Thin Skin and Other Medical Maladies

I thought for a weekend addition to my articles I would comment on what I have seen here at SUFA over the last few weeks, although it goes back further than that in a few random instances. As many of you know, I have long demanded a level of respect for differing opinions here at Stand Up For America. In nearly all cases, that is what occurs. Every now and then things get a little testy, which is to be expected. I do my best to step in where I am needed, which admittedly isn’t often. And I think most of you know where I stand in the political spectrum. But…

I have to admit that it is my compadres that stand to the right of center politically speaking who seem to have a a bit of the thin skin syndrome lately. Don’t get me wrong, there is a little bit of it on all sides. But I have really noticed it shifting to the right lately. There has been a little bit more of a combative mentality and some folks who are a lot quicker to escalate situations. Further, there have been some instances lately of people coming on and just being nasty for no other reason to be nasty to “the other side.” If you are only here to decry that “those on the left” are stupid, then do us all a favor and shut your pie hole. You are not contributing to the conversation. And you are generally messing with my mellow vibe. NO ONE messes with my mellow vibe.

First let me say this, lest I fail to identify all the things I notice. Those on the left have a tendency to get a little snippy every now and then. Ray has been known to throw around a STFU every now and then. Todd can get a little abrasive when the hairs on his back stand up. But let’s be honest with each other here. Is anyone who is a regular on this blog going to deny that in many cases they take a lot more shit than they give?

As the primary author here for the last two years, allow me to share my thoughts on being attacked. I write out my thoughts and beliefs on a regular basis. I think I am a fair guy. I may not always be right, but I strive never to be dishonest. Yet because my thoughts are always out there for all to read, I regularly get blasted by one of the folks on the left. Heck when I step out of line I even get blasted by everyone else as well. It is frustrating, especially when someone accuses me of intentionally attempting to mislead people. Those are the time that see me react in the most forceful way, as Todd and Ray have found out when that was the tone of what was leveled at me. But I expect to be challenged, at times even forcefully. I expect my work to be judged, because I do have an audience.

So I can say that I honestly think that I have taken more flack here at SUFA than anyone else. And that is OK. It is what I expect. I can say that I don’t think I have had very many instances of someone getting downright nasty with me. Whether that is out of respect for what I am doing here or for some other reason I don’t know. I have seen nastiness directed at others here every now and then (from both sides). But it is the exception rather than the rule.

However, what I have noticed lately is that it appears that many folks on the right side of the equation lack the ability to see what they do to drive those on the left towards madness. I have watched on several occasions as someone will level some pretty harsh criticism towards those on the left and then get really angry when the reply is less than cordial. It wasn’t Anita (I mention this because I saw it mentioned by Anita yesterday) that I am remembering having a tiff with Ray at one point, I don’t remember who it was. But I recall someone at one point being downright nasty with Ray, fairly abrasive in leveling judgement at what he had offered. Ray responded at that time with a nasty post that concluded with something along the lines of STFU.

I remember thinking “Shit, I don’t want this to get out of hand, but I can understand why Ray reacted the way he did. I probably would have reacted worse.” That doesn’t mean that I like what Ray said. I would prefer there were no STFU’s offered here at SUFA. But I at least recognized what it was that got him started. The problem for me seemed to be that the other side of that argument refused to recognize that the nastiness actually started on their side and escalated from there. And to make matters worse, they held a grudge for a long time about it.

So where am I going with this? Look, I get it. These are trying times for America and a time when, politically, we may be more divided that we have been in a long time. And to add to that we have the political and social leadership of this country coupling with the MSM doing their best to widen the divisions and sow the seeds of class and race warfare. It makes people MAD. I get that. Sometimes I get so angry at the ultra-progressive movement and Democratic leadership in this country that I want to punch someone. And for many of us the only place we have to vent and discuss these issues with those on the other side is here at SUFA.

But I have learned that what we cannot do is assume that all those on the other side are robots that follow the Obama or Bush doctrines to the letter. They are just people, and their opinions and thoughts and beliefs are as individual as those on your own side. As a few examples:

  1. Everyone on the left doesn’t want communism or socialism
  2. Everyone on the right doesn’t follow or even listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck
  3. Everyone on the left doesn’t support the idea of a complete nanny state
  4. Everyone on the right doesn’t support the big corporations being supported by government

These are just a few examples. For myself, I don’t like any of the four things above, but most would consider me to be on the right. More important, as I have decreed for SUFA, every one of those individuals is welcome at SUFA and should be treated with respect. The idea behind SUFA was that we come together to a site where we can have rational discussions about the topics and do so with the intent of growing and learning, waking America up one 3:00am phone call at a time, as it were.

What doesn’t work is the name calling. Most notable for this recently was the war between Charlie Stella and Black Flag. I get where both are coming from. They are passionate in what they believe. But it took about twelve seconds before they were calling each other names and spent as much of their posts doing that as they did attempting to belittle one another by dismissing what the other was saying. What wasn’t happening in that instance was a dialogue that was helping to further any learning here at SUFA. Each was unwilling to consider anything the other said, and unwilling to concede even an inch in trying to understand. The result… nothing. Entertaining to watch, but not enlightening for many folks. Which is disappointing, because they both have a ton to offer for those who read here.

And I understand, they were each frustrated with one another. That can happen. But I have long looked at SUFA a lot more the way that G-Man so succinctly put it the other day: It is like a big family, where there are misunderstandings and arguments, but where you also genuinely cared about the people you were discussing things with. But what G-Man got for writing an article from his perspective was being called batshit crazy and dismissed. People did that rather than put some thought into what he offered and discussing where he was right or wrong. I promise you that no matter where you stand politically, there are others here that think your position is batshit crazy. But discussing it rather than leveling such charges is the difference between productive political discourse and Huffington Post childish bickering.

I genuinely like the people who frequent SUFA, ALL of them, left, right, center, no matter where they fall. And for the most part, I think that everyone who comes here is honest and insightful when they want to be.

So let’s be a little more thoughtful in what we are responding to each other. There doesn’t need to be any name calling. There doesn’t need to be any jumping to conclusions. There doesn’t need to be any animosity. What there needs to be is UNDERSTANDING. Not agreement, but understanding. I don’t agree with Charlie’s desire for communism. But I want to understand it and I want to argue out the realities, the honest pros and cons, of each side of the argument. I might say that an idea he poses is crazy, but I won’t call him an idiot. I might tell him he is dead wrong, that what he proposes is hypocritical, bad for America, or rejects the basic tenants of individual liberty. And I will oppose his ideas because of that. But nothing can be gained by me attacking him personally. It just doesn’t accomplish anything. And it dismisses the intelligent person that I know he is.

I am not here to show up anyone. I am not here to try to prove to people that I am smarter than anyone. You will all gauge my intelligence, or lack thereof, based on my discussions. What I am here to do is to learn and to educate. If we are going to survive as a country, we are going to have to figure out the RIGHT way forward. We are going to have to get people to understand how to look at these issues in ways that is in line with the concepts of what we are trying to accomplish, no matter where we stand on the political spectrum. And that will only be done by rationally and honestly talking through the issues.

It isn’t about proving that the left is wrong or that the right is wrong. It is about figuring out when anyone is wrong. Facts, logic, critical thinking, and honest discussion are the tools that will take us forward. Bickering will not. Name calling will not. Personal attacks will not. Holding a grudge will not. See an emotional appeal, call it out. See a breakdown in critical thinking, call it out. See something that doesn’t further polite discourse….. Call it out. If you want to rant on about how conservatives are this or liberals are that, there are plenty of other sites out there where you can have debates laced with fire and venom. But if you are at SUFA, open your mind before you open you mouth. You may be surprised what you learn.

I surrender the balance of my time to the esteemed gentleman from…..

Shit there aren’t any esteemed gentlemen in Congress. My Bad.


  1. Hmmmmmm?!? A ripple in “paradice” (mispelling intended)?

    Okay, so maybe my lame humor ain’t appreciated . . . but, on a more serious note;

    I really do not know why anyone is expected to be nice to each other during these discussions of personal political philosophies after decades of the progressive agenda of separating us into upper, lower, and middle classes and by religions and political ideologies. Since the early 1900’s we have been told over and over again that we do not have a history, that we are prejudiced, and that the very thing that our country was founded on was nothing but a lie to perpetuate and feed the greed of major corporate moguls – even though those same moguls have virtually turned this nation into the richest and most technologically advanced country ever known to mankind.

    Furthermore, we are now told that our only hope of survival is to dump everything and embrace the very system that destroyed Russia and Cuba, not to mention most of the Iron Curtain States, and also to embrace what is perceived by very many people worldwide (yours truly included) as nothing but a murderous cult and adopt their barbaric laws into our own.

    And after knowing all that, you really want these folks to “play nice” with each other?


    What are you, Nanny McPhee, U.S.Weapon, or a school marm? (NO, I am NOT calling you names. I am asking a reality question)

    After all, aren’t you the guy who named this site “Stand Up For America”?

    If you are, then when are you going to ask your regular contributors to stick to the theme and leave their personal whines out of it?

    And what do you expect a retired U.S. Marine and former USMC Drill Instructor to say?

    • Papa Dawg asks: “And what do you expect a retired U.S. Marine and former USMC Drill Instructor to say?”

      D13 slyly responds: ” Two things, Gunny ( Assuming here )

      HUAH….followed by SIR. ( Even though an Army Colonel…stil have the eagles on the shoulder…heh heh)

    • On the contrary, PD, I don’t se how calling anyone a name or insulting them personally furthers any discussions that push us towards standing up for America.

      The few lefties that frequent SUFA do so with the intent of having honest discussions.

      As for sticking to the theme… Not sure what you mean exactly, but the regular contributors here at SUFA all have their own take on what is happening around us. I respect their opinions even though I don’t always agree with what they are saying. I choose to engage them in discussion and debate when I disagree rather than calling them any names or belittling them personally. I don’t always succeed in toeing the line I have set, but I always strive to. I have simply asked everyone else to do the same with this article.

  2. USW: Good call. I will comment in more detail later. PD: I get that you are passionate, but that is no excuse for incivility. I, too, have been annoyed by the emotionally charged discourse. Passion is great, even admirable at times, but rationale and reason and level headedness is essential in this sort of environment. We have to be adults. We need to be able to control our emotions to accomplish anything, otherwise we are just being silly children.

  3. TexasChem says:

    Perhaps those on the right are tired of being accomodating and accepting towards ideas and opinions that can be seen as detrimental to their society, community and traditional American way of life?
    I consider myself a peaceful man but please explain to me your version of what the acceptance level should be in regards to the current up-ended social spectrum of our America; before it is ok for one of us on the right to get “pissed off”? Hrmmm…?

    • TC,

      I haven’t said you can’t get pissed off. I haven’t said you can’t or shouldn’t challenge what you disagree with. What I have said is that name calling and getting personal renders the debate of ideas useless.

      I think my dealings with you have been an example. I have challenged you when I felt it necessary, but I have striven to not do so in a way that attacks you personally or denigrates into name calling.

      You can be pissed off. And you can not take my advice on debating with civility. But the result is that those you are challenging will no longer be listening to your ideas or considering your points. They will instead be closed off and fight fire with fire. Then nothing gets accomplished. The idea here, at least in my opinion, is to talk things through and change the path we are on. How will squabbles that move away from civil discourse and into personal attacks accomplish that?

      • TexasChem says:

        We are on the same page with the belief of civility being paramount to the understanding of ones philosphical beliefs, ideas and opinions.
        My point of fact I am postulating is that it is not a good thing to surpress ones notion of what can or can not bring one to high emotions solely based upon what those on the opposite end of the spectrum believe.This is why I am so against political correctness.It is a propoganda based tool to surpress dissenting opinion.

      • TexasChem says:

        And btw…
        I have never personally attacked anyone at SUFA by calling them batshit crazy, non-thinking neophitical, bookchinistic tree hugging, left-wing communists. Truthfully I just believe them all to be statist capitalists. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  4. TexasChem says:

    AND BTW… here is an article I would dearly love for those of you that preach the acceptance of “moderate muslims” to read and return with your feedback.

    • Tex,

      Not sure I qualify for preaching acceptance. I think it is an issue that changes by region and country. In the Middle East, including Turkey, I think the moderates are there, but are not much of an influence. If they speak out, they will be killed by the radicals, just as the Mexican drug lords are doing. The moderates have not been willing to fight for peace. Their choice, but that’s why they have been fighting each other for thousands of years.

      Moderate Muslims in the US? Should be different. If they are immigrants, I will be watching to see if they assimilate.
      They came here, hopefully wanting the life America offers, including freedom. If the require their wife & daughters to wear sacks on their heads, I’m going to have some concerns. And I would like to hear what all of them think about jahiad.

      But I have family that does not approve of me. I drink. Their Christian beliefs see that as a sin. I can live with that.
      A few hundred years ago, they would have locked me in stocks or maybe burned me as a witch. So I think a moderate Muslim should be given the chance. If nothing else, I believe in the strength of our society and the effect of it’s “melting pot” on immigrants.

      I found this article to be informative.

  5. Olive branch extended.

    But I am curious about something I glanced at yesterday, BF’s dislike of corporations. As I said a few times here, I took the Libertarian test at their site and came damn close to being considered one. My beef with them has to do with the negation of government sponsored health care, etc., but otherwise I prefer their liberal stance on most other options.

    I am not a member of the communist party a) because they are against violent revolution and b) I don’t like belonging to any party/organization (wasn’t a frat boy in college and didn’t opt for the bigger prize in my criminal background). I even retracted my membership from the MWA many years ago (quite frankly, I saw it as the same as a union I once belonged to–taking dues for no good reason I was aware of). Now, that does not negate my support of unions in general (my support there stems from workers (in general–union or not) not having a voice for themselves in the workplace. I know the arguments against that (BF has detailed them succinctly–but I disagree with them–my opinion; not law).

    Anyway, I was interested in BF’s beef with corporations. I know he wrote they were created by government and as such are evil. I agree they are evil, but is it the legislation he speaks of or something a clever capitalist thought of as a way to protect himself? Just curious here, not looking to start a[nother] war.

    PapaDawg. Believe it or not, I respect your service big time, but I also know veterans who do not agree with you. I’ll suggest they deserve the same respect you demand.

    • OH…shut up Charlie….you left wing, hippie, communist, long haried freak…… Just kidding, of course. 🙂

      How can you not like someone who invites you in for eye-talian cuisine…even if I have a boat load of Raptors. I luv ya men….you are on the dark side of my thinking but I luv ya man and I actually enjoy hearing your opinions (cough cough)… seriously, tho, you do give me pause from time to time to try to understand your philosophy and the why. You sure do give me a lot of “fodder” for public discourse.

      @ USW… Remember back to our military days? We have learned not to be so thin skinned over time…and, in basic training and other training…as a Senior TAC officer in OCS, it was my job to be ugly and nasty and demeaning to try to break the spirit of those that aspired to be officers….but it is kept in perspective. You know that if I could make a prospective office capable of irrational thought simply by words (and pushups) and getting in their face, then he did not need to be a combat leader on the field. He may be better suited for administrative functions. The theory being, and I still subscribe to it, is that I want officers that can battle through irrationality and focus on the job at hand and not be influeced by what he sees and hears. In Vietnam, it was nothing to walk into a “friendly” village to see the Montgnards nailed to trees or an American dead with his arms nad legs stacked in front of him and his genitals stuffed in his mouth….all of this designed to work on you psychcologically.

      I do not see that on SUFA but I am very thick skinned and understand passion and the response to it by people that wish to get a point across. Hell, I even had Ray cut a cord of wood one time and dig up something because he got so frustrated with my thinking….cannot even remember what it was over…but during the year, he and I have figured each other out and can carry on discourse on a civil level. I see SUFA as being primarily that way.

      One great thing that I see on SUFA is the ability to discourse without getting “too” personal. But Papa Dawg is on target about one thing. Your blog is “Stand UP for America”… and it interesting to see the age variances on here and the line of thinking. What is more interesting is how many follow the left or right wing mantra simply because it is “mantra”….without thought or reason. But, that is their priviledge to do so.

      This country is as good as it gets and I can speak with authority. (some do not agree with that but that is ok. I get all tickled when I see discourse against our country and how bad it is….but the majority of those that say that….live here) I have lived and served all over the world. I have studied and learned customs, faiths, economic systems, laws, and people…not to mention foods….some good and some bad. I like to refer to myself as the “retired old Colonel who knows nothing” because it is meant to keep things on an amicable and fun level….and there are some that actually believe that I am a one sided thinker. In addition to that, I am also the black sheep of the family in one respect and not in another….We, as a family, are fortunate in that we have been successful in a variety of things. We are thinkers AND doers. Ranching, oil and gas, investments, health spas, and some smaller endeavors have made us have a very good life. I went to the best schools but I also chose to veer away from the familiy business and silver spoon and develop my own career in the Army….for 40 years. And, I am also part of the family business as well. So, I have seen both sides of the spectrum of that. I understand corporations (we have several..primarily for tax purposes) and I understand economics and financial issues, as well as I have been hungry and wet and cold and shot at. BUT, I do not have to worry about my future except to try to keep what we have built intact along with my brother and sister. I am right of center but closer to center on social agendas but I am a strict fiscal conservative….vote a split ticket (have never pulled a lever for a one sided ticket).

      All this diatribe to say, I think that most of us on your site do have a respect…Passions run a little high, for sure, but to be so thin skinned as to not be rational….maybe a blog is not the place. To those who pop in here and get hell with not think them a part of this scene. I think, by and large, that most of SUFA, though passionate, in reality are good people and would not actually, in person, over a dinner of eye talian and grog, jab a fork in someone’s eye. (DPM excpeted, of course, he does swing a mean cutlass but what would you expect of a pirate).

      So, SUFA is a good place and you do keep a rein on civil discourse and there are sseveral of us who will defend those on the left eeven when they are attacked. I have defended Charlie, Ray, Todd, BF as much as I have defended Anita, Kathy, G man, Papa Dawg and even BAma Dad ( who mistakenly thinks that the SEC is the ONLY thing around..after all he IS from Alabama)….geez.

      Keep up the good work, brother. You have my support. ( and Raptors should you need them).

      • OH…shut up Charlie….you left wing, hippie, communist, long haried freak…… Just kidding, of course.

        Colonel, sir, I have remarkably short hair (#2 cut) … was a football player in the far north (North Dakota–small school near the Air base there (Minot). I was also an assistant football coach at Brooklyn College (back when they still had football–pretty terrible football, though) and I am probably incredibly disciplined (by any standards) except, of course, my weakness for eye-talian foods (I don’t lift in the superheavy division because I can control my too often ravenous appetite).

        My criminal background was not anywhere near as violent as your war experiences (although the “battlefield” cursing was probably pretty close), but I will note that most of my co-horts in crime were very, very, very conservative (until sentencing, of course). They also liked capitalism no end (myself included at the time) because let’s face it, most of us weren’t in it for the drama.

        Rational thought … oy vey … it depends as much on assumptions as any other train of thought; it is a man made hypothesis and whether it is defended with examples or not, those examples are equally subject to opinion … some (BF) see socialist based countries as falling apart and trending toward capitalism (and that may well occur .. or not; it could be a temporary swing the way we have them here, left to right and back again, etc.), but it assumes that what we have here is better and trending toward less government intervention (what may appear to be happening) … still, some here do not believe for a second that it is better here economically (I too believe we’re the greatest country on earth, but not to be mistaken for unassailable for fault(s)). Anyway, it’s all good; the discourse is usually okay (although sometimes too frustrating to do anything but be a shit stirrier (I confess, some of what I’ve done here is stir the shit–not so much with opening statements, but usually when bored of repeating myself or having to read 10 paras of rational theory, etc.)

        Not that that’ a bad thing …:)

        One great thing that I see on SUFA is the ability to discourse without getting “too” personal. But Papa Dawg is on target about one thing. Your blog is “Stand UP for America”…

        I did try and suggest SUFS (but that was, in fact, some shit stirring).

        As I posted yesterday/last night (I think) about this. At so-called democrat left blog sites I’ve been accused of being “the new voice of right wing America” (mostly because I can stomach Obama and the Democratic Party no more than any of you, albeit for VERY different reasons). The same guy even threatened to start an “The I hate Charlie Stella” blog. His “friends” think I’m an asshole (so Kathy (my future wife), Essom Hill, et al) aren’t without company in that regard). If yous think Obama is a socialist, I’m Ayn Rand’s son; that’s how polar far apart “I think” the truths of those statements are. Truth is, the so-called left wing sites are far more nasty upfront than what I find here (although this joint has its fair share of that as well). When I first read BF’s comments about being a “savage”, I took it as nasty until I read Ayn Rand’s two torturous tomes. I had some fun tossing back that garbage (what I think of it) in the form of “evil, immoral,” etc. (again, some shit stirring). Sometimes I’ll actually agree with the immoral stuff, but evil is taking it a bit too far. I don’t think capitalists are evil. I think the end result is often evil. USW, I don’t hate rich people. There’s also plenty of good. But neither is socialism or any of its tenets strictly evil or all good (unless you’ve already closed your mind to it and that seems to be the case here). Fair enough.

        Onward … but one more thing first. I can’t take it anymore … WTF ( … 🙂 …) is with the raptors, Colonel? Can they control themselves at our dinner or should I have a basement set with their grub?

        • Charlie asks:WTF ( … …) is with the raptors, Colonel? Can they control themselves at our dinner or should I have a basement set with their grub?

          Nah…..they are not house broke and must stay outside….their appetite leans towards the left although when they get hungry…. right, left, center….it is food to them. Think of it this way….you will have no problems with interlopers while they are there….but do keep your pets in the basement,,,they would be appetizers.

          I knew you were not the long haired, hippie, draft dodging pot smokin’ (well, maybe pot smokin’) type. I just remember my conservative (Beaver Cleaver) dad…When I was in college in the 60’s….all of us were long haired, hippie, draft dodgin’, pot smokin’ kids…….even though I was on a full paid athletic scholarship (no, not football…golf)..because I was of that age and went to the UNIVERSITY..(yes, Bama Dad, there is only one and it is in Austin) I was all of that…until I decided to join the Army. (Why? You ask….because the college deferment ended and the lottery started and my friggin number was below 50…which means I was going to be a grunt….so I joined.) Anyway….I luv ya man….even if you are demented. 🙂 By the way, I will bring the DP…anything you want? And I am sure you told me…but just where th’ hell do ya live?

    • Charlie,
      I, too, am passionately against corporations. I may not have all the same thoughts or beefs with them as BF, but it is my intention to do a piece on the negative aspects of the so called 2%, since they are certainly not blameless. It may not be up your alley, but it might explain a lot of things: your libertarian similarites, our points of agreement, and our points of disagreement. If I am not mistaken, it will also explain a few of BFs points of agreement and disagreement with you. I will get it in the mix as soon as I can. 🙂

  6. gmanfortruth says:


    • Wow Gman….you have blue eyes.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
      illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream
      media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to
      pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

    • Update on Japan’s nuclear plant. Amazing, after that explosion they are only reporting four injured.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Caught that. Japan sure has a mess on their hands. I feel for the people.

      • LOI, during my military career I spent a lot of time in Japan – Mostly in and around the Inland Sea (MCAS Iwakuni).

        The Japanese people are a hardy bunch. I know that they will recover from this in time. Literally all of their nuclear reactors are built to withstand an 8.0 quake at its epicenter. This plant was dang near the epicenter of an 8.9 quake, and even though all the automatic safety measures kicked in at the onset of the quake the backup diesels were severely damaged to the point of non-operation – And therein lies the problem because without the backup diesels the coolant pumps were not working. I know without a doubt that after all this is over the Japanese nuke plants will also be equipped with massive battery banks as a redundancy to the diesels.

  7. Charlie, wanna go to DisneyWorld?

    This week, Michael Moore offered a simple and elegant solution to our debt problem.

    Calling the assets of wealthy Americans a “national resource,” he suggested our problems would all be solved if we could just have access to all that money.

    “What’s happened is that we’ve allowed the vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money,” Moore said. “That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this… we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.”

    “America’s not broke,” he told a cheering crowd of pro-union protesters in Wisconsin.

    So, we decided to try Moore’s solution. Laying aside the moral objections to the government simply appropriating the wealth of private citizens, could it work?

    The United States of America has about 400 billionaires. Moore calls them “400 little Mubaraks.” About half of those have less than $2 billion each, and those with a net worth in the double-digit billions is an exclusive club of about 30.

    Still, as Moore says, “there’s a ton of cash out there.”


    The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

    That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).

    So, what if we try to solve a smaller problem? Across the nation, 45 states are projecting over $100 billion in shortfalls, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If the government just redistributed the wealth of the top three American billionaires—Bill Gates ($54B), Warren Buffet ($45B), and Larry Ellison ($27B)— it could solve that problem in a jiffy.

    Of course, the 260-275,000 people employed by Berkshire Hathaway, the 105,000 employed by Oracle, and the 100,000 or so employed by Microsoft, might have something to say about that (to say nothing of the thousands of non-profits, charities, and causes that benefit from Gates’, Buffet’s and Ellison’s fortunes). That’s over 400,000 people out of a job.

    Moore would argue, of course, that those jobs would simply be nationalized and “belong to all of us” after the wealth of their creators is sapped, but who exactly would have an incentive to make Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, or Oracle profitable if all of the money they made was considered a “national resource?”

    One could also close the state budget gap with the wealth of the bottom 100 or so billionaires, who have but $1 billion and change each. But good luck processing the payment because you’ve just wiped out Paypal’s founder (Peter Thiel, No. 365). Also, the owners/founders of the Colts, the Eagles, the Redskins, the Saints, Campbell’s Soup, Home Depot, and the entire ironic t-shirt empire of Urban Outfitters. Those products, brought to you by the country’s billionaires and currently enjoyed by all of us, would be sacrificed to Moore’s plan to almost pay for the 2011 deficit.

    So, Michael Moore, you’ve wiped out the country’s richest Americans, millions of jobs, and billions to charity. What are you going to do next? Go to Disney World?

    Nope, that’s gone too. The Mouse makes billions, and that money is ours, not theirs.

    Read more:

    • Wait…..does that mean that I can now wlak up to the gate in Orlando and demand to get in for free because they already have my money??????? COOL!!!!

    • LOI, that’s an awful lot of simplification you’re doing there. I won’t take the time and effort to respond because it assumes redistribution would happen overnight and doesn’t include a ton of other variables. I see a ton of waste in gov’t (as much as you) that needs to be curbed. I also see a ton of inequity in wealth that was never fairly gained by way too many of those who have it. That you’ll never see. So let’s not go back and forth over it. All I’m going to suggest is that the greater the disparity in that wealth between the top 2% and everybody else, the closer to a genuine grass roots revolution you’ll have. Now, it probably won’t happen in our lifetime, but it will happen (and that is my silly assumption; as valid or invalid as capitalism will cure all ills). Right now our country (our people) are way too political naive or neglectful to even notice the inequities. They make a statement (this sucks) and move on to their video game, Television, bowling league … whatever. Remember, barley 50% even bother to vote in presidential elections. When people really are standing on bread lines because the money moved overseas (anyway–not beause of unions, etc.) or there aren’t any soup kitchens (or enough of them), trust me, they’ll put down the toys from hunger and demand some answers. Just look at what Obama did to unions last week (his ignoring his 2007 campaign promise to walk the line if collective bargaining was ever threatened). The “real left” (not what you consider socialists) would suggest union dues paying members turn their back on Obama and Trumka the way they did to them. Like unions or not, their members were just screwed six ways to sunday by the guys supposed to protect them (Democrats).

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie, Good morning! For the sake of discussion, let’s say my scenario of really high inflation comes true. For most, food will be unaffordable. What do you see happening?

      • Todd Says:
        March 12, 2011 at 1:03 am edit

        No, I’m not referring to Michael Moore.

        Unions allow the workers to band together to get better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Corporations allow the owners/investors to band together to pool resources and limit liability. Each has it’s good points and bad points. If one gets substantially more power than the other, it will be able to control the other and large portions of our society.


        You and I see a ton of waste in government. I also see too much waste/abuse of power in the unions. It would be nice if they would reform themselves from within, but that has not happened. Will you champion their cause while they protect teachers that have molested students? They have better health insurance than me, and DEMAND Viagra be fully paid for by their plan. Sorry, but they are reaping what they deserve. They have pushed, bullied and abused the tax payers, and the people have had enough.

        Maybe you, Ray and I can get on the same page on one thing, stop the waste. Do that first and lets see where we are. As MK Hamm showed, Moores plan would not work, we can’t tax ourselves out of this. That includes the union abuse. Why do they deserve more and better benefits than I do? I pay 100% of my health insurance and then have to pay 95% of theirs because they are school teachers? Give me a frigging break!

        • LOI, I will NEVER blindly champion ANY cause … but I will also NEVER accept (as we all seem to do by not addressing the problems) of those making the very big gelt for doing very little without demanding that issue is addressed.

          Tenure is abhorrent to me. Also the continued abuse of union leadership (which, by the way, is corrupted from where? Either the businesses they associate with in the private sector–because the deals cut at the time are worth it to the businesses or, in the case of the public unions, the politicians behind those deals–most often Dems, yes.) But … why doesn’t the corporate welfare (which amounts to millions more to taxpayers) get the same attention? Why take it out on some school teacher whose probably in (or already paid) loans off for the education they had to get to teach, when corporate welfare continues to cost taxpayers far more than what teachers gained in collective bargaining? Do not compare what teachers cost to that $700 billion bailout (as just one single example of corporate welfare–they were also given a free ticket by Obama for the $38 billion in taxes they initially owed. Corporate welfare has been around since corporations; whether in the form of tax breaks, loopholes or out and out doles.

          • Before I forget … what about the lobbyists in DC (Dodd is now one for entertainment) … the money both sides of the aisle get from those who are influencing policymakers at least as much as unions. You can’t ignore that crap and pick on unions is my point … some poor slob average $46K a year isn’t the one bankrupting the country (or WI) … let’s be realistic about it. You may not want to contribute to said $46K’ers salary/beneifts (or others here) but you don’t seem to mind contributing (or defending) 2%’ers and what they get for free (or very little giveback to society in general).

          • 1. If we’re paying $15,000 per student and there are 20 kids per classroom, that generates $300,000 for the school per year. If they’re only paying the teacher $50,000 where is the other $250,000 going?

            Read more:

            “Why take it out on some school teacher when corporate”
            Hold it! Not taking it out on anyone. I favor stopping abuse where we can. You want to talk about the bailouts, fine, but it’s a different topic.

            “Corporate welfare continues to cost taxpayers far more”
            I don’t think we will totally agree on what is corporate welfare, but I was not pleased with the bailouts. If you can
            fix that, I’ll walk that line with you.

            The other side of corp. welfare, if a company is taxed, calling a tax break welfare is bulldookey. Doesn’t mean I think they should get special breaks either. Eliminate the lobbyists and special interests, simplify the tax code all sounds good to me.

      • TexasChem says:

        Charlie stated:” I see a ton of waste in gov’t (as much as you) that needs to be curbed. I also see a ton of inequity in wealth that was never fairly gained by way too many of those who have it.”

        TC: If you can see the waste in gov’t that needs to be curbed then wouldn’t you logically come to the conclusion that a bigger more controlling gov’t would create more of that waste that needed to be curbed?
        I do not believe it matters how much wealth a person or family accumulates as to whether or not someone else has the right to take that wealth from them to give to others that played not one iota of part in producing that wealth in the first place.

        • IlliterateVagrant says:


          Charlie’s whole point is that if you are making large amounts of money off of someone else’s labor then you aren’t paying them what they are actually valued at. Thus the millionaires and billionaires have made their money underpaying the employees that without them would never be millionaires. This is what he means by making money off of someone’s back “unfairly.” Read a little more Marxist philosophy. Marx talks a lot about producers and the unfair stratification of wealth.

          Personally I think in a free market it’s okay for people to be able to make money off of others because there is always a choice to work for one employer over another or patronize one company with business over another. I know it doesn’t always work out but I feel like a business with unethical practices eventually gets called out and loses consumer support thus correcting large disparites.

          I know it doesn’t always work out like that though, don’t quote me Enron or BP.

          For example my brother makes his money making horns and selling them himself. He makes good money doing this. If eventually he ends up making millions then the market has dictated the value of his product and I feel that he would earn his entire worth justly even being a millionaire. The question then is what millions get redistributed? Who decides who has earned their money more off the backs of others than the backs of themselves.

          • Illiterate Vagrant

            Charlie’s whole point is that if you are making large amounts of money off of someone else’s labor then you aren’t paying them what they are actually valued at.

            But that is the problem – it infers that there exists an OBJECTIVE VALUE, that is some value that is the same for everyone at all times.

            But that is impossible. What YOU think is valuable and to how much can be completely different to what I think is valuable and to how much.

            In economic terms, we use “Price Calculation” and “Bidding” – and these terms are self-explanatory. Someone offers a price, and someone bids on the goods and services and the Highest Price Wins.

            Now, I’m sure most people don’t see it that way because to them “highest price” is defined as “all the money“.

            But that is not a good definition.

            Highest price is “most someone would pay”

            So the worker takes his talent and time into the market place and let’s watch what happens.

            He goes to Company A, they offer Wage A
            He goes to Company B, they offer Wage A+B
            He goes to Company C, they offer Wage A+B+C
            He goes to Company D, they offer Wage A

            Worker sells his labor to “C” – the highest bid

            There is no evaluation on the amount at all! Sure it could be $2/hr or $100,000/hr. But the bid is the highest offer for the goods out for sale (his labor).

            If the bid is still lower than the seller’s price, this has meaning.

            It means the good (labor) is not to the level of quality that the seller has priced it at in this market

            This means that the seller has to do 1 or more of these things:
            (1) improve the quality of the goods (improve his skills)
            (2) adjust his pricing calculation (accept a lower standard of living and take the job)
            (3) take the goods to another market where there is a shortage of that goods (move to a better economy for labor)

            Most can see that this is what a business does with their products, either improve, drop the price or sell where there is less competition.

            Labor is just another economic good and follows the same economic laws and as such, operates like a product a business is selling.

            One labor understands that they are in a business selling a product, the more effective they can be in producing and selling their product.

            • IlliterateVagrant says:

              “But that is impossible. What YOU think is valuable and to how much can be completely different to what I think is valuable and to how much.”

              I was just paraphrasing for TexasChem. I actually lean more towards the ideas that you are framing in this post. Hence my example of my brother at the end of the post. 🙂

              I’m a happy capitalist.

  8. Also gotta love this…….even today, when I leave the familiy business to consult with the National Guard and the Army on the border and do my border thing….my dad, in his infinite wisdom and at age 92…still says….” Off playing Army again, are you?” Never mind that I spent 40 years and made Colonel…..see, it never stops. I just grin and say..”Yes sir” ( he is still my dad and rates a yes sir) ” I am off for the battlefields of Texas” …..

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    The Anti-Christianity of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church

    Plainlyspoken takes down the Westboro Babtist Church.

  10. IlliterateVagrant says:


    So unbeknownst to most of you I’ve actually been reading this blog for about 2 years, just never really had a reason to jump in and debate. As probably one of the youngest readers (22) I typically let the ones with the extreme opinions duke it out (CS, BF wars). I find myself benefitting from seeing both sides of the arguement even if I occasionally toss in non-helpful sarcastic humor.

    I would consider myself one without many set opinions simply for the fact that it seems those who have formed opinions strongly also tend to reject new ideas quicker than I would. I do have certain personal values like personal fiscal and moral responsibilities that put myself in contention with socialism, but that’s not to say that I wouldn’t sit down and listen to the merits of a partially socialized system that gives people who weren’t born with a chance, a chance.

    That being said, I find myself of recent ignoring the ever growing posts between Black Flag and Charlie Stella. I loved the debates in the past between both which were interesting because they argued logic and principle in a rather linear fashion. The arguments progressed and explored different topics from multiple angles. Although they were sometimes heated they never devolved into the attacks based on semantics and anecdotal evidence that have plagued both recently.

    Bring back the old BF and CS! I learned so much from past topics from just the people on here debating. You are both extreme and both very smart and can be a force for good if you set aside your ego. Join the dark side, both of you, so we can quit this paltry Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker tap dance (which one is which, I’m never telling)

    Together we can rule the galaxy.

    • Live long and prosper, young Patewan. You are welcome.

    • IlliterateVagrant

      “that’s not to say that I wouldn’t sit down and listen to the merits of a partially socialized system that gives people who weren’t born with a chance, a chance.”

      I respect that and even agree. I like to think of myself as being open minded(might be kidding myself). When I have researched the subject of poverty rates, it keeps coming back to “personal fiscal and moral responsibilities”. You here about “tough Love”. Most Americans are willing to help the needy. Somewhere in there, we have gone too far, handouts, not a hand up, the safety net became a bed.

      And the strange reality, if we reduce entitlements, the poverty rate drops.

      Like the humor, hope you jump in more.
      And one of Charlies peep’s..

      • LOI, I love Bernie Sanders (of course, I do) …

        And he’s a democratic socialist (not a pure socialist). I like what IV said up above (a mix of both capitalism and socialism) and absolute understand that that would have to happen before a complete redistribution of wealth (Marxism, etc.) … but first this political system needs some very serious changes (and here BF’s argument is well served–it is the gov’t screwing things up). BF and I differ on whether it should be restructured or not. He says it should take flight; I say it not only has to exist, it has to exist with a truly democratic base (that is not held captive by big business). I understand BF’s fear of democracy (in principal); it does leave no good for those on the short end of the vote, but I don’t see BF’s paradise of no government ever taking hold (not do I see socialism as solving all ills). Nothing will solve everything. I just happen to believe in a more equitable distribution; BF believes (and I believe that he believes this) it is stealing. That’s where our basic disagreement lies. The worldwide trends toward one (socialism or capitalism) or the other will continue to swing back and forth for a long time to come, but as populations increase more than decrease in the more wealthy countries, there will eventually be a (in my opinion) a more forceful swing to the left (whether good or not comes from it–not all revolutions are a good thing (or bad thing)). I think taking care of the problem BEFORE it becomes a crisis is the smarter way to go. I opt toward more equity; BF towards less government. We both have valid arguments (but only if you’re standing on our side of the issue).

        On another note … I’m watching Two Women (Sophia Loren back in the day) … Madonna mia, that is one bella signora … and, of course, watching anything eye-talian makes me hungry. Where’s Gman when I need him?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Just envision Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton naked and French kissing. Problem solved. Diet is still on! 🙂

          • Oh, Gman, you’re too late! I looked AFTER swallowing a plate of spaghetti alla oilio (with brocoli and shrimp). Oy vey … although that image may bring it back up.

            Grazie …:)

        • IlliterateVagrant says:

          Yeah, it would be nice to see a hybrid between the two thought processes. BF’s contention on many socialist points is that the government is essentially stealing your income. If we voted for legislation in a legitimate government and got consensus to pass a bill setting up such a program then it WOULDN’T be stealing.

          The tricky part is the definition of a legitimate government. Many people on here wouldn’t consider what we have now an acceptable judge of a legitimate government. Otherwise we could all sit down and take a break instead of standing up so much for America.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            IV, Can you sit down? Do you believe freedom is worth standing up for? My guess would be yes, or you wouldn’t be here. But…..

          • IlliterateVagrant

            The tricky part is not a definition of legitimate government.

            The problem is that you, like almost all of us, have accepted the belief that the definition of theft magically changes because a group of people vote to allow it to happen.

            Most people look at govt through the prism that was constructed for them by govt sponsored educational institutions. The world used to be filled with many contrary philosophies and debates about these matters.

            But in the past 100 plus years two basic stories have drowned out the rest with regard to mainstream culture. And BOTH of these are based on the same fallacies regarding the nature of govt.

            So what we get is a big fight over where to put the chairs. While only a few understand it is the boat that is the problem, not the chairs.

            By the way, a mix of capitalism and socialism is called Fascism, by definition. But it is still a hybrid of the socialism family.

            I urge you to consider the outcome you wish for society and not the means. Compassion and assistance to the indigent is a goal. Assuming that socialism is required is a leap to the means. As a result we fail to consider the nature of humanity and the fact that we don’t really need to take wealth from one person to give to another.

            Most humans will give willingly to others if they feel the need and worthiness of their help. Socialism destroys that compassion and desire to help. We become complacent and disconnected from our fellow man. Because we expect the Govt to take care of that……….whatever it is.

            Government is a monopoly on the use of force, or violence per Black Flag. Some have used the term “legal force” or “legal violence”. But all have the same general characteristic. A MONOPOLY on the use of force against others, whether citizens or not.

            So given what govt is known to be, should we not make sure that the power we give it is strictly defined and limited to that which can not be used against the innocent?

            Our current govt is ineffective, inefficient, corrupt and immoral. But it is “legitimate”. So if a “legitimate” govt is immoral perhaps we are using the wrong criteria to evaluate it.

            • JAC,

              Wow! People will think I hijacked your ID!

              Best paragraph:
              Our current govt is ineffective, inefficient, corrupt and immoral. But it is “legitimate”. So if a “legitimate” govt is immoral perhaps we are using the wrong criteria to evaluate it.

            • IlliterateVagrant says:

              Ah, good points. I guess that would be the “moral center” that the liberals would attempt to appeal to me with.

              I guess you just have to let the helpers help and the leechers leech regardless of your personal feelings on the subject.

              Concise post JAC, I appreciate the viewpoint.

  11. Sorry if I stirred the pot with my comments yesterday USW but since it’s on the table now I’d like to continue my thought for a second.

    I followed SUFA for many months before I had the nerve to start commenting. Never commented on another blog before this and have only commented at the other regular’s blogs since.

    I came in here knowing nothing and admitted that from day one…just a family business owning mom in the neighborhood. BF picked that up immediately and started challenging me with great patience…made me feel extremely comfortable…

    I”ve been in a couple fisticuffs with the lefties here..Matt and Todd come to mind. Matt was very kind in defense of his position, Todd chose to be a smart alec. Both times folks have come to my rescue and in the end things worked out smoothly.

    I’ve have a blast with the couple of im-posters we’ve had here. BDN comes to mind..

    But I called out Ray yesterday out of frustration. He casts those aside who he disagrees with like a POS..I’ve tried to call him out on this in the past and he still doesn’t get it. His biggest trick is to frame the debate to his liking not how the original comment was intended then he can fight from his angle. And fight he does to the point of calling folks ignorant and the like. It’s ridiculous! But I notice he ONLY does this with folks he thinks he can win his debate with! I’ve never seen him get out of line with BF or D13. So I stuck my neck out to try to level the playing field.

    My bigger concern is that there are folks in the shadows who may like to jump in and comment but dont want to get attacked. Stand up for America for sure…that includes making folks feel welcome not showing how honed your debate skills are and for sure not to belittle folks. That was the point of my sarcasm.

    I have some running around to do but I’ll check back later.

    • A little girl asked her Mom, “How did the human race appear?”
      The mother answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had children,
      and so was all mankind made..”

      Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.
      The father answered,
      “Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.”

      The confused girl returned to her mother and said,
      “Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God,
      and Dad said they developed from monkeys?”
      The mother answered,
      “Well, Dear, it’s very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.”

      • At least none of us are married-at least as far as I know 🙂

        Wisconsin Rifts Run Deep
        Union Fight Leaves Families, Co-Workers Split; No Escape at the Doctor’s Office


        OAK CREEK, Wis.—The fifth round of the fight Kathy and Stephen Scaffidi have been having for weeks started Tuesday evening in this Milwaukee suburb when Chris Larson’s name came up.

        Mr. Larson isn’t an old boyfriend or a drinking buddy, but the couple’s state senator. Three weeks ago, he and 13 other Democratic senators fled to Illinois in an effort to prevent Republicans from passing a bill pushed by Gov. Scott Walker to curtail collective-bargaining rights for public union employees.

        View Full Image
        Jeffrey Phelps for The Wall Street Journal

        Leonard Noll of Genesee Depot, Wis., discussing a split with his sister, a teacher, over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget plan. ‘I think she feels betrayed,’ he said.

        Ms. Scaffidi, a schoolteacher, considers Mr. Larson a hero. Her husband, a manager at a media-rating company, thinks the senator is a coward.

        “How can you be saying what you’re saying when you’re married to a teacher?” Ms. Scaffidi recalled yelling at her husband in their living room.

        “You’ve got to look at the big picture!” Mr. Scaffidi shouted back.

        Adoption of the Republican governor’s plan this week doesn’t seem likely to ease the tensions built up during the sometimes-bizarre battle over the bill. The fight has polarized not just politics in this state, but families, friends and even doctors’ waiting rooms.

        With the passage of a controversial bill curtailing collective bargaining rights for public workers in Wisconsin, angry union members are calling for more protests and Democrats are promising legal challenges. Doug Belkin reports from Madison.

        According to a survey by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Walker has an approval rating of 86% among Republicans in Wisconsin and 8% among Democrats. Nearly three-quarters of voters either strongly approve or strongly disapprove of the governor, say polls from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

        A poll this week by Rasmussen Reports found that 57% of people disapproved of the governor’s proposal to weaken collective-bargaining rights.
        Related Article

        * Restrictions on Unions Become Law

        The passions evoked at both ends of the political spectrum are to be expected, said George Lightbourn, president of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank. Mr. Walker is “going about effecting transformational changes, and that’s always difficult and challenging.”

        The disparity might be felt most intensely in the Milwaukee suburbs, where the city’s strong Democratic and union culture melds with more conservative, affluent suburbs where Mr. Walker grew up.

        Sitting in the Alterra coffee shop this week near Mr. Walker’s home in Wauwatosa, Leonard Noll said he hadn’t spoken to his older sister since late last year.

        Mr. Noll, 53 years old, is an entrepreneur who owns a plastics manufacturing company. His sister is a teacher nearby. He is a millionaire but would gladly trade his cash and property for his sister’s pension, he said. “Throw in the health care and you can have my car, motorcycle and boat,” Mr. Noll said.

        When his sister sent an email to her four siblings and other family members in February asking them to join her in Madison, Wisconsin’s capital, to protest Mr. Walker’s bill, no one went. The sister didn’t return phone calls seeking comment. “I think she feels betrayed that we didn’t go,” he said, “but we’ve been having this fight for 30 years.”

        View Full Image
        Jeffrey Phelps for The Wall Street Journal

        Carla Goetsch-Arnold said she de-friended about 30 Facebook friends because of their views on the issue.

        Carla Goetsch-Arnold, 50, an urban farmer, said she was in her doctor’s office reading a Twitter feed from her Democratic representative to her 21-year-old daughter when two other people in the waiting room rolled their eyes.

        “They said if the Democrats could get their act together, we wouldn’t have to play hardball with them,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. We Democrats are polite people, and Republicans are so divisive.”

        Mr. Goetsch-Arnold said she recently de-friended about 30 Facebook friends because of their views of the Wisconsin situation.

        In the newsroom of Third Coast Digest, a Milwaukee website about local arts, culture and politics, arguments between liberals and conservatives have grown so heated that the advertising director sent the publisher an email saying he didn’t think he could come to work because he was so angry.

        “We have a weekly staff meeting, and I had to let everybody know that not everybody holds the same beliefs,” said the publisher, Jon Anne Willow.

        View Full Image

        A few hundred miles north in Two Rivers, near Green Bay, a student had a T-shirt made at a local shop that said “Scott Walker My Hero” on the front.

        The shop owner, former union member David Van Ginkel, said he later received an email from the local teachers union president implying his shop might not get further business from the schools. The union official couldn’t be reached.

        Mr. Van Ginkel says he told the official he’s not partisan, he’s just trying to make a living. Since a local newspaper wrote a story about the incident, he says he’s received hundreds of orders for the shirt.

        “Conservatives are writing in, supporting me,’ Mr. Van Ginkel said. “But long term, I’m still not sure how it’s going to affect my business.”

        At the Oak Creek home of the Scaffidis, who have been married for 25 years, Tuesday’s argument went on for an hour, with neither spouse giving an inch. They’ve decided not to watch the evening news together anymore.

        “It was just getting too stressful,” Ms. Scaffidi said.

        • Oooops-wrong place. Very funny joke by the way, which is what I was going to put here before I got distracted.

        • How about during an obstacle course for phy ed class that had a punching bag at the end of it with a sign indicating it was “Gov Walker” and encouraged the class to hit it really hard?

          How about a tunnel formed by teachers in solidarity for the kids to walk through when arriving for class yesterday morning?

          How about emails going out on school time from school email addresses that talk about solidarity and non-conforming teachers may seriously want to reconsider their positions.

          These plus I’m sure many others have happened in my own school district.

          • Personally, I would call that brain washing-par for the course(pun intended).

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            How about a Michigan Teacher who put an ad in Craiglist actually threatening students of parent’s who are Tea Party Members. And here we are wondering how it is that there are so many kids that are turning into Bullies!!!


            Text: (Apparently Craiglist did take the ad down)

            Saturday, March 12, 2011
            Michigan Teacher Threatens Tea Party’s Children
            This is a message from a Teacher to all the Tea Bags here in Michigan. It was posted on Craigslist yesterday, during school hours.

            Little tea bags (capitol)

            Date: 2011-03-11, 10:46AM EST Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

            So you Tea Bags want to take away my hard earned blue ribbon bennies. Well guess what you scum sucking Tea Bags, I got your kids all day long in my classroom and with just a few slick questions I know who the little tea bags are! And you think you’ll have the last laugh HA-Ha-ha

            Location: capitol it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

            PostingID: 2259517268

            Copyright © 2011 craigslist, inc.terms of useprivacy policyfeedback forum

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @RS – anonymity is a strange thing – could have been a teacher or maybe it wasn’t. We’ll never know I guess.

            • Another plus for homeschooling. Regardless of who actually wrote the notice..the seed is planted.

    • Ray Hawkins says:


      ….And to think after reading USW’s remarks – I was contemplating how I should respond – was thinking maybe less is more, find my own olive branch, etc.

      And then I run across your posting…….

      Tempting as it is as this hour to unleash fury…..I choose to say nothing other than thanks for the posting and call out. Each response to this type of article is a testament to whether you get or not. Your words speak for themselves and so be it – less would have been more – its your right and I respect that.

      Dispassionate clarification….

      There are not many things BF and I agree on – and we time to time re-engage. But I respect his mind and passion and for some things he’s helped me with offline.

      There are a small number of things D13 and I do not agree on. I find him reasonable and well defended on his positions and I respect him inherently for what I know of him and what he’s done. And I’m not apologetic for it.

      For good measure…..JAC and I agree on little. I always respect him and his views – I just got real torqued when I felt he tried to backdoor debate several weeks ago. I’m over it and look forward to more of his words.

      @USW – timely posting and duly thanked and noted. I crashed “me” the hard drive and rebooted.

      Let’s roll.

  12. Had to look up a few words-but good article. Many parts of it stood out but these words should be given special attention:

    “How aptly the British people might today apply the ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence against their own rulers, who have “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.”

    A European’s Warning to America
    The perils of following us toward greater regulation, higher taxes and centralized power.


    On a U.S. talk-radio show recently, I was asked what I thought about the notion that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya. “Pah!” I replied. “Your president was plainly born in Brussels.”

    American conservatives have struggled to press the president’s policies into a meaningful narrative. Is he a socialist? No, at least not in the sense of wanting the state to own key industries. Is he a straightforward New Deal big spender, in the model of FDR and LBJ? Not exactly.

    My guess is that, if anything, Obama would verbalize his ideology using the same vocabulary that Eurocrats do. He would say he wants a fairer America, a more tolerant America, a less arrogant America, a more engaged America. When you prize away the cliché, what these phrases amount to are higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracies, and a transfer of sovereignty to global institutions.

    He is not pursuing a set of random initiatives but a program of comprehensive Europeanization: European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas.

    No previous president has offered such uncritical support for European integration. On his very first trip to Europe as president, Mr. Obama declared, “In my view, there is no Old Europe or New Europe. There is a united Europe.”

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of those Americans who want to copy the European model. A few may be snobs who wear their euro-enthusiasm as a badge of sophistication. But most genuinely believe that making their country less American and more like the rest of the world would make it more comfortable and peaceable.

    All right, growth would be slower, but the quality of life might improve. All right, taxes would be higher, but workers need no longer fear sickness or unemployment. All right, the U.S. would no longer be the world’s superpower, but perhaps that would make it more popular. Is a European future truly so terrible?

    Yes. I have been an elected member of the European Parliament for 11 years. I have seen firsthand what the European political model means.

    The critical difference between the American and European unions has to do with the location of power. The U.S. was founded on what we might loosely call the Jeffersonian ideal: the notion that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect. The European Union was based on precisely the opposite ideal. Article One of its foundational treaty commits its nations to establish “an ever-closer union.”

    From that distinction, much follows. The U.S. has evolved a series of unique institutions designed to limit the power of the state: recall mechanisms, ballot initiatives, balanced budget rules, open primaries, localism, states’ rights, term limits, the direct election of public officials from the sheriff to the school board. The EU places supreme power in the hands of 27 unelected Commissioners invulnerable to public opinion.

    The will of the people is generally seen by Eurocrats as an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction. When France, the Netherlands and Ireland voted against the European Constitution, the referendum results were swatted aside and the document adopted regardless. For, in Brussels, the ruling doctrine—that the nation-state must be transcended—is seen as more important than freedom, democracy or the rule of law.

    This doctrine has had several malign consequences. For example, it has made the assimilation of immigrants far more difficult. Whereas the U.S. is based around the idea that anyone who buys into American values can become American, the EU clings to the notion that national identities are anachronistic and dangerous. Unsurprisingly, some newcomers, finding their adopted countries scorned, have turned to other, less apologetic identities.

    The single worst aspect of Europeanization is its impact on the economy. Many Americans, and many Europeans, have a collective memory of how Europe managed to combine economic growth with social justice. Like most folk memories, the idea of a European economic miracle has some basis in fact. Between 1945 and 1974, Western Europe did outperform the U.S. Europe happened to enjoy perfect conditions for rapid growth. Infrastructure had been destroyed during the war, but an educated, industrious and disciplined work force remained.

    Human nature being what it is, few European leaders attributed their success to the fact that they were recovering from an artificial low. They convinced themselves, rather, that they were responsible for their countries’ growth rates. Their genius, they thought, lay in having hit upon a European “third way” between the excesses of American capitalism and the totalitarianism of Soviet communism.

    We can now see where that road leads: to burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth and rising unemployment. But an entire political class has grown up believing not just in the economic superiority of euro-corporatism but in its moral superiority. After all, if the American system were better—if people could thrive without government supervision—there would be less need for politicians. As Upton Sinclair once observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

    Nonetheless, the economic data are pitilessly clear. For the past 40 years, Europeans have fallen further and further behind Americans in their standard of living. Europe also has become accustomed to a high level of structural unemployment. Only now, as the U.S. applies a European-style economic strategy based on fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing and the regulation of private-sector remuneration, has the rate of unemployment in the U.S. leaped to European levels.

    Why is a European politician urging America to avoid Europeanization? As a Briton, I see the American republic as a repository of our traditional freedoms. The doctrines rooted in the common law, in the Magna Carta, and in the Bill of Rights found their fullest and most sublime expression in the old courthouse of Philadelphia. Britain, as a result of its unhappy membership in the European Union, has now surrendered a large part of its birthright. But our freedoms live on in America.

    Which brings me to my country’s present tragedy. The fears that the American patriot leaders had about a Hanoverian tyranny were exaggerated. The United Kingdom did not develop into an absolutist state. Power continued to pass from the Crown to the House of Commons.

    Until now. Nearly two and a half centuries after the Declaration of Independence, the grievances it adumbrated are belatedly coming true. Colossal sums are being commandeered by the government in order to fund bailouts and nationalizations without any proper parliamentary authorization. Legislation happens increasingly through what are called standing orders, a device that allows ministers to make laws without parliamentary consent—often for the purpose of implementing EU standards.

    How aptly the British people might today apply the ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence against their own rulers, who have “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.”

    So you can imagine how I feel when I see the U.S. making the same mistakes that Britain has made: expanding its government, regulating private commerce, centralizing its jurisdiction, breaking the link between taxation and representation, abandoning its sovereignty.

    You deserve better, cousins. And we expect better.

    Mr. Hannan is a member of the European Parliament. This essay is adapted from the Encounter Books Broadside, “Why America Must Not Follow Europe.”

  13. BREAKING NEWS!!!!! Charlie the Stella is actually a closet Republican….. BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!


    • Don’t kid yourself, Colonel, I was seriously accused of that … had a full scale blog war. Remember, I was once so frustrated with The Dems (Clinton’s 2nd term) that I didn’t vote for anybody … then voted for Bush twice (how’s that for socialism–red right through, etc.)? That was pure frustration and I do regret it but more so because I voted for either major party-which won’t happen again in my lifetime. I was also very upset about 9-11 and, like I said, I’m no pacifist. But (shoutout for BF here), the Gov’t did a hell of a job in suckering way too many of us into thinking Iraq needed to be invaded. And for that, I think war crimes are in order for those who made the decision.

      Now, Kathy, if you look back a few days (maybe a week), you will notice after USW’s first request for civility, I did try to remind BF that USW had said no more smartass stuff. But I was certainly guilty of starting it before that (unless one takes having their brain qualified as muddled, etc.). I never muddle my brains … but I am sometimes confused about which wife was which … and right now I’m in the doghouse with #4 for being upset at the stepson for living in front of his video games. My boys told me they saw he posted on FB that he needs a roommate(s) “fast”. Colonel, I suggested he join a branch of the military and find not only roommates, but benefits to boot!

  14. The civility talk. Oh boy. To be honest, I’ve just about had it with that. I’ve seen more vulgar, uncivil displays in recent weeks than I ever thought possible. And guess what – they were coming from the side that preaches “compromise” “diversity” which really means, as long we we get what we want and it’s the kind of diverse thinking we agree with.

    I will try to continue to take the high road because the other alternative is to stoop to their level and become part of what I see as despicable behavior and severely lacking ethics.

    What I see here from the left at SUFA is a strong defense of the above and I’m about at the point where Cyndi was a few months back – simply walking away, but then I realize it would be my loss as I still have much to learn. BF’s epics, JACS calming explanations (how do you do it?), D13’s experience in areas I know nothing about and on and on. Oh yeah, there’s that witch to the east across the big lake from me that I seldom disagree with and have a lot of fun with!

    I would also love to learn from the left. I know I’ve personally asked for some guest posts so that I can understand better. Haven’t seen any.

    You run a good site, USW, and I truly appreciate it. But I’m a little tired of being asked to play nice to a progressive agenda that has no intention of playing nice back.

    • Now I apparently need to go back and catch up on yesterday. When I first read Anita’s post above I thought she said she was smoking pot, but on second glance I see it says she was stirring the pot………. 😉

      • Wow! Did I miss some fun while I was watching the Badgers STINK up Conseco Field against…..THE NITTANY LIONS!! WTH????

        For the record, Anita, I called you the “w” word above, not to be confused with the “B” word that apparently came out yesterday. Was thinking of you more as Glinda when I wrote my post above.

      • Another note from yesterday –

        Esom has grown from a hill to a whole nation!!

        Awesome!!! 😆

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Kathy, I think you have held your own in the debates quite well. Even when talking about something very important to you, you have maintained a civil discourse and refrained from name calling. I tip my hat to you! 8)

  15. Stand Up For America is what I believe every poster here does.

    America as they see it, believe it should be, and how it may need to change to be the America they are standing up for.

    That’s what makes the discussion that occurs here so interesting and worthwhile – even if it is batshit crazy stuff. 😉

    • I should also remark that when the personal flame wars start – I stop reading. It’s not worth my time.

      • And you have spoken the magic words that articulate the reason why I ask that people maintain some sort of civility. IF people tune out because of the name calling and flame wars, then we are accomplishing little of what we came here to do.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hey, I’m still reading here 😆

  16. I certainly don’t want this place to turn into a huffpo-and I don’t think USW is asking anyone to not say what they mean -just say it a little nicer. But I do have to admit that sometimes I fell like I am being a little to PC in order to be civil. And other times I feel like Anita, that the conversation gets so confrontational that people just decide it isn’t worth the hassle to comment.

  17. Here you go. Opening a can of worms here, but really this video speaks volumes.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Kathy – the only can of worms are the idiots that were featured in the video. Any socially redeeming programs PP offers are being vastly overshadowed by this “make abortions as easy as getting a cup of coffee” mentality.

      That video was very disheartening.

  18. gmanfortruth says:


    News from Japan is that a meltdown may be underway at the nuke plant, and another nuke plant has been called an emergency. Egads, what a disaster.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A Japanese official with the country’s nuclear and industrial safety agency is telling CNN that nuclear meltdown may be underway at one of the two Fukushima nuclear reactors. This would constitute a “catastrophic failure.” More to come.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Tokyo Electric Power Co (9501.T) has begun preparation to release radioactive steam from a second reactor at its quake-struck Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility, a spokesman said on Sunday.

    • Horrifying pictures.

      Is the Red Cross still the best, safest, most trusted place to donate?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t have an answer for donations at this point. Things are quite muddled with all that is happening there.

        Who would have thought 70 years ago that we would have an aircraft carrier in a Japanese port to give aid? Time does heal those wounds.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          @Black Flag,

          I’m not good with the issue of radiation, with that said, if one or more of these reactors melt down and this stuff gets in the atmosphere, how much danger could we face here?

          • Gman,

            It is a matter of amount and exposure.

            Risk to USA – zero.
            Risk to Japan – zero to huge.

            Vastly most radiation is harmless – it is stopped by the surface of your skin. This is good because you are surrounded by radiation sources (like concrete).

            BUT ingestion or breathing radioactive material = death sentence. There is little to no radiation protection INSIDE YOU.

            In the steam – it will probably be weak Alpha particles – essentially electron-less Hydrogen moving “faster than normal”. They quickly dissipate.

            If it is actually atomic pile, as a dust – then not so good.

            Half-life of Uranium is a few hundred thousand years – so a few good rains will be necessary to dissipate this, but it is not good for human health in the mean time.

  19. Charlie,

    Anyway, I was interested in BF’s beef with corporations. I know he wrote they were created by government and as such are evil.

    Remember how I judge evil.

    Evil is not something “I don’t like”. I don’t like a lot of things or a lot of people, but they are NOT evil.

    Evil is -short form- “violence on the innocent”.

    Corporations -by the use of limited liability- deflect responsibility of the damage onto the innocent.

    As I posted to Todd in the last thread, harm is a zero-sum game. If I steal from you, but only have to return half back to “solve” the problem, you still suffer – the innocent victim – the loss of the other half, …. which either I still have, or used to my benefit.

    So, a group of people organizing to an economic goal – I call a “Company of Men”, = good thing.

    A “Corporation” – entity specifically created by government to give some people the ability to avoid negative consequences = bad thing.

    I agree they are evil, but is it the legislation he speaks of or something a clever capitalist thought of as a way to protect himself? Just curious here, not looking to start a[nother] war

    No, not a “Capitalist” – a real Capitalists understands risk and reward, and that to enjoy “good” consequences fully also means that if “negative” consequences occur, they need to be “enjoyed” fully, too.

    Mercantilists – absolutely, Charlie – and that is why they pleaded with the Crown to protect themselves from the harm they delivered upon others. The Crown gave a “charter” – a protection from competition and loss – to operate in a certain region and capacity with all the power of violence the Crown could muster to their defense (or offense, it that was necessary)

    British East India Company and Hudson’s Bay Company – among the two oldest and they stole, cheated and killed their way to riches.

    Mercantilism is evil, Charlie – not Capitalism.

    • Okay, thanks for your explanation. But … are not mercantilists made up of men? Is it just those men (a segment of capitalists) who are evil or are they to be assumed separate from true capitalists. I guess my confusion with this is the motivation of acquisition/profit. One, as you explain it, is pure and willing to take the risks; the other wants an unfair advantage. That about right?

      • Charlie,

        . But … are not mercantilists made up of men?


        Is it just those men (a segment of capitalists) who are evil or are they to be assumed separate from true capitalists.

        Whereas they may wave big signs proclaiming “Capitalism” – it is a misdirection, just like child killers waving big signs proclaiming “World Child Day”

        If they went out with truth and said “We slaughter innocent people so we can make money” – well, you know how far they’d get….

        So they go out “We go out and produce economic GOODS for the people and make money” – few check on their METHODS, and simply believe the words.

        I guess my confusion with this is the motivation of acquisition/profit.

        Whereas I do not concern myself at all with motives. I cannot judge why you want or do not want “a set of things” for yourself.

        I judge ACTION – whether it is RIGHTFUL or not.

        One, as you explain it, is pure and willing to take the risks; the other wants an unfair advantage. That about right?

        Yes, and more than merely an “unfair” advantage – because that will still mean they could possibly lose.

        They want NO RISK – which means they need to do one or more of the following tactics:

        (1) deflect the risk
        (2) kill (physically and rhetorically) any competition
        (3) force others to pay while they get most of the profit
        and with this as a fundamental requirement:
        (4) appear to be the good guys, champions, celebrity and hero’s for the rest of society. It’s no fun having all the dough but looking like a mass murderer.

      • Charlie,

        …and yes, often we see each other side by side fighting the same enemy – to much of our mutual surprise, I’m sure! 8)

        • Charlie,

          Thus, the GM discourse.

          As one pundit said:
          Hate the game, like the player

          The GM boys were playing a big-stakes game – a game that is disgusting to me as to you – Mercantilism – but I can see the players (who probably do not think they are doing anything wrong) making great plays.

  20. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Capitalism for Simpletons (and written by a simpleton, hah):

    lesson number one.

    Plant a kernel of corn, nurture it, harvest a crop.

    Important to Not consume the harvest/capital in the early stages.

    Replant many kernel’s of corn/capital, nurture them, harvest a bigger crop.

    Continue year after year to the point you can eat all you want and hardly dent your capital.

    Lesson number two for ‘advanced capitalism’

    Use part of your accumulated capital to buy government favors such as protection from communist sympathizer’s who want to steal your wealth because they are either ignorant to the benefits of capitalism in a truly free market, or just envy other’s success.

    The moral of the story? Stay outa my pie and Create your own Damn Wealth !

  21. Ugh! MSU falls to Penn State also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I can hear USW laughing as I write this 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Anita, I’ve been itching to say this, so here it goes. I know you and Ray had a beef in the past, and I agree that Ray can be rough at times. But knowing Ray, if someone came on here and started attacking you, or anyone else, in a real negative manner, Ray would be on that person like white on rice. And he would not likely be very nice to that person.

      We’re a big family here, we sometimes get along like typical brothers and sisters. As USW said, deep down we have all come to care for one another.

      My rant for the day!

    • USWeapon says:

      What, What. Nittany Lions in the HOOOUUUSSSSEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

      They are playing great defense in the Big Ten Tourney. Allowing an average of something like 45 points. So that makes some disappointed Michigan State folks here at SUFA. But take solace. We beat Wisconsin 36-33 the night before. Talk about ugly. But that makes some disappointed Wisconsin fans here at SUFA. Tomorrow, we try to disappoint the #1 ranked Ohio State Buckeye’s fans. A tall order indeed.


      • Yes sir! You’ve taken your share of grief from me & Kathy so we got your back against the Buckeyes. Never thought I’d say this but…

        Go Nittany Lions. 🙂

  22. TexasChem says:

    For BlackFlag! Enjoy my friend.

    “Kimberly Clark from the IRS – Dec 15, 2010”

    • TexasChem says:

      And this…forgot to add it to post….

      Written by Marc Stevens
      Friday, 31 December 2010 18:19

      As promised, I’ve posted the entire phone call with the IRS lawyer posted here. This is from a pretrial conference recorded on Dec. 15, 2010; everyone knew I was recording. The only edits made are bleeping the client’s name, the attorney’s fax number and I had to amplify some of the audio of me speaking.

      I think it’s another great example showing tax agents have no factual support for their accusations. You will hear evasion after evasion from this IRS attorney and remember: this is an IRS attorney, not an IRS agent. This woman holds a doctorate degree, so it’s reasonable to presume she knows more about taxation than the average IRS agent, or she’s an expert on the interpretation and application of tax law than IRS agents.

      This is a pretrial conference; the parties are to put everything on the table, the facts, witnesses and theory of their case for trial; to see if there are factual disputes or come to an agreement to avoid trial. Keep this in mind when listening to the recording when you hear the attorney refuse to discuss witnesses and facts.

      The attorney openly admits to not relying on or planning on calling any witnesses “at trial”. This is just a distraction, not an answer to my question because I want to know if there are any witnesses with first-hand knowledge at all. When pressed, she claims there is a witness my client is a taxpayer, but, she cannot identify him/her and has had no contact with this unknown agent. She claims the unknown agent may not even work for the IRS anymore and may be across the country now. Therefore, she cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn’t know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client’s a taxpayer. This is significant because her entire case is based on an unidentified, possibly unqualified witness she has had no contact with. The attorney isn’t a witness or a party to the proceeding, so her opinion my client is a taxpayer has the same weight here as yours: absolutely none. Despite having no contact with her alleged witnesses, she’s so absolutely certain their accusations are true that any challenge is automatically deemed “frivolous”.

      She also initially claims she would move to quash a subpoena issued to her unknown witnesses to testify. When I asked her on what grounds, she admitted she didn’t have grounds. It was tough not laughing at her (I can now though). She then stated she would have to first see the subpoena, then decide if she would fight against having her witness testify. Yes, I let her off the hook on this, but I had made my point.

      Ask yourself this question when you hear that part of the recording: Why would she fight having her own witness put on the stand? She won’t call him and will fight if I call him as a witness. If it’s so obvious everyone’s a taxpayer, and the mere challenge itself is “frivolous”, then why fight against having the agent testify in court under oath?

      Later in the recording I question the attorney on the evidence she claimed the IRS has. I ask if there’s a factual difference between income and taxable income and she agrees there’s a factual difference. I ask if she knows the differences and instead of answering, she threatens to end the call. Again, I didn’t ask her what those differences are, just if she knows. The attorney refuses to discuss the differences and makes the silly claim I’m making a “semantic” argument by asking her about the factual differences she admits exist.

      This doctor of law refused to discuss the factual differences between income and taxable income, even though she admits there are differences. This is a pre-trial conference where we’re supposed to discuss the facts. Why would she refuse if she had facts proving my client’s a taxpayer with taxable income? If it’s so obvious as governments and their apologists insist, then why the institutional refusal to discuss the facts? This isn’t an isolated incident, I get this all the time from state and federal agents and their attorneys. At one point she tells me to “read the code” to find the facts she claims she relies on. Can you imagine being accused of murder, asking for the facts and being told to read the criminal code?

      Are you convinced I’m making a frivolous argument by asking about the facts? Do you believe it’s a “semantic” argument? What about the irony there? The IRS’s entire case rests on words and I’m accused of “semantics”.

      There’s no evidence anyone is a taxpayer and has taxable income. This is not the argument “one is not a taxpayer as defined by statute”. The first is a factual issue, the second is one of law; two different animals, apples and oranges.

      Taxation is theft and that’s the reason there’s no evidence to prove anyone is taxpayer with taxable income. That’s why pro-government extremists and other control freaks always argue words such as law, constitution, court opinions when talking about people being liable for taxes. They can’t produce any facts so they use smoke-screens to distract you; another one is the red herring about people being convicted of tax evasion as if that is evidence people owe taxes. If you believe that’s evidence people are taxpayers with taxable income, then what about acquittals such as with Tommy Cryer and Lloyd Long? Using this red herring, acquittals would mean there is no evidence anyone is a taxpayer with taxable income. Obviously convictions and acquittals are not evidence someone is a taxpayer. No one is a taxpayer with taxable income for no other reason than taxation is theft.

      If you stick to the facts, then tax agents and their attorneys will refuse to answer because there are no facts proving you or anyone else is a taxpayer with taxable income. Remember the maxim: “quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.” The Clara, 102 US 200. By their own rules, the accusation/assessment you have taxable income is arbitrary; it’s what bureaucrats themselves call a “naked assessment” (US v Janis, 422 US 433, 442) and it’s required to be vacated. But we know governments don’t play by their own rules, criminals don’t play by the rules.

      All of this is predictable and the natural consequences when services are provided on a compulsory basis. All the problems and abuses we see with governments are from one cause: support is compulsory. There is no reform, only abolition. Join me every Saturday from 1-3pm pst, 4-6 est, on the No State Project where we discuss bringing about a voluntary society.


    In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days.. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
    The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the
    passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, “Case dismissed!”
    The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, “Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..”.The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, “But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.”
    The lawyer said, “Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.”
    The judge said, “The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm14:1 states, ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’ Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool.. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.”; You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

  24. SUFA…time to write your congressman and those of you on the left who hated BUsh for his foray into IRAQ, time for you to step up and not show your hypocrisy….two hours ago, Obama took another step towards the introduction of American troops into Libya. There is no threat to the United States other than oil….. So, where is the outrage? A war in Afghanistan that is not calming down and possibly intoducing troops into Libya…..Where are you left? Where are you media?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – I had the opp to speak with a staffer for a PA Congress-member (I’ll leave name and affiliation out of this). There is not galvanized support to get involved in Libya at all. Many are afraid on both sides of having to play ball and do some face washing to support an unpopular (potential approach). One comment that resonated was (and I am paraphrasing): the American people need to speak louder – and not just tell us that they don’t want soldiers in North Africa AND don’t want higher prices at the pump (and full recognizing that is NOT a one to one relationship).

      He also remarked how “scandals” like Charlie Sheen and the pending Royal Wedding help provide “media cover” for them to stall movement if even for a week or two.


      • Ray

        One comment that resonated was (and I am paraphrasing): the American people need to speak louder – and not just tell us that they don’t want soldiers in North Africa AND don’t want higher prices at the pump (and full recognizing that is NOT a one to one relationship)

        Exactly Ray.

        But that would be people actually learn to understand how the gas prices actually work and how oil actually operates within our economy….

        …. but the Simpson’s and Two and Half Men are on TV tonight, so….

    • D13,

      ….or is it simply another example – repeated over and over – that there is only one government in control, always has been and always will be – and the apparent “sides” is an illusion.

      • IlliterateVagrant says:

        Is this referring to a NWO or a comment specifically about the government of the US?

        • IV

          It is that both major political parties are basically the same.

          They operate from the same moral core principle, that Govt must provide for us. Despite the R’s arguments to the contrary their track record shows the two simply argue over WHAT to control and spend money on, not WHETHER.

          The latest evidence is the resistance the Rep. leadership is giving against the “tea party” R’s that were just elected.

  25. gmanfortruth says:
  26. IlliterateVagrant says:

    So how about tin-foil hat wearing hippies are already blaming HAARP for the earthquakes.

    Doesn’t full scale ignorance just make your blood boil?

    • TexasChem says:

      Full scale ignorance does make my blood boil. After you read this would you like me to send you one of my specially made tin foil hats? 🙂

      The Military’s Pandora’s Box

      by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning

      This article was prepared to provide a summary of the contents of a book written in 1995 which describes an entirely new class of weapons. The weapons and their effects are described in the following pages. The United States Navy and Air Force have joined with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, to build a prototype for a ground based “Star Wars” weapon system located in the remote bush country of Alaska.

      The individuals who are demanding answers about HAARP are scattered around the planet. As well as bush dwellers in Alaska, they include: a physician in Finland; a scientist in Holland; an anti-nuclear protester in Australia; independent physicists in the United States; a grandmother in Canada, and countless others.

      Unlike the protests of the 1960s the objections to HAARP have been registered using the tools of the 1990s. From the Internet, fax machines, syndicated talk radio and a number of alternative print mediums the word is getting out and people are waking up to this new intrusion by an over zealous United States government.

      The research team put together to gather the materials which eventually found their way into the book never held a formal meeting, never formed a formal organization. Each person acted like a node on a planetary info-spirit-net with one goal held by all — to keep this controversial new science in the public eye. The result of the team’s effort was a book which describes the science and the political ramifications of this technology.

      That book, Angels Don’t Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, has 230 pages. This article will only give the highlights. Despite the amount of research (350 footnoted sources), at its heart it is a story about ordinary people who took on an extraordinary challenge in bringing their research forward.

      HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere

      HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an “ionospheric heater.” (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth’s upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)
      Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.

      HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly — HAARP aims to learn how to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.

      Press releases and other information from the military on HAARP continually downplay what it could do. Publicity documents insist that the HAARP project is no different than other ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. However, a 1990 government document indicates that the radio-frequency (RF) power zap will drive the ionosphere to unnatural activities.

      ” … at the highest HF powers available in the West, the instabilities commonly studied are approaching their maximum RF energy dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will ‘runaway’ until the next limiting factor is reached.”
      If the military, in cooperation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, can show that this new ground-based “Star Wars” technology is sound, they both win. The military has a relatively-inexpensive defense shield and the University can brag about the most dramatic geophysical manipulation since atmospheric explosions of nuclear bombs. After successful testing, they would have the military megaprojects of the future and huge markets for Alaska’s North Slope natural gas.

      Looking at the other patents which built on the work of a Texas’ physicist named Bernard Eastlund, it becomes clearer how the military intends to use the HAARP transmitter. It also makes governmental denials less believable. The military knows how it intends to use this technology, and has made it clear in their documents. The military has deliberately misled the public, through sophisticated word games, deceit and outright disinformation.

      The military says the HAARP system could:

      Give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986)

      Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology

      Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system

      Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military’s own communications systems working

      Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements

      Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area

      Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete

      The above abilities seem like a good idea to all who believe in sound national defense, and to those concerned about cost-cutting. However, the possible uses which the HAARP records do not explain, and which can only be found in Air Force, Army, Navy and other federal agency records, are alarming. Moreover, effects from the reckless use of these power levels in our natural shield — the ionosphere — could be cataclysmic according to some scientists.
      Two Alaskans put it bluntly. A founder of the NO HAARP movement, Clare Zickuhr, says “The military is going to give the ionosphere a big kick and see what happens.”
      The military failed to tell the public that they do not know what exactly will happen, but a Penn State science article brags about that uncertainty. Macho science? The HAARP project uses the largest energy levels yet played with by what Begich and Manning call “the big boys with their new toys.” HAARP is an experiment in the sky, and experiments are done to find out something not already known. Independent scientists told Begich and Manning that a HAARP-type “skybuster” with its unforeseen effects could be an act of global vandalism.

      HAARP History
      The patents described below were the package of ideas which were originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems in June 1994.
      E-Systems is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world — doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations and others. $1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects — projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn’t told how the money is being spent.
      E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. In 1994 Raytheon was listed as number forty-two on the Fortune 500 list of companies. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable in the HAARP project. The twelve patents below are the backbone of the HAARP project, and are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon. Bernard J. Eastlund’s U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere; and/or Magnetosphere,” was sealed for a year under a government Secrecy Order.

      The Eastlund ionospheric heater was different; the radio frequency (RF) radiation was concentrated and focused to a point in the ionosphere. This difference throws an unprecedented amount of energy into the ionosphere. The Eastlund device would allow a concentration of one watt per cubic centimeter, compared to others only able to deliver about one millionth of one watt.

      This huge difference could lift and change the ionosphere in the ways necessary to create futuristic effects described in the patent. According to the patent, the work of Nikola Tesla in the early 1900’s formed the basis of the research.

      What would this technology be worth to ARCO, the owner of the patents? They could make enormous profits by beaming electrical power from a powerhouse in the gas fields to the consumer without wires.

      For a time, HAARP researchers could not prove that this was one of the intended uses for HAARP. In April, 1995, however, Begich found other patents, connected with a “key personnel” list for APTI. Some of these new APTI patents were indeed a wireless system for sending electrical power. Eastlund’s patent said the technology can confuse or completely disrupt airplanes’ and missiles’ sophisticated guidance systems. Further, this ability to spray large areas of Earth with electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, and to control changes in those waves, makes it possible to knock out communications on land or sea as well as in the air.

      The patent said:

      “Thus, this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth’s atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes… ”

      “…it is possible not only to interfere with third party communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world’s communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another’s communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communication network at the same time.”

      “… large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction.”

      “Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.

      … molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.”
      Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make “Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation,” Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system.

      Related research by Begich and Manning uncovered bizarre schemes. For example, Air Force documents revealed that a system had been developed for manipulating and disturbing human mental processes through pulsed radio-frequency radiation (the stuff of HAARP) over large geographical areas. The most telling material about this technology came from writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Advisory to U.S. President Carter) and J.F. MacDonald (science advisor to U.S. President Johnson and a professor of Geophysics at UCLA), as they wrote about use of power-beaming transmitters for geophysical and environmental warfare. The documents showed how these effects might be caused, and the negative effects on human heath and thinking.

      The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. More than 40 pages of the book, with dozens of footnotes, chronicle the work of Harvard professors, military planners and scientists as they plan and test this use of the electromagnetic technology. For example, one of the papers describing this use was from the International Red Cross in Geneva. It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur — the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.

      The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University:

      “Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth … in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period”

      ” … no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages, to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.”

      In 1966, MacDonald was a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee and later a member of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. He published papers on the use of environmental control technologies for military purposes. The most profound comment he made as a geophysicist was, “the key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.” While yesterday’s geophysicists predicted today’s advances, are HAARP program managers delivering on the vision?

      The geophysicists recognized that adding energy to the environmental soup could have large effects. However, humankind has already added substantial amounts of electromagnetic energy into our environment without understanding what might constitute critical mass. The book by Begich and Manning raises questions:

      Have these additions been without effect, or is there a cumulative amount beyond which irreparable damage can be done?
      Is HAARP another step in a journey from which we cannot turn back?
      Are we about to embark on another energy experiment which unleashes another set of demons from Pandora’s box?
      As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted a “more controlled and directed society” would gradually appear, linked to technology. This society would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly superior scientific know-how. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP further quotes Brzezinski:

      “Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Technical and scientific momentum would then feed on the situation it exploits,” Brzezinski predicted.

      His forecasts proved accurate. Today, a number of new tools for the “elite” are emerging, and the temptation to use them increases steadily. The policies to permit the tools to be used are already in place. How could the United States be changed, bit by bit, into the predicted highly-controlled technosociety? Among the “steppingstones” Brzezinski expected were persisting social crises and use of the mass media to gain the public’s confidence.

      In another document prepared by the government, the U.S. Air Force claims: “The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations… Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all of these cases the EM (electromagnetic) systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of electromagnetic systems is that they can provide coverage over large areas with a single system. They are silent and countermeasures to them may be difficult to develop… One last area where electromagnetic radiation may prove of some value is in enhancing abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena.”

      Do these comments point to uses already somewhat developed? The author of the government report refers to an earlier Air Force document about the uses of radio frequency radiation in combat situations. (Here Begich and Manning note that HAARP is the most versatile and the largest radio-frequency-radiation transmitter in the world.)

      The United States Congressional record deals with the use of HAARP for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. These signals are used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 to develop this ability alone — earth-penetrating-tomography. The problem is that the frequency needed for earth-penetrating radiation is within the frequency range most cited for disruption of human mental functions. It may also have profound effects on migration patterns of fish and wild animals which rely on an undisturbed energy field to find their routes.

      As if electromagnetic pulses in the sky and mental disruption were not enough, T. Eastlund bragged that the super-powerful ionospheric heater could control weather.

      Begich and Manning brought to light government documents indicating that the military has weather-control technology. When HAARP is eventually built to its full power level, it could create weather effects over entire hemispheres. If one government experiments with the world’s weather patterns, what is done in one place will impact everyone else on the planet. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP explains a principle behind some of Nikola Tesla’s inventions — resonance — which affect planetary systems.

      Bubble of Electric Particles
      Angels Don’t Play This HAARP includes interviews with independent scientists such as Elizabeth Rauscher. She has a Ph.D., a long and impressive career in high-energy physics, and has been published in prestigious science journals and books. Rauscher commented on HAARP. “You’re pumping tremendous energy into an extremely delicate molecular configuration that comprises these multi-layers we call the ionosphere.”
      “The ionosphere is prone to catalytic reactions,” she explained, “if a small part is changed, a major change in the ionosphere can happen.”
      In describing the ionosphere as a delicately balanced system, Dr. Rauscher shared her mental picture of it — a soap-bubble-like sphere surrounding Earth’s atmosphere, with movements swirling over the surface of the bubble. If a big enough hole is punched through it, she predicts, it could pop.

      Slicing the Ionosphere
      Physicist Daniel Winter, Ph.D., of Waynesville, North Carolina, says, “HAARP high-frequency emissions can couple with longwave (extremely-low-frequency, or ELF) pulses the Earth grid uses to distribute information as vibrations to synchronize dances of life in the biosphere.” Dan terms this geomagnetic action ‘Earth’s information bloodstream,’ and says it is likely that coupling of HAARP HF (high-frequency) with natural ELF can cause unplanned, unsuspected side effects.
      David Yarrow of Albany, New York, is a researcher with a background in electronics. He described possible interactions of HAARP radiation with the ionosphere and Earth’s magnetic grid: “HAARP will not burn holes in the ionosphere. That is a dangerous understatement of what HAARP’s giant gigawatt beam will do. Earth is spinning relative to thin electric shells of the multilayer membrane of ion-o-speres that absorb and shield Earth’s surface from intense solar radiation, including charged particle storms in solar winds erupting from the sun. Earth’s axial spin means that HAARP — in a burst lasting more than a few minutes — will slice through the ionosphere like a microwave knife. This produces not a hole but a long tear — an incision.”

      Crudely Plucking the Strings
      Second concept: As Earth rotates, HAARP will slice across the geomagnetic flux, a donut-shaped spool of magnetic strings — like longitude meridians on maps.
      HAARP may not ‘cut’ these strings in Gaia’s magnetic mantle, but will pulse each thread with harsh, out-of-harmony high frequencies. These noisy impulses will vibrate geomagnetic flux lines, sending vibrations all through the geomagnetic web. ”
      “The image comes to mind of a spider on its web. An insect lands, and the web’s vibrations alert the spider to possible prey. HAARP will be a man-made microwave finger poking at the web, sending out confusing signals, if not tearing holes in the threads. ”
      “Effects of this interference with symphonies of Gaia’s geomagnetic harp are unknown, and I suspect barely thought of. Even if thought of, the intent (of HAARP) is to learn to exploit any effects, not to play in tune to global symphonies. ”

      Among other researchers quoted is Paul Schaefer of Kansas City. His degree is in electrical engineering and he spent four years building nuclear weapons. “But most of the theories that we have been taught by scientists to believe in seem to be falling apart,” he says. He talks about imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles “like very small spinning tops” into our environment. The unnatural level of motion of highly-energetic particles in the atmosphere and in radiation belts surrounding Earth is the villain in the weather disruptions, according to this model, which describes an Earth discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action.

      Feverish Earth
      “One might compare the abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere to a car battery which has become overcharged with the normal flow of energy jammed up, resulting in hot spots, electrical arcing, physical cracks and general turbulence as the pent-up energy tries to find some place to go.”
      In a second analogy, Schaefer says “Unless we desire the death of our planet, we must end the production of unstable particles which are generating the earth’s fever. A first priority to prevent this disaster would be to shut down all nuclear power plants and end the testing of atomic weapons, electronic warfare and ‘Star Wars’.” Meanwhile, the military builds its biggest ionospheric heater yet, to deliberately create more instabilities in a huge plasma layer — the ionosphere — and to rev up the energy level of charged particles.

      Electronic Rain From The Sky
      They have published papers about electron precipitation from the magnetosphere (the outer belts of charged particles which stream toward Earth’s magnetic poles) caused by man-made very low frequency electromagnetic waves. “These precipitated particles can produce secondary ionization, emit X-rays, and cause significant perturbation in the lower ionosphere.”
      Two Stanford University radio scientists offer evidence of what technology can do to affect the sky by making waves on earth; they showed that very low frequency radio waves can vibrate the magnetosphere and cause high-energy particles to cascade into Earth’s atmosphere. By turning the signal on or off, they could stop the flow of energetic particles.

      Weather Control
      Avalanches of energy dislodged by such radio waves could hit us hard. Their work suggests that technicians could control global weather by sending relatively small ‘signals’ into the Van Allen belts (radiation belts around Earth). Thus Tesla’s resonance effects can control enormous energies by tiny triggering signals.
      The Begich/ Manning book asks whether that knowledge will be used by war-oriented or biosphere-oriented scientists.
      The military has had about twenty years to work on weather warfare methods, which it euphemistically calls weather modification. For example, rainmaking technology was taken for a few test rides in Vietnam. The U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire and Project Stormfury. And they looked at some complicated technologies that would give big effects. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP cites an expert who says the military studied both lasers and chemicals which they figured could damage the ozone layer over an enemy. Looking at ways to cause earthquakes, as well as to detect them, was part of the project named Prime Argus, decades ago. The money for that came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now under the acronym ARPA.) In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940’s, but Spacecast 2020 noted that “using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited.” Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology “compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic.”

      40 Years of Zapping the Sky?

      As far back as 1958, the chief White House advisor on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense department was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather” by using an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.

      In 1966, Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald was associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, was a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and later a member of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.

      He published papers on the use of environmental-control technologies for military purposes. MacDonald made a revealing comment: “The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. ” World-recognized scientist MacDonald had a number of ideas for using the environment as a weapon system and he contributed to what was, at the time, the dream of a futurist. When he wrote his chapter, “How To Wreck The Environment,” for the book Unless Peace Comes, he was not kidding around. In it he describes the use of weather manipulation, climate modification, polar ice cap melting or destabilization, ozone depletion techniques, earthquake engineering, ocean wave control and brain wave manipulation using the planet’s energy fields.

      He also said that these types of weapons would be developed and, when used, would be virtually undetectable by their victims. Is HAARP that weapon? The military’s intention to do environmental engineering is well documented, U.S. Congress’ subcommittee hearings on Oceans and International Environment looked into military weather and climate modification conducted in the early 1970’s. “What emerged was an awesome picture of far-ranging research and experimentation by the Department of Defense into ways environmental tampering could be used as a weapon,” said another author cited in Angles Don’t Play This HAARP.

      The revealed secrets surprised legislators. Would an inquiry into the state of the art of electromagnetic manipulation surprise lawmakers today? They may find out that technologies developed out of the HAARP experiments in Alaska could deliver on Gordon MacDonald’s vision because leading-edge scientists are describing global weather as not only air pressure and thermal systems, but also as an electrical system.

      Small Input – Big Effect

      HAARP zaps the ionosphere where it is relatively unstable. A point to remember is that the ionosphere is an active electrical shield protecting the planet from the constant bombardment of high-energy particles from space. This conducting plasma, along with Earth’s magnetic field, traps the electrical plasma of space and holds it back from going directly to the earth’s surface, says Charles Yost of Dynamic Systems, Leicester, North Carolina. “If the ionosphere is greatly disturbed, the atmosphere below is subsequently disturbed.”
      Another scientist interviewed said there is a super-powerful electrical connection between the ionosphere and the part of the atmosphere where our weather comes onstage, the lower atmosphere.

      One man-made electrical effect — power line harmonic resonance — causes fallout of charged particles from the Van Allen (radiation) belts, and the falling ions cause ice crystals (which precipitate rain clouds). What about HAARP? Energy blasted upward from an ionospheric heater is not much compared to the total in the ionosphere, but HAARP documents admit that thousandfold-greater amounts of energy can be released in the ionosphere than injected. As with MacDonald’s “key to geophysical warfare,” “nonlinear” effects (described in the literature about the ionospheric heater) mean small input and large output. Astrophysicist Adam Trombly told Manning that an acupuncture model is one way to look at the possible effect of multi-gigawatt pulsing of the ionosphere. If HAARP hits certain points, those parts of the ionosphere could react in surprising ways.

      Smaller ionospheric heaters such as the one at Arecibo are underneath relatively placid regions of the ionosphere, compared to the dynamic movements nearer Earth’s magnetic poles. That adds another uncertainty to HAARP — the unpredictable and lively upper atmosphere near the North Pole.

      HAARP experimenters do not impress commonsense Alaskans such as Barbara Zickuhr, who says “They’re like boys playing with a sharp stick, finding a sleeping bear and poking it in the butt to see what’s going to happen.”

      Could They Short-Circuit Earth?
      Earth as a spherical electrical system is a fairly well-accepted model. However, those experimenters who want to make unnatural power connections between parts of this system might not be thinking of possible consequences. Electrical motors and generators can be caused to wobble when their circuits are affected. Could human activities cause a significant change in a planet’s electrical circuit or electrical field? A paper in the respected journal Science deals with manmade ionization from radioactive material, but perhaps it could also be studied with HAARP-type skybusters in mind:
      “For example, while changes in the earth’s electric field resulting from a solar flare modulating conductivity may have only a barely detectable effect on meteorology, the situation may be different in regard to electric field changes caused by manmade ionization… ” Meteorology, of course, is the study of the atmosphere and weather. ionization is what happens when a higher level of power is zapped into atoms and knocks electrons off the atoms. The resulting charged particles are the stuff of HAARP. “One look at the weather should tell us that we are on the wrong path,” says Paul Schaefer, commenting on HAARP-type technologies.

      Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology is about the military’s plan to manipulate that which belongs to the world — the ionosphere. The arrogance of the United States government in this is not without precedent.

      Atmospheric nuclear tests had similar goals. More recently, China and France put their people’s money to destructive use in underground nuclear tests. It was recently reported that the US government spent $3 trillion dollars on its nuclear program since its beginnings in the 1940’s. What new breakthroughs in life science could have been made with all the money spent on death?

      Begich, Manning, Roderick and others believe that democracies need to be founded on openness, rather than the secrecy which surrounds so much military science. Knowledge used in developing revolutionary weapons could be used for healing and helping mankind. Because they are used in new weapons, discoveries are classified and suppressed. When they do appear in the work of other independent scientists, the new ideas are often frustrated or ridiculed, while military research laboratories continue to build their new machines for the killing fields.

      However, the book by Manning and Begich gives hope that the military industrial academic bureaucratic Goliath can be affected by the combined power of determined individuals and the alternative press. Becoming informed is the first step to empowerment.

      • IlliterateVagrant says:

        1.) The “PH.D” who wrote “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology” got his degree at an unaccredited online university. (Writer BS)

        2.) The patent that is mentioned for HAARP (which isn’t actually what it’s for if you read it mentions it as a “weather control device.” None of the drawings resemble the current incarnation of HAARP but if you want empirical, the device specs list his device as 14 miles wide with around a million antenna units. HAARP contains 180. (Patent BS)

        3.) An ionospheric heater emits radio waves which are absorbed ONLY BY THE IONOSPHERE (because the only thing excited in the frequency spectrum are free electrons caused by the sun’s ionization of Oxygen) passing directly through the troposphere which is the layer responsible for weather. (Weather Control BS)

        4.) The ELF or extra low frequency generated by HAARP is used to communicate with submarines and has an energy signature 10,000 times less powerful than the BACKGROUND VIBRATIONS of the earth. Even when they are generating ELF waves it would like the equivalent of cranking on your air conditioning on the surface of the sun.

        5.) Even if you did believe that every scientist involved in the project is a crooked, life-killing, evil, secretive, genius you would overlook that the power concentration of the array is about 3-4 microwatts/cm^2. This means to you probably nothing until you consider that the sun radiates 1,370 WATTS /m^2. Again like putting on the air conditioning on the sun.

        I could continue going on and on with legitimate scientific proof detailing the exact and quite unsecretive nature of what goes on but a hardcore HAARP fanatic would rule out all evidence regardless of how hard I fought. The facility not only doesn’t need a security clearance to enter, but they have open house every year and host many students at their facility. DARPA does fund HAARP because what does the army need? Reliable communication. What uses the ionosphere? Radio and satellite comms. By HAARP studying the fluctuations of the Ionosphere they can further refine radio comms and reliability.

        There are really too many points that HAARP gets accused of. If you’d like a line by line denial with source documentation please let me know and I will be happy to write one up. Nothing frustrates me more than ridiculous scientific conspiracies that are completely unfounded in REASONABLE SCIENCE.

      • IlliterateVagrant says:

        Did you read this or did you just copy and paste?

        “That is a dangerous understatement of what HAARP’s giant gigawatt beam will do”

        -Completely false statement. The total power of all antennas combined is rated at 3700 Watts.

        “HAARP experimenters do not impress commonsense Alaskans such as Barbara Zickuhr, who says “They’re like boys playing with a sharp stick, finding a sleeping bear and poking it in the butt to see what’s going to happen.”

        -Anecdotal and unqualified opinion. Common sense…really?

        Most of the information contained in the article is either speculative and based on “a scientist here claims” or “it’s military funded and once upon a blue moon they were talking about weather control.” You forget this is the same government running trials on LSD to see if it would boost psychic powers. Come on now.

        • IlliterateVagrant says:

          *Ran LSK trials, not running. My mistake.

        • Illiterate Vagarant,

          From the Wiki page on HAARP
          “yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts ”

          …both of you are right. One, the effective power, and IV is correct on the single array power.

          • IlliterateVagrant says:

            Mea culpa. Doesn’t change the fundamental point.

            TC, the effects are observable with a simple HAM radio. It’s a mass broadcast, not a secret stealthy wave weapon. Why isn’t the scientific community up in arms yet the alarmist unqualified are? I think it’s obvious.

            • TexasChem says:

              IV Stated:”It’s a mass broadcast, not a secret stealthy wave weapon.”

              At the age of 14 I recieved my Novice Ham radio operators license.KB5AVV.
              I let my license expire some time ago since I had no time for a hobby with my workload though but yeah I get what you are saying.
              You also understand that I could take a couple of simple microwave ovens tighten the beam up on it with a modified waveguide and do some really neat stuff?

              • IlliterateVagrant says:

                Yeah absolutely, but remember that a microwave ranges between 300MHz to 300GHz. HAARP’s maximum frequency is 10 MHz. The Ionosphere layers can only refract approximately one wavelength. Being that the layers are a couple miles thick, this means that long wavelengths (low frequencies) are the ones refracted rather than the short microwaves (high frequencies).

              • IlliterateVagrant says:

                By one wavelength I mean the same length as the Ionosphere layer it is refracting off of, not that it can only support one specific wavelength.

        • TexasChem says:

          IV Stated:”-Completely false statement. The total power of all antennas combined is rated at 3700 Watts.

          TC:”You meant to say Kilowatts I believe.

          • IlliterateVagrant says:

            Yep yep. Like I said, mea culpa. What is important though is the energy density. Rating that energy output over the area affected which comes out to 300-400 MICROwatts per m squared. Compare this to the sun at 1,370 Watts per m squared (I converted both to m squared). Magnitudes of order greater.

            • TexasChem says:

              So what happens if you could somehow tighten the beams up?

              • IlliterateVagrant says:

                The way HAARP is arranged (you can find photos simply by typing HAARP array) you can see that the transmitters emit their signal perpindicular to the length of the antenna.

                How to focus “beams,” I don’t know. My knowledge is limited to this. But clearly the arrays at HAARP aren’t “focused” or dished. They are standard emitters. Even if they are downplaying how much power they can emit (just for the sake on conspiracy theorists) the sun affects the Ionosphere orders of magnitude greater every day. That’s not even accounting for solar flares. We can measure and calculate solar flares which introduce MASSIVE changes in the ionosphere and can even knock out communications and power of sufficient strength, but the source of this power is so far beyond what we could create. There are also no links between these mass Ionosphere changes
                (due to solar flares) and earthquakes or any of the things that people accuse HAARP of doing when they alter the Ionosphere for tests.

                You can also compare the amount of ionization visually if you don’t believe the books. The Aurora Borealis is an example of ionized gases trapped naturally in the Magnetosphere from solar wind. If HAARP could ionize the air with the force that the theorists claim then you would be able to see the result with your naked eye. There is a certainly a result from HAARP but you need a sensitive camera to be able to see it. Also the reason they run the experiments at night (when the HAARP aurora is “visible”) is because the sun’s natural radiation is much too powerful during the day to be able to use the data.

  27. @D13
    Geez’s man here we are talking about being civil and you spout some propaganda about the SEC. You have me all wrong; I love other football conferences, because we need them for practice. Just let me bask in my glory for now because as we all know in college football, dynasties’ come and go over time.

    • Ohhhhhhh….ok. Bask away then. That is not too much to ask, I suppose. But you are correct about one thing…dynasties come and go. Hope you have a bodacious Spring Break….Stay away from Mexico.

      • What is all this SEC talk … step up to the big leagues already … next year my beloved new york state buffalo bills will run the table … 16-0; home field advantage throughout … bing, bang, bada-boom, back to the dance and this time for the Charlie Sheen-like Winning!

  28. Elite Eight

  29. I’ve been guilty of “taking the low road” a few times in the past. But I’ve made an effort to stop that.

    I generally enjoy the discussions here and will try to be less “abrasive”. 😉

    • I hope to be less abraisive also. I look forward to continued discussions with people such as yourself, Todd, and others like Charlie and Matt and Buck and Ray and many with whom I disagree less. 🙂 Still, the most interesting discussions are with those who disagree with me. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I wish that we had NO political differences. We have all watched how it’s tearing this country apart in Wiscosin. Not to mention the debates here. Sad really, that we have been divided to such extremes. 😦

      • Buck the Wala says:

        If we had no political differences, what the hell would we all talk about everyday!?

  30. I would appreciate it-if anyone who knows would explain to me-what they need to accomplish in order to shut these reactors down.

    • V.H.

      Depends on the reactor design, but the theory:

      You need to stop the nuclear chain reaction – and this is done by dispersing the pile (spreading it out) or inserting neutron absorbers.

      The usual problem is the extreme heat in the nuclear pile which raises the complexity of stopping the reaction.

      • So this means they have to get the heat down to a certain level before they can do the above?

        • V.H.


          Stopping a nuclear pile is not hard under normal circumstances. They do this every time when they replace old fuel with new fuel.

          The problem happens when the coolant system fails – the heat goes up exponentially to where the pile melts the control rods (3-mile Island).

          The Japanese designs will not go “bad”. They are failsafe to the degree that if the pile melts, it will disperse the material. The problem: the nuke reactor cannot be reused – so it is a $15 billion “oops”

          • I still don’t understand-what do you mean by disperse in this instance. and if they don’t have to cool it down to shut it down-why aren’t they shutting them down?

  31. V.H.

    I was a bit behind the issues there, so I’ve caught up now.

    These plants are of an older design using control rods.

    The coolant keeps these rods from melting. These rods are inserted into the pile and slows or stops the reaction.

    If the rods melt, they are useless, and the pile begins to heat exponentially.

    If the coolant does not circulate, it boils into steam and is useless for cooling. The rods begin to melt.

    The problem: the coolant – usually steamed water – “cracks” its bonds at very high temperature and turns into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The hydrogen build up, should it react, will explode. The venting attempts to rid the containment of this hydrogen and steam buildup.

    The Japanese have suffered Hydrogen explosions. Where these explosions occurred – if on the pile, or in the 2nd containment, I don’t know.

    If it was on the pile, this is bad for it will spread the nuke junk everywhere.

    If in the 2nd containment, it is minor.

    When the pile goes out of control -as it is now- trying to cool the pile becomes very difficult. Pouring water on it merely turns into super-steam and hydrogen and that tends to blow up. The Russians in their accident tried pouring graphite on it, but it caught fire, and the smoke spread the radioactive soot everywhere.

    The Japanese are trying to pour seawater through it…. (shrug) probably won’t do a darn thing.

    As I see it right now, the pile will go critical – melt – and crack its primary containment and flow into the basement containment and flow outward – it will burn for months, but I’m confident the Japanese will contain the nuke material. Again, they are trying to save the facility, but I think they will give up on that now and just let it melt. The odds of any significant radioactive release is low. …. I think…. 😉

%d bloggers like this: