. approved veggies, no farmers markets, small farmers will be a thing of the past. Big Agri then, controls the food.

  23. Canine Weapon says:

  24. LOI,

    Yes, the US is a puppet of Israel.

    Whatever Israel wants, she gets – the US will destroy her own interests and subjugate them to the interests of Israel.

    Name one policy of Israel that the US has not supported.


    Not that anyone is counting, but I think this is the third time I have shown you to be mistaken. And any medication you might be on does not count. If you can’t operate heavy machinery or a keyboard, you should have stayed on the couch!!!

    PS, how’s the recovery?

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    Americans Favor Health Law Repeal by Double-Digit Margin, Poll Shows

    Nearly a year after the health care law was passed, most voters still favor repealing the overhaul — by a double-digit margin, according to a new poll.

    A Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday reveals most voters believe the law will increase the cost of health care, increase the federal deficit and erode the quality of care. Though the Obama administration stepped up its public defense of the law in advance of an unsuccessful repeal vote in the Senate, the numbers suggest many Americans are not accepting the administration’s arguments.

    The study found 58 percent of likely voters favor repeal to some degree, with 44 percent strongly supporting it. Thirty-seven percent oppose repeal, with 26 percent strongly opposing it.

    Who said most people want this BS law? Buck, Buck, are you out there? 😆

    • people want some type of reform, of which, they can not agree on.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I agree. There were some good things in the law. It’s the bad things that will ultimately destroy it. Why can’t the problems be dealt with individually? I personnally think had the States did this along time ago, we wouldn’t be talking about it. But the States were lobbied and profit became the ruling factor. The Fed’s, I’d bet they were heavily lobbied and the law will have the same end result.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      You know, there was a lot to be said for the “good ole days” when the doctor would come to your house when you were ill, and would accept chickens and eggs in payment if you were short on cash. Too much interference in free commerce has completely messed up a VERY BASIC, VERY SIMPLE economic relationship between doctors and patients.

      I know, I know… a WHOLE BUNCH of you are GOING TO SAY that with “modern medicine and technology” such a simple economic relationship “COULD NOT POSSIBLY EXIST” to which I reply, “Why the hell not!” Just because you CLAIM it could not exist does not MEAN it could not exist.

      The REASON it does not exist has NOTHING TO DO with “modern medicine and technology”, which is where that argument utterly fails.

    • Most people supported it when passed. Nothing has really changed, yet the numbers have flipped. Why?

      Because the right is winning the war of propaganda. Again.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Not only that, but all the polls I have seen also indicate that, when people are asked whether or not they would support repeal of specific items of the law, there is overwhelming support across all demographics and political leanings, to maintain these provisions.

        • Just like the “liberal agenda” – Americans disagree with it, but agree with virtually all the individual stances.

          I hate to admit it, but the right is far, far better at getting their message out than we are.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            They always have been. Dems are horrible at the PR campaign – they can never stay on message and rarely are able to act as one block group.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Buck, one thing we can agree on, is there was some good things in the law, on it’s face. (I don’t want any govt. interference in my life, period) I think the biggest issue with most people was the mandate, if not for that, this would remain the law, and based on my research, to all of our detriment. Most people don’t know that there were two sections in the Stimulus law that was passed, that were part of the HC reform law, and if you research it, you will see that this whole thing is truly a govt. takeover. Few people want that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Two questions for you:

                1) How would you propose keeping these so-called ‘good’ provisions while getting rid of the mandate?

                2) If the GOP is so serious about repealling the law, why have they failed to come up with a viable alternative (instead of voting on repeal, why not put forth a new law and vote on repeal & replace?)

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, Hope your having a good day!

                1. It depends on what the good things are. I would take all the good things, put them in a bill and try to pass it. IMHO, the mandate is dead, and will likely be deemed that way by the SCOTUS.
                2. Good question. The GOP believes (I’m guessing) the mandate is unConstitutional and they are betting on that. All Politicians are idiot, controling, greedy bastards, including the GOP.

                I hope I answered the questions OK!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thanks for your thoughts!

                Now lets go a step further. What do you think are the ‘good’ provisions? Then, what in your opinion would be the effect of passing these provisions without some sort of funding mechanism?

                And, on number 2, clearly the GOP is grandstanding on this issue – forcing votes on the question of repeal with full and complete knowledge that it won’t be passed. Why not put together a comprehensive proposal of its own?

              • gmanfortruth says:


                1. At this point, it should go back to the states. Let the voters in each state decide what is needed. The Feds are already too involved in our lives.

                2. Congress, as a whole, is nothing short of Pro Wrestling. It’s all show.

              • Truthseeker says:

                I agree with Gman in that why should this be a federal issue? This should be a states issue and people can vote with their feet. The Federal Government was not supposed to be this involved with states and forcing edicts that affect everyone.

        • You know Buck…you keep saying that but I have not found anywhere near a majority of people that like the health bill.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Depends on how you ask the question:

            A) Repeal the health care bill? YES

            B) Repeal ? NO

            • Seriously, Buck, I have asked probably at least 100 people about the health care law and specifically asked about things in it like keeping kids on till 26 and mandatory coverages, mandates to make people take it, and mandates to existing illnesses….I simply have found a majority for it. They like some of the options….but hate the mandated part of it and are willing to forego the options because of the mandates.

              • That should read have NOT found a majority for it. Sorry.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Please see my above question to Gman

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And that edit makes a huge change in what you were saying. So you haven’t found majority support for the specific provisiosn? What can I say, Texas is weird…

                I can’t go searching for the latest polls right now, but every poll I have seen shows majority (in some cases overwhelming majority) support for the specific provisions of the bill. Will try to dig some up later on.

              • No need….I will do some research…save you time and don’t send me a bill.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Oooh, I like we’re you’re going with this. This way I can stay more active on SUFA and still meet my billable hours!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Maybe, but remember, the dumbest thing I ever heard by a SOTH, we had to pass it to find out whats in it. We found out what’s in it, the numbers flipped!

      • Mathius and Buck

        How come whenever a poll shows the public on the side of one of your hair brained Progressive ideas they are smart, well informed, and righteous, BUT when they support the other side they suddenly become victims of the “right’s” propaganda?

  26. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Black Flag has it backwards by the way.

    The US is not a puppet of Israel, Israel is a puppet of the US.

    The main reason that the US does not oppose very many things done by Isreal, is that Israel is doing those things because THE US WANTS THEM TO.

    Only when Israel goes against what the US specifically wants them to do do we actually get a bit uppity with them.

  27. Oh….and before any of you ask me about the Muslim funding and teachings in the Mansfield, Texas public schools…..where there was 1.5 million dollars in a government grant given to them to institutue mulsim culture (teach Islam, introduce culture food, teach understanding of the Muslim religion)as well as REQUIRE Arabic as a foreign language…it ain’t happening. When the word got out that this was going to be done, there was such a Texan backlash that it has been put on hold indefinitely. So…don’t ask or razz me about it. In the process, the Federal Government put a caveat on the grant….the Texas taxpayers had to match the 1.5 million….whoooeeeeee…you might as well piss on the side of the Alamo…you could not get us any more riled about this.

    • Do you have a link on this? I have not heard anything about an attempt to make Arabic foreign language study a requirement anywhere. That first part sounded fine though, and something that, in my humble opinion, is sorely needed in today’s virulently anti-Muslim America.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’d like the idea of making Arabic one of several choices for a foreign language requirement.

        I had the option of choosing between Spanish and French. I would have loved if I could have also chosen Arabic or Mandarin.

        • Buck…have no problem with offering a variety of foreign languages as an option…..but not madating it. In this case, it was a no choice. No choice in taking it, no choice in the food served, no choice in the culture aspect. Make it a choice..I have no problem. Make me do it….you have a fight.

        • English is a messed up language, but it has far more in common with Spanish (which I took) and French and Latin (which I failed). Arabic, Mandarin, and Russian are difficult for English speaking students due to the different linguistic roots. Still, I would have liked to have the option.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          On languages….

          It is my hope that my kids get the opportunity to learn Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, and Latin (hell, all the above would be great).

          Many of the speaking toys sold in our area include both English and Spanish (e.g. to learn colors, numbers, basic words).

          Wonder if that is common or unique to our area.

          I think its great.

      • Matt…no link yet…it is all over the news though.

        • Got the story.. seems your Texas school district APPLIED for this grant. The way I read your post (and perhaps I just misunderstood), you made it seem like the federal government was trying to force this on you poor victimized Texans. But, actually, your local board asked for it and it was given. I really don’t see the problem with a local district signing up for a pilot program, even if that mandates teaching Arabic.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      I also have heard this on the news today. Amazing……and stupid.


  28. Mathius, Buck

    Death Panels

    Fact: the provision of Universal Health Care must limit access via a triage system of some sort.

    Whether such a “death panel” exists right now is irrelevant. They will come.

    As vocal as you are that such a thing will not happen, please answer this question:

    When they do, and you are proven wrong, and your advocating for health care has now resulted in such an atrocity, what will you do?

    I expect this answer:
    (Shrug my shoulders and say “ooppps, sorry, do better next time”)

    This is the typical Progressive answer. Horrific consequences appear and the advocates slink away unscathed with the “oops, sorry!”

    …and a few short decades later they are back advocating for some other bizarre, fatal, muck….

    • Has anybody ever told you that you’re very sure of yourself?

      • Mathius,

        It takes no genius to observe that the sun rises daily and therefore it will rise tomorrow.

        It takes no genius to observe that by government force an economic good is driven to be sold lower than its value, it will be consumed to exhaustion.

        In such an environment, some sort of triage must be established to determine who deserves it based on some political motive….ergo, “Death panels”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Hmm…methinks we first need to take a step back. Can you provide your definition of ‘death panels’ for us? Are you merely talking about there being some form of rationing, which would exist in ANY health care system? Or something more?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Please, watch the video!

      • Buck,

        No such “rationing” exists unless forced by government.

        Rationing, by definition, is an allocation based on politics, and not by economics. Whether you need it or not, you get it. Thus, those that really need more do not get, and those that do not need get some.

        A more rational distribution is based on want – those that WANT get, and those that do not want do not get.

        This organizes based on an individual trade off of wants – not a based on a political calculation of force.

        Goods are distributed only one of two ways: by trade of value or by violence.

        You chose violence.

        I suggest the best method is by trade.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So when insurance companies do it, it is not rationing? When government does it, it is rationing?

          Since when do you prescribe to the notion that the definition changes when the actor changes (see, theft vs taxation)?

          • Buck,

            You are confused.

            Me offering my services is not rationing.

            Government dictating to me who and when to apply my services is rationing

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mr’ Flag is ALMOST right. The death panels aren’t in the HC law, they are in the Stimulus Law:

      THIS IS SCARY !!!

      A couple of weeks ago, I went to my dermatologist to have some skin lesions removed. As I sat in the examination room, his nurse keyed in my information, name, address, date of birth, medicines I was taking, etc. into a computer with a monitor with about a 16 inch screen. When the doctor came in to check me, he keying in something and my data came up.
      I said to him, “You’re really going high-tech”. He pointed at the monitor and said, “That’s by Obama. All doctors must have an electronic filing system in place by 2014”. When he finished removing the lesions, the nurse keyed in what he did and the ointment he prescribed.

      Watch the video below, please. We’re in scary times.

      Fellow Senior Citizens. Take 6 minutes and see what Obama and the Congress have done this time.

      Looks like Obama has snuck another one in on us!!!



      • Buck the Wala says:

        Will try to remember to watch this tonight (can’t listen to audio at work).

        In the meantime, can you provide a link to the exact section of the Stimulus Bill which creates ‘death panels’?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, It’s a very good video. Was hoping he would say the section number, but he didn’t. I’ll research tonight on what he said and post it, but it will take some time.

          I, G-Man, hereby crown Black Flag as “the Grand PooPaa” !
          😆 😆 😆

    • Mathius, Buck:

      But both of you avoided -strategically- my question.

      What will you do when the Death Panels appear?

      It is rhetorical, because you will not committ Seppuku, even though you will have advocated for the slaughter of thousands.

      Thus, the evil of Progressives. They advocate for massive social change of which consequences will result in massive slaughter. But there is no personal consequence to such an advocating of disaster – thus, as time dulls memories, the Progressive will return, promoting the same deadly crap, immune to the deadly consequences.

      If I was “Grand PooPaa in Command of all in my realm”, I’d hang every Progressive I found….

      • If it turned out the way you suggest, I would advocate against it until it either was repealed or fixed.

        And I would own up to my mistake.

        But I don’t think it will go the way you think it will. We shall see.

        • Mathius,

          As honorable as that appears, you will not suffer the disaster that your advocating will have created.

          I know you will not advocate against it, for to do so will make you a target for retribution from your own kind – and it such retribution would probably be fatal.

          Progressives, in the midst of their slaughter, will deal with turncoats viciously – for any deviation from the “Grand Plan” threatens the Grand Plan. This has been the historical response 100% of the time.

          When finally the Progressives have killed so many – that the survivors finally revolt and over throw the evil – or society collapses – the Progressive retreat.

          A few are caught, prosecuted and hung – but the majority who were the backroom-advocates escape and over tine, begin seeding their evil ideas to a new generation….

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I concur with Mathius.

        You believing this an inevitable outcome does not make it so. However, if such did occur, I would advocate for its prompt repeal.

        I also find it interesting that you would support the murder of Progressives. Kind of goes against that whole violence against the non-violent thing. Or am I suddenly violent because I support policies which you oppose and choose to characterize as ‘violent’?

        • I’ve actually tried to tie some parallels between his belief that my support for the government is an act of violence against him and, thus justifies him enacting violence against in me in self-defense with the Al Queda mentality of exactly that same philosophy.

          It didn’t seem to get through.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I remember that thread…pretty enjoyable to read.

          • Mathius,

            I’ve actually tried to tie some parallels between his belief that my support for the government is an act of violence against him and, thus justifies him enacting violence against in me in self-defense with the Al Queda mentality of exactly that same philosophy

            It didn’t get through because irrational analogies are not effective.

            • Seemed rational enough to me… I support government (willfully!).. government inflicts violence on you.. ergo, I inflict violence on you.. ergo you are justified in trying to stop me from inflicting violence on you by whatever means necessary.. because you are acting in self defense from violence, use of violence is permissible.

              Should I go hide in my bunker?

        • Buck

          You believing this an inevitable outcome does not make it so

          As I know the sun rises based on the past, I know the consequences of the equivocation of the Progressives.

          In every case in history, without exception, the requirement of “a few eggs needs to be broken to make an omelet” will result in massive slaughter of humanity – often measured in the millions of dead by the time it is over.

          • And I know that, without exception, unbridled free markets and large societies without law (backed by force) results in chaos and slavery (actual slavery or economic slavery).

            I know that, without exception, the US is and has been since its inception socialist to one degree or another. I know that some of the great successes of America have been on the back of that socialism.

            I know that, without exception, I get uncomfortable when people speak about complicated systems and future events with absolute certainty of their convictions and admit no possibility for error.

            I know that every-man-for-himself rarely nets the best results. I know that cooperation is the key to the past, present and future of mankind.

            I believe that the strong have a moral obligation to the weak, and that strength can be physical, economic, or any other attribute.

            I know that there are people out there who cannot afford health insurance. I know that not all of them are lazy bums intent on gaming the system. I know that helping these people can be done without compromising the general welfare.

            I know that we are a rich and prosperous people. I know that we are ingenious, intuitive, industrious, and innovative, and I know that we can find a way to make a world where everyone – everyone – can have the medical care that is the right of every human being if it is within the power of that society of provide.

            And I know that even the wise cannot see all ends.

            • gmanfortruth says:


              You also know that Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and the new name, progressivism, has and will continue to kill inocent people, in some cases by the millions. That , Sir, is historical FACT!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Well, I was right there with you until that paragraph that started “I believe…”

              Way too rational for me. Keep with the unwavering certainty!

        • Buck

          I also find it interesting that you would support the murder of Progressives. Kind of goes against that whole violence against the non-violent thing.

          Ah, you missed me becoming the “Grand PooPaa” – which is about as likely as lead mutating spontaneously to gold.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I official crowned you up above! Hang’em High!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              officially FU#$ing keyboard! 👿

            • Better be careful there G-he may consider you a progressive-pretty certain he considers me one. 🙂 But alas he would never take the job-Thank Goodness!

              • V.H.

                You do know me well!

                I would never, ever, ever, ever, take into my possession the Ring of Power – to quote the Lord of the Rings

                Mathius: [holding out the Ring] Take it BF!

                [BF backs away]

                Mathius: Take it!

                BF: No, Mathius!! NO!

                Mathius: You must take it!

                BF: You cannot offer me this ring!

                Mathius: I’m giving it to you!

                BF: Don’t… tempt ….me, Mathis!!
                I dare not take it.
                Not even to keep it safe.
                Understand, Mathius.
                I would use this ring from a desire to do good…
                But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

              • My precious…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m fairly confident Flag does not see me as a progressive, at least I hope not!

            • G-Man,

              And if that evil day ever came, you know exactly what I would do – which any principled, free-loving human being would do -.
              resign immediately.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Flag, when I read that I almost fell out my chair laughing, especially coming from you. Best laugh of the day, thanks!

    • The exact wording is “end of life counseling”.

      • Rut Roh,

        I have a dreadful suspicion I’m going to be siding with the liberal side of the political spectrum here at SUFA on this subject.

        ::sigh:: Go ahead Colonel, fire up this part of the debate. 😉

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    I say, it’s about time this is happening. The TSA and the HSA are getting way out of control !

    Austin, Texas — known for Longhorns, live music, and legislative lollapaloozas — is poised to be the subject of a different kind of notoriety. The nationwide undertone of opposition to the TSA is surfacing in the state’s capitol city. Austin is developing a downright defiance of the agency’s shocking treatment of American air travelers into a cohesive defense of liberty.

    Criticisms hurled at TSA from abused would-be air passengers and sympathetic media have taken the form of organized and well-thought-out resistance in Austin, and it could soon be the first American city to turn its dissent into airport relief for beleaguered flyers.

    On Dec. 14, 2010, The Austin Airport Advisory Commission (AAAC), tasked with advising the Austin City Council regarding policy at Austin Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA), voted unanimously to oppose the full-body scanners being installed at the city’s airport.

 Recommends the City Council oppose the installation of AITs at ABIA and further oppose the practice of invasive body searching and encourages the City Council to inform the TSA, and State and Federald elegations of such opposition.

    Each council member and a group of Austinites who showed up in opposition to the TSA expressed concern about privacy invasions, radiation delivery, and violations of the Fourth Amendment.

  30. Mathius,

    Seemed rational enough to me… I support government (willfully!).. government inflicts violence on you.. ergo, I inflict violence on you.. ergo you are justified in trying to stop me from inflicting violence on you by whatever means necessary.. because you are acting in self defense from violence, use of violence is permissible.

    Should I go hide in my bunker?


    Whereas it maybe my Right to resist your imposition, it is not my principle to necessarily destroy those in their ignorance who do me harm.

    If I knew you knew you were evil, you better run…really fast and far…

    But if I know you think you are doing a good, but are doing evil, I will find you and try to retrain you – failing that, ban and exile you – but you would live.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Why are we ignorant? We have read up on the issues and reached our conclusions?

      Yet you cast us aside as being ignorant — because we reach a different conclusion than you?

      PS – can I be exiled to a country with universal health care please? And fun accents!

  31. Mathius,

    And I know that, without exception, unbridled free markets and large societies without law (backed by force) results in chaos and slavery (actual slavery or economic slavery).

    You have no case that demonstrate that “free” markets (one based on voluntary exchange) leads to chaos – none whatsoever and is the typical lie that Progressives use to befuddle the masses and exploit their fear of confusion.

    No one, no where, on this site has ever advocated no “law”.

    Another typical lie of Progressives – where advocates of freedom advocate for natural law prohibiting violence for all – the Progressives see their required violent force on the non-violent de-legitimized and thus, twist the statement into “an advocate of lawlessness”.

    I know that, without exception, the US is and has been since its inception socialist to one degree or another. I know that some of the great successes of America have been on the back of that socialism.

    Not one case shows this. In every case, it has been the consequence of a free market product, service or good that in spite of the socialism provided exceptional success.

    I know that, without exception, I get uncomfortable when people speak about complicated systems and future events with absolute certainty of their convictions and admit no possibility for error.

    And you must shudder with fear with the question of whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

    It is no mystery to know the consequences of violence on the non-violent – it always ends with violence. I am amazed you believe it will end differently

    And as the failure of such pograms grows, the answer of the Progressives is never a retreat of such a pogram, but an acceleration – more violence, more command, more terror, more camps, more … more MORE!!!! … until revolt or societal collapse.

    I know that every-man-for-himself rarely nets the best results. I know that cooperation is the key to the past, present and future of mankind.

    I agree – cooperation is a successful strategy.

    But this another lie of Progressives – that their pogram is an example of cooperation.

    It is not.

    It is an example of coercion.

    Cooperation is VOLUNTARY and never forced.

    Progressives abhor voluntary choice for it means their victims are allowed to say “NO!”… and “NO” to a Progressive ideology is a sin.

    I believe that the strong have a moral obligation to the weak, and that strength can be physical, economic, or any other attribute.

    Another Progessive lie – that there exists a moral obligation – obligation= a requirement to act.

    By attributing a requirement (that is, not voluntary) to a moral (that is, SUBJECT VALUE that they define, and not you) – they can -on a whim- demand their victims to act in any manner under the guise of “moral obligation”.

    And I know that even the wise cannot see all ends.

    Yet, this does not stop the Progressives from manipulating society on their whims – immune to the understanding that -indeed- they do not known the devastation they wreck upon humanity.

    They do not care. Their ignorance is their shield.

    “Ooppps, sorry, a few million dead…. didn’t think it would happen…. better next time?”

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    Black Flag and others,

    Any input on this, quite interesting.

    • Gman, just watched the start and it looks/sounds familiar. I think we “did” this before.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes Kathy, I did post this before. Some history is in order. About two years ago, right here on SUFA, I heard the term hyperinflation for the first time (thanks to Black Flag!). After many discussions, I started watching many economic indicators, and getting a multitude of e-mails that I signed up for, on a daily basis. Most of these are from those who are in the investment business and sell their investment knowledge. Even before this video, these warnings started showing up in various e-mails, and then in the last two months, it has exploded. This concerns me, so I try to give out this info so people here might take it as a sign to prepare, just in case. All the signals are there, we are in trouble, nobody is paying attention (except those that get it). Food and security will be the two most important things that you may need at some point in the next two years. So I send warnings out, so people can prepare. Read up on the preparation, it’s not a simple thing, and you may need to add family and/or friends if you are prepared. If you are not prepared, thenyou only have yourself to blame for your suffering, and that of your family. Food prices are rising quickly, stock up! Prepare for your defense and the defense of your food stocks, I would recommend 6 months to a year of food on hand, for 10 to 12 people. The best thing that could happen, is your food bill will be less expensive if nothing happens, for a long time! I do my homework, time is short.


%d bloggers like this: