Don’t Reduce… Eliminate

The hot button topic these days in Washington DC seems to be deficit reduction. I have followed this banter back and forth between the two parties for a long, long time in terms of spending and where to make cuts. It seems to flow in a cyclical pattern, as all political issues tend to do. Every 8-10 years we seem to have the “level of spending in Washington” as a primary issue and each time the leaders within the two parties pay lip service to the issue in an attempt to appease the voters just enough to get them to move on to some other issue that will require new organization and alignment. It has been a convenient plan for Congress. Let the issue build. Allow the “movement” to organize and rally to a level where something must be done. Then do as little as necessary and repeat the process with a new issue. There are probably a total of 50 or so “hot button issues” that just wax and wane in DC. And each Congress claims to have done something about each one each time they arise. What we rarely see from Congress is a true fundamental change meant to eliminate the issue from coming back up in the future.

In that way I guess you could give the Democrats over the last two years a modicum of credit. They were not looking to half ass some of these issues. They certainly sought to make fundamental change to some of the issues such as health care and so called manmade global warming. Of course their version of fundamental change was fundamentally wrong and flawed, but I do recognize that they tried to make wholesale change.

The most recurrent cyclical issue in Washington DC is spending. It constantly cycles back to the forefront and seems to always be in the mix of political debate. But the real problem for Americans is that neither side is interested in making any fundamental changes to the spending policies in Washington DC. The reasons are varying, but the bottom line is the same: Spending in Washington DC is something that neither side wants to really “fix”. And I say the reasons vary but they really don’t. Each side is only interested in creating more power for themselves and their like-minded compadres. On the conservative side they are interested in control through spending in areas that increase the power of government. On the liberal side they are interested in control through spending in areas that increase the reliance on government. At least that is how I see it these days.

But neither side is willing to consider the fundamental change that are needed to reign in government spending and the consistent increase in government control and scope. And THAT is the fundamental change that needs to happen. The control monsters on both sides of the aisle need to start looking at things in a whole new way. They need to start making cuts designed to scale back the scope of government. They need to couple that with a serious adjustment in the way that things are paid for in Washington. Let me start with that second part. I have an example or two.

Credit Spencer Hughes for pointing me in this direction. He shared an article last week that reported that the US House of Representatives spent $860,000 on bottled water last year. They spent almost a million taxpayer dollars on fracking bottled water! If I want bottled water while I am at work, I have to purchase that bottled water and bring it with me! My work does offer filtered water if you have your own container, which I imagine is far more economical. But not the US House of Representatives. They are spending a million bucks of our money a year to quench their thirst. Some of the most overpaid public servants in America (of which the majority are millionaires anyway) can’t even provide their own bottled water on that massive paycheck they get from us.

Add to that the fact that after serving only a single term in Congress, members receive that paycheck for life. Can you think of any other job in America where you can work two years in the position, leave the job, and still get paid your salary for the rest of your life? Is there any way to justify that? How ironic that these jackasses who get this wonderful compensation for life after running the country into the ground are the same people who decry executives who get big bonuses after running their company into the ground!

There are literally thousands of examples of government waste that we could share. Like the Department of Veterans Affairs spending $175 million last year on maintaining buildings that it no longer uses. Overall the federal government spends roughly $26 Billion annually maintaining unused or vacant properties. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns. Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and at least one sex change operation. Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.

We could sit and complain all day about these relatively inconsequential amounts of money. When you continue to add them up, there are massive amounts of fraud, abuse, and waste in Washington DC today. And Congress doesn’t seem to be interested in fixing them. But these amounts are child’s play when compared to the overall budget and deficit. Sure they add up and they should certainly be looked at, but they are merely a symptom. They are a symptom of what happens when you empower a group of individuals to make primary financial decisions with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They don’t ward it well, they don’t keep a firm tab on where it goes and what it accomplishes. Would any business in America allow themselves to hemorrhage cash the way that EVERY single government agency does now? Of course not. But since it is other people’s money, our government makes no marked attempt to fix the problem.

But here is the big thing. When spending other people’s money, they don’t bother to ask themselves if they should be spending it on that in the first place. They overreach. They dabble in areas that government has no business being in anyway. And they never, ever scale back significantly.

And now they are at it again. Spending out of control. The federal government spends nearly twice as much as it takes in. The federal budget is estimated at roughly $3.5 Trillion. The deficit created is roughly $1.5 Trillion per year. And with numbers like that the Republicans in Congress tell us that they are going to “aggressively” look to cut $100 Billion from the federal budget. They consider it aggressive to cut the annual shortfall from $1.5 Trillion to $1.4 Trillion. And they think that this is good enough. They think that this is making real change. They tell themselves and sell to the American public that this is what fiscal responsibility looks like.


What is needed in America is truly fundamental change to the way that the federal government spends money. We need REAL cuts in the budget. In fact we need, at a minimum, $1.5 Trillion in real cuts to the budget. Preferably more than that so that we can begin paying off America’s debt. And the only way that this is possible is through truly fundamental change in the scope and reach of government. Because the bottom line is that the people’s desire for a handout has greatly exceeded the amount the government has to give. And the only way to meet the constantly growing desire of the people is to consistently raise the amount of the fruits of our won labor seized by the government. And I am no long willing to accept that. I will staunchly resist increasing the amount paid to government by anyone, from Oprah to the homeless.

What this means is that we need to alter the discourse in America. No longer can we afford to have these conversations where we pretend to care about deficit spending and increasing debt. What we must do now is not talk about how the idea is to cut 10% off of the budgets of programs and agencies. NO! the time has come to have real discussions about cutting 100% of the budget of a great many things in the federal government. We don’t need a 10% reduction in foreign aid. We need to completely eliminate it when we are facing $1.5 Trillion deficits. That is just one example.

What we need is a reevaluation of what the scope of government is and is not. Because the vast majority of what the federal government does now is NOT within the scope of government. It wasn’t OK when we didn’t face massive debt. And it certainly isn’t OK when we are borrowing massive amounts of money in order to afford to do it. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment, Defense spending, Health Care, nothing should be off limits. The FDA, Department of Education, EPA, FCC, CDC, DHHS, IRS, SEC, no agency should be above scrutiny as to whether they are warranted within the scope of the Constitution.

It is time to stop paying lip service to fixing what really ails this country. And it is time to start getting serious about really fixing it. The size and scope of government as it stands today is unsustainable. But Congress will never get serious about addressing this problem until the people stand up and demand it from them. It is time to stop accepting excuses and start demanding results.

Articles I got information from:

Waterloo « FOX Across America w/ Spencer Hughes

50 Examples of Government Waste | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Republicans, White House Brace for Twin Budget Battles –


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA! 🙂

    I think that the Feds should, by law, live within their means. That means NO deficits. If taxes (which most of us hate) bring in 2 trillion in 2011, then the budget for 2012 is 1.8 trillion (pay down the national debt with 10% of monies brought in the year before). Start by eliminating the DHS, EPA, DoE, to name a few.

    Happy Valentine’s Day to all the SUFA ladies! 🙂


  2. I would suggest that the United States Constitution be amended to that of Texas…….boiling it down……….you can’t spend more than you take in and you can’t borrow any shortfall to meet the budget. There is NO deficit spending.

    Except as defined by emergency….there is a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. Emergency is defined very well and even then it takes 4/5 vote of BOTH houses.

    • Hey Colonel is Texas getting some of this warm weather we are getting? Last Thursday snow and ice then by Sunday 65 degrees, go figure.

    • Umm, it might be good to add in that they can’t raise tax rates as they see fit, for that’s how they’d get more to spend more.

      Maybe a requirement that tax rate increases must be voted on every two years by the electorate during the Congressional elections?

  3. When just less than 50% of the country receives assistance from the government in one form or another there will never be massive cuts without massive upheaval. Everyone screams cut, just not my part of the pie. If we cut entitlements we are accused of racism and outright cruelty to the unfortunate. If we cut education we are accused of not investing in the future, never mind that local control of schools did a much better job of teaching students. If we cut defense we are accused of making us vulnerable to our enemies. If we cut regulations we will all turn green and die. I could go on and on and on. But here it is, real simple, the Federal government should go back to doing the things the Constitution gives it authority to do and everything else should be a State mater. I know that is a simplistic answer for a complex problem, but why can’t it be done?

    • Because we will all turn green and die?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Because federalism is dead.

      The world doesn’t work the way it worked back in the late 1800s. National issues (education, environment, health care, immigration, etc.) require national solutions.

      • Therein…..lies the problem. Good morning, Barrister, and how are you?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Can’t complain, though could use more coffee at the moment. And yourself?

          By the way, here’s an interesting article on Right to Work legislation you may enjoy:

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, Are you pro-union? As the Municipalities and States deal with their huge debt problems, when the cutting starts what do you think the unions are going to do? the SEIU are already gearing up for this, by recruiting young people in cities like Cleveland and Milwaukee , amongst others. What actions are the SEIU gearing up to do when the cuts hit, as they are already known for violent actions at tea party events?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Am I pro-union? Yes.

              Do I feel that in some cases unions have become too powerful? Yes.

              Do I feel the right is using unions as a boogeyman to blame our current economic/business problems on, which will wind up harming our economy and our middle class? Yes.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I don’t blame the unions at all, they did what they’re paid to do. It’s the companies/governments that agreed to contracts they could not afford. Now the wagons have circled, and mainly governments realize that they cannot afford to pay what they agreed to pay. This could get ugly!

          • Interesting article……and some of the facts that are presented are truth and some are speculation….however, Texas is a very strong right to work state. If you want to join a union, then do so.

            Back in the 80’s we bought a little company that was represented by the Teamsters Union. Beating unions, if you wish, is really easy. In contract negotiations, agree to your wages and all economic issues. Then refuse to include the “check off” in the contract….in other words, make the union responsible for collecting their own dues. It is not an employment issue nor a wage issue and any strike, therefore, is classed as an economic strike and permanent replacements can be made or at least back then. (Have to admit that I have not looked at labor laws since then since we do not have to worry about it) It is hard for employees to strike when their wages have been agreed upon. Anyway, right to work, and forced union dues are not fair regardless of whether or not the union negotiates for the employee…..but, in Texas, we can negotiate separately with any employee that is non union unless you include exclusivity in a collective bargaining agreement.

            Thank you for the article, sir.

            • D13, is it safe to assume that since the people had to make their personal choice to pay the union, they saw how much they were paying the union, decided that they could take the personal responsibility to make their own money decisions and stopped paying the union?

              • That and the fact that it was hard for the union to collect funds without having to resort to collection efforts (which has a negative connotation to the employee) to get their money. It brought to their mind and focus how much the dues were and since they were not deducted…..mama got into the fray when she wrote the household bills and decided that 40 or 60 bucks per month could go elsewhere.

          • For people that didn’t click on the link provided by buck, it is an article against Right to Work, and for labor unions.

            “In reality, though, you can never be forced to join a union—you can only be required to pay dues directly related to work the union does representing you.”

            So they are being forced to pay for something that they don’t want. Sounds a lot like another topic we have been discussing about personal choices and keeping the government out of our lives.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Its not so much being forced to pay for something you don’t want. Its paying for something that you are receiving a direct and quantifiable benefit from.

              Kind of like taxes — you don’t want to pay taxes, but you do reap the benefits of our roads, our military, etc. etc. etc.

              What is most interesting about the article, to me, is the adverse (or absent) economic impact Right to Work brings with it, despite all the rhetoric of how essential Right to Work is to boost the economy.

              • Unions are just like the government-they have grown to powerful and big-they might as well be labeled the Mafia-because that is what they are. If they had remained the way they started out they would still be a good thing. And if I do not want to join a union I shouldn’t have to join a union in order to work. It is not the same as paying taxes. I did not vote for them. They do not represent me.

              • Benefit?????

                Says who?

                Oh that’s right, YOU.

                Where does your authority come from to override MY right to work for whom I choose under the conditions I choose for the reasons that are entirely mine?

              • Yes sir, but like you said to me….it depends on how you crunch the numbers as well. Texas seems to do just fine. We may not be the highest paying state and may not have a lot of freebies…..but we are not broke. And companies are coming here by the droves. People are moving in because of low tax rates. Our right to work is a major factor.

                But your point is also well taken. That is why the check off is sooooooo important to the union. I have not researched it but I would wager that closed shop states probably have a state statute of some sort that requires compulsory dues and a compulsory check off….do not know.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So a wage increase is not a benefit to you? Interesting.

                As I said though, I’m more interested in the either adverse or absent economic impact Right to Work has (at least according to this study). Your thoughts on that issue?

              • I know this wasn’t addressed to me-but i’m gonna answer anyway-IT doesn’t matter-Could care less-I have the right to work and nobody has the right to tell me I must pay a union for the pleasure. It’s called standing on a principal. It’s called remaining free to make a living without a bully who doesn’t even own the business making you pay to work. Now I’m gonna shut up because this issue makes me too angry to be civil. And by the way, my Uncle decided he didn’t want to go union-they beat the hell out of him. We decided we didn’t want to go union-they sued us with a bunch of BS charges and cost us thousands of dollars. If people don’t start standing on some principals in this country instead of cost/benefit analysis-this place isn’t gonna be any better than the Middle East.

              • Buck, of course the people in unions make more then right to work states. Because they are OVERPAID. Where I live BUS DRIVERS can and have made over $100,000 a year when you add up their benefits and overtime. Why so much overtime? Because they can’t afford any more drivers. Why can’t they afford any more drivers but afford to over double someone’s salary in overtime?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yep, those national solutions to education have worked out real well 🙄

      • Education is NOT a national issue. I just made it a very personal issue. If anything it is a state issue.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Why do you believe it to be a state issue?

          • Random thoughts here:
            I’m thinking university level really. In Michigan the state lottery is supposed to go toward education. Seems that should cover secondary schools. Universities should be eligible for state money since many are R&D which everyone benefits from. I just spent $450 for a full year curriculum. That’s not even $10/week. Seems like even the average joe can pitch in that much to educate their child.

          • as to the state question, since the constitution doesnt give the government the right to regulate education in the constitution then the highest that can regulate it is the state. And since public school districts do not extend beyond the state lines, then how could it be interstate commerce?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Taxing and spending clause. Congress has the full constitutional authority to attach strings to its funds.

              • Back in the day when I was in school it was a local issue paid for by local taxes. Now since it has become a national issue, test scores have plummeted, dropout rates and violence in schools have skyrocketed and we are in freefall compared to the rest of the world. Other than advances by the teacher unions what has improved by going national?

              • That’s right! As we discussed before, they can pretty much do whatever they please…

              • It is blatantly obvious that that clause has been used to death as a justification for things that violate the 10th amendment. How do you justify that? If there is conflict between two clauses, meaning one allows it but another bans it, then the measure is still unconstitutional.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No real conflict here – you don’t want to accept the strings, then don’t accept the money.

              • That’s the thing Buck. I do not accept the money. Certainly some do, but how is it justified that becuase SOME people accept money ALL the people have to pay?

            • This is why states should refuse federal funds. I would argue with Buck on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause (and probably lose) however, I have to agree with him on the strings attached. I would be the same way. Want some of my money, then I will have caveats.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You had some pretty good arguments on the Commerce Clause. But I think we agree that this clause definitely doesn’t apply to education.

                The problem (and I don’t personally see this as a problem) is that the states need federal funding for a whole host of things, education being one of them. Why shouldn’t the feds impose national standards as a condition of receipt of these funds?

              • Buck the states wouldn’t need federal funding if the federal government didn’t take so much already then the states, counties, municipalities/townships could impose taxes to the levels that they want where individuals have more control over how they want their money used at each smaller level.

              • I have no problem whatsoever, with the attachment of strings as long as it is not mandated that a state HAS to take the funds and the strings with it. States should have the right to refuse Federal funds.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          And for the record, I’m not for mandating everyone send their children to public school.

          It is a personal issue so far as what is best for your child and which (if any) school to send your child to.

          • When you advocate giving authority to a centralized Federal Govt to “regulate” education you have in fact advocated for anything that Govt decides to use that power to accomplish.

            You sanctioned it, you live with it.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Nope, not true in the least. Remember there’s that annoying constitution to deal with as well.

              The federal government does not have the authority to regulate education per se. They have the authority to put strings on federal monies going to the states.

      • That is where we part ways young lawyer compadre. National solutions are NOT necessary for some of those things. Immigration and Health Care I can see your points on. Education and the environment, nonsense. Especially education. One can make a very solid case that the downfall of our schools was a nation solution (Department of Education) coupled with a national teacher’s union (or two).

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’d be curious to hear your take on how the environment – something that cannot possibly be limited to a single state – is not a national issue requiring a national solution.

          • Environmental issues are just as personal as all other issues.

            If there is harm to individuals the STATES are capable of dealing with the issue. STATES have the authority to reach agreements with other STATES on such things as air and water quality standards.

            The only FEDERAL presence needed is an impartial third party to act as Judge in disputes between the STATES.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              The problem I have with your answer is that it presupposes that what happens in one state will impact another state (and not necessarily a neighboring state either).

              Hence, a national problem.

              • If it does not impact the people in another state it is absolutely NOT a national problem.

                If it does impact people in another state then the STATES representing those people can work it out.

                The entire set sociological and cultural assumptions that were used to rationalize FEDERAL control are no longer valid.

              • Exactly, its called chain of command. If the actions in one state affect another state, then that state can address the issue with the offending state. Either the offending state will tighten regulation, or they will make sure that resitution is made, even if it is through enforcement on the party that committed the initial offence.

                Furthermore, the problem with national environmental issues is that there is debate over what constitutes an environmental issue. Carbon levels, for instance, are NOT an environmental problem. Pesticide runoff, however, might be. These are not necessarily things that have to be fixed by national regulation. The whole concept of disputes comes into play.

                Buck, in your line of work, much is settled without legal action. Especially in the area of lawsuits, settlements are made all the time. This is the process of a dispute being handled without the government being directly involved. Now, the existence of the courts is still a part of that, but they only step in when disputes cannot be handled otherwise.

                The federal government can be granted power to settle disputes between states where the states are not able to come to an agreement on their own. Then, and only then, is federal involvement necessary, or even desired. It is not necessary to have national standards and regulations. At the most, national standards will be used ONLY in cases of disputes that must be taken to federal court. Any and all other actions will be handled at the state level, with disputes first being addressed between the offending states, just as with any other multi-party dispute. Simple stuff you see every day, yet you think national regulations would be required to function? Why?

    • Hey Bama…

      And therein lies the rub in this deal. People would get their feelings hurt. Claims of racism and all the other political tactics would come spewing forth on all sides of the battle.

      But I don’t care. Call me a racist or whatever. The bottom line is that massive change is needed.

  4. I know I do a lot of bragging about Texas (hell, we are supposed to anyway) and I know a lot of you are probably tired of it….but I think we have it right for the most part. Fiscally, we cannot borrow money to meet a deficit and anytime money is borrowed, the principle and interest payments are required to fit in the budget. We also have what is called a rainy day fund that is not to be tapped to provide services except in emergencies. And teachers pensions, or state pensions, do not qualify as emergency. We are a pay as you go state….which means that our fees may be high for some things…(license tags, boat permits, hunting permits, etc) but they are voluntary. There is no state income tax and there is no corporate income tax. There is, however, a corporate franchise tax that is asset based.

    Our budget is bi annual and this year our budget had a 20 billion shortfall….so the legislature has to take the budget and pare it down. Texas did NOT take federal money that had strings to it. (ie. unemployment funds that carried with it a requirement to raise the tax base of the state to compensate for the loss of federal money when it ran out). Our legislature is making the hard decisions now….one of those hard decisions is in education. Notices have already gone out to public school districts to be prepared for a 20% reduction in funds. If that means layoffs, then that is where it is going to be. If that means that there is no contribution to the pension funds, then that is what it means…there will be no contribution. It is the same with the State.

    We have several billion in the rainy day fund that some are trying to get released for the teachers and things but the rainy day funds are for emergencies only…..and pension contributions are not emergencies or state employment. There is no proposal on the table as yet to raise taxes. It takes a 4/5 vote anyway. Fees can be raised and probably will be but therein lies your choice. If you wish to have a boat….pay the fee. Pay as you go. It is hard…but it works.

    This is but one or two examples and it is going to be tough. Welfare payments are going to be cut. Entitlement programs are going to be reduced by at least 20%. That means that there must be much more scrutiny to who receives aid. Qualifications are going to be tougher. Emergency room procedures are going to be tougher. No more walking in with a cold. Free tuition to illegals are going to be eliminated…and annual savings of 300 million…the nickels and dimes add up to big bucks. It may be draconian by some standards…..but we will be in budget and with out raising taxes.

    Note to DPM: All confiscated grog will remain tax free.

    • Since you like to brag about TX budgets let me brag about my state, CA: …………… 😦

      • Oh, come on T-Ray! At least you have In ‘n’ Out! No amount of fiscal responsibility can make up for that.

        • Ok…Matt…you have mentioned this before….is this a fast food chain of some sort?

          • of some sort.. yes.

            Take a trip and find out for yourself. They have the best burgers on the planet. Period.

            • Owwwww…..a trip to Ca? Well, I will say that it is very pretty in Northern Ca…..can’t say much about southern part as never been there… like burgers though….guess I better get one quick…Mrs. BO will probably outlaw them soon.

              • Well not exactly never been to So Ca….Does Ft Irwin and the National Training Center in Death Valley count?

              • Outlawing burgers would be a good way to kick off a revolution.

                PS: I LOVE Death Valley. For some reason, nobody ever wants to go there with me though..

              • Other than the Iraqi desert, the only place I know where it goes to 115-125…..then you climb into your sleeping bag in the evening because it gets so cold…strange place, the desert.

              • LOL Colonel… Irwin and NTc don’t count as California except for the fact that you have to deal with the regulations around those damn Desert Turtles…

                What is the name of the little tiny air base over near Barstow, do you remember? I was telling someone a funny story that happened there the other day and couldn’t remember the name of the place. Real tiny. So tiny that we couldn’t turn a C17 around, had to back it down the runway to take back off.

              • Sure sounds like Barstow. Was it in the center of the middle of the heart of nowhere?

              • @Mathius… Yeah, it was right near there. A little further out though.

      • Hey, T Ray……come on down…..we will take ya…..but leave Ca philosophy there….

        Hell, we even have a proposal by our legislature to allow concealed gun permit holders on our college campuses for the purpose of self defense….we do love our guns.

    • Another note: Texas has been notified that we stand to lose allocated federal funds in education if we do not provide free tuition….Perry said….ok. Perry and our legislature are in agreement that any Federal funding that requires strings (ie continued programs on State money) will be turned down. I think this is a great way to go and most of the Texans agree. It is time to get tough on the purse strings.

      Note to Washington, DC……… about taking all the federal money that is given to the UN….foreign aid…..military bases in post WWII countries….and apply it to our own people? Another note to Washington, DC. Close the UN and let Argentina have it and quit funding it.

      Ahhhh….so simple..yet so hard.

      • Umm.. do you take federal highway funds?

        • Unfortunately, with the Interstate system and the maintenance thereof….yes. However, I can say that Federal Highway funds are used on Interstate only and not state highways….but, alas, we do take highway funds but there are no strings attached to it to continue if we do not take them. I wish there was another way. But..I will work on it.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            There are no strings attached to federal highway funds going to Texas? I find that hard to believe.

            • I would as well. Lower the legal drinking age to 18 and see if it has any effect on your federal funds for interstate highways…

            • Yes there are strings attached to it for reciprocity agreements and such. (Trucking, etc.) But you also have the right to refuse them….but refusing them….you lose some of the benefits….only saying that it is not mandated…but the State has to step up and fill the void.

          • Strings in receiving federal highway funding were used when the national speed limit of 55 was implemented in the 70’s. Some States resisted the federal mandate and were simply told to comply or lose their federal highway funds.

            If the feds find an interest in doing so they’ll attach strings. The only way to prevent it is to stop giving the feds the money they give back (to a greater or lesser amount depending on your state).

        • well if they could choose not to pay the federal government their gas tax then they could choose to at the state level use the equivalent tax for their own roads.

        • Mathius

          Apparently you don’t understand the difference between FEDERAL highways and other highways.

          The Federal Govt OWNS the highway. It is the FEDERAL Govt that decides what highways to fix, build, etc. The STATES can and are often required to throw in some matching money, as there is a STATE benefit.

          Funds used are from FEDERAL GAS TAX just as the STATE uses STATE GAS TAX to fund work on STATE highways.

          So the propensity of the LEFT to constantly throw the highway system out as some great example is seriously flawed. The highway system funding and budget mechanisms are unlike all other federal programs.

          They are more akin to the Federal Govt funding management of Federal Forests and Parks within a state.

          The one legitimate argument is those “GRANTS” offered by the Feds for STATE and LOCAL highway and/or road projects. These all come with strings and the STATE/LOCAL govt could simply stop going after this money.

          • That’s all I’m saying: that they accepted money with strings. No more, no less..

          • JAC
            The Federal Government owns the Interstate and US roads and pays 90% (more or less) of the construction and upkeep on them and requires a 10% state match. The construction and upkeep is handled by the state highway departments under the management of the Feds. In Alabama little or no construction and only some of the upkeep is performed by the Highway Department as the majority of its employees spend their time on paperwork feeding the Fed machine. Most all work is passed on to private contractors that the State manages. It is a bulky, stupid, and inefficient way to build a road. Back in the day when the Interstate system was being built by State forces the saying was it cost a million dollars a mile to build; now a million dollars would not build 100 feet. I have absolutely no problem saying that half of all money set aside for road construction and upkeep gets spent on paperwork and useless bureaucracy.

    • Speaking of bragging D13, congratulations my longhorn buddy looks like Texas is ranked number 3 in Rivals recruiting class this year. You know that be 2 spots lower than YE OLE CRIMSON TIDE. The SEC grabbed 5 out of the top ten spots this year so we should continue to role along as usual.

  5. Bottom Line says:

    Theft is theft is theft.

    Theft is universally and fundamentally wrong…

    …except when government does it?

    Be good little pet Amerikans. Be sure to pay your taxes and vote as to support and legitimize you’re slavery!

    Slavery – Yaaay!

    • Here, BL.. have a glass of Red Bull..

      Don’t want it? OK, well then here’s the problem with your post: I reject your notion that “theft is universally and fundamentally wrong.”

      Let’s skip over the definitional fallacy that “taxes are not theft.” They’re taking money from you that you wouldn’t necessarily give the government, so we can call it whatever we like, but that doesn’t change what it is.

      However, you say this is wrong and I say it’s not.. necessarily.. wrong.

      In service of a greater good (I bet you just winced when you read that), some amount of theft may be justified. This is the liberal creed.

      But it’s too early on a Monday morning to get into this debate.

      • 🙂 To early for this type of debate but you threw the gauntlet…..think he will bite?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Matt – ” Here, BL.. have a glass of Red Bull.. ”

        BL – Thanks, but I have something better. 🙂

        Matt – ” I reject your notion that “theft is universally and fundamentally wrong.” Let’s skip over the definitional fallacy that “taxes are not theft.” ”

        ~ Translation: I have no solid premise, I just want to conveniently reject your notion that “theft is universally and fundamentally wrong”.

        Matt – ” They’re taking money from you that you wouldn’t necessarily give the government, so we can call it whatever we like, but that doesn’t change what it is. However, you say this is wrong and I say it’s not.. necessarily.. wrong. In service of a greater good (I bet you just winced when you read that), some amount of theft may be justified. ”

        ~ Translation: I am rationalizing the use of theft and coercion. I’m throwing out logic for the sake of my ego that would otherwise be bruised if I were to admit that my adopted greater good philosophy lacks consistency within it’s principles and core values…but only “sometimes”, and “not necessarily”, …unless it is a “gray area”…sort of, maybe, …I guess.

        Matt – ” But it’s too early on a Monday morning to get into this debate. ”

        ~ Translation : I know I’m evil. I’m scared.


        • Guess that answered my question.

        • ::Sigh:: Ok, I’ll get back to you after I’ve had a few RB’s.

        • bottom line, you forgot – “Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme because the government says so”

          • Government can say whatever it wants. It’s a ponzi scheme AS ENACTED.

            However, if we go back to the original design and treat it as a safety net rather than an entitlement, it would not necessarily be a ponzi scheme.

            Also, the trap door to help avoid ponzi scheme status is that people who are due to collect often die before they collect as much as they paid in, resulting in a net positive to the system. But that’s really a minor tweak, the bones of it, again, as currently enacted, are definitely Ponzi in nature.

          • Gasp!
            Had to clean my glasses to make sure I was reading right. We are making headway on SULFA.

  6. Just a heads up, everyone: Our very own sentient computer program, Black Flag (using his real name: Watson), will be competing tonight on Jeopardy! against Ken Jennings (most games won on Jeopardy!) and Brad Rutter (most $ won on Jeopardy!) in a three day exhibition match of man vs machine.

    There will be three nights played and I, for one, am very excited. I’ll be playing along at home and will post my “Coryat” score tomorrow (I suspect they’ll use tougher than average questions, so expect this to be lower than usual).

    • I have been looking forward to this for a while as well. I expect plenty of questions that try and trick the computer. (and myself as well)

    • This match is a taped event. I already know the outcome!

      • Don’t tell me!!!

        • OK… so when the Computer takes over the system that controls the questions, weird computation questions begin to appear. Trebek keeps trying to stop it until he realizes that what he is witnessing is SkyNet in its infancy. He announces that the test is being called to a halt and then the computer produces a small sliver of the AllSpark, causing Trebek’s microphone to animate and devour him. It really was a mess.

          But act surprised when Emelius and you watch it!

          • You mock, but the computer is not hooked up to the internet. They said this was because they wanted it to compete as a stand-alone unit, but you and I both know that they’re afraid to hook it up to the net – and for good reason.

  7. Our new Republican Governor has the public unions in the state all up in arms! Here’s what he came out with last Friday.

    Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

    We are getting a little taste of what it’s like when the government cookies are eased off. Rallies all over, teachers all in a huff, SEIU thugs demonstrating at legislature members personal reisdences. Wisconsin has some dire economic issues and the bottom line is we can’t afford the long time generous public employee union benefits. PERIOD. They are being asked for minimal increases in their contributions and they are all screaming, “UNFAIR”. My son said teachers were all going crazy in school on Friday as this news came out and I’m expecting to hear more stories when he comes home today. Guess I’ll be going to the next school board meeting.

    • One of the reasons why I will never want to work for a job with a pension (private or public) is that you never know when they will take it away. (when not if, becuase it will eventually happen)

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • gmanfortruth says:

        From the article: The Senate majority leader says he doesn’t know when the chamber will take it up, effectively acknowledging he doesn’t have the votes yet.

        Liberal left twisting of words destroys their credibility. “effectively acknowledging he doesn’t have the votes yet.” That is a complete lie, nothing more, nothing less. The senated majority leader did not acknowledge anything about votes. This is the very kind of liberal bullshit that I will call out to show how pathetic the liberal media is. They are assclowns and have zero credibility!

      • I personally don’t like the idea that the government just tells people they don’t have the right to state their concerns and wishes. But on the other hand at what point does the employer have the right to say-this is all we will do-you either accept these terms or you are free to find another job. Can the union stay in negotiations forever-can they never be told accept the terms or we can and will fire you if you refuse to work.

      • Wow, just reading some of the comments on that post tells me all I need to know about the intelligence of this group.

        WE ARE BROKE! Public union benefits are not sustainable (and haven’t been for a long, long time), but we’ve had years of progressives in control and they did nothing to acknowledge this and/or fix it. Our new Governor is attempting to do just that. I agree with VH’s version of what the “new” union is – a modern day mafia full of thugs that are willing to do anything to push their agenda.

      • “and SEIU has buses going to the capitol from around the state for lobby days.”

        That’s what I like about liberal rallies, free transportation and paid or required participation. When conservatives go to a rally they pay their own way any go on their own free will.

  8. So a question to our progressives. When is enough, enough? What are your answers? I see you today saying:

    Unions = Good!

    Federalism = Good!

    WE ARE BROKE – on the federal and state levels. What are your answers?

    • Broke? Well, obviously you need more unions and federalism!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Actually I said:

      Unions = Good!
      Federalism = Bad!

      Not to mention these are very very broad generalizations. In certain cases Unions = Bad! and Federalism = Good!

      • Buck, stop it. SUFA doesn’t like nuances. They like black and white logic. Pick one: all good or all bad. You’ll give poor Kathy a migraine.

      • Buck

        So if you think Federalism is BAD then what do you intend to replace it with?

        What is GOOD?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t think federalism is bad. I think it is dead (inapplicable) on many issues in modern times.

          On these issues there shouldn’t be a patchwork of rules and regulations from state to state. There needs to be national standards and national solutions to address certain problems.

          • Buck

            National standards and national solutions paid for by Federal Programs IS FEDERALISM.

            FEDERALISTS were for the Constitution that established a STRONG FEDERAL Govt with powers OVER the STATES.

            ANTI-FEDERALISTS were those that wanted STATE power over the FED.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              It seems we are mixing terms.

              Federalism is the basic system of balance between federal authority and state authority.

              Federalism: the idea of federal organization of self-governing units.

              Does this clear things up?

              • Buck


                If Federalism is DEAD then what is it that you are replacing it with?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Pixie Dust.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The alternative is a stronger national government and weaker state governments; it is recognizing the need for national solutions to our national problems, establishing national standards.

              • No, a stronger national government does not know what is best for the people in Utah verses Alabama or any other State. Your approach is one size fits all, it cannot work. There is no magic wizard in Washington DC that knows all things.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It depends on the problem. A national comprehensive problem affecting the entire nation requires a national comprehensive solution.

                This is not to say states and localities should be completely left out of the equation – that would be disastrous as well. But there should not be a state-by-state patchwork on many of these issues.

    • So, did I miss it? Did either of you give me an answer?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If you missed it, so did I ! That is normal with the left, no logical answers to simple questions.

      • Could you rephrase the question?

        • When can we expect you to STOP stealing from us to pay for your morally corrupt political philosophy?

          • On the fifth of Never.

            • I admire the honesty….

              Now I must say the following. My name is Inego Montoya….

              • Honesty is why I could never run for office. I would actually answer the questions, even when the answers aren’t popular.

                Meanwhile, my sociopathic brother is gearing up for a run at a local office (I won’t say which) in LA. I don’t think he has a prayer (this time around, anyway), but if he should ever begin to approach coming close to getting elected, I will be calling someone in the media and telling lots of stories – and I have lots of stories. Torpedoes away!

                Just doing my part.

      • Of course not! They never do.

        I’d like to hear what spending they would cut.

        • DOD, CIA, NSA, DHS, means test Medicare/SS.

          • Exactly what does means test mean?

            • I’m not sure where, exactly, one should draw the line, but I don’t think people should receive SS as a matter of course. It should be a matter of need.

              “Congratulations on getting older, here’s some money”? That makes no sense to me. If you can still work, you should still be working, not sponging off of me. If you’re loaded, you should be taking resources away from people who are earning it. Bill Gates should never get a SS check – he doesn’t need the security – he already has it.

              So I would say, generally, anyone with a large amount of savings or an income stream above a certain amount should get cut off or reduced payments.

              I always like to use the example of my father. He has been paying the max into SS for decades. When he retires, he plans to cash his checks. But he has a small fortune in savings, and he will not retire until he physically cannot work anymore. So why should my money go to him?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If we’re going to means-test I feel it should be based on career earnings and not assets available upon retirement.

                Also, while I agree in theory that “If you can still work, you should still be working”, I am absolutely opposed to raising the retirement age as a matter of course. There must be a more objective determination as to whether or not you can still work.

              • Aaahhh! the old bait & switch?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Matt, SS is a fund that workers pay into, to collect back upon retirement. Of course that money has far less value when one retires, so retirees are already getting screwed. Why shouldn’t a physically fit 65 year old retire and enjoy his final years as he see fit? Who are you to make that decision? Are you God? The problem with progressives is they think they have some great “right” to make decisions for others. That, Sir, is Bullshit!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck and Matt,

                For the most part, I believe those on the right are basically non-violent types who, as of late, have taken alot of shit from the media pundits and govt loudmouths, I’m also seeing a change of mentallity among the right, as that change expands and grows, there will be more and more righties standing up and fighting back. You don’t want us to do that, we have most of the guns!

              • Penalize the successful and reward the inept?

              • You have tapped into the liberal mantra Pretzel…. that statement is found on page two of the handbook Buck previously referenced.

              • Damn.. I really need to get my hands on the updated version.. Mine is 47 years out of date 😦

          • Please define means test

  9. YO Buck…down here. re: adverse effect…

    Hmmm…research time. Have some great connections to Austin Capitol….let me do some cogitatin’…..

  10. Gotta actually do some work…..yuck…..check back in …..Happy V D…….(Valentines Day….come one Matt….get your mind outta the gutter)

  11. An EXAMPLE of why all talk about reducing Federal expenditures is DOOMED. Until the pigs stop coming to the trough there is no way the ass-clowns will stop putting out the slop.

    “RFP Supports Statewide Forest Resource Assessments & Strategies

    The Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry held a Request for Proposals to the 20 Northeast and Midwest states and District of Columbia to support implementation of their new State-wide Forest Resource Assessments and Strategies. As of the February 1st deadline, more than 215 innovative, on-the-ground project proposals were received totaling over $40 million in requested federal funds, matched on a 1:1 basis. Proposals include collaborative urban and community forestry projects in large cities and smaller communities; forest stewardship, wildland fire hazard mitigation, and watershed restoration projects on priority landscapes; integrated forest health projects to address critical threats; and a variety of applied technology projects. Proposals were received from State agencies and a wide range of non-governmental conservation partners. The Northeastern Area worked closely with the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters to develop this competitive process designed to focus federal dollars on the highest priority issues and landscapes as identified in each State-wide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. Last year, each Northeastern and Midwestern State completed a State-wide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy as required in the 2008 Farm Bill.”

  12. gmanfortruth says:

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Question for SUFA.

    With all the State debts and the coming cuts, do you believe that entitlements such as welfare and food aid should be cut as well? Please explain, if possible.

  14. Politicians have been sowing the seeds of basic greed among the American people over the last 100 years. They have succeeded.

    The American voter will always vote for a program that hints at giving them something for nothing each and every time!

    I am among the “Baby Boom” generation that was whelped and born during and just after WW2. We started entering the workforce around 1960 to 1965, or so. Our DC politicians began raiding SS from that time on without regard to what would happen when we started retiring.

    The only way to put an end to this mess is to clean house and start all over again – however, shy of a full fledged revolution(which really ain’t a good thing at all), that will never happen.

    Just thought I would throw my own two cents into the cauldron and see if someone could come up with a viable solution that would work in today’s world . . . . So lets start with a refinancing plan for all federal political offices, you know, like reduce them to the federally standardized minimum wage, SS retirement plan, Medicare for health care, and that sort of stuff.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, that just ain’t gonna happen . . . . . . . .

    But we can dream, can’t we?

    • gmanfortruth says:


      Dreaming is a good thing. We the people have lost, both the left and the right, and everybody else. The elites have taken over and we basically have no RIGHTS anymore. The only solution is Revolution II.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    Is this Buck in ten years!

    An attorney arrived home late, after a very tough day trying to get a stay of execution.
    His last minute plea for clemency to the governor had failed and he was feeling worn out and depressed. As soon as he walked through the door at home, his wife started on him about, ‘What time of night to be getting home is this? Where have you been?

    Dinner is cold and I’m not reheating it’. And on and on and on.

    Too shattered to play his usual role in this familiar ritual, he poured himself a shot of whiskey and headed off for a long hot soak in the bathtub, pursued by the predictable sarcastic remarks as he dragged himself up the stairs. While he was in the bath, the phone rang. The wife answered and was told that her husband’s client, James Wright, had been granted a stay of execution after all.
    Wright would not be hanged tonight.

    Finally realizing what a terrible day he must have had, she decided to go up stairs and give him the good news. As she opened the bathroom door, she was greeted by the sight of her husband, bent over naked, drying his legs and feet.

    ‘They’re not hanging Wright tonight,’ she said.

    He whirled around and screamed, ‘FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WOMAN, DON’T YOU EVER STOP?!’

  16. No cuts are possible.

    The test:

    Who is willing to eliminate the Dept. of Education? Education is a State issue, not a Federal one, yet $400 billion is spent here.

    *Answer: No one will advocate for eliminating this Dept.

    Who is willing to elimiant the Dept. of Energy? It was a Carter program to make US energy self-sufficient. Since then, the amount the US imports has doubled.

  17. “We are reducing programs that are important programs that we care about, and we’re doing what every family does when it sits around its kitchen table: we’re making the choices about what do we need for the future,” [budget director Jack] Lew said on CNN’s State of the Union.

    To which, the one and only Bob Cesca reponds: “No, no, no. The government is not a family. The government shouldn’t be doing what a family does. The government shouldn’t be cutting spending in a slow-growth economy, it should be spending more because no one else can.”

    ::sigh:: Ok, let ‘er rip..

    • Just a question-at what point does the government quit spending money-when it is having to borrow the money it is spending. Is there a stopping point or do we just pretend we have unlimited credit.

      • I don’t know what “we” pretend, but the government is doing a very good job of pretending they have unlimited credit.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Cesca is the knife that can’t cut soft butter. Government spending will lead to everyone paying more taxes on everything. Cesca can’t seem to think past his nose. 😦

    • Cesca is an assclown, masquerading as a know-it-all dipsh!t.
      Frankly I believe that all progressive statists that believe they are “more intelligent” and have the right to make a decision affecting another human beings life because they “know whats best for them” with absolutely no logical basis and only a degenerate form of faith to prove a point, fit into the above category.

      After reading this mornings posts in various blogs I have come to the conclusion that we American men have lost sight of the true meanings of honor, courage, liberty, integrity, freedom, independence and what these values worth was to the founders of this nation.
      How long can good men sit idle while the building tumbles down around their feet?

      • You seem feisty today.

        Would I fit into your definition of the above category? I’d hate to think that you think of me that way..

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    For those interested, a new article about food prices is up.

  19. Happy Valentine’s Day!

  20. Canine Weapon says:

    Time for some fun with anagrams:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:

    When you rearrange the letters:


    When you rearrange the letters:

  21. Buck the Wala says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      After reading the article of which your link was based, the author needs to get his head out of his bum.

      • Exactly what do you mean G-Man?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The liberal author completely twisted the truth and his title misrepresented the truth. Which part didn’t you get Todd

          • G-Man,
            Please explain how the liberal author completely twisted the truth and his title misrepresented the truth?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Todd, Hope your day is a good one! The murdering b!(ch was expressed as a member of a minuteman group in the title. That seems clear enough. The article claims she was booted from the minutemen group cuz she was a kook! What exactly is a “self styled minuteman group”? Then this statement “many of those efforts consisted of running around with guns, as part of a self-styled “Minuteman” group. How does the author claim what those efforts
              consisted of? This was a sick crime, innocent people lost their lives because of a kook. I know Minutemen, they are not kooks who run around with guns on some political agenda. IMHO, once again, the liberal media uses a tragedy to attempt to discredit a law abiding conservative organization. She’s as much of a “minuteman” as you are a fool. Your no fool! The tragedy itself was bad enough, all the left wing hype was not needed.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                From another article: many of those efforts consisted of running around with guns, as part of a self-styled “Minuteman” group.
                The ADL also noted that some of Forde’s ardent supporters have ties to white-supremacist groups, including Laine Lawless, who recently created the website Laine has been tied to white-supremacist organizations like the National Socialist Movement and National Vanguard.


                Seems to me, she was a far left radical. So you can now see the spin.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                To be fair, I looked into this deeper. The term “minuteman” as it is, is a patriotic term based on US history. The major organizations work with the law enforcement folks on border patrol. The true minutemen groups are working for border security reasons. Then ther are other groups, whos goals are much different. They are associated with the National Socialist Society, and/or are neo-Nazi white supremists. Two different groups of idealogy, same subject, border patrol. After reading several articles from both left and right publications, it seems as the left consistantly label all “minuteman” groups as the neo-Nazi white supremists, whereas the right publications distiguishes the two as very different. If you research it, it’s easy to see that there is a left and a right when it comes to civilian border control. Now if the left leaning publications could see this also, they would have some legitamacy, but they choose not to, and, by this virtue, deserve to be called out on the flagrant inaccuracy of their writings. I would call out any right wing media gpublication as well, if presented the opportunity. As I have said in the past, the Progressive Agenda can only succeed throughs lies and deceit, and they prove it daily.

    • From Wiki

      Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said the attackers hoped to rob the Flores-Gonzales family.

      In 2007, she first became involved in the anti-illegal immigration activities and later joined the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. However, she was asked to leave the organization in February 2007 after members described her as being “unstable”. Forde later founded a splinter group, the Minutemen American Defense organization, which had 14 members at the time of the attack on the Flores family.

      Slate really had to spin and twist the facts to get this story to read like they made it sound.

      • Excellent Catch Bamadad

        • What exactly is the “Excellent Catch” you’re referring too?

          • That there was more to the story than the way that Slate was presenting it.

            • USWeapon,
              So you’re more upset about the way Slate presented the story, than the fact that a father and his 9 year old daughter were murdered?

              • I am very interested to know how you would come to that question. Talk about change the subject. A patently foolish point to attempt to make…IMO.

              • Terry,
                What do you think the subject of this discussion should be?

                1. That there “MIGHT” be some bias in Slate’s reporting?

                2. Or that a father and his 9 year old daughter were murdered by vigilantes?

              • Nonsense Todd. Don’t try to spin it that way. That I acknowledged Bama for sharing that the story was lacking some details does not mean that I am some monster that doesn’t care that people died. That is a MSM game and you are above that.

      • What did Slate spin and twist?

        • I didn’t say spin and twist, Todd, but I will hazard an answer. What Slate did was throw out that word “minutemen”. The minutemen group is well established and given the left’s hatred of them, I don’t think it was an accident that they mentioned that word but failed to distinguish that the person is not a member of THE minutemen, but is instead a member of a 14 person group of wackballs. What the Slate article attempts to insinuate is that conservatives concerned about illegal immigration think it is OK to kill a 9 year old girl, when the real story is that a twisted person did a twisted thing.

          What concerns me is that you would see this instantly if it were a conservative article and you would point it out, but you don’t see it in an article that comes from your side.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Perhaps the title of the article could have been more clear and to your liking, but the text clearly states that Forde is “part of a self-styled ‘Minuteman’ group”. (“minuteman” in quotation marks).

            Also, the point of the blurb is not that THE Minutemen are crazy vigilantes, but that Forde is a crazy vigilante: Why are news outlets (the so-called liberal media) referring to Forde as a ‘border activist’ and not as a ‘militant’ or ‘terrorist’.

          • USW…funny you should mention this. Imy experience of the last couple of years, I have had the priviliege of meeting and working with groups of The Minutemen on the Texas border. Been to several of their meetings and met most of their members. They are getting a bum rap by the left as “vigilantes” when they are nowhere close to that description. They are a valuable asset in our border program right now…and, I might add, they have not “popped a cap” on anyone even though they are heavily armed for the most part. All of the Minutemen that I have met, I have actually asked the question if they are licensed to carry and they all are so licensed. ( Concealed handgun)…do not need a license for rifles and shotguns. The other thing that I thought very interesting because I see the left portraying The Minutemen as assault rifle carrying war mongers. I have seen probably 150 or so on the border and NOT ONE assault rifle have I seen. (Assault rifle described as AR15, AK47, SKS, UZI etc).

            Hmmmmmm..might be a good article.

          • USWeapon,
            It was Bamadad who said “spin and twist”.

            Forde is the leader of the Minutemen American Defense, so the article is completely accurate.

            What the Slate article attempts to insinuate is that conservatives concerned about illegal immigration think it is OK to kill a 9 year old girl, when the real story is that a twisted person did a twisted thing.

            Well, like I said above, you seem more upset about the way Slate presented the story, than the fact that a father and his 9 year old daughter were murdered.

            What concerns me is that you would see this instantly if it were a conservative article and you would point it out, but you don’t see it in an article that comes from your side.

            So now you try to deflect by pointing out my perceived bias? Fine!

            But I’m still interested in discussing how you seem more upset about the way Slate presented the story, than the fact that a father and his 9 year old daughter were murdered.

            • I am not more upset over one than the other. Why do I have to choose one or the other as what I am most upset about? I am actually more interested in the point of the story than I am in the spin of the story. But that doesn’t mean that I cannot acknowledge that Bama did a good job of showing how some of the spin is there.

              And I was not deflecting. If I was deflecting I would not have answered your questions, I would have only pointed out your bias 😉

              What I would prefer is that you don’t assume that because I acknowledged one aspect that it somehow means I don’t care about the other aspect. That isn’t fair. If you pointed out the spin in this article I wouldn’t assume that means that you don’t care that a 9 year old girl died. I think it is a tragedy that these two people died. I also think it is a travesty that the media would refer to them as nothing more than a border activist as if this is common behavior by border activists. Terrorist would be fine with me. So would radical, vigilante, murderer, or piece of shit. But I don’t think that it is a big discussion point. We can all agree that this is the work of a sick person who should be hung by the toes and preferably given the death penalty. We can all agree that there are better descriptors that could be used as well.

              But sometimes what I have to debate is whether everyone is willing to acknowledge that the source was attempting to create a mental link through careful wording.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m wondering that myself.

  22. I just watched Bill O’Reilly’s talking points memo…..

    I swear Fox News is reading this site.

    • Missed it.
      What was the corroborating evidence?

      • His Talking Point memo for tonight was on how we need to fundamentally alter spending in the US, including looking at cutting Social Security and Medicare. I don’t seriously consider that O’Reilly is scraping at SUFA for topics, but I had to chuckle that he covered tonight what I covered this morning!

        • Bottom Line says:

          USW – ” I don’t seriously consider that O’Reilly is scraping at SUFA for topics, but I had to chuckle that he covered tonight what I covered this morning! ”

          BL – Why not? Media, whether it be local, regional, or national,…TV, radio, magazines, cable news, etc…all have an interest in knowing what the public thinks, and will pay good money to find out. (I know because I used to do it for a living)

          Several at SUFA are a perfect example of FOX’s target audience. You have thousands of daily readers, and a great think tank of regulars who are smart people from all walks of life with varying, ages, specialties, ideologies, education, influence, etc…

          And from what I’ve gathered since coming here a couple of years ago, there is at least a few readers/regulars that are connected in influential circles.

          Is it really a stretch to think that O’Reilly and/or others at FOX might be occasional readers?

          If I were a commentator for a major cable news channel targeting conservative Americans, I would consider SUFA a virtual gold mine for feedback and talking points.

          If FOX folks WERE sometimes peeking in on SUFA, why WOULDN”T they borrow talking points from time to time? There are some damn good points made here.

          It’s certainly possible.

          And I’ll go a little further to even say that it is probable.

          There have been many such occasions where I will hear points made at SUFA on FOX News and radio. When it’s something regarding the national conversation about current events, I pay no mind to it. Of course they’re saying the same things we are because EVERYONE is making the same points. No big deal.

          But what gets me is when I will read/type something here, then within a day or two, sometimes a couple of weeks, I’ll hear someone at FOX make a similar or exact point, using the same key words and phrases, but just re-wording it a little. Or it may be a point not made here, but the conversation is in the same context and/or parameters of a SUFA conversation…almost as if they’ve been reading along.

          I.E. – Not long after it was talked about here, Jerry Doyle on the radio ranting about laws being passed with irrelevant BS inserted in them, and how we have no choice…even going so far as to call it “garbage legislation”, which caught my attention because it was the exact term I used to describe Obummer-care.

          Or when I was goofing off one day making all of these comparisons to Obummer and Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc… Matt started in on me, criticizing my baseless antagonistic approach, and pointed out that all conversations will eventually lead to include Hitler. (I forget the word he used). A few days later, O’Reilly made similar comparisons, but was careful to not even mention Hitler. He used Mao instead..almost as if were reading along.

          And I’ve heard such things enough times to go from it’s possible…to maybe so, …to they probably are.

          I suspect information is somehow getting from SUFA to FOX, either directly, or indirectly. It’s a small world. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

          And if they are indeed reading along, …good. It means we might actually be having an impact on the world, even if it is just a little one.


  23. The special interest driving federal spending? Big Labor
    Comments (0) “BookmarkShare PrintPrint
    By: Examiner Editorial 02/13/11 8:05 PM

    To hear President Obama, liberal mainstream media outlets and congressional Democratic leaders tell it, Washington is “still” in the grip of evil special interests like Big Oil, Wall Street and the pharmaceutical drug industry. It’s a familiar line, but when the actual numbers for campaign donations by the top 100 special interest donors are toted up, it becomes quite clear which is the biggest one of them all — Big Labor. The union bosses spent more than $500 billion on campaigns between 1989 and 2009, with well over 90 percent of the total going to Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.

    That’s more than 10 times as much as was spent by Big Oil during the same period, according to federal campaign finance data compiled by professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University. In fact, Big Labor gave twice as much as the totals for the Big Oil, telecommunications, insurance, pharmaceuticals and real estate industries combined.

    Probe a little deeper, as blogger Doug Ross did recently, and something else becomes clear: More than half of all union members are also public employees. In the federal government alone, three unions represent nearly half of the 2 million civil servants. Overall, more than a third of all government workers at all levels are union members, compared with only 11 percent in the private sector. That’s why it is no coincidence that for the third consecutive year, the federal government will spend more than a trillion dollars it doesn’t have. That money will be borrowed, much of it from China and other foreign powers that don’t necessarily have the best interests of America in mind.

    Federal spending under President George W. Bush and the Republican congressional majority greatly increased, to be sure, more so than it did under Democrat President Clinton during the prior decade. But Bush and the congressional GOP increased federal outlays nowhere near as much as Obama and the Democratic-led 111th Congress. In fact, as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., recently pointed out, in a mere two years, Obama and the 111th Congress ran up more debt than the previous 43 chief executives. That’s more in 24 months than President Lincoln spent prosecuting the Civil War, President Wilson spent “over there” in World War I, and President Roosevelt spent defeating the Germans and the Japanese in World War II. Keep all this in mind this week when Obama unveils his 2012 federal budget proposal and claims to have reduced federal spending as much as possible.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

    • So the union bosses spend the union members due fees on election campaigns instead of on the union members directly. The politicians elected in turn look out for the union bosses special interests such as government awarded contracts. Seems to me to be a definitive ethics violation and case of fraud…500 billion is a lot of Benjamins.

  24. Back to USW’s original topic. Anyone who has an orchard knows that occasional pruning is actually beneficial. The same is true for business and government. In good times, businesses often build up excess baggage in work processes, people, products etc. Corrections are frequently not done because people are too busy to look at the excesses, waste, and inefficiencies. However, when bad times come, these get very close scrutiny. Unprofitable products are jetisoned, poor workers layed off, procedures streamlined, inventory reduced, departments eliminated or merged. The end result is a leaner, healthier more profitable company. Look at the current profit reports from all the major companies. So why is there no discussion about the same process happening in government. In lean times, government should go through the same introspection that companies do. Efficiency and waste should be eliminated. Departments that have not made progress towards their fundamental goals terminated. Any duplication should be merged or eliminated. Inventory of excess buildings, land possessions sold off. Workers should be evaluated for productivity, required skills, attitude, etc. Only the best should be kept. All of this would result in a healthier organization. But no one talks about that. All one hears are the sob stories of people being layed off.
    Past experiences with layoffs that I have seen is that those layed off often come out the better. Many times they were in stagnet positions, had lost their drive, etc. After the layoff, they eventually found work that was more lucrative and suited to their needs.

    So I am with USW, we need a good house cleaning top to bottom. All departments and functions should be reevaluated. Those that have not accomplished their goals, do not meet the needs or the people, or do not satisfy the criteria in the Constitution should be eliminated forthwith.

    • T-Ray…you said “Past experiences with layoffs that I have seen is that those layed off often come out the better. Many times they were in stagnet positions, had lost their drive, etc. After the layoff, they eventually found work that was more lucrative and suited to their needs.”

      I am a perfect example of your observations. I was laid off in 1985 after 8 1/2 years in a dead end job…went back to school and worked my way up to where I am now. I lost everything I owned in the process (not that it was too much), but am better for it now.

      The Federal Government IMO, is way overstaffed and has become complacent with their employment in that they are pretty much guaranteed a raise every year and have to do unspeakable things to be fired. This is also true of many state governments as well.

  25. Very interesting news blurb………havenot heard the details yet…..New York Mayor wanting people to use citizens arrest on smokers…..I have got to hear the details on this.

    And then I heard an EPA official saying that perfumes and after shave in the work place needs to regulated because of certain individuals that may have allergic reactions to fragrances….

    wow,,,if either of these urn out to have substance

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Any links for these blurbs?

      • No was on Fox News this morning….but here is a follow up. Said that Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that the police have no time to enforce New Yorks no smoking ban and has indicated that there is no pressure like peer pressure and is publicly urging the public to turn to the perpetrator and tell them to stop smoking. He thinks that peer pressure and the activism of non smokers should enforce the smoking ban. Just saw it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Well that’s very different then asking people to make a citizens arrest for smoking! I wouldn’t have thought you would have a problem with this — a greater reliance on peer pressure to effectuate a change and less on the police.

          • No, I have zippo problems with peer pressure….it was the headline that caughtmy attention and Mayor Bloomberg (Blumeberg?) anyway, he is the one that used the term citizens arrest. Perhaps he uses the term “citizens arrest” in the sense of peer pressure being the same as….but that is New York’s mayor.

        • Got to thinking about this and got “the giggles”….I can see the leftward spin coming out…..

          Texas vigilantes protecting the border against marauding cartels, illegal immigrants, drug runners, kidnappers…

          New York city vigilantes protecting New York from……….cigarette smokers.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Couldn’t help but see the irony myself. Texas conservatives protecting it’s citizens, New York liberals, still can’t mind their own fu#^*ng business. 😆

      • no follow up yet on the EPA official. Waiting for that one as well. On this one, it was cited that since a lot of people have allergic symtoms and asthma to fragrances that perfumes and aftershave that have a strong fragrance should be banned from the workplace and public places….but have no follow up on this one yet.

        • Did some research on this one….there are plenty of articles on the FDA and chemically produced perfumes and aftershaves….also some articles saying that enforcement would be difficult because of trade secret issues.

          • I’m all for this one. Some smells just get to me..I can’t take good breaths. My kids put some stuff on sometimes that just give me instant horns..I make them leave the house or get in the shower..

            I can see how this could get out of hand though. Flowers for instance have many fragrances. I love the smell of flowers but my dad couldn’t handle the smell.

            Waddayagonnado? And I’m a smoker!!!!!

            • uh oh…ummmmm….firing squad? But, I would have to intervene……could not let that happen to SUFAITES….and that even includes Matt!

              • Couldn’t put the kids in front of the firing squad either. Would have no problem with doing that to the drunk female in the store who sloshed on 1/2 pint of some rank smelling shit though! 🙂

            • It’s not something that need regulation necessarily, but there’s always that one woman.

              She’ll get in the elevator after you, and she’s wearing so much perfume that you gag, but you’re stuck in a metal box with her, so you try to hold your breath, but it doesn’t work. You try to breath through your mouth only, but you can actually taste it in the air. So your face is turning blue and you’re beginning to see spots as you wait for your floor to come up. You begin to wonder if you’re damaging brain cells and if there might be a lucrative lawsuit here. When it finally reaches your floor, you rush out of the elevator like your ass is fire, but the smell is stuck to your clothes and in your hair and you can still smell it.

              Later, you pass her in the hallway, and you realize that she’s left a trail of scent behind her, like an ant marking the way back to the colony, and it’s noxious, and you want to say something, but you know exactly how she’d respond. Because she thinks she is lightly scented and is doing everyone a favor by gracing us with her fragrance – also, she’ll probably accuse you of racism, sexism, and any other -ism she can come up with, all in a very loud and public tirade.

              So eventually, you take the coward’s way out and go to Kincos and get the posters made: “Wear less perfume! You stink like a French prostitute!”

              Sometimes subtlety is overrated.

  26. Texas lawmakers considering more tort reform. I have no details on this one yet but there is a movement to have Texas go to a “lose pays” program in an effort to stop frivilous lawsuits.

    Citing the successful removal of the lump sum award from Workmen’s Compensation awards, some lawmakers wish to take tort reform forward to eliminate frivilous and witch hunt type lawsuits by a loser pays that not only means the plaintiff would have to pay but the attorney as well for bringing such forward.

    I haveno further information on this but this is also a cost cutting measure to Texas and relieves a lot of court pressure. The elimination of the lump sum award took most lawyers out of the Worker’s Comp market because they could not get their big bucks up front. Now, Workmen’ s Compensation is paid out monthly over a period of time. No more handing people million dollar lump sum settlements. It is amazing how much the workmen’s compensation law suits dropped.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Would like more info on this — ‘loser pays’ in all civil suits? Or only where there is a judicial finding of a frivolous suit?

      As I’ve said in the past, I am against the former, but for the latter.

      • I would favor the former. It would eliminate most of the lawsuits clogging the dockets. It would also remove the possibility of a judge determining if something is frivolous or not. I do not trust judges…way too much power. This is my opinion of course.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I see your point, but imposing a strict ‘loser pays’ policy will impede an individual’s right to a jury trial and will harm the little guy. If I’m bringing a suit – no matter how valid my claim – I am going to have to think twice as to whether or not I can afford to pay if, for some reason, I lose. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my claim is frivolous.

          Imposing ‘loser pays’ on frivolous suits however, will help to resolve the main concern – eliminating frivolous cases and clearing up the docket for more valid claims.

          • As stated, just my opinion. If you are going to bring a lawsuit…be damned sure you can win…overwhelming evidence. I would assume you would have the right to withdraw at any point up to trial date. Depending on the (supposed to be impartial) judge, you may want to rethink your suit.

            • Naw.. all you have to do is have enough leverage (negative publicity or expense) to force the other side to settle.

              But, as for making all losers pay for the lawsuit, that would have a chilling effect on the ability to bring suits where you have a legitimate chance of winning, but cannot guarantee victory. It also incentivizes both sides to out-spend the other since this increases your chances of winning, and the other side will have to pay if you win.

      • The gist that I got was all lawsuits, however this is unconfirmed at this point. It was picked up on the legislature floor in Austin. Remember that I mentioned our Veterans Group is sending representatives to Austin to monitor all legislative meetings and committees. My turn in the barrel is next week. This is where I got it but have no follow up on it yet.

        I will say that I would support a loser pay on all suits. It would seem to me that would also stop frivilous suits and using the courts for a “witch hunt” so to speak….but I can also see it where a judge rules on the lawsuit….except that most judges are lawyers.

        I woud also favor no lump sum awards on all suits as well.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          If your concern in to stop frivolous suits and ‘witch hunts’, then why not support a ‘loser pays’ (plus a fine to the attorney) for bringing a frivolous suit? Why go the step further?

          As for no lump sum awards, I can’t support such a blanket ban here either. I have seen cases where, because the award was to be paid over time, the plaintiff did not have enough to meet current medical expenses. Perhaps an exception should be made depending on a showing of need?

          • Sure…I am flexible on this and can see the need on lump sums….and I am on the fence post about loser pays but I can also see your point…you are speaking from the counselors point of view but I can get beside you on that to a point…..if the fine would be hard enough and not a slap on the wrist. But……This has been brought up before two years ago and it did not get very far…..Workmen’s Comp was very significant when this was done years ago and the cost savings to Texas were enormous….in the billions.

  27. Breaking News……dit dit dit dit

    DPM named as official Grog Taste Tester.

    South Padre Island, Texas…. Dread Pirate Mathius named as the official Grog Taste Tester. His responsibilites include testing clarity…. taste… cask effectiveness… taste… correct portions… taste….import quantity…taste… rule making…taste…storage….taste………………’hic’

    • Did you see my congrats above?

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        I’m honored, of course, but may I ask: official according to whom? Is this an official government position? Much as I do love grog, I could never accept that.

      • I did…..I wish Texas would join the SEC and teach you guys a lesson tho….you cannot go by the title game a couple of years ago…you did not have our A team…..but…..there is no doubt the SEC is a strong one. However, the recruiting the SEC is doing is top notch.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Should this occur, or is it just the beginning?

    Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard As ‘Intimidation Force’ Against Workers’ Unions
    Last month, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said that if employees strike, “they should be fired,” and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) wrote in an op-ed that the moral case for unions “does not apply to public employment.” Now, facing a $137 million budget deficit, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a “budget repair bill” that would severely limit collective bargaining, eliminate the right of unions to negotiate pensions, retirement and benefits.

    Walker is facing fierce criticism for this all-out assault against state workers, especially after he insisted that the “National Guard” will be used against a walkout:

    When asked by a reporter what will happen if workers resist, Walker replied that he would call out the National Guard. He said that the National Guard is “prepared…for whatever the governor, their commander-in-chief, might call for. … I am fully prepared for whatever may happen.”

    • Hey Kathy? Here’s one for ya! From the commentors on this article:

      I know more than a few people in Wisconsin — and I equate them with southern rednecks — apologies to anyone who is normal in the state, but you are outnumbered by the stupid and racist trailer trash.

      I don’t know if calling on the Gaurd is the right move but I see no problem with the governor putting his foot down. I’m all for the new governors in WI, MI, and OH..change is here and people are going to have to deal with it.

    • Think Progress (very liberal site) so source is not exactly “fair and balanced”.

      My understanding of his initial National Guard stance was in case of prison workers deciding to protest and leave their positions – would need back-up at prisons. The left took this statement out of context (what?????) and claimed he said it to use against them.

      It is very interesting to sit back and watch what happens when power is threatened. Unions are ugly. Period. Their tactics are uncivil and it is amazing how brainwashed union employees are. I hope our legislature holds strong and gets this through.

      Tough times call for tough decisions and I support Walkers move completely.

      Love the commenters. Hahaha. Yup, if we don’t understand the importance of unions we just are a bunch of hicks. Grow up, study economics and get real. Or move to CA or NY!

  29. Things are heating up in my city as well. Tons of foreclosed homes means big loss of revenue. All, all of the administration has taken a 5% pay cut plus gone to a 4 day work week. No more taking home city vehicles..library down to 4 days..60 positions cut in the last 3 yrs .

    So now we have a special millage election next week. A 2 mil increase for five years. This is the second try to get it failed last fall. But the people here are crazy! Council meeting was full of complainers, vowing to vote no but in the same breath wanting the city services to continue. I guess the city can just print money out of thin air too. It won’t be easy but considering the council has been very open about the finances for several years, they are continuing to hold town halls, they have taken cuts themselves…I plan to vote yes on the millage. I bet the millage will fail again and then all hell will break loose.

    Pass the popcorn!

    • Hey, Anita!

      I always find it amusing how people demand services but simultaneously whine about the taxes which pay for them.

      There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Matt, I agree to some point. But what is saddening is that the people who amuse you don’t understand the big problem. They lack the personnal responsibility to live life without public services. I have not seen one police car within ten miles of my house in over three years, and there has been zero crime. That’s what personal responsibility and a community that acts in each others interests.

        • The problem is that these people are unable to make the connection between the services they’re receiving and the money they’re paying. It’s as if they expect the money to appear from thin air, as if government has the ability to do something for nothing.

          It simply astounds me.

          There’s nothing wrong with public services – if that’s the way you want to run your town, that’s fine, but you can’t expect services and no bill. If you, like in G-man-land, want to pay less, that’s fine as long as you (again, like G-man) expect fewer services. And this, too, is fine.

          But these people are living in denial. Try demanding that your electric company continue providing a service, but simultaneously refusing to pay – see how that works out for you.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Matt, With this I can agree with you. Noone should expect a service for nothing. But this brings up another question. If the municipality is depressed and can’t afford these services, they have but one choice, cancel the services. This starting to become common place, it happened in Ashtabula county, Ohio, where the Sheriff’s department was gutted. The Sheriff explained the actions, and told the citizens to get their guns ready, or buy one. Crime is actually way down in that county, almost non-existant in the rural areas. I firmly believe that if the people would take the responsibility to protect themselves, family and property, crime would almost certainly be reduced by huge numbers. If a criminal thinks about breaking into someones shed and steal a lawnmower, knowing the he is more likely to get a bullet in his ass, he would be more likely to have second thoughts about his actions. By the way, a bullet in the ass fracking hurts, really bad!


            • I’m just curious, D. Let’s say I bought a gun. Now, I’m at work, my gun is home, my neighbors are at work, my dog is playing in the back yard. A guy breaks into my house and.. what?

              How do I get the bullet from my gun into his ass cheek remotely?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Currently, even without a gun….what? You get robbed. Here”s my thinking. Right now, the State has control of the deterent to crime with laws and police and courts and jails. The deterent is minute in numbers vs. the the population as a whole. I don’t consider the State run deterent as being very effective today. So let’s switch the numbers. Put the deterent in the hands of the people and take it away from the State. Now, instead of the criminals outnumbering the State deterent, the criminals find themselves grossly outnumbered by the new deterent, the people. Look at it from a criminals standpoint. Mathematically, the deterent in the hands of the people would be far more effective than our current system, but the State wants control of the people, and will only relinquish that control when everyone elses money runs out. That’s what we are seeing the beginning of.

              • Perhaps.

                All I know is that there was a recent crime-spree in my neighborhood (the police caught the perps), but one of the main things that they stole from houses was.. wait for it.. guns.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                OK, solution. All the police can work in liberal areas of the country, and all the guns go to the conservative areas of the country. Which area will have the least crime?

              • It would be an interesting experiment..

              • Now, you did ask D….correct? First of all, you should be armed at work. Your wife should be armed at home and know how to use anweapon without remorse. ( Damn thief can have the friggin lawn mower….but my grill……oh no…that is execution on the spot.) Your kids should be taught how to call 911 and report accordingly as to size, color hair, type and color of clothing….unless your children are of the proper age to effectively control a weapon. THen all aim center mass and squeeze the trigger…please do not jerk the trigger as it throws the aim off….if he continues to move, shoot again concentrating on proper shot group. Remember that this is a right to protect personal property state using deadly force….. Remotely though…….there is a solution but it is rather expensive. (Monitored drones armed with Hell fire missiles…..hard on the property tho…..and pisses the neighbors off because the entrails scatter pretty far…

              • @ Matt………”Matt reports…. All I know is that there was a recent crime-spree in my neighborhood (the police caught the perps), but one of the main things that they stole from houses was.. wait for it.. guns.

                Ummmmm…question… How does one steal guns from an armed home unless you are not there, of course.

              • Matt unless you’re living in Minority Report town the police are not going to stop the people from breaking into your empty house. They show up AFTER the crime to gather evidence to hopefully catch the criminals. Very rarely do the police prevent a crime, if they did there would be no crime.

            • That’s the point Colonel. The homeowners weren’t there to use said guns. The break-ins occurred during work hours.. no one around to pull the trigger.

              • Sure….because the deterrent is gone. There are no breakins when the deterrent is home. Even so, there is a string of robberies taking place in parts of Dallas and Houston where the breakins are occuring in the middle of the night when owners are asleep but the breakins are not quiet….they are movng fast. Kicking doors in and subduing before owners are fully awake. However it is running about 25% successful….most are killed.

              • The perpetrators, I mean. Tey are the ones dying…even senior citizens are armed and shooting without question. No one that kicks in a door is friendly.

              • Wait? You’ve never kicked in a door in a friendly fashion?

                Honey! I’m home!

                (note, remove the shells from the shotgun first in case the missus has an itchy trigger finger)

              • Oh nooooooooo…….to kick in doors is to be met by high speed projectiles…without warning.

      • I’m all for propping up the city. I wish the neighbors would think further out and hold the Fed accountable for their spending! Less money in the Fed hands would mean more money in our local pockets. Just makes you want to SCREAM!

        • Exactly. We need the Feds off our backs and out of our pockebooks.

          This president is a complete disaster and voted “present” again with his budget. Paul Ryan and company need to let loose and cut, cut, cut. I would love to see a “Closed For Business” on DofEducation – this afternoon!!!!

          Some good news is that this latest boneheaded move by the president has awakened a few more sheep. Check out this from Andrew Sullivan, one of BO’s (former) lead cheerleaders:

          February 15, 2011 Andrew Sullivan breaks up with Obama

          Read more:

  30. So what happens when an Adm. refuses to follow judge’s rulings, FOIA requests, etc. The drilling moratorium, OCare, are a couple things that come to mind. What is our recourse?

    Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Health Care Case

    • gmanfortruth says:

      When the Prez fails to abide by the rule of law, then he is a criminal, just like every convict in prison. The problem is that the people are not standing up to this. It’s just a little thing, so people just chug on with their lives. If he gets away with a little thing or two, it’s only a matter of time before he drops the big bomb on everyone. We are losing (if not lost) our “Republic” status, to a new form of dictatorship. The people will have to choose one day between slavery to the state, or revolution. That day is fast approaching!

  31. Texas is finally getting it right…….elimination of the Sunday blue law. Finally……too bad it takes budget shortfalls to do what should have been done decades ago….Baptists are having a hard time with this….but the way I see it…they can drink openly now. It will be eliminated this time around.

  32. This is how Iran handles their protestors:

    TEHRAN, Iran – Hardline Iranian lawmakers called on Tuesday for the country’s opposition leaders to face trial and be put to death, a day after clashes between opposition protesters and security forces left one person dead and dozens injured.

    Tens of thousands of people turned out for the opposition rally Monday in solidarity with Egypt’s popular revolt that toppled President Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years in power. The demonstration was the first major show of strength from Iran’s beleaguered opposition in more than a year.

    At an open session of parliament Tuesday, pro-government legislators chanted “death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Kahatami,” referring to opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi and former reformist President Mohammad Khatami.

    More than 220 lawmakers said in a statement that the trio should be held responsible for the unrest. “We believe the people have lost their patience and demand capital punishment” for the opposition leaders, the statement said.

    Hardliners have long sought to put high-ranking opposition figures on trial, but the calls for the death penalty signaled an escalation in their demands.

    Authorities appeared to be moving quickly in a bid to stifle the opposition before its gains momentum, issuing promises of swift action against leaders and activists, the official IRNA news agency reported.

    “The judiciary will quickly and resolutely deal with major elements and those who violated public order and peace,” the spokesman for Iran’s judiciary and state prosecutor, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi, told IRNA.

    After Monday’s protests broke out, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed support for the Iranian demonstrators, saying they “deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt and are part of their own birthright.”

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, on Tuesday rejected Clinton’s remarks, and accused the U.S. of “meddling” in Iranian affairs.

    Iran has already tried scores of opposition figures and activists on charges of fomenting the mass protests following the country’s disputed 2009 presidential elections that saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win a second term.

    More than 80 of them were sentenced to prison terms from six months to 15 years. The opposition says scores were killed in the massive crackdown on those protests, while the government says only around 30 people died.

    Also Tuesday, Iranian officials confirmed that one person was killed in Monday’s protests.
    IRNA quoted the security chief for Iran’s Culture Ministry, Gholam Ali Zarei, as saying Sane Jaleh, a 26-year-old student at Tehran’s University of Art, was killed during the protests. He said Jaleh was a government supporter.

    Acting police commander Gen. Ahmad Reza Radan told IRNA that one person injured in the clashes is in critical condition. He also confirmed that several people were arrested, but did not say how many.

    Radan claimed that members of the armed opposition group MEK, or Mujahedeen Khalq, opened fire at police and protesters, IRNA said. He did not provide any evidence to back up his claim.

    He also accused the U.S., Britain and Israel of stoking the protests — a common allegation from officials in Tehran following any unrest in Iran.

    Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 12:51pm.I am one of a silent few, a Conservative public school teacher! Yes, there are some of us out there who feel it is time we stop biting the hands that feed us and join our private sector counterparts in making concessions and a contribution. Such sentiments are not often vocalized as I am sure you can imagine the backlash it would generate from my oh-so-tolerant liberal colleagues. : )

    I Just wanted to give you a heads up from behind the lines. We were told in an “emergency” meeting, yesterday, that the district would grant teachers leave to protest in Madison provided we used a personal day. This would mean taking a half day pay deduct. We were encouraged to hop on the union sponsored bus because, as we were to learn from our reps,the union will REIMBURSE us for the loss of wages these demonstrations will create. It’s a PAID mob, Vicki.

    Just thought you might want to know. Feel free to share with colleagues.

    Shit is hitting the fan here in Wisconsin. The above is a posting by a conservative teacher, choosing to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, on the what and how these protests are being handled. We need to bust these unions and expose them for what they are. It’s a first start on the long road to getting education on the right path. The progressive agenda needs to be attacked and shot down at all levels; public unions is nothing but a part of this agenda.


    • Have two sisters that are teachers. They both support my decision to homeschool.

      One sister reads SUFA occasionally. She has taken a few items from here to post on the bulletin board in her teacher’s lounge. Under cover of course! 🙂

      • Oh I have two very good friends and a SIL who teach – all conservatives – and I’ve been getting emails from them on what has been going down in their schools and the “instructional” emails they are getting from the teacher’s union. Quite threatening.

  34. And another one:

    “UWM students claim they were REQUIRED by professors to attend rally on campus.
    .by Vicki McKenna on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 1:02pm.FROM AN EMAILER

    I just talked with a student from UW Milwaukee, who informed me that he was pretty much forced to attend a rally against Scott Walker’s budget yesterday.

    Some students did not want to attend the rally, but were told that attendance would be taken at the rally. They felt they had to go at that point. She also said, ” I want you guys to go because this affects me and you because you are part of this school. Buses were departing from the rally to go straight to Scott Walker’s home. I wonder who paid for those buses? The tax payers?

    Just thought you guys should know this.”

    And now we’ll watch how the media will show ALL this support against Walker’s proposal. Forced, Paid, support by union thugs.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      I wonder how much support the union leaders will have if this gets violent and the NG kicks alot of asses?

      • Again, the NG angle was totally blown out of proportion by the left media. Walker never made the claim he would use it against peaceful protestors; said they were on call in case unionized prison workers decided to leave their posts to come and protest and the NG would guard the prisoners.

        I’ve seen some clips of the public hearing this morning. The difference between the right and left is striking – the left is just plain crazy, combative and uncivil.

  35. The WH is a chaotic mess. Another item that makes you go WTH? A press secy that doesn’t address the press….again!

    Still Waiting for Jay

  36. gmanfortruth says:


    Sir, you must one important man in DC! Check this out.

    d13thecolonel Says:
    February 15, 2011 at 8:55 am
    Side Note: Texas is sometimes guilty of using a machete when a scalpel will do…..but I support correcting overkill…not the other way around. My reasoning for this is overkill will get immediate attention…..the other gets no attention.

    This afternoon :

    “We’ve taken a scalpel to the discretionary budget, rather than a machete,” Obama said.

    Now the fracking White House is stealing SUFA content! 🙂

  37. I’m hungry. Good thing I have a box of THIS on hand.

    • 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Matt, Be carefull, your ears might grow 😆

      Here’s a nice to know statistic:
      –You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

      • I’ve always known terrorism is extremely rare. Our anti-terror budget is obscene. If we pumped that money into cancer research, we’d have a cure within the decade.

        But noooooo.. “terrism” is a much better use.

        Ooh, or we could just take that money and pay down our debt.. but now I’m just talking crazy

  38. OK, now THIS is funny.

  39. Anita, promise you won’t get angry with me …

    Just watched Capitalism: A love story … even fatso Michael Moore made sense in that one … until he did his traditional fade at the end and attempted to make it look as though Obama was the start of something big … as it turned out, he was the start of another bust. I was with Moore until then. I just can’t help remembering his last second Kucinich-like sell-out of single payer …

    So, it’s not a matter of reducing vs. not reducing. It’s a matter of first making Wall Street and the rest of the bailed out sports return the jobs and/or the monies they cost us in reality (not the dollar and cents they paid each other off with so they could appear to pay us back). Then those responsible need to be jailed (and/or terminated with extreme prejudice) … then we can get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq and save some coin there … and then we can tax the top 2% (or nationalize them) … and then we can talk about all the rest of it.

    Remember, Anita … you still like me.

    • I STILL LOVE YOU CHARLIE!!! Even though you didn’t stop by with a valentine for me!

      Have you run this speech by Doc yet? Michael Moore is a hater who’s just about used up his 15 minutes. You’re in New York so you deal with those crooked banksters. I’m with you on Iraq and Afghanistan. Leave the 2% alone..they’re the ones with the cash to get the jobs rolling.

      • Be my Valentine, baby …

        I have recently joined the ranks of the displaced (unemployed) … and I won’t work at McDonald’s for less than the government check (but if they throw in a sweetner like an all I can eat leftovers buffet, I’m all in) … i’m back to school in June (had decided that a few months ago) for a masters so I can teach (if they don’t outsource that too) … Doc will be responding shortly to my last post (oh, boy, will he respond–him not a Moore fan either):

        Unemployed me means more pestering here …

    • Sorry Charlie,

      “It’s a matter of first making Wall Street and the rest of the bailed out sports return the jobs and/or the monies they cost us in reality”

      Think about forest / trees. It’s not one thing, but many things. Is wallstreet a chithole? Would not argue against you there, but at least they are semi-honest about worshiping the green god(or golden idol). Big business gets big government to give favors, both profit. The only solution is to end big government, and big business will fail without the protection.

  40. Common Man says:

    Hey all;

    In the course of the last few months I too have undergone some life changing events, and as a result I have taken on a new challenge. I am not trying to up-stage USW, just letting everyone no that I don’t have the time to participate as I have in the past.

    The new adventure will keep me fairly busy for the next few weeks, until I can settle into a routine. I will send USW a couple of article as promised soon, but daily participation is going to be limited for a short time.

    I just thought I would let everyone know. Keep the fires a burning and I will be back in the fold soon


  41. It’s been said there’s no crying in baseball and now two U.S. senators want to make sure there isn’t any tobacco either.Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., have sent a letter to Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig asking him to ban tobacco use on the field and in the dugouts and locker rooms at the highest level of the nation’s pastime.

    Can’t you lefties just leave things alone????

  42. If they’d only outlaw the designated hitter!
    Then intra-league games!
    Then all those extra teams (go back to 10 in each league).
    Roll back the fences.
    And feature a lingerie night at least once a month.

  43. USW,

    It seems some parts of the Union have tossed “reduce” to the curb and have implemented “eliminate” already!

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    An Ode to English Plural

    We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
    But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
    One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
    Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
    You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
    Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

    If the plural of man is always called men,
    Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?
    If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
    And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
    If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
    Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?

    Then one may be that, and three would be those,
    Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
    And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
    We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
    But though we say mother, we never say methren.
    Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
    But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

    Let’s face it – English is a crazy language.
    There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
    neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
    English muffins weren’t invented in England.
    We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
    we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
    and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

    And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing,
    grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham?
    Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.
    If you have a bunch of odds and ends and
    get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

    If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught?
    If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
    Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
    should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

    In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a

    We ship by truck but send cargo by ship…
    We have noses that run and feet that smell.
    We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
    And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
    while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

    You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
    in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
    in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and
    in which an alarm goes off by going on.

    And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother’s not Mop?

  45. And so the decline of the dollar as the “world reserve” currency has already began and I was not paying attention to current events. Either that or our governments propoganda driven media did not cover it very well. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but with the dollar losing its status as “world reserve currency” wouldn’t that mean that with the amount of money being printed it will cause a decline in value since other countries could just print more of their currency to buy oil instead of having to convert it to dollars first?
    Considering the amount of debt our country is in thanks to the bailouts and government spending does anyone know how in the world they could ever “fix” the mess that is about to happen? What I mean is how could the government actually do this? It seems to me that trade wars and possibly even all out war with other superpowers could possibly come from this.

  46. Glad to see politics alive and all the civlity….Barney Frank’s rant this morning on the “Mad HAtter” and the White Rabbit in the Republican PArty. I don’t know who he was referring to but the subject was about the deficit.

    JUst after that was a white house photographer that was fired because he would not edit out of a film everytime Obama missed a shot while playing basket ball. THey were supposed to edit all misses and show just the ones made….more civility.

  47. Obama and the democrats ‘proposed budger’ are driving our Country deeper and deeper into debt. I am a 22 year old, and my generation will be paying off the brunt of this deficit. Clearly, Obama did not get the message during the midterm elections! Republicans need to slash the budget NOW!!!

%d bloggers like this: