Guest Commentary – Truth’s Paladin

A great day for all of us today as we have a guest commentary offered by a writer who has not given us a guest commentary in the past. Black Order contacted me about doing this piece a few weeks ago. He had an idea about featuring a person who has had an impact in many ways on our government. After reading up on her, I was really excited about bringing her story to the readers at SUFA. I contacted her and we discussed the article posting. She has taken the time to come over to SUFA and read along a bit and was impressed with the discussions that come from our articles. She has agreed to do her best to stop by over the next two days and answer any questions and add to the discussion. So without any further intro madness from me, I am pleased to turn the floor over to Black Order who will introduce us to someone who deserves our support, and who I hope will one day have to change the tagline of her post to “Home of the Irate Majority

Today, I present to you something of a human interest piece. It is an introduction of someone who is rather exceptional. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with her as she has some notoriety. She’s been featured all over the internet, on television, and in various national newspapers and magazines (60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The American Conservative, etc.). She’s also been the focus of award winning documentaries and is herself a recipient of awards.

She has respect and admiration worldwide, as (among other things) she has consistently proven herself as one who lives according to her ethics and principles instead of living in fear. She is a true humanitarian and friend to millions. She is an advocate of liberty and integrity, a champion of truth.

Although I don’t have the privilege of calling her a personal friend, I have become increasingly familiar with who she is and what she represents. She’s well educated, a political activist, a Libertarian and self described full-time mother and passionate cook whose interests include everything from classical music and ballet to fishing and camping. Like many of you knowledgeable intelligent folks standing up for America, she is an aware and concerned citizen, spouse, and parent, just trying to live her life right and do some good in the world.

By happenstance, I’ve stumbled upon a unique and honorable opportunity to introduce to you, someone who I think will make a great addition to the SUFA family. Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome t0…

Sibel Edmonds

Sibel Deniz Edmonds was born into revolution to Turkish parents in the year 1970 in Tehran, Iran, as her father, an Azerbaijan surgeon, volunteered his talents to the Iranian poor. She spent her early years living equally between Turkey and Iran, her family settling on Turkey shortly after an incident where eleven year old Sibel was surrounded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and threatened with jail because her headscarf wasn’t modest enough. Her father, having a position of respect in the community, managed to convince them to let her alone.

In high school, Sibel, being one to recognize the right to free speech and expression, wrote a critical essay on Turkish censorship laws. It was quickly rejected by the school administration, and turned into a scandal of sorts given her relation to local political leaders. This event would set the tone of her future and has been quoted as “the last straw” that prompted her decision to pursue happiness in a place where laws were built upon recognition of human rights.

In 1988, eighteen year old Sibel moved to the U.S. as a student, where she spent the next several years of her life working to attain citizenship and bachelor degrees in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University, as well as her master’s in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She also has an Associate’s degree in Biology from Northern Virginia Community College.

Since 1993, Ms. Edmonds has been actively involved in various humanitarian efforts to include serving as Project Director for the Rostropovich Foundation (a non-profit humanitarian organization providing medical and food aid to children of the former Soviet Union), a volunteer for the Alexandria CASA program (Court Appointed Special Advocate) for abused children, and as an instructor and for the Alexandria Office on Women’s Domestic Violence Program.

Ms. Edmonds, being such a well educated model citizen, as well as fluent in Turkish, Farsi/Persian, English and Azerbaijani, made an ideal instrument in the Bush Administration’s “War On Terror”. Shortly after 9/11, she was approached by the FBI and offered a position as a Language Specialist. On September 20, 2001, she assumed her position as a contractor interpreting, among other things, tapped and recorded conversations of foreign diplomats.

While at the FBI, she discovered amongst her colleagues, corruption/ethics violations, and possible espionage surrounding information about key critical world events. When faced with this moral/ethical dilemma, she chose to blow the whistle. Her complaints were initially ignored. She was, however, persistent and eventually took her complaints to the Inspector General and Senate Judiciary Committee, thus sending a few shady individuals into a full blown panic. As an attempt to silence her, she was fired on the grounds of her being ‘disruptive’. She responded by filing a lawsuit against the FBI.

As I understand it, the FBI’s internal investigation concluded the legitimacy of her claims, which were thwarted by Attorney General Ashcroft via ‘State Secrets Privilege’ gag order, to include an order to block the case from being presented in court. She appealed, but was denied. She’s been deemed “the most gagged woman in US history”. Ultimately, the gag was lifted, and on August 8, 2009, she gave sworn testimony of treasonous activity among members of government.

(I have only summarized on her experiences with the DOJ as it is somewhat complex and requires a lengthy explanation. Rather than write a book, I’m only trying to give a proper introduction. For more information, I recommend exploring the links I’ve posted below, starting with the documentary “Kill The Messenger”)

“She is a modern day Paul Revere. She stood up and said ‘This is wrong!’, and they told her to shut up, and she just kept on talking. And they told her to shut up again, and took away her security clearance, took away her job, and she still just kept on talking.” – Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Congresswoman (D-NY)

“You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one.” – Sibel Edmonds

In August, 2004, she founded the National Security Whistle-blowers Coalition. Its primary purpose is to serve as an advocacy to national security whistle-blowers through reform efforts. You’ll find access to an assortment of articles, press advisory/releases, statements and interviews, etc., on the website.

In concert with NWBC is Justacitizen.com, where you can also find articles, press advisory/releases, statements and interviews.

Ms. Edmonds was the recipient of the 2004 Sam Adams Foundation Award from the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence, (a group of retired CIA officers). In 2006, She received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award, citing her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy”.

Her most recent and current project is “Boiling Frogs Post – home of the irate minority” – “Boiling Frogs Post is an online news, editorial, analysis, and Podcast interview site covering select but significant blacked out stories and issues, while defying blinded partisanship. Each one of our partner investigative journalists brings 20+ years of investigative journalism experience in reporting controversial and daring topics. Our weekly Podcast interview series, the Boiling Frogs Show, features in depth original interviews with well-respected and controversial guests…”

I recommend giving BFP a visit as I do so regularly myself. Ms. Edmonds has expressed the good impressions left on her after visiting SUFA, citing the articles as “original, nicely written and very well reasoned”. I’m sure she’d be open to any participation or contributions (articles and donations) SUFA folks may offer to Boiling Frogs Post.

Let us show our support for Sibel as she continues to fight the good fight every day. She is unrelenting in her righteous endeavors to expose truth. She’s a shining example demonstrating the resiliency of the human spirit. She is corruption’s nemesis, its kryptonite.

She is a paladin of truth.

“…I’m trying to reach to all citizens in this country and say ‘Forget about me. This is not about Sibel Edmonds. This is not about a whistleblower losing her or his job, which itself is a very terrible thing. It sends a wrong message about doing the right thing. But even for now let’s put that aside, and to say ‘let’s go to the core issues. What was it that she reported, that caused all these gag orders, and firing, and threats? What was it? It was not about her. ’

What I reported had nothing to do with me. It had to do with the interest of the American public being stumped upon. It had to do with those who have been elected and given their authorities and power by this nation, by its citizens, betraying them. It has to do with those peoples who are using their positions in our executive branch agencies to obtain lucrative early retirement positions afterwards, to be representatives of foreign interests, …

… And that is, especially in some cases, criminal. That is not something that should be tolerated by this country, by this great country and its people. And we need to set an example of those people. We have the facts, we have the documents, we have the witnesses, and it’s time to do it. “

“ There are other agencies in this nation, in this government, with good conscientious people, who work there who should be saying enough is enough, it’s time to stand up. “

“We need to stop saying we can’t rock this boat when it needs to be rocked.”

– Sibel Edmonds


.

.

.

• Boiling Frogs Post – home of the irate minority – http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

• Justacitizen.com – http://www.justacitizen.com/

• National Whistle Blowers Coalition – http://www.nswbc.org/index.htm

• Ms. Edmond’s Wikipedia page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

• “Kill The Messenger” – http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497#

• Sibel Edmonds Interview – http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1371658179228971037#

• Deposition of FBI Translator / Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Part 1 –

• Deposition of FBI Translator / Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Part 2 –

• 60 Minutes – Lost In Translation – http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

• American Conservative – Who’s afraid of Sibel Edmonds? – http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

• Vanity Fair – An Inconvenient Patriot – http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2005/09/edmonds200509

• The Washington Post – Sept. 11 Allegations Lost in Translation – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60651-2004Apr8.html

• The New York Times – Inspector General Rebukes F.B.I. Over Espionage Case and Firing of Whistle-Blower – http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4D61438F936A25752C0A9639C8B63

• 9/11 Reports – Sibel Edmonds vs. The Nuclear Terrorists – http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/sibel-edmonds-vs-the-nuclear-terrorists/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cari amici, buon giorno! (Ms. Edmonds, name that opera and win a cookie from the resident redski at SUFA).

    High Praise to Ms. Edmonds for her Rostropovich (my favorite cellist) Foundation work especially. Even higher praise for her war with the FBI … an organization that not only is more often useless than it is effective (i.e., Whitey Bulger, Boston Irish mob leader it was working with to help take down the eye-talian mob in Boston and Providence. The FBI handlers (eventually jailed) actually tipped off Bulger when state witnesses were going to testify against him and Whitey had those witnesses whacked (11 of them). Then they tipped him off when he was going to be arrested and ONLY 9-11 and Bin Laden bumped him from being on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted list because Whitey took off). There are other same such people; mobsters, drug dealers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc., the FBI has protected for “future testimony” but that also goes to a Justice Department and a government every bit as corrupt as those we too often claim are communist, socialist, etc. We don’t think of drug dealers who might have a rape or pedophile fetish, who are operating under witness protection for their future testimony and happen to step out of bounds for a day or two and rape some kid (until it is one of our kids) but that happened in Minnesota (and I’m sure other places) and the drug dealer was protected by the good old FBI and his witness protection status (thanks, justice department).

    Ms. Edmonds support of Bradley Manning’s case garters more support here at Casa Stella. While I don’t like the fact this guy’s information leaks may have put people in jeopardy, I like even less that we’re fighting wars where far more people (especially innocents) are in jeopardy and the wars are illegal anyway. So, big ups to supporting Bradley Manning, Ms. Edmonds.

    And we all know about the woman who had tried to tip off her superiors about Muslim men taking flight lessons to “take off only” that was ignored by good old boy FBI bureaucrats …

    So, so far so good from Ms. Edmonds (this from SUFA’s resident redski) … as I said, except for a few necessaries (health, education, welfare where it’s necessary), this redski is just a hair off the Libertarian tract (I think it was national health insurance that tipped the scales for me on the Libertarian site).

    This should be interesting …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, You old dog 🙂

      How come when I say the government is lying you always argue with me? We both know they rarely if ever tell the truth.

      p.s. Bin Laden died in 2001 😆

      • I only argue over crazy conspiracy theories, GMan. If Ms. Edmonds is on the Bin Laden isn’t dead/died 10 years ago bandwagon, I’d argue with her too.
        🙂
        Not to worry, I won’t be voting for that Republican Obama in 2012 … it’ll be Nader or the socialist candidate …

        • Mathius says:

          Nationalist Socialist candidate… Nationalist Socialist candidate… Is that Obama?

          • No way, Jose. Obama blew it when he a) wasted all that political capital after first elected and didn’t ram national health insurance down the GOP’s throat … b) when he turned his back on unions in WI and forgot his campaign pledge … c) when he didn’t announced he’d pull our toops out of Afghanistan and Iraq after whacking Bin Laden (his Bin Laden honeymoon is officially over with me).

            Mistake above in response to Bamadad. I meant the bulk of those here WILL NOT vote Libertarian in 2012. I don’t believe that for a second.

    • Bama dad says:

      “as I said, except for a few necessaries (health, education, welfare where it’s necessary)”

      If government run FBI and DOJ are so corrupt and inept, how can they effectively manage health, education and welfare? Seems like a contradiction to me. Stir-stir.

      • It is no more a contradiction than saying our government is owned by the rich, then blaming the same government for all our ills while supporting those most aligned with representating the rich (republican party). Now, before all of you go whacky and start claiming you don’t vote Repbulican, let me be the first to say I don’t believe you (most of you); that when push comes to shove (election day) and only two parties stand a genuine chance of election (because the same corrupt government precludes other parties from participating/engaging in debates, etc.), I think the bulk of you will vote for the GOP candidate rather than the one yous insist is a socialist (Obama), who I insist is just a lighter shade of Republican.

        Oy vey …

        • Terry Evans says:

          You are most likely correct Charlie. I have done the same in the past…it was much less a vote FOR the Republican, and much more a vote AGAINST a Democrat. I am guilty of that. In the past I would have voted Libertarian if I liked the candidate AND I had a sense that they had a chance of winning. I now believe that I could possibly vote Libertarian simply if I liked and agreed with that candidate. I just do not like the direction the country is headed, and yes, both the major parties are to blame.

          • Well, you can all count on one less Democratic vote here but not because how I also had voted (sometimes) in the past — the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for either major party again … so long as we all do that lesser of two evils bit, both parties are guaranteed zero competition and the monopoly they currently hold. I don’t see enough of a difference between either party to support them. I understand your reasoning, though, Terry … and I realize I’m wasting my vote (for all intents and purposes) but I refuse to support either of these clowns … ever again.

            • Mathius says:

              Maybe you’re wasting your vote. Maybe ten million other people will have the same idea and then it’s not such a waste, now is it?

        • Since 1980..

          Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain…

          Only voted for Ds in city elections

          Believe me? 🙂

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Since 2000…

            Gore, Kerry, Obama, [probably Obama]

            But I bet that’s not such a big surprise!

          • Absolutely, Anita, my love.

            Except for those D’s in the local elections … something tells me that might be a pot stirrer …

            • Absolutely! My dad taught me to always vote for some opposition just to keep them all on their toes.

          • Bama dad says:

            Ford – Carter – Reagan – Bush – Dole – Bush – McCain
            The peanut farmer was such a disappointment.

        • Bama dad says:

          Sorry Charlie, I have a news flash for you, the rich special interest own BOTH parties and government. The R’s claim they are against larger government when in fact it grows under them just as it does under the D’s, although somewhat slower. The D’s claim to be for the little guy but their policies guarantee’s that he remains a dependent little guy. As I am against being a dependent sheep I usually hold my nose and vote with the R’s.

          • BamaDad, did I imply the Dems aren’t owned? If so, I didn’t mean to. BOTH Major parties are owned, bought and sold, total hypocrits (but ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHICH CLAIMS IT IS FOR THE “LITTLE GUY”) … which is why I’ve come to hate them in so many ways. Why I won’t chicken out at the last minute and vote the lesser of two evils (the Republicans are actually that pubic hair more evil to me). They are absolutely dishonest with their voting base (make fools of them over and over) … so, Nader or the socialist candidate it will be for me. Yous can have the other two — zero difference anyway.

    • Charlie: I agree with your comment on Bradley Manning case. To answer the question of ‘may’ we have a system in place (obvioulsy that system is no longer working): Rule of Law, Court System, and our Constitution. Without that we have one thing: government tyranny- exactly waht our founding fathers warned us against, and tried so very hard to preempt it with the Bill of Rights.

      • The system needs changing for sure; the question is which way do we go. I’m pretty sure freeing up business from regulations is a direct road to hell. I’d rather see the government reformed first, with REAL consequences for those who abuse their powers, are corrupt, etc., put them away (state prisons/general population) … Limit terms, remove EVERYBODY in government now … genuine change. Freeing business up will only lead to a resounding corruption repeating itself.

        • Charlie,

          Explain how you -Charlie- can enforce “real consequences” on government? Who are you going to call… the government??

          Limiting terms will solving nothing and probably make it worse. The shorter the time they have to steal from you, the more they steal in that shorter time.

          Attempting to change the core players in FedGov is pointless – the system has massive self-protecting mechanisms that defy any and all systemic change.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Very good article Black Order 🙂

    As corrupt as our government is, we need alot more people like Ms. Edmunds. I do respect her tenacity. I’ll be checking out the links provided as I get some free time. Great read!

    G!

  3. Mathius says:

    “We need to stop saying we can’t rock this boat when it needs to be rocked.”

    Rock away, amici, rock away.

    But I would suggest that rocking (ie, keeping them honest and giving them a morality overhaul) is not the same thing as what many here would like to see (ie, getting rid of them entirely).

    • I agree with the esteemed liberal Democrat from the wealthy county of Westchester … hold them accountable for real (prison sentences, not slaps on the wrist). Put the SOBs away when they’re caught and actively go after them the way we actively go after terrorists. How hard would it be? Please, if any “genuine law enforcement” were involved, half the Congress (at least) would be in irons. That is where Ms. Edmonds is most correct. Trying fixing the sham first. For real. If it doesn’t work, I’d be all for eliminating it altogether.

    • Mathius, Right. We pay for this boat to sustain it; we supposedly play a major role in its particles (our votes), so when it needs rocking (oh, it so badly needs that), it is we the people with the right and power to do so.

      • Sibel,

        You rocking the boat merely de-legitimizes government action.

        You demonstrate the frailty of government and as such you directly attack on government. Government can never be wrong.

        Government never (rarely) apologize for this very reason – and when they do apologize, it is always done decades or centuries after the fact so that the real victims never receive the restitution or the relief.

        Thus, your efforts de-legitimize government, which is why as a greater threat then the terrorist.

        The terrorist merely kills innocent people.
        You threaten the status quo of government action. They allow you to stand.

        The irony, of course, is their reaction empowers you even more.

        But the end game – one side will eventually and totally collapse.

        My bet it will not be you.

        • Darn auto-correct:
          They allow you to stand. should be They CANNOT allow you to stand

        • My bet is it will be people like her and the Tea Party who want to return the government to being our servant, not our master. VDLG!

          • LOI

            I have no evidence that such is possible. Zero.

            To truly change this system requires its complete undoing, otherwise any other attempt to change -no matter how non-violent – will create massive violence and slaughter.

            The Status Quo =by definition = resists change to itself.

            A Status Quo whose methodology by default is violence will use massive violence to prevent change to itself.

            The only way: undoing.

            The only methodology: allow it to undermine itself as all evil does.

            The only thing People need to do: push it gently along by ridicule, embarrassment, condemnation.

            The thing People must avoid at all costs doing: trying to change parts of it as if to improve it.

            • You also have no evidence that your proposal will work. It reminds me of the AGW model and predictions.:-P 🙂 😀

              • LOI,
                Not true.

                There exists ample historical example – including the era of the Medieval Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of the Feudal System.

                As well, review the studies of the “March” areas between France and Spain during the Middle Ages.

                Further, the colonial era between 1600 and 1800 North America.

          • Mathius says:

            LOI,

            Please don’t hold your breath.

  4. Wierd.

    We have Black Order AKA Bottom L..ooops shhhh…providing a link by justacitizen.com…some people have some splainin to do.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      How dare you accuse people of using fake aliases on SUFA!

      • And then there’s DPM….

        • Dread Pirate Matthius? I’m soooo confused.

          • You would never be able to hide, Curly. we have you pegged!

          • Mathius says:
            • I remember that day clearly!

              • Mathius says:

                I was going back.. re-reading.. amazing how fresh it all seems. It was over a year ago and it could have been yesterday. I clearly remember writing out that screed, banging away at the keyboard so hard my co-worker asked me what was going on.

                I’m still stewing over that ticket.. Meanwhile, I’m going to court in two days to fight a different ticket (this one I’m actually, honestly, innocent of). Sigh..

                You’ll know the outcome of that fight by how strongly DPM’s presence can be felt on Thursday.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yet another ticket Mathius!?

                🙂

              • Mathius says:

                yea yea yea…

                I raced a yellow light (and beat it) to make a left turn. The cop (a really hot female cop, btw) pulled me over and “let me off” with a “lesser” ticket for failing to signal. But that’s still a few hundred dollars and the same number of points. So where’s the “letting off” part?

                I’m more than a little pissed about this one, actually.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                ouch!

                If it makes you feel better I might have gotten a ticket this weekend due to those damn cameras. Someone decided it would be fun to completely change the timing of the lights on the intersection and add a camera. Light went from green to yellow as I was almost into the intersection (usually a long yellow) and then immediately turned red as I was 1/4 way through. Unsure if it took the pic so now I just have to watch the mail and wait…

              • Mathius says:

                no points for cameras though.. just fines.

                Still sucks though.

  5. It sounds like Ms. Edmond’s has had a very interesting life. So many questions-but I will only ask one at this point. 🙂

    Was speaking up worth the cost, I guess what I’m really asking is do you believe we have the power to really change the government?

    • VH,

      A tough question. Would I do it all over again? Yes, maybe a bit differently, but still, a definite ‘yes.’ Do I believe I was successful? NOt really. Do we have the power? DEFINITELY YES, as long as done collectively-united.
      Look, almost every single agent I worked with agreed with me, supported me secretly, BUT, they had families to take care of, retirements to count on, …basically, they did not dare doing what was needed. This is usually the case in many legil whistleblowing cases.
      Another missing factor (at least in my case) was the media, or the absent of a real media (Yes, I got cosmetic, selective, heavily redacted/censored coverage; but not a single ‘true’ investigative work or forceful/consistent coverage. That is needed to reach collective front…
      Anyway, excellent question; a tough question, and a question that deserves a thorough-long answer.

  6. Off topic..Is this necessary? I thought we were broke.

    LaHood to make rail announcement in Detroit

    DETROIT (WXYZ) – When U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood visits Detroit this afternoon, he’s expected to make a major announcement on the future of high-speed rail in Michigan.

    LaHood is expected to announce that Michigan has won about $200 million in federal funds for high-speed rail between Detroit and Chicago.

    Most of the money awarded would be for improvements on a stretch of tracks between Dearborn and Kalamazoo that would allow for trains to travel up to 110 m.p.h
    http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/lahood-to-make-rail-announcement-in-detroit

    Besides 200mil doesn’t sound like enough to complete a project like this. So throw a number out there and add on as you go? It will be 1 billion before it’s over. I don’t like the sounds of this.

    • anita

      It this to speed up the exodus from Detroit?

      • Ha! I’ll be the last one in Michigan. Fox has since done a story stating this is part of a bigger 2 billion dollar project. Michigan gets 200 mil of that. I thought we (SUFA) already hashed this one out..that it’s not the time for such a project. The Administration must have missed SUFA that day

    • anita

      Factoid: Coy LaHood was the villainous slime ball mining baron in the move Pale Rider.

      Ray-Coy, eeerie similarities.

  7. Sibel Edmonds does make a worthy topic. Have only had time to look at a few of the links. One thought, it’s interesting that many successful foreign born escape an oppressive country, come here and find us not living up to our supposed standards and values.

    • It started with one whistleblower, but now involves dozens of investigators, has created a standoff between the Department of Justice and lawmakers and threatens Mexico’s diplomatic relationship with the United States.

      Friction is growing over the probe into the failed “Project Gunrunner” program — run by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms that intended to stop the flow of guns to criminals in Mexico. Whistleblowers claim the bureau actually encouraged the illegal sale of firearms to known criminals, then allowed those guns to be smuggled to Mexico and tracked.

      On Tuesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) went after Attorney General Eric Holder for refusing to answer questions and subpoenas for documents that implicate who approved the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives project that allowed guns purchased illegally in U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico on behalf of the drug cartels with the knowledge and consent of the ATF.

      “We’re not looking at straw buyers, Mr. Attorney General, we’re looking at you,” Issa said. “We’re looking at you, we’re looking at your key people who knew or should’ve known about this.”

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/04/friction-grows-lawmakers-doj-project-gunrunner-probe/#ixzz1LsF1yWim

  8. Seems Ms. Edmond truly dislikes Keynes-I like her way with words 🙂

    Sunday, 1. May 2011

    John Maynard Keynes: From Social Fascism to Economic Fascism?

    Last Thursday morning, while driving my daughter to her play group, as I was listening to NPR’s usual circle of experts dissecting and interpreting Bernanke’s press conference, it all came back to me: numerous economic courses taken during my bachelors’ and graduate studies, the Bible of academics in the field of economics – Keynesian economics – the absolutism minus common sense, unquestioning conformity as a prerequisite to acceptance by one’s elite peers, and in the middle of all these convoluted ingredients the questioning little ‘me.’ I assure you, not the kind of memories you want to come rushing back during a hectic drive. But ‘they’ started it: the Keynesians.

    Please don’t be tempted to stop reading further only because you haven’t taken those mandatory courses in economics or because you don’t consider yourself an economic expert. In fact, you may have been saved and still in possession of ‘common sense’ easily erased by systematic academic indoctrination in economic fascism. The following general description of the Keynesian model, if read with sufficient common sense and a bit of critical thinking, should give anyone a pretty good idea of what I mean by economic fascism or an economic model enabling government fascism:

    need to click the link to read the rest.

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/05/01/reaching-the-keynesian-long-run-and-yet-not-dead/#more-3472

    • Mathius says:

      Hey! I like Keynes!

      • Keynes was a interesting, likeable fellow according to his contemporaries – heck, Hayek and Keynes -wholly opposite in economic thinking – were close friends.

        But his theories are horrid, their application destructive.

        • Per the above article “Keynes was an avid proponent of eugenics, and proudly served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944.”

          In all your search for information-have you run across this information.

          • V.H.

            It is true. Wiki provides this:
            ^ Keynes, John Maynard (1946). “Opening remarks: The Galton Lecture”. Eugenics Review 38 (1): 39–40.

            He was an elitist, a blue-blood, and had nothing but disdain for the “little” People.

          • Mathius says:

            I’m not sure if eugenics means the same think to us as it did to him. Hitler believed in eugenics, but his take on it was, to say the least, immoral. Eugenics is, simply put, the belief that the species can be improved by breeding.

            To that end, and so long as no evil measures are used in its service, there is nothing inherently evil or wrong about the idea. I married a woman who I believe has good genes. This was very important to me as I wish to pass along to my offspring the very best genes I can, and my wife offers me the best odds of anyone I know. This is, strictly speaking, eugenics, but it is hardly evil or immoral.

            Do you have evidence to support the claim that he believed in mass-sterilizations or any such, because then I can get behind your [implied] opinion that he was supporting evil.

            • Mathius,

              Eugenics -as a moral philosophy- says that there are “better” humans then others.

              As soon as one person believes they are “better” than others, they begin the walk of justifications of their actions upon their “inferiors”.

              This leads -eventually- to the justification of slaughter.

              Mate selection is NOT eugenics.

              Unlike Eugenics, it is not a belief that you are better than others, but that you are want the best you can FOR YOURSELF and your children.

              Your vision here is not a comparison of you to others – it is a view of YOUR future as it is expressed in the lives of your children.

            • Mathius,

              Do you have evidence to support the claim that he believed in mass-sterilizations or any such, because then I can get behind your [implied] opinion that he was supporting evil

              As Eugenics advocates for such methodologies of sterilization and such, any one who advocates for Eugenics is most likely in favor of such methods.

              It is like proclaiming one’s self to be Christian. It can be inferred that you sorta believe in Christ.

              • Mathius says:

                Not really, Flag,

                The belief is that the gene pool can be improved by selective breeding (and lately, also, genetic manipulation).

                The ‘how’ is not necessarily part of the theory.

                This is more like the difference between being a Christian who believes in spreading “the word,” and being a Christian who believes in spreading “the word” by using the Inquisition.

            • Mathius says:

              Eugenics -as a moral philosophy- says that there are “better” humans then others. That is not exactly true. Eugenics claims that the genetic pool of a population can be improved (generally by selective breeding). The assumption that someone is “better” is not required, merely that the carry genes which are superior on a gene-by-gene basis.

              This is where Hitler fell off the tracks – he interpreted three things wrong. First, he assumed that certain things which do not necessarily denote superiority denoted superiority (ie, blond hair, blue eyes, Aryan, etc – is what is objectively better about blue eyes versus brown?). Secondly, he assumed that the presence of these traits means that a person (not just the specific genes behind the traits) is actually a “superior” person. Thirdly, he assumed this gave him the right to commit evil acts upon the “inferior.”

              Though I do not know specifically what Keynes believed, it is important to recognize that the belief that the human genetic pool can be improved by selective breeding is separate from the belief that (a) any human in his/her entirety is necessarily better than any other, or (b) anyone has the right to enforce violent action on anyone else based on this belief.

              So, if I have an inherently better, say, immune system, than a given individual and given the assumption that there is a genetic basis for this localized superiority, then a eugenics advocate will suggest, not that I am superior person, but that my gene for immunity is superior. And, within the narrow bounds of this elusive “immune system gene,” this is a true statement. And he may further suggest that if I spread my genetic material in excess of those with a weak “immune system gene” in the population, that the whole of the genetic population will be improved in terms of immune systems. But they will not arrive at the conclusion that this makes me a “superior” person, not that this justifies sterilizing those with poor immune systems – that is a perversion of the theory.

              • The American Temperament Testing Society’s evaluation measures stability, shyness, aggressiveness, friendliness, self-preservation, and protectiveness toward the dog’s handler. Of all mixed breeds tested, 85.4% passed. That’s well above the percentage of such popular purebreds as the Poodle, Sheltie, Schnauzer, Beagle, and Cocker Spaniel.
                Health

                Mixed breed dogs tend to lead longer, healthier lives than many purebreds plagued with the problems of inbreeding. This is not to say they can’t have health problems, just that they won’t be predisposed to the eye problems of the Pekingese, the back problems of the Dachshund, or the hip problems of the German Shepherd.

                Read more at Suite101: Advantages of Mixed Breed Dogs: Mutts Make Great Pets http://www.suite101.com/content/advantages-of-mixed-breed-dogs-a11795#ixzz1Lt5YYz62

              • Mathius says:

                LOI!

                Absolutely!

                Inbreeding is one more form of genetic weakness.

                Your argument here is against the efficacy of the theory, not it’s inherent morality/immorality. I would suggest that, to be effective, any viable eugenics program would have to take the effects of sustained inbreeding into account. This is not to say such a program is impossible with a large enough starter population and sufficient controls to spot and cull such defects, but it does pose a substantial hurdle.

                Excellent point though.

                Adding, I have a purebred Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier, Latke, and she is, simply put, the best dog in the world. She’s tied with Otis, my old SCWT who was born an old man and died a few years ago. I would never consider any other breed. Ever. Period.

  9. Sibel Edmonds proves two things.

    One, never get a woman riled up. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

    Two, the futility of reforming government.

    She is trying to put into government that it should not lie to, cheat, steal from and murder its citizens.

    But what she proves is that her efforts actually de-legitimize government action.

    She holds light to them, embarrasses them, ridicules them, exposes them.

    This is a process of de-legitimization, the consequence being government entrenchment and counter attack – in other words, government lies MORE, cheats MORE, steals MORE, kills MORE.

    Her efforts make government worse not better.

    The irony: she will see my comments as a condemnation of her effort whereas I see her as a brilliant 4th Generational Non-violent Warrior.

    She wants to save government from itself. She will be, and probably already is, disappointed watching it becomes even more harsh then when she started her provocations.

    But it can be no other way.

    The Great Force of Human Evil only goes one way, that is toward destruction.

    The People can proceed with it holding its hand and suffer greatly in their time, or push it on its way to destruction, and suffer less for a shorter time.

    But its demise is assured. With Sibel and those liker her, its time is coming sooner.

    • The Great Force of Human Evil only goes one way, that is toward destruction.

      Oy vey … how did the New England Patriots get into this?

    • Black Order says:

      If everyone in government had the same level of integrity and moral standards as Sibel, you and I wouldn’t have as strong of an argument against governance.

      BF – ” …as a brilliant 4th Generational Non-violent Warrior. ”

      BO – Yeah, that’s pretty much the way I see her.

      I get the biggest kick out of watching her in action and contemplating what her adversaries must be thinking.

      They must be quite frustrated as they don’t have much of an angle on her. I mean, how would they deal with her.

      She’s too charming and lady-like to demonize.

      She’s too strong a person to intimidate.

      She’s too intelligent and credible, and in the position to know(with other credible people backing her), …so they can’t really de-legitimize her.

      Coercing her into keeping quiet doesn’t do much good either, but instead only makes themselves look guilty and attracts more curiosity from the people.

      All they can really do is sit back and take it, and hang on tight and hope.

      She has truth on her side, and truth is absolute – they’re screwed in the long run.

      • Black Order,

        If everyone in government had the same level of integrity and moral standards as Sibel, you and I wouldn’t have as strong of an argument against governance.

        ….then it would not be a government.

        Government can only exist by enforcing itself upon the People by the overt use or threat of violence on everyone.

        It’s monopoly on the initiation of violence is absolute, and it accepts no competition.

        So to say that a principled, moral person could thrive in such a beast would destroy the beast. The beast wants to live.

        So a moral and principled person can work with government only for so long and up to a point and then eventually they will run into a conflict and contradiction where they are required to act horrifically and against their morals and principles.

        Then their Truth about themselves will emerge.

        Most absorb into the beast and act on its behalf and do as requested.

        A few refuse. But only a very few.

        I get the biggest kick out of watching her in action and contemplating what her adversaries must be thinking.

        Oh, I know exactly what they are thinking.

        They are thinking on how they can utterly destroy her without turning her into a martyr for her cause.

        They are laying land mines and boobytraps all over the place around her – testing her resolve and her ability to dodge and weave.

        They must be quite frustrated as they don’t have much of an angle on her. I mean, how would they deal with her.

        I do not believe they are frustrated. They have all the time in the world. They are still in the place of power.

        She has been quite adept. But they are patient. She has to never fail. They only have to win once.

        That is why she is very brave.

        She has truth on her side, and truth is absolute – they’re screwed in the long run.

        The Truth always wins eventually. The Universe says so.

        • Black Order says:

          BF – ” ….then it would not be a government.

          Government can only exist by enforcing itself upon the People by the overt use or threat of violence on everyone.

          It’s monopoly on the initiation of violence is absolute, and it accepts no competition. ”

          BO – Indeed. Hence my use of the word “as”.

          BF – ” So to say that a principled, moral person could thrive in such a beast would destroy the beast. The beast wants to live.

          So a moral and principled person can work with government only for so long and up to a point and then eventually they will run into a conflict and contradiction where they are required to act horrifically and against their morals and principles.”

          BO – Whether she is working in government blowing the whistle, or a civilian exposing corruption, she is still starving the beast of it’s legitimacy.

          BF – ” Most absorb into the beast and act on its behalf and do as requested.

          A few refuse. But only a very few.”

          BO – Yeah, I think that’s what she meant when she said: “There are other agencies in this nation, in this government, with good conscientious people, who work there who should be saying enough is enough, it’s time to stand up.”

          I think it was her nice way of saying ” Hey you wussies, grow a pair and do the right thing for the sake of everyone.”

          BF – ” Oh, I know exactly what they are thinking.

          They are thinking on how they can utterly destroy her without turning her into a martyr for her cause.

          They are laying land mines and boobytraps all over the place around her – testing her resolve and her ability to dodge and weave.

          …I do not believe they are frustrated. They have all the time in the world. They are still in the place of power.

          She has been quite adept. But they are patient. She has to never fail. They only have to win once.”

          BO – I sorta disagree.

          So long as she stays on the side of truth, she can’t fail, and isn’t the one that has to do the dodging and weaving – they are. She is on the side of truth and righteousness. She is the absolute, so to speak.

          They have no answer, nor will they find one. If they did, it would have already been done. That’s what is so damn funny to me.

          Their patience will do them no good. While they are thinking of all their futile ideas, she continues to call them out, people like me write articles such as this one. The new global renaissance is growing, truth is infecting more and more people.

          The beast is being starved of it’s legitimacy. It is slowly dieing.

          BF – ” That is why she is very brave. ”

          BO – Brave indeed. In spite of being well armed with truth and righteousness, knowing the beast will struggle and do whatever necessary to survive in it’s desperation, and choosing to fight anyway, is pure courage.

          The woman is chuck full of ovarian fortitude. Ya gotta love ‘er. You cannot help but to respect her.

          One of the things I considered in introducing her to SUFA, is that the SUFA ladies, especially, will size her up and take to her like a duck to water.

          I think they do/will appreciate her “girl-power”.

          …not that it’s necessarily a gender thing, but damn, she is a strong woman.

  10. Canine Weapon says:

    Off topic, but Fail.

    • A picture is worth a thousands words, and with the hand of government, worth a thousand lies.

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t think that had anything to do with government other than the fact that the initial subject matter was a government photo. This isn’t about politics, it’s about religious fundamentalism and that, though we Jews have much better PR than, say fundamental Muslims, our whack-jobs are just as bad as their whack jobs.

        Adding, though they point out the photo-shopping out of HRC, there’s another woman way in the back who also goes missing.

        Also adding, I love this picture.

        • 🙂 Call of Duty! Geez! What next?. I don’t get the picture on the wall.

        • Mathius

          religious fundamentalism

          “Politics” but with a more letters saying the same thing.

          • Mathius says:

            Interesting.. make you case.

            • Mathius,

              Religion “fundamentalism” is used for manipulation of opinion of its adherents.

              • Mathius says:

                So is talking, commercials, SUFA, and any other form of human interaction.

                Define your terms and draw your equivalencies.

              • Mathius,

                I hope I do not have to describe the difference between manipulation by advertisers and that of religious fanaticism

              • Mathius says:

                Yes, it seems you do..

              • Mathius,

                What is the differences between them in regards to the methods they want their “adherents” to use?

                “Adherents” to advertisers: use your money

                “Adherents” to fanatics: use your fist.

        • That’s the new Predator Drone controller he’s got. He must have piloted the drone right into Osama’s bedroom and “double tapped” himself.

          Seal Team Six was just sent in to recover the body and documents.

          I guess Obama really did take down Osama single handedly!!! 🙂

  11. Ms. Edmond

    I would appreciate it if you would share with SUFA your take on Iran, Turkey and the current events in the Middle East.

    I would especially like to hear your view on the “Caliphate”. That is whether it is a goal of some in power or just a ruse.

    I recognize you moved here at 18 but given your time in Iran and Turkey as well as your “interpretive” work after 9/11 I think you may have some insight that would help the rest of us to understand the other side of the world.

    My direct question would be what would happen if the USA simply pulled out of the region and started minding our own business.

    Best wishes and Live Free
    JAC

    • Just a Citizen (we both seem to like this title!),
      Excellent question; one that would require pages and pages to respond. You may find the general answer in many of my posts on this issue as they relate to US foreign policy. The short answer to your question ‘would be what would happen …’: No one can predict with certainty (although many academics would arrogantly claim that they could). They may go through an initial blood bath (especially, if they are further subdivided into verious ethnic and religious branches); they may end up with despots or they may end up with a fairly democratic governing system (Iran & Mossadeq in 50s; until US-UK planted another Shah). Whatever the outcome, they’d be the determinants rather than: outside forces, whether poliana-ists or colonialists determining what is ‘best’ for them.

      You are asking someone who is an isolationist. Not only I don’t support these interventions, I also oppose the concept of ‘foreign aid.’ We have so much to deal with internally (our own liberties, countering a corruption-ridden government, gigantic deficit, crippled healthcare system). I am with Ron Paul when he advocates open trade with all and no interference/meddling…

      Please take a look at my previous articles/commentaries @ Boiling Frogs Post, such as:

      http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/02/08/let-it-cut-both-ways-us-foreign-aid-state-sponsored-terrorism/

      and

      http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/07/18/another-%e2%80%98viable%e2%80%99-candidate-bites-the-dust-%e2%80%a6/

      …and let me know if you need further clarification…

      Best

      • Sibel Edmonds

        and Anita

        Re” Just A Citizen and justacitizen.com

        I must admit to a strange sense of “how small the world is” this morning when I saw the posting of justacitizen.com

        I was surprised however that Anita was the only one to make mention of what appears like something strange going on here. There actually is, but not what Anita might have thought.

        So here is the story. About three years ago, before the Pres. Election myself and others tried to start a website using the “just a citizen” name. I have shared with SUFA before my purpose in taking the name and my hope its use would spread. The web site was part of that strategy. What I did not share before was the story of the web site itself.

        You see at that time justacitizen.com and virtually every variation of the domain name was owned by someone who supposedly lived in Arizona, or maybe it was New Mexico. I tried purchasing the domain name but was not able to convince that owner my goals fit his/her goals for the name(s). The owner was supposedly a man but since we never met or talked on the phone I can not say for sure.

        But the owner was adamant about the use of these domain names ONLY for the purpose of defending our Republic and the principles on which it was founded. I thought that given my views I could make the deal but was not.

        I had visited boiling frog on other occasions and read about Ms. Edmonds. But then this morning I find an article about her on SUFA and see the domain name attached to her story. Lets just say it kind of made the hair stand up on my neck. Just a little.

        So I must ask, Ms. Edmonds. Did you acquire the domain name or did the owner simply agree to use it to help you with your effort? Or was it you all along?

        You must admit the coincidence of all this at least a little curious.

        And that my dear Anita is the rest of the story.

        Now I must think about whether this is all just some strange coincidence or if there is deeper meaning. We cowboy philosophers can’t resist doing that sort of thing you know.

        • Mornin JAC..Interesting.So did you ever get the website going under a different name..and you’re holding out on us?

        • Black Order says:

          I’ve been loosely following her story since about ’07, so when I found SUFA and you(JAC), I immediately questioned whether there is any relation/affiliation.

          It’s been in the back of my mind the whole time I’ve been here.

          Now I/we know – cool.

  12. Mathius

    Eugenics claims that the genetic pool of a population can be improved (generally by selective breeding). The assumption that someone is “better” is not required, merely that the carry genes which are superior on a gene-by-gene basis.

    (Scratch head)

    The concept of “improvement” requires a differentiation of “better” from “worse”.

    So you claim the concept of “better from worse” does not determine “better from worse”…..

    ….eek.

    • Mathius says:

      Yes. Eugenics requires better parts, but does not necessarily make any claim about the whole.

      That is, as in my example, they are comfortable making the claim that a person may have a better immune system. But they do not necessarily extrapolate that this makes me a better person.

      Better at math, better immune system, stronger, better vision, better hearing, better sense of smell, more endurance, higher pain threshold, greater longevity, etc. All of these can be improved upon with eugenics, but they do not necessarily create a “better” person.

      Remember that Hannibal Lecter had superior intelligence (certainly genetic since he was reading at age 2), greater vision, hearing, and pain threshold. He was also born with a fully functioning sixth finger on each hand (a most likely favorable mutation). Yet few would argue that he was a “better” person.

      • Mathius,

        The fatal conceit of a Pretense of Knowledge.

        So a person who has Sickle Cell anemia is “inferior” in your world view…..
        …except, if you had it, you are immune to Malaria.

        You have no idea what “fiddling” you are doing and creating what “consequences”.

        But with such a pretense of knowledge married with conceit, you have no problem invoking the masses to follow such a pogram – unintended consequences be damned.

        I say “I choose, not you for me”.

        The choices of the many ensure the consequences are varied, off-setting and no one consequence dominates – good or bad.

        “Regression to a Mean” works as a long term strategy.

        True, we will not “jump” to some sort of super-human.

        But equally true, will not fall into some biological collapse either.

  13. Mathius,

    This is more like the difference between being a Christian who believes in spreading “the word,” and being a Christian who believes in spreading “the word” by using the Inquisition.

    That, sir, is exactly my point.

    If one is ordered to spread the word, within time, the methodology expands.

    First, the “low hanging fruit” is captured by mere rhetoric.

    Eventually, if your measure is the numbers in your group, you will progress to more “motivating” measures, like torture.

    • Mathius says:

      Yes, but the method is what’s evil. Not the underlying theory.

      For instance, if you and I live in a free society and we are under attack by the Mongol hoard, I may go up to you and ask for money to raise an army to pay for our defense. Moral, yes?

      If you break into your house and steal the money to pay for our defense, you would say <immoral, yes?

      The idea is the same (collect money from people to defend ourselves), but the method is different (ask/steal). Right?

      It’s the same here. The idea itself – breeding for better select genes improves the average quality of that gene in the population (neutral). Doing so voluntarily (moral), involuntary sterilizations, etc (immoral). The underlying theory is neither good nor bad, only the way in which it is implemented.

      Now.. that said, I would suggest that there’s no good way to implement it since those with the genes held to be inferior will still wish to breed and the only way to keep them out of the general population will be immoral. Then again, perhaps this will face a resurgence when GATTACA becomes a reality.

      • Mathius,

        Yes, but the method is what’s evil. Not the underlying theory.

        Yes, the method is evil – agree,

        The underlying theory creates evil. It argues there are “better” humans then others.

        As I pointed out, the “natural” extension of such a belief always ends with terror.

        At some point, the Eugenics become frustrated with the lack of participation of their “inferiors”.

        “Those darn denigrates refuse to have themselves sterilized!.

        There are more of them then us, so they will always overwhelm our designs!

        We must stop them!”

        • Mathius says:

          The underlying theory creates evil. It argues there are “better” humans then others. No. It does not. It argues that there are better genes than others.

          The difference between this is night and day, and you seem to be having an inordinate amount of trouble grasping the concept. Perhaps you have a defective “understanding” gene?

          • Mathius,

            that there are better genes than other

            As I’ve already posted (Sickle Cell vs Malaria), you are conceited to believe such a thing.

            And, further, unless you are willing to ACT, there is no point in making your subjective of “better” vs “not so good”.

            Eugenics is not biology nor medicine.

            Biology makes such a determination of cause/effect of certain genetics. It does not judge them

            Medicine applies itself to the benefit and relief of the individual on their own disease. It does not advocate that everyone take the same medicine for the same disease.

            Eugenics is not biology. It judges.
            It is not medicine – it wants to apply it all.

        • Mathius says:

          At some point, the Eugenics become frustrated with the lack of participation of their “inferiors” [and act violently]. If / when that happens, then the actions which follow are evil.

          Believing in god is not evil. But by your theory believers necessarily have to become frustrated with the lack of participation from “non-believers.” They then must declare that they “must stop them,” presumably using violent force. Ergo, in your opinion, believing in a higher power necessarily equates to evil?

          • Mathius,

            You are missing the salient point.

            A belief in God does not necessarily imply “I am better than you”.

            A belief in Eugenics DOES NECESSARILY imply that there is Better than Others.

            It is this implication that eventually leads to the horrors.

            A “Better” self-judges his own motives, and since he believes himself better, he believes his judgement MUST BE BETTER TOO.

            When such a conceit of the “Better man” judges himself, he finds no fault.

            With a judgement of no fault of any action, no action is “off the table”.

            • Mathius says:

              A belief in Eugenics DOES NECESSARILY imply that there is Better than Others.

              No.

              It.

              Does.

              Not.

              It implies that you have a superior GENE. Another person may have a different superior gene. If I have a better “math gene” and you have a better “strength gene,” there is nothing that says which of us is “superior.” There exists no clear way to specify the intrinsic superiority of a whole person, only the parts.

              • Mathius,

                A gene is a part of a person.

                You determining my genes are “inferior” implies I am inferior.

                You are determining better vs worse and applying this to people.

                You are NOT doing science.
                You are NOT doing medicine.

                You are differentiating humanity into classes.

                You are labeling one class better than another.

              • Mathius says:

                Are you daft?

                Yes, it’s classifying people’s components as better / worse, but the total is impossible to quantify.

                I have exceptional vision. I can factually state that I have better vision than many people, and that further, it is likely that genetic factors contribute to this fact. Thus, my vision genes are, factually, superior to some people’s.

                This does not make me – Mathius – superior. Just my vision genes.

                Eugenics suggests that, if I breed, (again, assuming that this is in fact a genetic trait), the populations collective “vision gene pool” will improve. It does not mean that people who get those genes are, taken as a whole, better people – just that they are likelier to have good vision.

              • I believe Francis Galton came up with the term eugenics and studied it most of his life. Let’s see how he defined it’s aim- Here’s a couple eye opening quotes-and he actually thought these words supported his ideas-After reading them-I’m thinking his gene pool shouldn’t have been allowed to reproduce. But even with all this I don’t believe that all people who thought eugenics was wonderful at the time-had any intention of forcing anything-they just wanted to encourage the so called “acceptable” people to produce more babies. They were fooled into believing the intent wasn’t evil but in reality the whole concept was evil because the application would have to be evil to work. I got no problem with the study of genes-but every definition I find of eugenics is based on population control.

                “The most common misrepresentations now are that its methods must be altogether those of compulsory unions, as in breeding animals. It is not so. I think that stern compulsion ought to be exerted to prevent the free propagation of the stock of those who are seriously afflicted by lunacy, feeble- mindedness, habitual criminality, and pauperism, but that is quite different from compulsory marriage. How to restrain ill-omened marriages is a question by itself, whether it should be effected by seclusion, or in other ways yet to be devised that are consistent with a humane and well-informed public opinion. I cannot doubt that our democracy will ultimately refuse consent to that liberty of propagating children which is now allowed to the undesirable classes, but the populace has yet to be taught the true state of these things. A democracy cannot endure unless it be composed of able citizens; therefore it must in self-defence withstand the free introduction of degenerate stock.”

                “This is precisely the aim of Eugenics. Its first object is to check the birth-rate of the Unfit, instead of allowing them to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the Fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children. Natural Selection rests upon excessive production and wholesale destruction; Eugenics on bringing no more individuals into the world than can be properly cared for, and those only of the best stock.”

                http://galton.org/

              • Oh and then we have this from another paper- “Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, was impressed by the frequency with which genius seemed to be manifested in some lineages more than others. He sought to investigate the possibility that talents and virtues of character were inherited along with other traits, offering their bearers advantages in natural selection. ”

                I suppose this was his original hypothosis- Note “talents and virtue of character”-sounds like an attitude of some people are better than others to me based solely on their genes.

            • Mathius says:

              A belief in God does not necessarily imply “I am better than you”. In fact, in many cases, it does. How many people believe that they are the “chosen people” and that this elevates them above the herd?

              Certain sects of ultra-orthodox Hasidim believe that there is nothing immoral in the killing of a non-Jew because they are not “chosen.”

              Yet, even this belief, while idiotic, is not evil. However, the decision to ACT on it with violence is, in fact, evil.

    • Mathius,

      If one is ordered to spread the word, within time, the methodology expands.
      First, the “low hanging fruit” is captured by mere rhetoric.
      Eventually, if your measure is the numbers in your group, you will progress to more “motivating” measures, like torture.

      Be careful Mathius, this is what’s happening here at SUFA. If you continue to resist, the torture is not far off.

      Although I have to admit, a few days last week seemed like torture…

  14. Rule of Law, Court System, and our Constitution

    The consistent, but contradictory, demand.

    Government creates the laws it applies to itself.
    Government enforces the laws upon itself.

    The People have a piece of paper to prevent government from making laws and enforce laws of tyranny on the people.

    Who do the People call upon to force government to enforce its own law upon its errant self?

    A: The Government.

    Who believe Government will enforce any law that prevents government from acting?

    I am always amazed by the People who think this system works.

  15. So, did anyone notice the timeline here?

    The problems started in 2004 and continued until the gag order was lifted and she testified on August 8, 2009…

    Hmmmm… Seems like most of you are on the wrong side for “freedom”…

    • Todd,

      The problem has not gone away.

    • “Hmmmm… Seems like most of you are on the wrong side for “freedom”…” Whatever do you mean Todd? That Bush abused his power to silence Edmonds? Might be true, and even if Bush had no part in this, I think he should have. But what side of freedom do you suggest? That of the most transparent administration in history? The one that features EPA’s Hushgate? Or how about the AG?

      http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/21/what-we-know-about-project-gunrunner/#ixzz1LtMiCfM3

      House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, is threatening to begin contempt proceedings if the Justice Department doesn’t start providing documents about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. But what’s the controversy about? And what could the documents show?

      In Project Gunrunner, ATF allowed American guns – including AK-47 assault rifles and military-grade, .50 caliber sniper rifles – to be smuggled into Mexico and sold to drug cartels, with the goal of tracking the weapons after they’ve been used.

      The project began during the Bush administration in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 as a trial, morphing into a national program in 2006. The guns were sold and tracked electronically, giving law enforcement agents valuable intelligence on where the weapons went and who had them.

      During the Bush years, no guns were allowed to cross the border into Mexico. When President Obama took office in 2009, things changed. Obama’s ATF continued Project Gunrunner, but made a crucial decision to allow guns to be “walked” into Mexico, eventually ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

      The results, in at least one instance, were tragic. Two AK-47s ATF officials were tracking were found at the scene of U.S. border agent Brian Terry’s murder.

      Suspected firearms trafficker Jaime Avila, who bought the two Project Gunrunner AK-47s found at the scene of the murder, was arrested shortly afterwards on gun crimes. But no one has been charged with Terry’s murder.

      Controversy erupted after a CBS News investigation unveiled Project Gunrunner publicly, and two GOP lawmakers, Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, began investigating.

      Previously public documents Issa packaged with the Wednesday letter to ATF show people involved in Project Gunrunner, including the gun stores who participated, were fearful about the impact of allowing such powerful weapons into the hands of criminals, even if they were being tracked.

      One key figure is ATF agent David Voth. Voth helped coax reluctant U.S. gun dealers to continue selling thousands of powerful guns as part of Project Gunrunner, assuring them the program would eventually help stop gun trafficking.

      But even Voth expressed alarm to superiors. An April 2, 2010 email from Voth to two other ATF officials listed the number of murders over the past several months in Mexico, highlighting the rampant drug violence there.

      “Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during the month of March alone, to include numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles,” Voth wrote, “we have a sense of urgency with regards to this investigation.”

      The subpoenaed documents could show who made the fateful decisions to allow assault weapons and military-grade sniper rifles to be “walked” into Mexico.

      Issa says given the structure of the Justice Department, the decisions were likely made by top-ranking officials, potentially even Attorney General Eric Holder himself.

      • LOI,
        Getting a little defensive? Every time a topic comes up that you don’t like, you try to change the subject.

        I believe the topic is Sibel Edmonds and what happened to her.

        • So why don’t you explain how your accusation about most of us being on the wrong side of freedom relates to Ms. Edwards’ case.

          • JAC,
            I noticed that Ms. Edwards’ problems occurred under the Bush Administration and were lifted – at least in part – under the Obama Administration. I have read nothing more than what is presented here, and I’m certainly not claiming all the problems have been resolved.

            But so many of you claim Obama is the Socialist/Fascist that is taking away all of our freedom, and the “facts” here don’t support that.

            Many of you also claim to not like any politicians, which is convenient because then you don’t have to defend the actions of any politicians (similar to the “totally free market capitalism” which has no “real-life” examples, so you don’t have to defend any of it’s possible shortcomings).

            But as Charlie pointed out, and Terry and others confirmed, given the choice between Republicans and Democrats, most of you chose Republicans. Even though Republicans have been more oppressive of freedom than Democrats.

            • Todd,

              Obama is the Socialist/Fascist that is taking away all of our freedom

              I don’t think anyone has said this.

              I think the concept of the “boiling frog” is accurate. He, like his predecessors, have taken some or even just a few away.

              Because there are “just a few” lost, the anger is short and minor and most people just “shrug”.

              The children born into this know no difference and it is accepted. Then a few more are taken away, with the same short and minor anger. Then new children are born into this… and so on.

              A few decades later, you’re enslaved, and you agree with it.

              • Mathius says:

                How do you define being a slave, sir?

              • Mathius,

                Forced effort on the behalf of some one else.

              • Black Flag,

                I don’t think anyone has said this.

                Then you’re not paying attention here. It’s a pretty common line of thought.

                A few decades later, you’re enslaved, and you agree with it.

                What’s your definition of “a few decades”?

                I’ve been around for 4+ decades, and I don’t feel any of my efforts are forced on the behalf of someone else.

              • Terry Evans says:

                You see Todd…he is correct. You have had freedoms taken away, and you don’t even realize it…

              • Terry Evans,
                Please give examples of the freedoms that have been taken away.

  16. Mathius

    I am not daft.

    Yes, it’s classifying people’s components as better / worse, but the total is impossible to quantify.

    No it is not. You have confused Biological research with Eugenics

    To bring this back, here is the definition via Wiki (highlights mine, of course)

    …is the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates theuse of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a [human] population

    This is very clear.

    …APPLIED…
    ….SOCIAL MOVEMENT….
    ….ADVOCATES….
    ….USE….
    …AIMED…
    …HUMAN POPULATION….

    • Mathius says:

      The use of practices […] does not necessarily mean the use of violent or evil practices.

      It can be as simple as what my father did before I was born – testing to see if he was a carrier (he was not) of Tay Sachs – because he did not want to have offspring who expressed that gene.

      It can be as simple as choosing donor sperm from those “genius” sperm banks (which may or may not result in a more intelligent child).

      It can be a concerted effort to change social perceptions to find a certain type of person more or less attractive (This is actually being done to encourage women not to become unhealthily skinny / anorexic / bulimic, but may also be encouraging a shift in the American psyche in terms of the “ideal” for what beauty means – thus more “average” body types will breed and fewer “skinny” types will breed and the next generation may – may – have a higher population of “average” weight genes. Will this work? Who knows, but maybe slightly?)

      It does not have to be the mass extermination of the “undesirables.”

      • Mathius,

        Loop da Loop, and back to where we started.

        As I said above.

        Eugenics -as a moral philosophy- says that there are “better” humans then others.

        As soon as one person believes they are “better” than others, they begin the walk of justifications of their actions upon their “inferiors”.

        This leads -eventually- to the justification of slaughter.

        • Repeat:

          they begin the walk of justifications of their actions upon their “inferiors”.

          Please review my comment with this concurrently in mind:
          …APPLIED…
          ….SOCIAL MOVEMENT….
          ….ADVOCATES….
          ….USE….
          …AIMED…
          …HUMAN POPULATION

          • Mathius says:

            And that walk leads to the dark side.

            But before anyone is forced to do (or not do) anything, there’s nothing immoral.

            If a group of people want to get together on an island and conduct a massive eugenics experiment in a completely voluntary way, there’s nothing wrong with that.

            • Mathius,

              But that is NOT the Eugenics program – that maybe YOUR program.

              Eugenics, as a direct and stated goal, already posted numerous times for you above is about changing HUMAN POPULATION.

              This is not a side show, not an experiment, not a small group working on its own.

              It is a group of highly ego-centric, conceited, elitists wanting to alter human population to their designs.

              • Mathius says:

                It’s not necessarily the whole of the human species. The theory refers only, to my knowledge, to a “population” which is not the same thing as the whole species.

              • Matt-BF is right-this is not a program that wishes to raise the poor and disabled up-it is a program that states they are worthless and they can’t help being worthless because their genes make them that way so they should be gotten rid of through manipulation for the good of society. It is evil at it’s very core. Not the study of genetics-the use of genetic theory to justify horrible things. Eugenics at it’s core is not the study of genes.

              • Mathius

                population” which is not the same thing as the whole specie

                *blink**blink*

                Human Population, to you, is not the whole specie of human population…., then I am not sure you understand the meaning of “specie” or the concept of “human population”

                What part of the specie is not in the Human Population, and what part of the Human Population is not in our specie?

              • Mathius says:

                Eugenics at its core is nothing of the sort. Eugenics states that you can improve the prevalence and quality of specific genes in a population by selective breeding.

                We know this is true because we are able to do it with livestock, crops, and dogs. And, I’ll point out that though I’m partial to purebred Wheaten Terriers, that doesn’t mean that Leonbergers are without merit or worthless – just different (and HUGE). I don’t think they should “get rid of” non-Wheatens. There is nothing evil here. But the traits deemed “desirable” among Wheaten breeder and more prevalent among Wheatens as a result of this selective breeding.

                But, for some reason, whenever the concept is discussed regarding humans, people always jump to the conclusion that it must (a) be applied by force and (b) that carriers of specific genes which may be held to be inferior in their entirety (this is like saying that just because Mother Theresa had a breast cancer gene, she’s an inferior person – which is absurd).

                A breast cancer gene is an “undesirable” mutation, whereas a strong cancer resisting gene is a “desirable” mutation. If people voluntarily bred with a preference for carriers of the cancer resistance gene, then the next generation would likely be more resistant to cancer. But they would not necessarily be “better” people – just more resistant to cancer.

                That is not evil. Nor does it mean that people carrying the cancer gene are, as people, inferior. It’s like any other handicap such as being in a wheelchair. Just because you can’t stand up, doesn’t make you inferior (in fact, it impacts in no way on your value as a human being), but that specific trait is not something you would generally wish to pass on.

                When force or violence become involved, then I agree, the practice is immoral. But the theory itself is not.

              • Then way in the theory do the people who came up with the theory state the poor should not be able to reproduce to solve the problems. Do you believe that people are poor solely based on their genes? Do you not believe that economic factors can keep even the smart down? Do you base your opinion on Eugenics solely on a generic definition or on the actual writings of the ones who came up with the theory?

              • Mathius says:

                Flag, there are many populations. There is the population of Canada. There is the population of Outer Mongolia. There is the population of South America. There is the population of the West Coast. There is the population of Native Americans. There is the population of professional basketball players. AND there is the population of all humans on Earth.

                You can alter the genetic makeup of a subset of this by itself. We know this is true, because this, evolutionarily, is exactly what gave rise to different races of humans. Though we are the same species, groups segregated by distance or culture did not interbreed, then the breeding preferences of that group over millennia led to races which are genetically distinct, but again: neither better nor worse, just different.

                But, it’s worth noting, that while the races, taken in their entirety, are neither better nor worse than each other, there are intrinsic difference with regards to specific genetic traits which can be said to be better: natives of the Himalayas have vastly superior ability to survive both cold extremes and low oxygen environments. Why? Because they bred for this. But that doesn’t make them better people. Just better at breathing at high altitudes.

              • Mathius says:

                V.H.,

                You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is where Hitler, as I said, fell off the tracks. The early thinkers in the field of eugenics suffered from a poor understanding genetics and cultural biases which allowed them to think of the underclasses as inherently worthless. This is a flaw in the thinking of the people of the day, but can be corrected for with modern understanding.

                Though, I should point out, that we still are a long, long ways from fully understanding genetics.

                Genetics may contribute (I have no way of confirming or denying) to the status of the poor as poor, but society, luck, drive, and a myriad of other factors all contribute to their state. Thus, in a personal disagreement with the aforementioned early thinkers of eugenics, I would suggest that being poor in and of itself, is no reliable indicator of the strength of a persons genes. Further, I would suggest that you can’t gauge a person in their entirety, but only on a gene-by-gene basis. This is why, you’ll note, I keep picking examples where there is a clear-cut superior and inferior gene, but never a “superior or inferior person.”

                They believed, incorrectly, that a poor person was inferior in their entity. This is unsupported by any logic I know of. But you can say that a person who is blind due to genetics has inferior vision genes. And you can further state that by breeding more of the the people with superior vision genes, the next generation will probably have better overall vision.

                But, for the N-th time, that does not make them better people. Just people with better vision.

  17. Black Order says:

    I’ve been tilling up ground and raking dirt all day, occasionally popping in to see how things are going.

    I wonder what happened to Mrs. Edmonds.

    (scratches head)

    I know she is a busy lady. Perhaps she will be here later.

    Anyway, I hope y’all find today’s article interesting.

    Back to gardening I go…

    Oh, BTW Bama, I looked for the G-90 corn you recommended but didn’t find any. I guess I will go with what I have, …two types of sweet corn – Obsession and Ambrosia hybrids. Maybe I’ll still find some G-90 and plant a late crop.

  18. V.H.

    After watching Mathius’ dance around reality regarding Eugenics today I must confess that your theory of slippery slope seems more valid than yesterday. So I thought I would try to tie the two arguments together, in your honor. Following is some background on the person credited as the founder of Planned Parenthood, regarding her view on Eugenics. From Wikipedia:

    “Eugenics and euthanasia
    Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger’s eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.

    In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

    Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[22]

    And, following:

    Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[22]

    Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent “dysgenic” children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed “positive eugenics” (which promoted greater fertility for the “fitter” upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the “unfit,” Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce “fit” children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth.

    Taking sharp issue in plain words with certain other[23] eugenicists, however, Margaret Sanger completely rejected the idea of gassing the unfit. ‘Nor do we believe,’ wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, ‘that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'[24][25]

    Sanger’s views thus broke from those proposing Nazi eugenics—an aggressive, and lethal, program. She wrote in a 1933 letter:

    “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria..”[26]

    Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment; she wrote:

    “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics…. We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come ‘from within.’ That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without.”[27]

    We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother… Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.[28]

    She advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating;

    “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”[29]

    Her first pamphlet read:

    It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.[30]”

    Note she did not condone euthanasia or killing the born, regardless of defect. She was pushing “contraceptives” at the time. But, and this is the “slippery slope”, her arguments led to the acceptance of “abortion” as a means of preventing the undesired pregnancy. And from there to the undesired offspring.

    While I still maintain there is a line drawn by humanity on those born, one can clearly see how an idea to improve a woman’s lot in life has led to the death of millions of unborn.

    • I hope you are right-The Lord knows I don’t want to be right-and I acknowledge that it will be much harder to convince a woman to kill that which she can see and hold. But when one says things like:

      ” There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things.”

      One has to acknowledge at least the possibility and fight against it. Even if all we reach is abortion at demand no matter the development one might as well say that line has been crossed. And as far as this woman-I have a hard time believing it would bother her to cross that line. I suspect she just didn’t think society would listen to her at all, if she admitted her true feelings. The ones she stated were shocking enough.

  19. Mathius

    Your point: “Eugenics is, simply put, the belief that the species can be improved by breeding.”

    My response: “Communism is, simply put, the belief that humanity can be improved by stealing.”

    Funny thing these simply put beliefs. The murder of millions of human beings are rationalized for both as simply, “bad implementation”.

    • Mathius says:

      Precisely.

      Communism is an ideal of sharing which is not possible in the real world given human nature.

      Eugenics is the idea of improving the gene pool by selective breeding which is, though itself non-violent, impossible to implement morally.. until we develop genetic manipulation technology.. then we can revisit this issue.

      • Sharing is not possible in the real world? 😯 What world do you live in? With all your ‘obligations’ to help the next guy..you know all those who are incapable of helping themselves..those who you willingly support with taxes and social programs ..how can you say that sharing is not possible. It doesn’t make any sense.

        Genetic manipulation? Last I heard, God (ok I know you’re not buying it already) made us all in his own image..perfect. So any genetic manipulation would be trespassing. No need to go there.

        • Mathius says:

          Ok, so you can pass up the opportunity to have your genes altered to make you stronger / healthier / long-lived / better vision / etc.

          Some day, they’ll probably figure out how to make people smarter even, and you can pass that one up too.

          Me, I’ll be jumping on the bandwagon.

          • Matt,

            You didn’t think through my post on mutts, how that would apply to selective breeding. You can make some improvements, but you will pay a price. No free lunches or God has a sense of humor. You always end up with a down side. Only by mixed breeding is this reduced.
            PS, also implying you’re a dog.

            • Mathius says:

              There are certainly some issues of inbreeding within small groups. These can be controlled for by breeding within the breed among varying lines. For example, my breeder mated her female with a male from another state. So that, while they are still within the same breed, they’re as diversified genetically as possible.

              But, again, this is an excellent point. And it goes to the question of efficacy of eugenic which, I agree, has several serious roadblocks. The only point I’m contesting here is that there’s anything inherently immoral about voluntarily practicing selective breeding techniques even among humans so long as no one is being forced to participate (or, more to the point, forced not to participate).

              However, once we have genetic engineering down, I see very little downside to selectively altering specific genetic traits. As long as we’re careful and actually understand what we’re doing, that is. I see the day coming where I can put money on the table and someone will be able to bump my IQ up 10 points. And maybe, just a free perk, they’ll remove the gene (which I’m probably a carrier of, but don’t seem to be expressing) for male pattern baldness.

          • Mathius,

            I think most people would like to have longer, healthier lives if medicine and biology could provide such.

            But that is a FAR cry from an enforcement and policy by a group of conceited individuals suggesting a broad program for it.

            Let everyone, by themselves, make their own decisions about themselves, and you Progressive Lefties leave us alone.

            • Mathius says:

              I don’t think I’ve advocated for forcing you to practice this… Can you point that part out? I must have had alien hand syndrome…

              And I don’t know where anyone said that this had to be done by a board of conceited individuals. I see nothing to suggest that it can’t be decentralized.

              • Mathius,

                As I’ve said above, your little program is Mathius’ concept.

                It is not Eugenics concept.

                You are attaching yourself to a fundamentally evil concept, believing your little idea is aligned with theirs.

                You are like JAC and VLDG – the belief there is some alignment that can maintain evil (government/eugenics) by using only some of it and naming it differently or believing it is doing something else.

  20. 😐

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning to All 🙂

    Some quite interesting discussions yesterday. Hopefully I can join in more this morning. Did manage to get 2/5ths of the garden in yesterday 🙂

    • Mathius says:

      So that’s only 3/5ths go to.

      I’ve got a bunch of these guys in my lawn.. how do you recommend I go about getting rid of them? Just yank, or yank and spray, what?

      • Napalm … it’s what’s for breakfast.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Matt, Go to your local garden shop and pick up some weed and feed. It kills weeds without killing grass.

        • Mathius says:

          I just seeded the grass.. can it survive a spray? I guess it would just be a few areas and I can always re-seed those…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Some roundup will kill the weeds and make nice yellow spots, which you can then dig up and reseed. Or, call Chemlawn and spend a few bucks a month to treat your lawn once a month, it’s not that expensive.

      • Black Order says:

        First, gently remove the seed stem thingy and place it in a plastic bag to quarantine them – Grab it from as close to the root as possible – rip it out – throw it in the yard to die/dry in the sun – chop it up when mowing the lawn.

        Pain in the ass – pretty grass.

        🙂

      • Buck the Wala says:

        If it makes it easier for you, I got a guy for that. Not sure if he’d make the trek up to you just for a few weeds though.

        • Mathius says:

          Do you have any idea how much money I’ve spend on landscaping this year? It’s close to the GDP of Uruguay.

          I’m an official do-it-yourself-er for the rest of the season.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I hear that!

            • Mathius says:

              I leveled my whole back yard.. I don’t know if you remember, but there was a good 15 degree grade. It’s now almost completely flat (and usable!). I knocked down almost a dozen trees (I’m the Lorax!).

              Then I fertilized and seeded the entire front and back yards, fenced in an area for the pooch and put sod down in that area.

              And I don’t even want to think about what I’m paying in electricity to run the sprinklers all the time.

              Ugh..

              But hey, some time in June/July, I’ll have you over for a BBQ and you can see for yourself.

              Also, we repainted the house too.

              Did you ever see the movie Money Pit?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                ha!

                Yeah luckily we aren’t doing nearly as much work as you are. Landscaper coming this weekend to clean up everything, take out some old plants and put in some new plants. Nothing major.

                You guys still need to make it down to Jersey to see the place too.

              • Mathius says:

                This is true. We’re going to have to make a trip.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Just say when.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Your sprinklers don’t work simply on water pressure? It would seem to me that your water bill would be the one that is growing…

      • It’s called yellowdock. The leaves are edible. You cook it like spinach. So pick away.

      • Mathius

        Since you just seeded the lawn DO NOT spray or use weed and feed.

        You should have fertilized in prep for the seeding. Your next fertilizer should be mid summer.

        So in the near term just pull or use spade to get the little rascals out when they get big. Use the spade to cut the tap root and then pull the plant. Your goal for now is to prevent the weeds from creating large holes in your lawn when you kill them later.

        Once you know your grass has rooted well and deep, about 8 inches of good root mass, then go ahead and spray your lawn with 2,4D. Several brand names use the chemical. This will limit kill to the broadleaf plants. But be aware it will kill clover as well, if you included any in your seed mix.

        Make sure to fertilize again in the fall with a balanced mixture, not just nitrogen. Leave your grass a couple inches long going into winter. It can help prevent frost killing.

    • Black Order says:

      Sup G,

      Like you, I’ve been somewhat preoccupied with gardening lately. All I have left to do is finish planting sprouts.

      This year, I am doing a combination garden plot/container garden.

      The tilled up section of my yard is filled mostly with corn, and some onions and carrots. Along the chain-link fence (a trellis), I’m growing cucumber and squash. And I also have an area designated for a watermelon patch.

      Tomatoes, peppers, cabbage, green beans, peas and spinach, etc… will all be grown from containers.

      Containers are great as they are rather manageable – no weeding and all the water and nutrients go directly to the roots…plus, you can move them around. On average, they grow bigger, faster, and yield more than a plant in the ground.

      I intend on growing peas and green beans in trays around the deck so they can use the railing and decorative trellis to climb, plus I will have planter pots with veggies placed all over the yard and deck.

      Most of the space not shaded by the big tree in the back yard is being used to grow something. I can’t wait to see my yield in a couple of months.

      Oh, and thanks for the compliment above on the article.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good Morning Black Order 🙂

        We have a good size garden in full sun. It’s fenced in, as is a requirement to keep the deer out. Yesterday, I planted our tomatoes, bell peppers, sweet banana peppers, jalepenos, wax beans, beets and onions. Tomorrow, the potatoes go in and then we’ll figure out what to do with what’s left.

        We grow to can primarily, as we live in the country, there is a nice farmers market a few miles away, where we get what we don’t grow at very good prices. We also have Amish who sell their stuff as well (great jellies and jams!).

        My next venture will be spices, we’ll see how that goes.

      • Bama dad says:

        Good morning fellow gardener:
        I have the onions and carrots growing, the radish and turnips are done, Irish potatoes ready in about 2 weeks, picking and eating the English peas, first plot of corn waist high with the second plot just now sprouting, first plot of field peas 1 foot tall with the second plot just now sprouting, first plot of tomatoes 1 foot tall with the second plot just now sprouting, okra is just now sprouting (had to replant), pole beans are starting to put on runners so I have to get my trellis up (cleaning tornado damage has put me way behind) and last but not least I still need to plant my melons and sunflowers. We canned about 250 quarts of vegetables and fruit last year and hope to surpass that this year, nothing better than home grown food.

  22. Another question Ms. Edmonds-If I am being to noisy just tell me. 🙂 But I am curious about what your impressions were on first coming to America and if or how you believe we have changed for the better or the worse ?

  23. Mathius,

    Eugenics states that you can improve the prevalence and quality of specific genes in a population by selective breeding.

    Post after post, from the founders to the organizations own documents demonstrate that what you say here is FALSE.

    You are -again- confusing the SCIENCE of GENETICS to be the same as the Socio-Political concept of EUGENICS.

    • Mathius,

      Eugenics wishes to USE the Science of Genetics so to stratify humanity into a sper-class/sub-class structure based on a loose concept that certain genes are superiority, placing some people OVER other people.

      • Mathius says:

        I disagree. I think that may have been an original intent by people who were ignorant of the intrinsic worth of all people. Culturally, it was believe that the rich were “better” than the poor, so it was only a natural extension to suppose that this was grounded in the new-found science of genetics.

        But, like many sciences, it was misapplied before it was properly understood.

        So yes, the initial practicioners were evil or madmen or ignorant, and certainly all were ego-maniacal.

        But the theory states, copying from wiki: Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,” usually referring to human populations.

        And, conveniently, wiki has a section on modern eugenics and an ethical revaluation. It discusses what I previously mentioned: ethical attempts such as the “genius sperm bank”

        • Mathius,

          No where – any where – is Eugenics considered a “science”, unless you are like one of those econ-nut AGW greenies who believes politics is a vital component of the scientific method.

          Applied Science is called Engineering, and that is EXACTLY what they want to do to human beings. Turn them into machines.

          • Mathius says:

            We are machines.

            Just really complicated ones..

            • Mathius,

              No, we are not, we are human beings who build machines.

              But I understand where you get your evil Eugenic beliefs – as long as egotistical men believes other men are mere machines, they can justify their manipulation and enslavement by others.

              • Mathius says:

                We’ve been through this and I don’t think I’ll ever convince you of the fact, so I guess we should just move along..

              • Mathius says:

                …. but back up the truck a minute…

                I understand where you get your evil Eugenic beliefs… “your” beliefs? As in my beliefs?? Damn that alien hand syndrome.. can you tell me where I said I support this?

              • Mathius,

                Because the only fact you can present is how it has been used to slaughter millions.

                You have no other facts to present other than hope and wishes that this evil ideology will not manifest the fullest extent of its evil.

              • Mathius,

                “support this’

                By your arguing FOR IT, perhaps?

              • Mathius says:

                Re supporting: I’m arguing that you do not understand the concept and that it is, itself morally neutral, but evil or not based on the way in which it is implemented. I have at no point here advocated that we should do anything.

                You have no other facts to present other than hope and wishes that this evil ideology will not manifest the fullest extent of its evil. Wow.. I could say the same thing about ‘pure’ capitalism.. you know, since it’s never been actually implemented.

                But that’s off the topic for this exact point.. this point was that humans are fancy machines and I have no way to convince you of this despite the fact that you have no evidence to support yourself. So why fight it?

              • I believe you supported it right here in your post to me:

                Ok, so you can pass up the opportunity to have your genes altered to make you stronger / healthier / long-lived / better vision / etc.

                Some day, they’ll probably figure out how to make people smarter even, and you can pass that one up too.

                Me, I’ll be jumping on the bandwagon.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita,

                Mathius is supporting an individual (perhaps himself) VOLUNTARILY using selective breeding, genetic manipulation, or some other such tactic.

                No where has he supported forced sterilization, extermination, or some other forced method on others.

              • BF—You are never going to convince Mathius as long as he perceives Eugenics as a science. He, at least my take, is that if he agrees that the whole concept of eugenics is evil-he will be supporting the halting of scientific discovery.

  24. Buck the Wala says:

    I believe it is you who is confused on Mathius’ point BF.

    Taken from Wiki, the same source you used for your definition of eugenics:

    “Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,” usually referring to human populations.[2] Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century,[3] but by the late 20th century it had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany.[citation needed] Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced “racial hygiene”, human experimentation, and the extermination of “undesired” population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in eugenics.”

    Nowhere in the first sentence does it define Eugenics as the imposition of force on others towards selective breeding or sterilization practices. Rather, it is merely the use of [undefined] practices towards improving the genetic composition of a given population. Nothing sinister about this at all. In fact, the article goes on to state how Eugenics has falled into disfavor due to its association with Nazi ABUSES. This is to say that eugenics does NOT necessitate the use of forced sterilization, experimentation or extermination; such tactics represent only an immoral abuse of the science of eugenics.

    • Buck,

      Nowhere in the first sentence does it define Eugenics as the imposition of force on others towards selective breeding or sterilization practices.

      Nor did I claim it did.

      I repeat what I said.

      Once a group of people proclaim a “superiority” over another group, they began a WALK OF JUSTIFICATIONS that leads to a slaughter.

      They begin this walk by this self-assigned argument:
      (1) We are superior
      (2) Because we are superior, what we do and think is, by definition “superior”
      (3) Our actions, justified by our superior thinking, must be superior
      (4)Resistance to our actions by our “inferiors” is unjustified as they are not superior thinkers and do not know what is right.
      (5)We are justified in overcoming the resistance of our inferiors.

      • Mathius says:

        Even if this is true (and I do not stipulate that it is), the belief that one is superior is not, itself, evil or immoral.

        Only the actions which follow in your scenario. So, if eugenics says (which it doesn’t) that I’m superior to you, there’s nothing bad about that. However, if I then sterilize you, that’s evil.

        • Mathius,

          Even if this is true (and I do not stipulate that it is), the belief that one is superior is not, itself, evil or immoral.

          Nor did I say this.

          Only the actions which follow in your scenario. So, if eugenics says (which it doesn’t) that I’m superior to you, there’s nothing bad about that. However, if I then sterilize you, that’s evil.

          Eugenics – the conceit of the Engineering of Humanity to the designs of other men is evil.

          Again, it is NOT medicine.

          IT IS ENGINEERING….OF…..HUMANS.

          • Mathius says:

            Not necessarily “of other men”.. it can be to the designs of the people practicing it. Recall that, the genetic sperm bank is a voluntary and completely moral eugenics project which aims to perpetuate the genes of highly intelligent people in higher quantities and therefore engineer a possibly smarter subsequent generation.

            Whether it works or not.. well that’s a different question.. but I think you’d be hard pressed to make the case that there is no genetic component to intelligence.

            And, because no one is forced to do anything, because no one is sterilized, because no rights are violated in any way, there is nothing evil here.

            • Mathius,

              it can be to the designs of the people practicing it

              Absolutely no where in any Eugenic literature, do they say the are only going to apply it “to themselves”.

              ….APPLY…..
              …..HUMAN POPULATION

              • Mathius says:

                .. APPLY ..

                .. HUMAN POPULATIONS ..

                You keep dropping that ‘s’…..

                Populations does not mean that it has to be applied to everyone, just a subset. In this case, the subset of parents-to-be who are opting to engineer a future generation with genes from individuals known to be highly intelligent in the hopes increasing the odds of having highly intelligent offspring. See? Subset. Not the whole population of humans on Earth, but one of many component populations.

              • Mathius,

                Once again – no where – nada – not one thing – ever in any documentation has the Eugenics said it is only going to be applied to a “limited human group”

                It has always said HUMAN POPULATION – everyone – alive and yet to be born.

  25. Mathius

    Flag, there are many populations. There is the population of Canada. There is the population of Outer Mongolia. There is the population of South America. There is the population of the West Coast. There is the population of Native Americans. There is the population of professional basketball players. AND there is the population of all humans on Earth.

    So guess what is the meaning of the concept the “HUMAN” population?

    I bet it means everything that is human and excludes everything that is not human.

    Thus, it applies to ALL humans, Mathius

    • Mathius says:

      once again.. from wikipedia: Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,” usually referring to human populations.

      Do you see that last word? Populations? It’s not population (singular) – it’s populations (plural). This is not a typo. If there were only one population, it could be read to mean only all members of the race. Since it is plural, it is clear that it is referring to sub-divisions.

      • Mathius,

        Once again, note the word “human” and populations as in “there are more than one human alive”.

        The did not say “human populations, excluding pirates”.

        And I do agree, Eugenics IS about dividing humans into “sub” divisions. That is EXACTLY correct.

        • Mathius says:

          That’s pretty flimsy, Flag.

          There are several populations and there is no need to practice any sort of eugenical program on the entirety. In fact, to do so would probably be counter productive to said program due to the fact that it is more difficult and takes longer to generate evolutionary differences in large populations than in small, isolated ones.

          It’s not about changing the world, it’s about changing a gene pool and there is nothing that says that has to be the entire gene pool of the entire human race rather than, say, a group of scientists on some island who want to give this a try.

          • Mathius,

            Pretty Flimsy ?!?!?!

            Let’s see, Eugenics is introduced in the early 1920’s and by 1940’s it was the justification for the slaughter of some 10 million people.

            Eugenics is about ENGINEERING HUMANS, as you’ve admitted.
            It is about ALL OF HUMANITY.
            It is about CLASSIFICATION OF SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR.

            It is as evil today as it was in 1920-1940.

            Ah, how nice was this?

            The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring

            …sounds ok, right?

            In 1934, the first year of the Law’s operation, nearly 4,000 people appealed against the decisions of sterilization authorities. 3,559 of the appeals failed. By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200 Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte) were created, and under their rulings over 400,000 people were sterilized against their will.

            Oh, Eugenics will not be applied to the human population writ large.. it is voluntary!

            Oh, and a nice hospital to do the “research”…

            The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics….

            …where the “inferior” humans went to be euthanized…..

            Sorry, Mathius, Eugenics – by its founding ideology – means a slaughter and subjugation of a large segement of humanity by the whims of conceited men.

            • Mathius says:

              Oy…

              Flag, I think you’re losing it..

              Because someone does something evil and uses something as a “justification” does not make the excuse evil. You’re arguing that the whole concept is evil based on a slippery slope argument.

              That is:
              (a) some people might think x
              (b) those people will think they are therefore superior
              (c) they will try to convert others or, failing that, neutralize them
              ergo x is evil

              Let’s see how that works:
              (a) some people believe they are the chosen of God
              (b) thus they believe they must be superior
              (c) they will (always, 100% of the time) try to convert others or, failing that, kill them all
              ergo, believing you are the chosen people is evil

              Nope.. humm.. that didn’t seem to work too well..

              Ask me if I agree with involuntary sterilization and the answer if absolutely not. But the believe that you can improve certain genes within certain populations by a deliberate effort to selectively breed or practice genetic manipulation techniques does not automatically lead to that conclusion.

              Eugenics – by its [sic] founding ideology – means a slaughter and subjugation of a large segement [sic] of humanity by the whims of conceited men.
              Eugenics – by it’s founding ideology – was based on a primitive understanding of genetics and rooted in a social bias that distorted it’s true implications and ignored the imperatives of moral implementation.

              Hitler hijacked it. But he also justified his evil under the auspices of building a “Christian nation” – does that make Christianity evil, or would you concede that he hijacked this as well?

              • Mathius

                implications and ignored the imperatives of moral implementation

                You are trying to put lipstick on a pig.

                Eugenics, in its founding ideology still in play today is the ENGINEERING OF HUMANS. As I have repeated said, the CONCEIT of EGO-CENTRIC men who believe “they know” what is “good” for others….. will always eventually lead to human horrors.

                Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” lays it out for you, if you’d read it.

  26. Mathius,

    does not make them better people. Just people with better vision

    By “vision” do you mean “ocular or “thought”?

    • Mathius says:

      Eyesight. I’m being very clear here to stay on the topic of genes which can be clearly said to be superior / inferior absent moral connotations.

      Seeing well: Good
      Blind: Bad

      But this, again, does not mean that a person who is able to see is better than a person who cannot see, just that they have better vision eyesight.

      • Mathius

        Seeing well: Good
        Blind: Bad

        Who says? You? You determine bad or good for humanity?

        Helen Keller often commented that it was because she was blind, deaf and dumb that allowed her to understand humanity and its blessings.

        But that is my point. You are willing to ENGINEER humanity for YOUR design – damn anyone else who may disagree.

        Go and mutate yourself – and leaving HUMAN ENGINEERING to God and the Universe. It got us where we are now rather well, considering.

        • Mathius says:

          Sure, and sharpening the ends of sticks to hunt was pretty good too.. until, you know, we developed better ways to do it.

          I don’t suggest that anyone should be forced to submit to genetic engineering.. only that eugenics can be used morally do so on willing participants by willing participants.

          • Mathius,

            Then what you advocate is not eugenics but medical research.

            Eugenics, again …
            >…SOCIAL MOVEMENT……APPLY……HUMAN POPULATION…<

            • Mathius says:

              social movement that applies to human populations.. population-ssssssssssssss… I know this is hard for you, but say it with me.. plural means subsets, not the whole. Get it? No, I didn’t think so..

              I give up.

  27. The federal bureaucracy is failing to abide by President Barack Obama’s inaugural decree that agencies “usher in a new era of open government,” according to a Monday survey by the National Security Archive.

    Honoring the kickoff of Sunshine Week, the private archive located at George Washington University concluded Monday that about half of the 90 affected federal agencies “actually made concrete changes in their FOIA procedures” as ordered.

    What’s more, there were 544,360 requests for information last year under the Freedom of Information Act to the 35 biggest federal agencies — 41,000 requests more than the year before. Yet the bureaucracy responded to 12,400 fewer requests than the prior year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

    “The administration refused to release any sought-after materials in more than 1-in-3 information requests, including cases when it couldn’t find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper under the law,” the AP found. “It refused more often to quickly consider information requests about subjects described as urgent or especially newsworthy. And nearly half the agencies that AP examined took longer — weeks more, in some cases — to give out records last year than during the previous year.”

    The Obama administration, nonetheless, lauded itself Monday over the topic.

    “Most relevant for us on the FOIA front is transparency. The value of transparency comes from the belief that sunlight is the best disinfectant,

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/obama-transparency-clouded/
    They fail to mention how sunlight disinfectants bulldookey…

  28. Buck,

    biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population

    Equally note, “the use of practices” does not limit the practices it advocates.

    It did not say “voluntary”. It left it wholly open-ended, nothing is off the table to this “social movement”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Precisely.

      Which means that it can only be evil or immoral as practiced. Remember: “Nazi ABUSES”. In theory, there is absolutely nothing inherently evil or immoral about eugenics.

    • Mathius says:

      I agree with what Buck just said.. shocker..

    • Mathius says:

      Flag, I think this might be what you’re looking for..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

      • Mathius says:

        From that article…

        According to health care public policy analyst RJ Eskow, “libertarian eugenics” is the term that would more accurately describe the form of eugenics promoted by some notable proponents of liberal eugenics

        • Mathius,

          liberal eugenics cannot be justified on the basis of the underlying liberal theory which inspires it.

          Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging reprogenetic technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a “genetic divide”

          Exactly. Create a superiority of elitism over the inferior “poor”.

          • Mathius says:

            Yes, this is a legitimate concern.

            However, free market capitalism does the same thing. The haves ensure that the power and wealth stays (primarily) amongst themselves and the rich get richer while the poor remain a sub-class. People born rich would get better education and better opportunities, while the poor would be severely handicapped in terms of competition.

            Yet, I don’t think you hold this to be evil as long as the weapon of choice in doing this economic rather than violence.

            Why do you see this as evil when the divide is driven by plain market forces and no violence?

            • Mathius,

              Free market is not a “design” of humanity upon humanity.

              Free market is men in voluntary trade. Nothing more, nothing less. No man “invented it”, no man “created it”. There is no “founder” of it. It existed the first time two men traded goods with each other.

              Its wide expression has created wealth FOR THE POOR, so that those that have embraced the Free Market have found that their poor are richer than the rich of other -closed- markets.

              There is nothing “voluntary” about a “public policy” as Eugenics portends.

        • Mathius,

          The moment someone says “xyz” public policy and libertarian in the same sentence, you better run for your life.

          Under no sense of the word does “Freedom” create a “public policy” to apply on others.

          • Mathius says:

            Go re-read that.. the point is that it must be libertarian in nature because if it has any sort of public policy, then it’s no longer free choice. Thus all the decisions must be made freely, whether to engage or not in the practice.

            Thus moral.

  29. Mat saying Eugenics is just the study of selective breeding-is the same as saying murder is just the taking of a life. A lot is left out of the statement. But if you want to ignore the evil of it’s pass and claim it was just a scientific theory and now the theory has changed. I think you are closing your eyes to the truth of what eugenics really is-IT IS NOT A SCIENCE Genetics is a science-selective breeding is a science. The intent of eugenics hasn’t changed-the definition has just been manipulated to make it more palatable.

    I’m off to get presentable and have a day out. 🙂

    • Mathius says:

      See the link I gave to Flag above, I think you’ll find it more palatable.

      Have a nice day.

  30. Todd and Terry,

    Exaclty, Terry – he is oblivious to the boiling.

    I’ve been around for 4+ decades, and I don’t feel any of my efforts are forced on the behalf of someone else.

    Try smoking in a “public” place.
    Try having a beer on the sidewalk.
    Try driving with a cell phone.
    Try boarding an international flight without getting groped.
    Try send more the $10,000 in cash to someone.

    …and the 70,000 new laws EVERY YEAR added to the Register…..

    Yep, you don’t notice it all.

    • Mathius says:

      Try smoking in a “public” place. You mean I’m not allowed to poison innocent bystanders anymore?

      GASP! The horror!

      Try driving with a cell phone. You mean I’m not allowed to engage in an activity which has been strongly statistically linked to an increase in the number of distracted, and therefore more dangerous, drivers operating 2,000 lb kinetic missiles at highway speeds?

      GASP! The horror!

      (adding, driving while on the phone wasn’t possible 40 years ago either since people were still communicating by smoke signals back then).

      • Terry Evans says:

        The Koolaide must be rather tasty in your parts. You know he is correct, but you revel in disagreement.

        • Mathius says:

          What can I say.. he’s annoying me elsewhere when I’m right, so I’m going to make him fight it out where he’s right.

      • Mathius,

        Smoking in a “public” place, such as a PRIVATELY OWNED RESTAURANT. Exactly my point. You have nicely co-opted that a private business now must adhere to YOUR evil perception of rights.

        Ah, the old fallacy of “statistics” equals “wrong action”. You and your “pre-crime” fallacies are among the leading cause of freedom loss.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          True – it may be a privately owned restaurant. But that very same restaurant holds itself out for the public.

          I have nothing against smoking – its not for me, but go for it! Enjoy the sweet sweet taste of cancer. But why should you have the right to poison me?

          Wasn’t it you that once said on this very blog that one man’s rights end when another man’s rights begin? (I could be paraphrasing, and I could be wrong on assigning this sentiment to you, but you get the point).

          • Terry Evans says:

            The studies on second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated…for the record, I do not smoke, but I would not prevent anyone else from smoking if that is their desire. The loss of liberty goes way beyond that one simple restriction, as I know I don’t have to tell you.

            • Terry Evans,

              The loss of liberty goes way beyond that one simple restriction, as I know I don’t have to tell you.

              I’m kinda slow. Please do spell it out in detail for me.

              • Terry Evans says:

                You’re not that slow…figure it out.

              • Mathius says:

                No Terry.. I think he really is.. he is a liberal, after all.

                And he’s in his 40’s and still hasn’t grown out of it.

              • Mathius,
                Thanks for the “support”…

                Terry,
                Sorry, but figuring it out and explaining it to us is your job!! 😉

              • Terry Evans says:

                You have my sympathy for being liberal, but there is time to come out of it yet…Do you really want me to list all of the laws that have passed in the last 40 years? I don’t have the time to research that…my employer would not appreciate the time away from the job…especially with the Mississippi growing to flood stage in the very near future. I believe you guys get exactly what I am talking about…but just one or two. For example, seat belts. Seems harmless…no big deal just wear the thing…I do to avoid the fines. In my narrow opinion, this is a silly law. If you want to be protected wear it…if you don’t care don’t…it hurts NOBODY but yourself if you don’t. But good ol big brother can’t stand to believe that you can think for yourself, so they fine you if they catch you not wearing one…next it will be crash helments that are forced on everyone…just sayin’. Another goofy one…in my opinion, is criminalizing marijuana. Do I use it…no, but why criminalize something that is relatively harmless…In the parish where I reside, there was just this week someone sentenced to LIFE in prison because of multiple instances where he was caught…with intent to distribute a…plant. WOW, that’s a reason to spend the rest of your life in prison…I expect this fellow was not the shapest knife in the drawer, but he has never committed a violent crime…never hurt anyone.

                OK…I don’t usually write too long of posts, so I’ll end it here. If you guys like all those laws, good for you. Rest assured, there will be some you do not agree with eventually…

          • Buck
            Whether I invite SPECIFIC friends, or open to all – does not change my ownership nor rights

            But the Progressive Left, any excuse will do to impose their world designs on others.

            You have NO rights to determine MY property. If you do not like the condition of my property, you have a right to leave.

          • If a restaurant is privately owned and open to the public, you can choose not to enter if you don’t want to breathe second hand smoke. It’s dangerous to restrict freedom in such a context.

            • Mathius says:

              I hate to admit it since I’m having so much fun, but this is actually a topic I’m somewhat torn on.

              I think that being completely non-smoking is a competitive advantage when competing for my business and a disadvantage for others. There were, back in the day, restaurants I avoided for precisely this reason……….

              • Buck the Wala says:

                True, I am torn on this as well, and often avoided restaurants b/c of the heavy smoking.

                But it is nice being able to go to ANY restaurant and not having to worry about the A-hole that sits next to me.

              • Mathius says:

                They (smokers) however, feel exactly the opposite.

                Then again, my buddy has one of those eCigs and he smokes at his desk next to me at work. He can smoke in restaurants, too.

                He doesn’t like it as much as a real cigarette, but maybe, like so many things, the answer is to meet in the middle – he doesn’t get to have full enjoyment, I don’t get poisoned.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Whose freedom counts on this issue: Yours to smoke where and when you please, or mine not to be poisoned?

              • Whose freedom really matters here? The owner’s right to decide what is allowed in his restaurant, or your right to dictate it for him?

                (Note the sarcasm)

                This seems ridiculous, guys. The best point you have for this is that you don’t want to have to worry about the A-hole who sits next to you. Why not ban toddlers too, while we’re at it. I don’t want to have to worry about the kids screaming next to me…

                If you don’t like the environment, go elsewhere, petition the owner to enact a policy against smoking, ask the person to not smoke, stop eating out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I understand your point and in a way I do agree. But at the end of the day I side with the argument that restaurants, although privately owned, are ‘public’ places and therefore reasonable restrictions can be placed on the owner. For instance, to me, a restaurant cannot refuse to hire someone (or serve someone) due to their race or ethnicity and they cannot allow one patron to give another cancer.

                But lets be realistic here – toddlers (while extremely annoying to sit next to in a restaurant) are not the equivalent of you blowing smoke in my direction.

    • I see we’ve moved down here…

      So, these are the terrible effects of GOVERNMENT (eek – run and hide!!) on our society over the last 40 years??? No wonder you’re cowering in a corner of your bomb shelter…

      Try smoking in a “public” place.

      You would have to define “public” – we all know what a stickler you are for definitions.

      But I’ve never smoked, so this is a gain for me. I can now go to a restaurant or bar and not come home smelling like an ashtray.

      Try having a beer on the sidewalk.

      Hey, I did last night – and survived!

      Try driving with a cell phone.

      I do this every day – what’s the big deal??

      Try boarding an international flight without getting groped.

      Ok – I’ll give you this one. But alive and slightly-less free beats dead…

      Try send more the $10,000 in cash to someone.

      Ok – you get two. But I don’t do this very often. I prefer to use couriers when laundering my ill-gotten loot.

      Out of the 2.8 million new laws in the past 40 years, these are the best examples you can come up with?

      This seems rather juvenile – even for you Black Flag.

      • Todd,

        I see we’ve moved down here…

        Stay in one place too long, you get hit by the artillery.

        So, these are the terrible effects of GOVERNMENT (eek – run and hide!!) on our society over the last 40 years???

        Along with the wars and the killings and the stealing – but you are already used to that and don’t give them a blink.

        I pointed to things within your life that began as “ok” and now are a terrible crime!

        You would have to define “public” – we all know what a stickler you are for definitions.

        Where people go.

        But I’ve never smoked, so this is a gain for me. I can now go to a restaurant or bar and not come home smelling like an ashtray.

        Yep, as long as the imposition on other free men benefits YOU, you are all for it.

        Try having a beer on the sidewalk.

        Hey, I did last night – and survived!

        Do it in front of a cop. You’ll still probably survive, but with a ticket.

        Try driving with a cell phone.

        I do this every day – what’s the big deal??

        Do it front of a cop. He will tell you the “deal”.

        Try boarding an international flight without getting groped.

        Ok – I’ll give you this one. But alive and slightly-less free beats dead…

        As if such a groping is keeping you alive….(roll eyes).

        Try send more the $10,000 in cash to someone.

        Ok – you get two. But I don’t do this very often. I prefer to use couriers when laundering my ill-gotten loot.

        Exactly again. If it doesn’t impose on you, you are fine with it being imposed on others.

        Out of the 2.8 million new laws in the past 40 years, these are the best examples you can come up with?

        You already complain that my posts are too long to read.

        This seems rather juvenile – even for you Black Flag.

        I write for the audience intended.

      • “This seems rather juvenile – even for you Black Flag.”
        Todd, is this better? PS, I feel for you fools who admit on the internet, you garden. Beware the black clad men!!!

        http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikely-orchid-smuggler-a-case-study-in-overcriminalization

        federal agents, clad in protective Kevlar and bearing guns, raided his home, seizing his belongings and setting the gears in motion for a federal prosecution and jail time.

        The Raid

        Around 10:00 a.m., three pick-up trucks turned off a shady cul-de-sac in Spring, Texas, far in Houston’s northern suburbs, and into the driveway of Norris’s single-story home. Six agents emerged, clad in dark body armor and bearing sidearms. Two circled around to the rear of the house, where there is a small yard and a ramshackle greenhouse. One, Special Agent Jeff Odom of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approached the door and knocked; his companions held back, watching Odom for the signal.

        Norris, who had seen the officers arrive and surround his house, answered the knock at the door with trepidation. Odom was matter-of-fact. Within 10 seconds, he had identified himself, stated that he was executing a search warrant, and waved in the rest of the entry team for a sweep of the premises. Norris was ordered to sit at his kitchen table and to remain there until told otherwise. One agent was stationed in the kitchen with him.

        As Norris looked on, the agents ransacked his home. They pulled out drawers and dumped the contents on the floor, emptied file cabinets, rifled through dresser drawers and closets, and pulled books off of their shelves.

        When Norris asked one agent why his home was the subject of a warrant, the agent read him his Miranda rights and told him simply that he was not charged with anything at this time or under arrest. Norris asked more questions–What were they searching for? What law did they think had been broken? What were their names and badge numbers?–but the agents refused to answer anything. Finally, they handed over the search warrant, but they would not let Norris get up to retrieve his reading glasses from his office; only an agent could do that.

        It was as if he were under arrest, but in his own home.

        Attached to the warrant was an excerpt of an e-mail message, from two years earlier, in which a man named Arturo offered to have his mother “smuggle” orchids from Ecuador in a suitcase and send them to Norris from Miami. Norris remembered the exchange; he had declined the offer and had stated that he could not accept any plants that were not accompanied by legal documentation.

  31. Mathius,

    You have no other facts to present other than hope and wishes that this evil ideology will not manifest the fullest extent of its evil. Wow.. I could say the same thing about ‘pure’ capitalism.. you know, since it’s never been actually implemented.</blockquote.

    As already pounded into Todd, you experience its "actual" implementation everyday.

    But you are a fish in water. You cannot see the water in which you swim.

  32. Mathius

    this point was that humans are fancy machines and I have no way to convince you of this despite the fact that you have no evidence to support yourself

    The opposite is true, you cannot support that we are merely machines to be ENGINEERED and MANIPULATED.

  33. Buck

    where has he supported forced sterilization, extermination, or some other forced method on others

    I agree, which puts him in contradiction to the very ideology he claims supports his – Eugenics.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Precisely wrong.

      Eugenics does not necessitate such forced techniques. It applies to any methodology – including purely voluntary methods.

      • Precisly wrong, Buck

        Eugenics is open to any methodology, including forced techniques.

        Nowhere – any time – in any literature of its organization does it exclude force. It is always on the table.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Which just goes to show that the immorality is in the APPLICATION of eugenics.

          • Buck

            Yes.

            BUT…
            …Eugenics as an IDEOLOGY is evil as it argues for HUMAN ENGINEERING -manipulation, sub-classification, implementation, design by EGO CENTRIC man who -decide among themselves- what is good and what is not good.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              “Yes”

              So you finally agree that it is only in the application that there can be immorality and that eugenics as a theory is neither moral nor immoral, good nor evil! Geez that took a long time!

              • Mathius says:

                And the Liberals win the pennant! The Liberals win the pennant! Buck the Wala hits into the lower deck of the left-field stands! The Liberals win the pennant and they’re goin’ crazy, they’re goin’ crazy! HEEEY-OH!!!

              • Buck,

                No.

                I agreed that some human action is evil.

                I further said that Eugenics – as a ideology is evil.

                Because I say one thing is evil does not undo the other as evil.

              • Mathius,

                ….oh oh, a conversation at home plate between the Umpires…

                …and its’ a foul ball!… the runs do not count

            • Mathius says:

              Except that it doesn’t.

  34. V.H.

    Mathius as long as he perceives Eugenics as a science

    I completely agree with you.

    Mathius believes social engineering is a “science”.

  35. Touche

    Time to turn the thread back to a dialogue with and about Sibel, no?

    • Mathius says:

      Sibel who? This is blog is hosted in America, and in America, we don’t talk about government whistle blowers.. shhh.

    • Kinda tried that a couple times above. You kept pounding Matt as if he would agree fire was hot, when he had a Hallmark card that said different.

    • Black Order says:

      In all fairness, the eugenics discussion started from an article from BFP.

      The intent of this article wasn’t just about telling her story, but equally about hooking her up with SUFA in the interest of sharing readers, posters, and article writers.

      Call it a blog marriage and/or an adoption of sorts.

      Do you SUFA take BFP to be a companion and addition to your network, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, ’till the gooberment shuts down the internet?

      • Mathius says:

        That’s a stretch… eugenics came as a complete tangent following an attempt to discredit Keynesian economics because of an unrelated belief which Keynes held.

        While the underlying post was interesting (and of course I disagree), I plead guilty to one count of first degree topic straying.

        • Mathius,

          Well – actually – Sibel makes a good case that the Eugenic belief of Keynes is important to understand his economics.

          The elitist believe from Eugenics impacted his elitist theories on economics.

        • Mathius

          Keynes’ economics and his belief in Eugenics are consistent with and supported by his CORE value system. His moral center.

          That was the point.

          They are both supported by a moral center that rationalizes centralized control of others. That is based on the belief that the elite know better and should run the world, on behalf of us ignorant savages.

      • Black Order,

        I’ve popped over to BFP, well, besides the initials hold a familiar tint, it is very interesting blog.

        Wait and see if I wear out my welcome….

  36. Black Flag,

    This whole discussion is just the same-old stuff. This is where we end up every time – Evil government taking away our freedom. But you still have never defined a society that meets your definition of freedom – or even one that comes close.

    And all the evil parts of government – that you constantly rail against – come from men. The exact same men you think will behave so much better in your “society”.

    Just a week or two ago I pointed out how we on the left have to constantly defend all the evils that exist in our current society, while you get a free pass because your society does not exist. Here we are again!!

    So crap all over our current society as much as you want – and I’ll keep defending it – and trying to improve it.

    Because for all it’s horrible faults,

    it still beats your “example” – because your “example” doesn’t exist.

    • Todd,

      Evil government taking away our freedom.

      There is no debate here.

      But you still have never defined a society that meets your definition of freedom – or even one that comes close.

      I have defined it.

      Further, I have repeated pointed out to where it exists in your society – indeed, dominates your society.

      And all the evil parts of government – that you constantly rail against – come from men.

      Yep. Human action.

      The exact same men you think will behave so much better in your “society”.

      I have never said this. Do not make up stories about me.

      Freedom does not make men behave. It merely says men are free.

      Your society of overt government control is based on the belief that violent men in control of centralized violence will control their own use of that violence

      Just a week or two ago I pointed out how we on the left have to constantly defend all the evils that exist in our current society, while you get a free pass because your society does not exist. Here we are again!!

      The discussion is rooted on how best to organize human action

      You believe giving violent men the monopoly on violence will be best to reduce violence and to organize other men.

      I believe giving a monopoly on violence to violent men will magnify the violence and is the worse way to organize men. I believe humans are self-organizing creatures that need no threat against them for them to cooperate.

      So crap all over our current society as much as you want – and I’ll keep defending it – and trying to improve it.

      I do expect you to improve society,

      BUT I doubt you are doing it by stealing and beating up your neighbor and stealing his wealth to fund your lifestyle.

      I expect you are voluntarily selling your time, by working at some job, buy money with your talent, and selling your money, voluntarily, for the goods you need and desire. That is, you are a participant in the “Free Market” system.

      Because for all it’s horrible faults,

      it still beats your “example” – because your “example” doesn’t exist.

      My examples exists, you use it everyday. You ignore it, because you also agree that sometimes, you like the proceeds delivered to you by the use of evil.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        BF,

        Please example two things to me.

        1) How is it that our current society is so grossly overrun by the government and impending socialism, while, by your very words, the free market dominates our daily lives and interactions?

        2) How is it that humans are self-organizing creatures who need no threat of government, yet every single society has had some form of government?

        • Buck

          How is it that our current society is so grossly overrun by the government and impending socialism, while, by your very words, the free market dominates our daily lives and interactions?

          It takes took 10 years to build the World Trade Center and 15 seconds to knock it down.

          Violence overwhelms Reason. Without Reason, Civilization falls into Savagery, and Humanity tumbles back down to mere animals.

          The existence of Civilization demonstrates the the vast mass of Humanity operates on a bedrock of reason. If evil was even slightly dominating, it could not exist.

          A short step – the broad acceptance of violence as a moral means of allocating wealth dangerously risk the utter collapse of humanity.

          2) How is it that humans are self-organizing creatures who need no threat of government, yet every single society has had some form of government?

          As I’ve posted so often before:

          Theft is profitable

          Centralized and organized theft is even more profitable

          But the most profitable of all is LEGITIMIZED THEFT where the victims agree that the thief has a right to steal

  37. Buck

    Whose freedom counts on this issue: Yours to smoke where and when you please, or mine not to be poisoned?

    There is no such “Freedom to smoke where you please”.

    You do not have the Freedom to determine the use of my property.

    Now, where are you confused?

  38. Buck:”at the end of the day I side with the argument that restaurants, although privately owned, are ‘public’ places and therefore reasonable restrictions can be placed on the owner”

    Does no one else find that statement a little disturbing?

    It is a private business. It cannot break the law (hire or fire on the basis of race, etc.), but now it cannot allow smoking? We all seem to agree that no one HAS to go here and inhale the smoke. Is it your right to never come in contact with dangerous substances, even by choice?

    No more cars, the fumes are toxic and I walk by the road. No more artificial sweeteners, even though I don’t have to use them, if I did they are carcinogenic. No more natural gas ovens. The carbon monoxide could kill me.

    Think about that statement you made Buck. Do you really agree with it?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Take a step back — do you agree with the laws that say a private business cannot hire or fire or serve customers based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc?

      • I’ll take that as a yes.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          In all seriousness though, where do you stand on the laws forbidding private business owners from discriminating against employees and customers?

          • Interesting.

            I support it. I can’t really think of why, though.

            Maybe it’s just the, “all men are created equal” part of me.

            I know what you’re going to say. I do not see the correlation between barring an employer from discriminating against his employees and barring an employer from not discriminating against his customers.

            Maybe you can enlighten me.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              So you do support some form of reasonable restriction on the private business owner, correct? Where to draw that line is a different question.

              On the issue of smoking, I do see both sides of the argument; It is not an easy call for me. But given the adverse health impact of second hand smoke, and the nature of being in a confined place with not real options (finish my meal while inhaling cancer or get up and leave), I find myself on the side of supporting this type of ban. If you want to smoke, that’s great – just do it outside where I’m not a captive audience.

              • “a confined place with not real options”

                real option: don’t go to a restaurant that allows smoking…

                I still don’t see the correlation.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The correlation between what? Discrimination and smoking?

                No real correlation between the two per se, except for the fact that you do admittedly support reasonable restrictions on a private owner’s use of his property. We just disagree on what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

                But as I just posted below, I’m out for the day – we can continue this tomorrow. Have a good one.

            • Don’t forget JB that now in some states/localities restaurant owners are now told what they are prohibited from putting in their foods (transfats).

              But I am sure Buck can give a reasonable explanation why that’s valid for government to demand of them too.

      • Buck,
        No.

        The Right of Voluntary Association is a core Human Rights.

        You have NO right to use violence on me to force me to entertain individuals I do not wish to associate with for whatever reason I choose

    • Black Order says:

      JB – “Does no one else find that statement a little disturbing?”

      BO – Yes. Like every other argument Matt and Buck(the dynamic liberal duo) make, it is premised upon some bizarre and absurd rationalization.

      Until they learn to reason beyond influence of THEIR wants, there is no hope of penetrating their thick skulls.

      Buck – ” at the end of the day I side with the argument that restaurants, although privately owned, are ‘public’ places and therefore reasonable restrictions can be placed on the owner ”

      Translation: There is no difference between public and private property.

      Sigh—–

      • Buck the Wala says:

        And once again you refuse to see any side of an issue that is not your own, instead opting to mischaracterize in an effort to discredit. That’s twice in one day by my count (first eugenics, and now this) – kudos! 🙂

        Of course there is a difference between public and private property. I have never said otherwise.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I humbly take back my comment. I saw “Black” in the title and my tired brain saw “Black Flag”.

        I don’t recall you, Black Order, as having used that tactic in regards to the eugenics argument. My mistake!

        But my second statement stands – I never said there was no difference between public and private property!

        Fortunatley, I’ve finished up my work for the day and am about to head out — have a great night!

        • Black Order says:

          Buck – ” I humbly take back my comment. I saw “Black” in the title and my tired brain saw “Black Flag”.

          I don’t recall you, Black Order, as having used that tactic in regards to the eugenics argument. My mistake!”

          BO – No worries. It’s all good.

          Buck – ” But my second statement stands – I never said there was no difference between public and private property! ”

          BO – Okay, lemme break it down for you…

          ” at the end of the day I side with the argument that restaurants, although privately owned, are ‘public’ places and therefore reasonable restrictions can be placed on the owner ”

          So because it is a public place( a lot of people eat there), it is subject to the same rules as public property…even though it is private property, thus, there is no difference when concerning property rights?

          By your non-logic, because a lot of people go to a private property, it is public property.

          If someone has a BBQ/keg party, does anyone have the right to tell them that they cannot allow people to smoke in their house because a lot of people are there?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Wrong – and perhaps I’m not fully explaining myself here.

            The same rules as public property do not apply to private property due to it having been opened up to the public. However, some rules, some restrictions, can be imposed to protect the public.

            This would not apply to a private house, as it is not being opened to the general public, regardless of how many people are invited to my party. There is a difference between an individual’s private home and a restaurant.

            • Black Order says:

              Oh I see, we’re now back to “sometimes” property rights.

              Do you, or do you not, have the right to decide how to manage your stuff?

              You WILLINGLY choose to, or not to, eat at a particular establishment. No health risks are being imposed upon you. Your health and/or rights are not being violated.

              What gives you the right to tell someone how to manage their stuff?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Black Order, It is and always will be the liberal mindset that they cannot make decisions in life without government. Eating establishments are no different, as long a s government can dictate to their desires all is well. But as soon a government dictates against their desires, all hell breaks loose, as the recent history of the Madison Wisconsin Statehouse has proven.

                It’s OK for everyone else to give of themselves for the liberal agenda, but turn the tables and it’s a different story. Where I come from, it’s called contradiction and confusion….. and greed.

              • Black Order says:

                @ G

                ROFL!

                I have seriously considered writing an article on the “liberal mindset”, but don’t necessarily want to be interpreted as picking on them.

                No matter where I go, or which liberals I chat with, there is one consistent thing I notice about their thinking; They rationalize everything.

                It’s not that everyone doesn’t do it on occasion, but they seem to do it with almost everything.

                If there is no consistent reason or logic, just fill in the blanks with convenient or emotional bullshit. If it doesn’t make sense, make sense out of it anyway.

                This is how “gray areas” and “sometimes” happens.

              • Black Order,

                It is ego, self-centered world view that says:

                “I want and demand my freedom, but I do not want you to be free”

                “Freedom for me, but not for you.”

                Ego-centric world view is a fatal disease for humanity if it goes viral.

              • Mathius says:

                The universe if full of gray areas. Just because you refuse to see them doesn’t make them cease to exist.

            • Buck,

              So now YOU ARE the measure of when a private property becomes the means for “public” use.

              Private means how many need to “invited”, vs Public?

              What is your magic number?

              If I have a rock and roll concert on my farm and say “Everyone welcome”, you declare me to be Public and you get to impose your bizarre rules?

              There is no difference between a private home and a privately owned restaurant.

              They are both called PRIVATE PROPERTY. You do not own it. You do not determine the use of the property.

              Buck, you wade dangerous waters when YOU claim the USE of PROPERTY changes it from Private to Public.

              You will end up with NO PROPERTY.

            • Truthseeker says:

              Buck: “However, some rules, some restrictions, can be imposed to protect the public.”

              TS: So why not ban businesses from selling alcholhol, cigarrettes, lots of chemical that go BOOM, cars that pollute and just about anything else? If it is all in the name of “Protecting the Public”, why not justify banning everything you do not like?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If you read what I’ve written in the past, I believe all these substances should be fully legal. I have absolutely no problem with you drinking, smoking, using heroin, etc. etc. etc.

                I have a problem when your use of these substances impacts on my own health and safety. You want to smoke at home? Be my guest. But don’t blow your cancerous smoke in my face. You want to drink? Be my guest; I’ll gladly sit down and enjoy a few with you. But don’t get behind the wheel of your car to drive home and put me in danger.

  39. I have held off offering my opinion until I could read some of her writings.

    My opinion; Thumbs down.

    The problem with some (not all) whistle blowers is that after the whistle blowing giving them some sort of credible notoriety, they think themselves an expert on literally everything. They are not. Neither am I. But after laboriously reading through her “post”, all I seem to get out of it is that she is selling froggy nick-nacks now to make a living. Someone (not me) needs to let her know that she does not need to have fiction writers embellish the Obama administrations fubars at all . . . Those guys do enough by themselves, they do not need any help in making themselves look stupid and foolish.

    I am curious, however, as to why the mainstream news media (including FOX News and even Glenn Beck – or at least Rush Limbaugh) did not pick up on her whistle blowing at the FBI? Maybe one of our resident Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist/Libertarian type people would like to look into that little oversight?

    • Black Order says:

      G. A. Rowe – “The problem with some (not all) whistle blowers is that after the whistle blowing giving them some sort of credible notoriety, they think themselves an expert on literally everything.”

      BO – OR…it could be that she and her associates are exercising freedom of speech to voice their opinion and tell what they know about government corruption.

      G A Rowe – ” Neither am I ”

      BO – Agreed.

      G A Rowe – ” But after laboriously reading through her “post”, all I seem to get out of it is that she is selling froggy nick-nacks now to make a living. ”

      BO – If that’s what you got after reading so laboriously, then I suggest you read it all again.

      The reason why her site is privately funded is so that you nor anyone can say she and her associates are influenced by anyone’s agenda…like from a corporate or political sponsor, for example.

      I don’t know or care about her finances, but question why you would. Even if she IS making money selling froggy nick-nacks…SO WHAT?

      Just my humble opinion, but I find it much more honorable to make a living selling nick-nacks than to threaten people with a gun, kidnap them, and throw them in a dungeon for hurting no one.

      G A Rowe – ” Someone (not me) needs to let her know that she does not need to have fiction writers embellish the Obama administrations fubars at all . . . Those guys do enough by themselves, they do not need any help in making themselves look stupid and foolish. ”

      BO – Someone(me) needs to tell you that that is their/her right to do, that there is nothing wrong with exposing the Obummer administration for what it is.

      G A Rowe – ” I am curious, however, as to why the mainstream news media (including FOX News and even Glenn Beck – or at least Rush Limbaugh) did not pick up on her whistle blowing at the FBI? ”

      BO – because they are full of shit and she isn’t. They dare not tell the truth to the sheeple.

      • Appreciate the return. Even though I may not agree with you, you do have a lot of good points.

        However, I still find it curious that the conservative talking heads and media haven’t picked up on the whistle blowing. I really don’t care what you think of them, but if what she had to disclose was of any national importance those guys would have been all over it – especially Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

        I do not blindly jump on anyone’s band wagon, therefore I will not jump on her bandwagon. Again, thanks for the return input.

        • G.A.

          but if what she had to disclose was of any national importance those guys would have been all over it

          Absolutely not.

          The MSM exists today to maintain a certain status quo. They are a tool of the Elitists to maintain the status quo, not disrupt it.

          This is why political change is impossible – the system is hardened against systemic change.

          Ron Paul gets millions in a day in fund raising. Straw Polls put him in front by a massive margin.

          He doesn’t even get a byline mention out of the MSM as a contender for the RepParty.

          The more fundamental risk of systemic change, the greater the resistance of it making it to the Main Stream

          Sibel is confronting this. She threatens to undermines a pillar of government action.

          All forces come to bear to marginalize the threat of systemic change.

        • G.A.

          Oh yeah, Remember Bill Clinton.

          The MSM stuffed the stories of Monica.

          It was Drudge, out of his basement, who broke it.

          Today, Drudge is worth millions.

          Today, the NY Times is facing bankrupcy.

          Change is possible – but only out here on the margin the System itself can never change, only dissolution and evaporation.

  40. Buck,

    I know you’re gone for the day. Maybe you’ll read this on the morrow. I get what you’re explaining, I just don’t agree.

    “No real correlation between the two per se”

    Then you cannot expect to use one to justify the other.

    Let’s take a closer look, shall we? I support reasonable restrictions on private property, but that’s not quite right. I support reasonable restrictions one private property which prevent its owner from using it to intentionally detriment another person. Allowing smoking is not intentionally (I hope) detrimental to others. Therefore, the fact that I oppose discrimination is not sufficient to convince me to support imposing a smoking ban which the owner does not want.

    Let me put it another way. If you support the death penalty (I do), then you think the government may take a human life. Does that mean you will support government assassinations (I don’t)? I support the use of the death penalty against violent, unrepentant criminals who have been fairly convicted in an unbiased court of law. This doesn’t mean that I support killing in any other circumstance.

    Does that make sense?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I see where you’re going with this.

      Your support of reasonable restrictions on private property to prevent its owner from using it to intentionally detriment another is an interesting line in the sand. Would you extend that to preventing the owner from allowing others on his property from intentionally detrimenting another? I’m assuming not.

      Going one step further then, why draw the line at intentionally detrimenting another; what about unintentionally? Your smoking may not be done in order to harm me, but it does harm me regardless of your intent.

      • “why draw the line at intentionally detrimenting another; what about unintentionally?”

        Because my disillusionment with the government leads me to believe things will be better if they are less involved. The bottom line here is that you have a choice to go to a restaurant or not, so your desire to be in a smokeless area does not conflict with the owners desire to host a smoking clientell. Cigarette smoke bothers my wife, so we don’t go to restaurants that permit smoking, we book only non-smoking rooms. Easy.

        If you were forced to be in such a place (work), I might support a smoking ban. Optional attendance at a private restaurant is a different matter entirely.

        Your driving unintentionally harms other people because of pollution. Guess we should take away your keys. You may not intend to hurt anyone, but you will regardless of your intent.

      • Buck

        Your support of reasonable restrictions on private property to prevent its owner from using it to intentionally detriment another is an interesting line in the sand.

        No man has a right to destroy another man’s rights.

        But YOU on MY property without MY permission is YOU destroying MY rights, not yours.

        Would you extend that to preventing the owner from allowing others on his property from intentionally detrimenting another? I’m assuming not.

        You are violating MY rights.

        Your smoking may not be done in order to harm me, but it does harm me regardless of your intent.

        Bull. Prove it.

        If you don’t like the smoke get out and off of MY kitchen, house, home, land.

  41. Buck

    and therefore reasonable restrictions can be placed on the owner.

    Based on what, your whim?

    If you believe you can dictate how some one will use the property, others will do so to you.

    But then you will complain and whine, because Buck’s Progressive Theory always states:
    “Freedom for me, but not for you”

    For instance, to me, a restaurant cannot refuse to hire someone (or serve someone) due to their race or ethnicity

    Why not? It’s their place.

    So if they cannot discriminate, neither can you.

    Bob the Rapist is coming over to visit you.

    and they cannot allow one patron to give another cancer.

    Fallacy of Statistical Pre-crime (or pre-disease)

    But lets be realistic here

    Yeah, like how about you respect human rights?

    No, I didn’t think so.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      No, freedom for me and for you! Albeit subject to some reasonable restrictions (imposed equally both on me and on you) to protect and safeguard everyone’s rights.

      Respect for human rights? In abundance! I’ve never argued against human rights.

      • Black Order says:

        “Imposing” is violating rights.

        Equal imposition is equal violation of rights.

      • “imposed equally both on me and on you”

        Easy for you since you don’t smoke.

        “protect and safeguard everyone’s rights”

        Only the “rights” you fancy. Apparently, no one has the right to allow smoking on private property.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Not likely. Nothing that comes from the White House can be proven. Maybe that’s the problem.

    • Mathius says:

      Ah, I get it.. so now we’re going to take away Obama’s victories by denying that the go-order came from him.

      Well it didn’t seem to work when they claimed the intel came from torture that Bush used, so Bush gets the credit.. makes sense we’ll just try another tact.

      Because, as always, the narrative has to be that Dems are soft of national defense.

      Give me the name of someone who was their and willing to put their name to it. Otherwise it’s just another anonymous unsubstantiated rumor.

      Bah!

      • No Matt you do not get it. I said nothing positive or negative about Obama or the situation. I merely asked if there was confirmation of the truth or falsehood of this allegation. From your statement, I will assume you can neither confirm nor deny it. If the story is false, then it is a slur on the President and should be rightly debunked and the reporter chastised. If, however, it is true, then we have a troubling situation brewing.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    For those following the Dollar series, here’s part III.

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/the-day-the-dollar-died-part-iii/

  43. Hallelujah! Off to Hawaii for my daughter’s graduation from U of H. A proud mom I am..she majored in Accounting and pulls off a 3.7 GPA. Son in law also finishes up his four yr stint in the Marines. They will both be following us home for good at the end of the month. YAY!

  44. DARWIN, Australia — A woman who was diagnosed as being brain dead has recovered three days after her husband begged doctors to put in a breathing tube before switching off a ventilator at an Australian hospital, the Northern Territory News reported Wednesday.

    Gloria Cruz, 56, underwent brain surgery after a tumor was discovered when she suffered a stroke on March 7 and was rushed to the Royal Darwin Hospital in Darwin, Northern Territory.

    Doctors told her husband Tani Cruz, 51, the case was “hopeless” and she would probably die within 48 hours following the surgery.

    After two weeks, a breathing tube was inserted in Mrs Cruz’s mouth and the ventilator was turned off. Hospital staff were stunned when she woke from her coma three days later.

    When a doctor recommended that the ventilator be removed and Gloria Cruz be allowed to die, her husband told them, “I’m a Catholic — I believe in miracles.”

    “I told him that God knows how much I love her — that I don’t want her to suffer but I don’t want her to leave us,” he said.

    A doctor described her recovery as “a miracle.”

    Mrs Cruz is now alert and getting around in a wheelchair at the hospital.

    “She’s well on the way to recovery,” her husband said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/11/husband-celebrates-miracle-brain-dead-wife-wakes-hospital/#ixzz1M2xVY7lr

  45. Buck the Wala says:
    • Terry Evans says:

      Never too early to stir! Personally I see it as a non-issue. In Louisiana we have been required to present proper ID for some time…no big deal, as long as you are above board.

      • Mathius says:

        That’s an interesting argument…

        It’s no big deal if you’re above board…

        OK, good.. so it’s no big deal to you if the feds listen in on your phone call since you’re not doing anything wrong, right? And maybe they’ll just pop in from time to time to search your house since that’s also no big deal if you’re above board.

        • Terry Evans says:

          If you think they don’t, you are fooling yourself. I have worked in communications for almost 30 years…DON’T say anything on the phone you would not scream in public…this has been a constant mantra in the business my entire career…

          • Mathius says:

            Not really the point.. although I completely believe that Uncle Sam is listening (at least using some kind of key-word sniffing computer program), I’m not ok with it.

            That said: your argument was that it’s no big deal if you’re not doing anything wrong.. do you think the same thing when it comes to listening to your phone calls or searching your home.. you know, since you’re above board and all..

            • Terry Evans says:

              Some things yo can fight, some things you cannot…the consequences of having the big government you covet…

              • Mathius says:

                Still not the point.

                I agree that it shouldn’t be the case, and I agree that it (probably) is the case, but you seem to be claiming that it’s no big deal if you’re “above board.” And I want to know if this extends to eavesdropping and warrant-less searches, or if you find these onerous even if you are “above board.”

              • Terry Evans says:

                Strange how you pick and choose which liberties are OK to stomp on and which ones aren’t. To answer your question (a trap I assume) no I don’t condone that. But if they have nothing better to do, then they are welcome in my home, as I have said, I have nothing to hide.

              • Mathius says:

                It’s tough to be consistent when I see the world as a balancing act between the “Greater Good” and individual rights/liberties/freedoms.

                I just like pointing out that other people aren’t very consistent either.

                And yes, of course it’s a trap.

    • If he is doing it in order to disenfranchise democratic voters (likely) then it is wrong and I oppose it.

      If he only wants to make elections less corrupt, fine.

      It’s interesting to me that voters do not have to prove their citizenship. I could easily just show my driver’s license and go and vote, even though I am not a citizen.

      • Terry Evans says:

        The Dems are looking for anything to sling in Walker’s direction. Why would it disenfranchise Dems over anyone else…unless they have something to hide?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          It disenfranchises Dems over anyone else because restrictions like this are targeted to affect likely democratic voters.

          They do this by using the boogeyman of voter fraud.

        • Mathius says:

          “But do you know who typically does not have a Wisconsin driver’s license, a passport or a military ID?

          Students.

          Do you know who are the least likely to make the trek to the DMV and wait for hours in line to spend $28.00?

          Students.

          And do you know who has been a key voting block for Democrats in Wisconsin during the last three presidential election cycles?

          Students.”

          • Terry Evans says:

            How many college students do not have drivers licences? It was a pretty big deal when I became of age to get a drivers licence…has that changed?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I went to college in PA. I had a NY driver’s license, not a PA drivers license.

              I could have (should have) switched to a PA license, but it was just too much of a hassle – I could barely get up for my 8am class, you think I’m getting up to run over to the DMV and wait in line!?

              • Terry Evans says:

                In that case I assume it would be a problem for you…but if this is an important enough issue to be concerned about, then get the license.

            • Mathius says:

              I got mine at 17, and it was a big deal to me too..

              But, and here’s the kicker.. “But do you know who typically does not have a Wisconsin driver’s license […]”

              Students who live in the state, just for college, frequently have out-of-state licenses. When I went to school in PA, I had a CA license, but was still able to vote because, for all intents and purposes, I was a resident of PA.

              Now, whether that should be permitted or not, is a fair question. But then the law should be changed so that the definition of resident excludes kids just passing through for college. But so long as the law permits them to vote, the legislature shouldn’t be allowed to sneak around and disenfranchise people who are allowed to vote.

              They want to get the kids off the rolls, but they know that if they try to do it directly, it would be seen as a blatant attempt at doing just that. So they set up requirements that make it harder for them and disenfranchise them anyway.

              And they do this, by the way, claiming to be trying to prevent voter fraud.. fraud which is so prevalent that there were 20 cases in 2008. Twenty. Can you honestly say with a straight face that the purpose of this bill is to stop voter fraud? And if not that, then what else might it be?

              • Terry Evans says:

                I see your point, but what are the percentages of out of state college students? It may well be significant, it may not be. If this is an important issue, they will get the license, if that is too much trouble for them, then perhaps they should not be voting anyway…IMO.

              • Mathius says:

                I don’t know the answer to that question, but voting should be confined only to those who really, really, really want to vote. You shouldn’t have to go to the DMV, wait on line, pay $28 (do you know how much beer that buys for college students!), just to be able to vote.

                That said, what about minorities who live in state but, according to that survey, have about 1/4 odds of having a license?

              • I got mine at 16, and it was not a big deal other than convenience.

                I didn’t need to beg rides to the Air Club for me to fly my plane.

              • Mathius says:

                Ah, Mr. Flag.. I knew you’d be joining us sooner or later.

                While I agree that getting a license isn’t that difficult, how do you feel about requiring proof of ID in order to vote (given the disclaimers from DPM below)?

              • I too went to grad school in PA. The university would not recognize me as a PA resident so my domicile remained in IL hence my auto and drivers licenses were in IL. I maintained eligibility in IL and voted by absentee ballot. If you want to vote, make the effort to become qualified. Stop the whining.

        • Mathius says:

          Also,

          “Harris, like many at Wednesday’s hearing, cited a study by the UW-Milwaukee’s John Pawasarat, which found that minorities disproportionately comprise the number of voters without licenses. According to the 2005 study, only 26% of African-Americans and 34% of Hispanics have a valid Wisconsin driver’s license.”

          And, can you do me a favor remind me.. what way to African Americans and Hispanics tend to vote.. I can’t seem to recall.

          • Mathius says:

            And..

            “[…] for many of those who do not already have a driver’s license, which includes (per the 2005 study) 74% of the African-American community and 66% of the Hispanic community, the $28.00 charge is no small thing.”

            This is a true statement. Hell I might even be disinclined to pay $28 in order to vote, and I’m doing just fine financially.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Poll tax much?

              • Mathius says:

                I see this as a lot like gerrymandering.. just another sneaky way to nullify your opposition’s votes and ensure that elections keep yourself and your party in power.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Sorry, I just don’t see it as a big deal…you do…enough said.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Just one of those examples discussed yesterday of encroaching on our freedoms that go unnoticed by many I guess…

              🙂

              • Buck, did Bush “steal” Florida? Are you happy it can happen again? America is supposed to be the example of the democratic process. If we fail to show the world our election process is a model to follow, how can we ever expect Iraq & others to ever become stable?

                Lead by example.

              • Mathius says:

                LOI. There were 20 cases of voter fraud in 2008.

                Twenty.

                Same question I asked above:

                Can you honestly say with a straight face that the purpose of this bill is to stop voter fraud? And if not that, then what else might it be?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Did Bush steal Florida? No – the Supreme Court did.

                However, there is ample evidence that Bush stole Ohio in 2004 — through voter intimidation and disenfranchisement tactics. Are you happy this can happen again, in Wisconsin? America is supposed to be the example of the democratic process…

      • Voter fraud. Why does that seem familiar? Oh yeah, ACORN was convicted in several states for registration fraud. How could that apply to voter fraud? When one person registers as Mickey Mouse in one district and Bugs Bunny in the next, with no ID required, they can vote all day long.

        http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/04/evidence-of-wisconsin-voter-fraud.html

        That backing is based on real evidence. In 2004, John Kerry won Wisconsin over George W. Bush by 11,380 votes out of 2.5 million cast. After allegations of fraud surfaced, the Milwaukee police department’s Special Investigative Unit conducted a probe. Its February 2008 report found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.

        Much of the problem resulted from Wisconsin’s same-day voter law, which allows anyone to show up at the polls, register and then cast a ballot. ID requirements are minimal. The report found that in 2004 a total of 1,305 “same day” voters were invalid.

        • George Soros and a group of liberal billionaires and mere centimillionaires and Democratic operatives joined forces a few years ago to form the Democracy Alliance. Each member of this group pays a membership fee and annual dues and also commits to support individual candidates and groups that promote their liberal ideology.

          But what George Soros and company have also done over the years is try to reengineer the democratic process to achieve their goals.

          While they counsel their members to keep their actions under the radar screen, we do know of some steps they have taken to further their agenda of changing the nature of our democracy.

          Secretary of States Project

          One of their more prominent efforts was the Secretary of States Project that worked to elect friendly Secretaries of States in certain battleground states in 2006. They had remarkable success in claiming Secretary of State’s offices in eleven of thirteen critical states they had targeted.

          These are the state officials charged with the responsibility of ensuring the integrity and honesty of the voting process. We can look at two of those states where their favored candidates won to see how their handiwork pays off.

          Minnesota’s Secretary of State in 2008 was Mark Richie (he still is in office). He gave credit for his own victory to the Secretary of States Project, and they trumpeted their own role in helping him get elected, lauding him as “arguably the most progressive Secretary of State in the nation.” Even George Soros chipped in as an individual donor, as did many of the members of the Democracy Alliance.

          Another good investment for Soros and Company.

          After a hard-fought race, Mark Ritchie certified the Democrat Al Franken as the victor in the tight senatorial race between him and Republican Norm Coleman. The race involved other ploys by the Democracy Alliance that helped Franken become senator (see below). There was a dispute regarding the outcome since the vote totals were so close, and there were suspicious activities at various polling locations; legal challenges were mounted. Notably, George Soros hosted a fundraiser to help pay for Franken’s expenses (such donations are not counted in federal campaign contribution limits).

          Recently, there have been serious charges that the votes that put Franken over the top were fraudulent and should not have been counted in his column. Meanwhile Franken sleepwalks through his career as a senator — voting reliably with other Democrats while not ridiculing Republican leaders such as Mitch McConnell.

          The SOS Project was also successful in helping Jennifer Brunner become Ohio’s Secretary of State in 2006 (she received over $165,000 from the SOS Project and credited help from the group for her victory). The payoff came quickly in 2008. She declined to hand over to county election boards 200,000 names on voter registration forms where the drivers license or Social Security numbers on the forms did not match the name. She also allowed Election Day registration and failed to purge election rolls of ineligible and dead voters. These are all recognized as invitations for fraud. The Secretary of State Project praised her work — naturally. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) — the subject of voter fraud investigations across the nation — was also active in Get Out The Vote efforts in Ohio. Barack Obama and other Democrats swept to victory in Ohio.

          The Secretary of States Project is still in operation and has expanded into other states over the last few years.

          http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/01/27/george-soros-wants-to-own-america-one-state-at-a-time/

        • Mathius says:

          Oh yeah, ACORN was convicted in several states for registration fraud. Not quite.. at least not the way I remember it.

          Several ACORN employees were convinced of registration fraud, but not in any attempt to skew elections, but for faking the registrations in order to get paid for work they didn’t do. They were scamming ACORN.

          I also recall that ACORN was accused of fraud after it passed along to the state a dozen or so applications of a highly suspect nature. I believe they were in the names to the entire starting line of some team. ACORN was accused of deliberately submitting obviously false registrations. But this ignores the fact that ACORN was legally obligated to submit all registrations it collected and even went so far as to call attention to the ones that it suspected were fake. They, however, got no credit for the later part of this. (I think this was in Nevada?)

          According to FactCheck.org, after it’s $8/hr employee was convicted of fraud, “ACORN was fined for exercising insufficient oversight, but it was not charged with masterminding any kind of deliberate fraud.”

        • Mathius Says:
          May 11, 2011 at 10:17 am

          LOI. There were 20 cases of voter fraud in 2008.

          Twenty.

          Matt, I think you are selective in what you read or believe.
          Voter fraud seems to be ongoing in multiple states.

          http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/04/dirty-tricks-in-wisconsin-state-supreme.html

          Same question I asked above:

          Can you honestly say with a straight face that the purpose of this bill is to stop voter fraud? (Maybe, I have a decent “poker face”)

          And if not that, then what else might it be? (I’m not in favor of the $28 I.D. fee and think registering to vote should be accomplished without any fee. I do think across the board, fraud should be investigated, and we should champion steps to eliminate it.)

          Should ILLEGAL aliens be allowed to vote? How do you stop it without an I.D. system?

          • Mathius says:

            You’re asking the wrong person that question…

            Oh no.. look what you did.. you’re going to make me put on my “Jack Sparrow” pirate hat!

            ::sigh:: You brought this on yourself..

            Illegal immigrants, who live in a state should be able to vote in that state. Why, you ask? Because they live in that state and they should have a say in the laws and rules that affect them, just like you should have a say in the laws and rules that affect you. They pay taxes (YES, THEY DO! Sales taxes, property taxes). Why shouldn’t they get a say in who bosses them around equal to you?

            Now, in deference to the pirate hat, I’ll let DPM add a disclaimer.

            DPM: This in no way stipulates that I agree that there should be a governing body, nor votes as the act of voting is, intrinsically an act of violence – that is, a vote justifies the validity of a government which acts violently upon the non-violent. That said, neither should the government have any right to tell private individuals where they can and cannot live in exactly the same way that they should have no right to tell you that you aren’t permitted to move to a different city/county/state. AAARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!

            • Law: must be a US citizen to vote

              Don’t like it, try to change the law. Don’t try to sidestep it.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Illegal is illegal…I suppose the criminals incarcerated in their prisons should also have the right to vote?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps not (I’m torn on this), but the ones who have served their time should definitely be allowed to vote.

              • Terry Evans says:

                I can agree that the ones who have paid their debt to society, should regain their rights.

            • Matt,

              What happened to the only 20 fraud? Chang the subject when I show you to be wrong? The times past when I proved Flag wrong, he did admit his mistake(OK, I had to pound him a couple more rounds first).

              Yet another former ACORN employee was convicted of voter fraud last week. This brings the total number of convictions for former workers from the embattled group to at least 15 so far this year.

              On ACORN, if Exxon or another big company had an employee act in such an illegal manner, you guys would be pounding on the company as much or more than the individual. Why the double standard on ACORN?

              Daily Caller
              “Kevin L. Clancy of Milwaukee pleaded guilty last week to participating “in a scheme to submit fraudulent voter registration applications,” according to Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. Clancy admitted to filing multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals and registering himself and other voter registration canvassers to vote multiple times while working on an ACORN voter drive.

              Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-voter-fraud-hall-of-shame-milwaukee-voter-fraud-conviction-makes-acorn%e2%80%99s-2010-total-at-least-15/#ixzz1M3XB8Hll

              “Illegal immigrants, who live in a state should be able to vote in that state. ”

              While I do not agree with this, how about we do it the right, legal way? You want to allow the illegals to vote, pass such a law. Stop trying to cheat by making it easy to vote illegally, which is what much of the opposition to Walker is really about.

              “you’re going to make me put on my “Jack Sparrow” pirate hat!”

              How you dress as I kick you @ss is your problem.

              • Mathius says:

                Sorry.. I got distracted by the concept of immigrant rights..

                OK, back to the point.

                Why the double standard? I don’t know that I have a double standard here..

                First, I reference the number of incidents in ’08, per my article, so you didn’t prove me wrong by saying that there are more this year.

                Second, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests that the fraudulent registrations are in any way an effort to skew the elections rather than a way, as my article pointed out, for $8/hr employees to get paid for work they didn’t do.

                Third, I’ve never been able to get flag to admit he’s wrong and I’ve had him dead-to-rights several times. What’s your secret?

                Fourth, “You want to allow the illegals to vote, pass such a law.” Agreed. “Stop trying to cheat by making it easy to vote illegally” I’m not. I think they should be allowed to vote but aren’t. I do not support them voting illegally. “which is what much of the opposition to Walker is really about.” Not really, the opposition is that this disenfranchises minorities and students – two groups which are heavily left-leaning. It is an effort to skew the election akin to either gerrymandering or a poll-tax.

                Fifth, “How you dress as I kick you @ss is your problem.” You couldn’t kick my @ss if I were in a manacles and blindfolded. I bet you’re just jealous that I have a really cool pirate hat and you don’t.

            • Bama dad says:

              “Illegal immigrants, who live in a state should be able to vote in that state. Why, you ask? Because they live in that state and they should have a say in the laws and rules that affect them”

              Like have a say in the very laws they are breaking?

              • Mathius says:

                Yes. Because, like me, they think the law is wrong/immoral/etc. Similarly, you have a right in voting against laws you don’t like which you may break or want to break.

                If, for whatever reason, they made it illegal in your state to practice your religion, you would continue to do so anyway and simultaneously lobby to get the unjust/immoral/wrong law repealed, correct? Would you think that people who passed the law should be able to disenfranchise you because you want to have a voice about the law you’re breaking?

              • Bama Dad

                have a say in the very laws they are breaking

                Exactly!

                How can an evil law be overturned if those that are being abused by it cannot do anything about it?

                I mean you are not suffering, so it does not bother you so you don’t care.

              • PS:
                I bet Mathius will start to have a bleeding nose.

              • Mathius says:

                I’m going to need a transfusion if this keeps up..

                Any A-pos donors out there in SUFA land who want to mail me a pint?

              • Mathius,

                I say let it bleed until there is no more Immoral Unrighteous Leftie blood left in you.

                I’ll donate a bit of my bone marrow, if that would disinfect your left-leaning diseased cells.

              • Mathius says:

                Ironic that the only way to make that happen is for you to agree with me more and more..

              • Mathius,

                agree with me more and more

                The interesting part – I have not moved an inch.

              • Mathius says:

                I’m pretty sure I haven’t either…

    • The only thing I’m against with this is it (apparently) doesn’t include same day voter registration. Get that included too.

      Dems are squawking loud about this so it’s probably safe to say they see their shenanigans going up in smoke.

      All hail Gov Walker!

      • Mathius says:

        Yes, let’s assume that when the Dems are “squawking” it’s because their ‘shenanigans” are going up in smoke, and not because the Reps are doing something to suppress Democratic turnout.

        Yea, that sounds like a fair assumption.

        • Let’s use the restaurant arguement that I read above….

          “reasonable” restrictions should be put in place.

          Proving you are a legal citizen and a resident of voting district seems reasonable to me. Not to you this time?

          • Mathius says:

            I’m not sure where I fall on the restaurant question above. But that’s not what you were saying. You were saying: “Dems are squawking loud about this so it’s probably safe to say they see their shenanigans going up in smoke.”

            And I call that blatant partisan BS.

            ::throws penalty flag::

            • Terry Evans says:

              The same would be true of Republicans if they were the ones doing the squawking…probably more there than meets the eye…

    • Bama dad says:

      But do you know who typically does not have a Wisconsin driver’s license, a passport or a military ID?
      Students.

      Are you kidding me my 6 children had a countdown to the exact day they where eligible to have a drivers license, they got them and daddy paid.

      • Mathius says:

        Do they have a Wisconsin drivers license while studying there for four years, but being from Alabama?

        I had my cali license when I was in PA, but I was eligible (and did) to vote in PA. However, this law would have stopped me since I wouldn’t have wanted to bother to deal with it or pay $28 (again, try to keep in my how much Natural Light you can get for $28).

        • Bama dad says:

          My one out of State school son was required by law to get a Kentucky license during the 4 years he was there.

  46. Interesting

    Matt and Buck: Smoking ban in private restaurants (people choose to eat here) = reasonable restriction, showing proof or residency (lawful requirement) before voting = unreasonable restriction

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Showing proof of residency – lawful requirement?

      Can you explain what you mean by this?

      • “for all states, in order to register to vote, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen, a legal resident of the state, and 18 years old on or before election day”

        Read more: Residency Requirements for Voting — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html#ixzz1M3TB7gke

        Not the showing part, just the residency part.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Key words: “in order to REGISTER to vote…”

          This is not the same as: you must go to the DMV, pay $28 to purchase an ID card, and show that ID card at the polls in order to vote.

          • If you must be a legal resident in order to vote, you should be able to prove it, no?

            I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this action. I just don’t see it as inherently a bad idea.

            If the government requires you to have an id, can they make you pay for it?

            What about driver’s license?

            What about auto insurance?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Yes, you must prove you are a resident in order to register. Fair enough.

              But there are ample ways of proving residency; it is not limited to having a drivers license.

              • Terry Evans says:

                I am cool with being able to prove residency to vote…a phone or electric bill…as long as registering to vote is done in a way that keeps fraud at a minimum..

              • Mathius says:

                But- but- but- but fraud IS at a minimum..

              • Terry Evans says:

                See LOI’s response below…

  47. Canine Weapon says:
  48. Buck

    You made me laugh with this statement of yours

    Respect for human rights? In abundance! I’ve never argued against human rights.

    Of course you do! You advocate the destruction of human rights constantly because you are a fearful man.

    No, freedom for me and for you! Albeit subject to some reasonable restrictions (imposed equally both on me and on you) to protect and safeguard everyone’s rights.

    “Reasonable”? So let’s hear some REASONING.

    Yep, dead silence.

    No, what you promote is not reasonable restrictions on human rights – because there is no reason to restrict anyone’s rights – but your subject view on other people’s rights.

    You are fine with banning anything you do not do. You claim “its equal because I don’t get to do it either”, but what idiocy is that argument.

    I say “Let’s ban all white clothes!” and by your bizarre thinking that would be ok if I do not myself wear white clothes! It’s fine by me because I always wear black.

    But you will say “Well, that is not reasonable”, and you’d be right, but you appear incapable of using that same brain in evaluating your own position. It’s that ego-centric view interfering again.

    You cannot see yourself from outside of yourself.

  49. Bama dad says:

    Here is some aerial photography of tornado damage in Jefferson County Alabama. Just click on Jefferson County to open.

    http://www.aerialsouth.com/tornado/

    • Terry Evans says:

      Bama, hope everything is OK with you over there. If there is anything I can help you with, let me know…I’m in SE Louisiana, so not too far…

    • Mathius says:

      Brutal. I’m curious. Is there anything that can be done to prevent them such as wind-breaks and such?

      Typically, I tend to say something along the lines of, I don’t feel too bad for people who live on a flood plain when their houses flood, because they should have done something to prevent it, but I’m not aware of any good preventative or predictive measures for tornadoes..

      Sorry, Bama.. hope everything’s ok with you and yours.

      • Bama dad says:

        Family and friends are fine. We along with thousands of other volunteers are helping others not so fortunate. The last 2 weekends have been long and hard but I get a break this weekend as I am attending my 40th class reunion, boy am I getting to be an old geezer.

      • Bama dad says:

        “Is there anything that can be done to prevent them such as wind-breaks and such?”

        No, when a F4 or F5 is coming your way, get underground. I worked on a steel girder railroad bridge last week that was completely destroyed by the tornado. It twisted and broke steel towers, steel girders and steel railroad rails into junk. There were pieces of rails stuck up in the ground like darts on a dart board. The steel rail pads that a about 1 foot square were slung like Frisbees all over the place.

  50. Mathius,

    be consistent when I see the world as a balancing act between the “Greater Good” and individual rights/liberties/freedom

    Yep it is a trap because there is no such thing as a “Greater Good”.

    Anyone who advocates Greater Good philosophies is merely saying they are willing to destroy the good of other people so to achieve what they think is good.

    There is nothing Great about them at all, except the fatal danger this people risk for humanity.

  51. Buck,

    Voting is not a human right.

    Who can vote is determined by the organization.

    Whatever bizarre rules an organization may make is theirs to make.

  52. Mathius,

    The universe if full of gray areas.

    Absolutely, totally, irrefutable FALSE

    There are ZERO gray areas in the Universe.

    There is TRUTH and that is not “gray”.

    There are nearly infinite number of right answers to any problem in the Universe.

    You confuse the abundance of right answers with believing there exists no right answer or no Truth.

    The Human needs but one answer to solve a Human problem.

    That is called “Choice”.

    Humans judge our own choices as “good” or “bad”, not the Universe

  53. Mathius,

    how do you feel about requiring proof of ID in order to vote (given the disclaimers from DPM below)?

    Voting is not a right.

    So my “feeling” about this is parallel with my feeling about voting for Government office.

    My opinion, in general, about voting within any organization – if you don’t like the rules leave the organization.

    …which is exactly what I did.

    • Mathius says:

      Are you able to offer an opinion in the spirit of the question as intended?

      Specifically, do you see this as an attempt to disnefranchise opposition voters? Do you see this as an attempt at minimizing voter fraud? Both (if so, which do you think is dominant? And what do you think the likely outcome of this legislation would be?

      • Mathius,

        Specifically, do you see this as an attempt to disnefranchise opposition voters?

        Yes.

        The theory of “voting” in a democracy is that the people are subject to the laws have a voice in determining those laws.

        “Illegals” are subject to the law, true? I mean, the claim is these guys are subject to immigration laws (hence the “illegal” term), right?

        So, to me, anyone who is subject to the law should have a voice, regardless of “legal” status, including those in prison, illegal aliens, children, etc.

        Do you see this as an attempt at minimizing voter fraud?

        No.

        Voter fraud is immune to mere documentation requirements.

        • Mathius says:

          Huzzah!

          Adding, I reread my post above and it looks like I forgot to close my parenthesis.. because I know that that would drive me nuts for the rest of the day, here is the belated close parenthesis: )

          • Mathius,

            Further, the only voter fraud possible in a “real” democracy is voting more than once.

          • Mathius,

            Further, in a “real” democracy, everyone would vote.

            Those that did not actually vote would have their vote recorded as a “NAY” to any implementation of a law and a “YEA” to any repeal of a law, thus, the default would always be less imposition upon the citizenry.

            • Mathius says:

              eh.. I don’t agree, though I don’t disagree either.

              I generally think that a “true democracy” only requires universal suffrage and direct elections. The knock-in / knock-out rules for passing/repealing laws do not necessarily have to be skewed toward being less imposing. A “true democracy” could just as easily be a true democracy with a ratcheting effect to create more and more imposition as long as those first two requirements are met. My opinion, anyway..

              • Mathius

                Not “showing up” means a “lack of participation” – which means the maximum of “non-action” must be the default.

                Regardless, Democracy is by far the worst possible system devised – it is by its nature genocidal – a majority dominating (including to the point of eliminating) a minority.

        • “So, to me, anyone who is subject to the law should have a voice, regardless of “legal” status, including those in prison, illegal aliens, children, etc.”

          If the federal government does not secure the borders, this effectively means amnesty, open borders and no limit to immigration. Any person may become a citizen of the United States simply by existing. Hence the United States is not a sovereign nation.

          How’s my analysis?

          • Mathius says:

            Pretty bad, I think.

            But work calls.. I’m sure that BF will defend himself adequately without my help.

          • JB,

            First, we are talking about the theory of democracy, not any particular nation or issue.

            Second, why does a government need to secure its borders from non-violent people?

            Third, why do you fear immigration. You are an immigrant or the son of one. It worked for your family…..

            Fourth, who said anything about “citizenship”?

            Fifth, sovereignty is determined by whose makes the rules and who follows them. The US government makes the laws for this nation and ignores the laws of other government may or may not – makes the US sovereign. Who votes and who does not, does not change this.

            • I see.

              Currently, the only thing that I cannot do (as a permanent resident) is serve jury duty and vote. If voting is opened up to “non-citizens,” then there is no reason to become a citizen and hence, all people become defacto citizens (they have all the rights and privileges except maybe jury duty, but who wants that).

              I do not fear immigration. If anything I strongly support it. There is a big difference between “fearing immigration” and opposing illegal immigration. I just find it odd that the government would create laws about immigration that it does not intend to uphold. I went through the proper channels (at my own expense).

              I support making immigration easier. I do not support breaking the law.

              If our borders are open and anyone may come here and vote, then any people in any country may come here and have a say in our laws. That means “we” cannot control our laws. Hence we are not sovereign.

              On a related note, this brings up an interesting topic. I believe that, just because something is a law doesn’t make it wrong. Breaking the law is wrong, though (as long as you don’t believe in anarchy I suppose). If there is a conflict, you must decide which is more immoral, but that does not excuse you from the consequences. If a man murdered my family in cold blood and was let off without punishment. Perhaps I would believe it is more wrong for him to get away with it. If I did kill him, I would accept the punishment of the courts. (hypothetically speaking of course)

  54. The problem is institutional, he argues, and hardly unique to Obama or the Democratic Party. “What makes you think you can trust [any Republican] with the absolute power the presidency has come to represent?” he asked me in an interview. But he stressed that, while the existence of gangster government is not a product or tool of any single person, ideology, or political party, no president has ever exploited the defects in the system to greater effect than Barack Obama. Just look at the numbers, Freddoso insisted:

    Let’s take George W. Bush and Halliburton, this unholy relationship. We’re just going to assume the worst about it for our purposes here. And you’re talking about $7 billion in no-bid contracts, which is a lot of money. On the other hand, we go to the Obama administration, and one of Obama’s first executive orders basically sets it up so that companies with unions have an advantage when they bid for construction projects. It’s called project labor agreements. And the stimulus package contained $140 billion worth of contracts that would be subject to that executive order. So we’re not talking about $7 billion here, we’re talking about $140 billion.

    That disparity, and the sheer scale of cronyism that pervades Obama’s administration, was hardly ever explored in any detail during his first two years in office. In fact, some in the media – notably the Fox News Channel and a number of talk radio hosts – that criticized gangster government found themselves among its victims as the Obama administration worked to marginalize its critics.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/05/11/newsbusters-interview-david-freddoso-author-gangster-government#ixzz1M3uHCIyU

  55. “First, I reference the number of incidents in ’08, per my article, so you didn’t prove me wrong by saying that there are more this year.”
    (Can we agree 4,600 is more than 20?)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193930226978178.html

    the Milwaukee police department’s Special Investigative Unit conducted a probe. Its February 2008 report found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.

    Much of the problem resulted from Wisconsin’s same-day voter law, which allows anyone to show up at the polls, register and then cast a ballot. ID requirements are minimal. The report found that in 2004 a total of 1,305 “same day” voters were invalid.

    The report was largely ignored, and just before the 2008 election the police department’s Special Investigative Unit was ordered by superiors not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day.

    “Third, I’ve never been able to get flag to admit he’s wrong and I’ve had him dead-to-rights several times. What’s your secret?”

    Being right when he was wrong is first. Then proving I am right with multiple sources he cannot counter. And there you sit, flat on your @ss, with a dazed expression on your face, in a really cool pirate hat.

    • Mathius says:

      1. It seems that the 20 figure must have been referring to convictions, perhaps? Either way, point conceded.

      3. I’ve been right. Several times. But he just talks the issue to death and writes progressively longer and longer posts with more and more blockquotes until you give up because your boss is giving you funny looks and you decide that your continued employment is more important than making him back down.

      5. Just a flesh wound… but I’m glad you agree about the hat being really cool.

  56. FEMA’s Denial of Wildfire Assistance Questioned

    Published : Wednesday, 04 May 2011, 2:51 PM CDT

    Associated Press

    AUSTIN, Texas – Some lawmakers from Texas are refusing to accept the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s decision to deny more assistance for the state’s wildfires.

    Gov. Rick Perry late Tuesday criticized the White House for rejecting his April 16 request for a federal major disaster declaration and additional help.

    FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen on Wednesday said federal assistance already has been provided to Texas through grants for response activities. She said, based on information provided by the state, there was not a need for additional support at this time.

    But U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway said that money helped with only a small percentage of the 9,000 wildfires scorching at least 2.2 million acres since November. He said he and his colleagues want to know what information FEMA needs so the funding denial could be reversed.

    “When tornadoes devastated the southern United States, the Obama Administration rightly wasted no time making sure there was federal disaster relief money available to them,” said Congresswoman Kay Granger. “How much more does Texas have to suffer before this Administration steps up? The President has an obligation and a commitment to all Americans in times of emergency to provide for their safety and protection.”

    Sen. John Cornyn said it’s hard for him to understand how the loss of so many homes, businesses, farms, ranches, livestock and even a few lives doesn’t spell “disaster.” He and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison have already written twice urging the president to honor the governor’s request.

    Read more on myFOXdfw.com: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/050411-fema%27s-denial-of-wildfire-assistance-questioned#ixzz1M49FWNfD

    • 5/10/2011 John Lott’s blogspot
      To Obama doing 5% of the border fence means that it is “basically complete”
      “They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete. . . . Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied.” President Obama on May 10, 2011

      Just 36.3 miles of the promised 700-mile double-layered fence along the 1951-mile southwest border has been completed. Remember that there were a lot of people concerned that the fence was only going to be 700 miles long to begin with.

      The President attacks Republicans as the ones who are playing politics with the issue, that he has done everything that they asked for. From Obama’s talk in El Paso:

      So, we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goal posts one more time. They’ll say we need to triple the border patrol. Or quadruple the border patrol. They’ll say we need a higher fence to support reform.

      Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics. . . .

      • Mathius says:

        We need to fill the moat with sharks with friggin’ laser beams on their heads!

      • Top government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed its third consecutive lawsuit to compel the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Wednesday, and officials at the group are asking why it’s been so difficult to pry the documents loose.

        “Education’s refusal to process this straight-forward request suggests DOE has something to hide,” said CREW Chief Counsel Anne Weismann in a written statement.

        At issue in this FOIA request are the calendars for Robert Shireman and James Kvaal, two officials with key roles in creating the gainful employment regulation that’s now under White House review.

        The calendars would show how frequently the two officials met with Wall Street short sellers who pushed the strict new regulations alongside a slew of left-wing policy groups.

        “If DOE officials’ contacts with Wall Street investors were totally above-board, there would be no reason to withhold the calendars and appointment records. The department’s continuing refusal to comply with CREW’s requests, however, suggests there may have been improper conduct,” Weismann said.

        The Education Department has said its process on the gainful employment regulation has been above board and a model of transparency.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/11/crew-what-is-the-education-dept-hiding/#ixzz1M4KJrQaG

  57. Just like that, the election is over …

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/05/11/2011-05-11_president_obamas_approval_rating_hits_twoyear_high_following_us_raid_on_osama_bi.html

    Yous should listen to the street guy … vote Nader in 2012!

    • Mathius says:

      It won’t hold up that long. If the economy doesn’t pick up, and dramatically, between now and then, he’s still going to have a tough fight.

      But then again, the Republican primary right now is going to ensure that the nominee is bat-shit crazy, so maybe it won’t be too bad hard after all?

      Who knows? My crystal ball isn’t working.. it keeps telling me to ask again later.

      • But then again, the Republican primary right now is going to ensure that the nominee is bat-shit crazy,

        He would’ve won on that alone … now add Bin Laden … it’s over.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Charlie…how the hell are you today? I know you will probably not appreciate this, but with regard to consistency, BF has nothing on you…

      • Mathius says:

        Charlie has the consistency of tofu.

        BF has the the consistency of stale cheese.

        • Terry Evans says:

          Tofu…that sounds, rather flimsy, I thought you were on his side!!

        • Terry Evans says:

          BTW…yous guys in NY. One of the guys that works for me has a son who pitches for the Buffalo Bisons (the triple A farm club for the Mets)…he is on the 40 man roster for the Mets…his name is Josh Stinson…if you have a chance go and cheer for him! There is a pretty good chance that he may be called up this year.

          • Let’s Go Mets! Let’s go Josh! But I refuse to go to Citifield (that I helped pay for) … professional sports (all of them) no longer get my duckets … capitalist pigs …:)

            Just read where Gingrich threw his hat in … and Obama’s #’s soared another few points … I’m telling you, it’s over.

            I hate Tofo … couldn’t you make it something with ricotta?

  58. Canine Weapon says:
  59. Pot stirring of the day:

    “On November 1, 2007- the General Assembly of the United Nations voted to reaffirm the Outer Space Treaty–the fundamental international law that establishes that space should be reserved for peaceful uses… Only two nations declined to support this bill–the United States and Israel.”

    • The universe will NOT allow PEACE!

      And remember, if there was nobody to oppose, it would just be the choir preaching to the choir … sort of like SUFA without Moe, Larry & Curly!

  60. For Todd and others who complain “It never has worked”

    Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
    http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121

    The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by.

    Roderick T. Long states, “We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed.”

    ….. one can see what the real causes of Iceland’s collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason.

    These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from.

    This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

    Roderick Long also addresses the fact that the introduction of the tithe in 1096 may have aided in the collapse of Iceland. The tithe was a tax paid for the upkeep of the Catholic Church and to pay church officials. The only stipulation was that the money appropriated to the upkeep of the church went to the private landowner (usually a chieftain). It is also no surprise that the chieftains were exempt from paying this property tax. Chieftains had expropriated earnings from free farmers and the free farmers had no way to keep the chieftains in check.

    • The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason.

      And that is what ALWAYS will happen … because Greed is not good … it is EVIL …

      • Charlie,

        Monopolies can only exist by writ and force.

        Greed is good – it is why you want more, such as a better life, than you have now.

        Envy is evil – you want your neighbor’s stuff.

        • Greed is good when I’m hungry, that’s about it …

          Envy is when I see my wife sleeping soon as she puts her head on the pillow … I’m up for hours.

          Monopolies can exist without write and force … people band together (just like they do to form a government) and make a pact and screw the little guy … this capitalistic government (pot stirrer) legitimizes it … see New York Skankies, Goldman Sachs, et al …

          • Charlie,

            Monopolies can only exist by force. Cartels that are unenforced by violence always dissipate when faced by free market competition.

            And and every possible example you can find of a monopoly, you will find government force.

            People “banding” together does not create a “government”.

    • Black Flag,
      Finally, an example!! 😉

      I’d like to see a more detailed timeline of the events.

      The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by.

      If it collapsed in 1262, after 290 years, that means it started in 972. The tithe was introduced in 1096 – just 124 years after the start.

      How long did the five families control the majority of the chieftaincies before the collapse?

      How long was it truly “free” and how long was the “decline” to the collapse? Most collapses don’t happen over night…

      I read the article pretty fast, but it seems there was a system of “government”:

      Godi/godar
      Thingmen
      National Assembly or the Althing
      Chieftains

      This was also interesting:

      The poor were at no disadvantage. The poor could sell their right to justice to someone, such as a chieftain or another respected peer, who could collect or make right upon the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor.

      I see a possibility of the “chieftain or another respected peer” exploiting the poor. Don’t know if it actually happened.

      The Icelandic Free State lasted longer than the United States has been in existence by 106 years.

      Yes, but the USA is not done just yet. I put a reminder on my calendar for July 4, 2076. I’ll check back with you then. If you don’t here from me, then I guess you “win”! 😉

      It is an interesting example. Leave it to us Norwegian’s to create a free society!! 😉

      But as Charlie pointed out, it only takes a few people/families to wreck the party!!

  61. gmanfortruth says:

    OH Crap! Another day that is good and we can all chat! 🙂

  62. I could swear it wasn’t all that long ago that a couple of folks here were lecturing me about how this can’t happen. Too shallow was one of the claims I remember.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/10/maine-earthquakes-2011-ice-age_n_859980.html

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

  63. JB

    I see.

    Currently, the only thing that I cannot do (as a permanent resident) is serve jury duty and vote. If voting is opened up to “non-citizens,” then there is no reason to become a citizen and hence, all people become defacto citizens (they have all the rights and privileges except maybe jury duty, but who wants that).

    So what is it about “citizenship” that is so important? Why do you want it?

    I mean why do you want the grant of certain privileges that come at the cost of other people’s rights.

    Citizenship is a demand of the people and a obligation upon the Government.

    This is why government is hesitant in granting citizenship. They love residency, for the can tax you, but citizenship requires government to “do something”.

    Why do you wish to obligate evil to you?

    I do not fear immigration. If anything I strongly support it. There is a big difference between “fearing immigration” and opposing illegal immigration. I just find it odd that the government would create laws about immigration that it does not intend to uphold.

    It does this all the time.

    There is the law.
    Then there is enforcement of the law.

    By creating the former, but not doing the latter, it creates whimsical application of the law and justifies it.

    It leaves you – the citizen – wholly ignorant of which laws apply to you and which do not.

    On an instant, some perverse and “usually” unenforced law is brought forward against you as a means to subdue you if you “get out of line”.

    I went through the proper channels (at my own expense).

    I support making immigration easier. I do not support breaking the law.

    There is supporting moral and righteous law.
    There is supporting immoral and unrighteous law.

    If one obeys immoral and unrighteous law, you give it existence and legitimacy.

    If our borders are open and anyone may come here and vote, then any people in any country may come here and have a say in our laws. That means “we” cannot control our laws. Hence we are not sovereign.

    Do you believe other people in other countries want to come here to change these laws or rather would want to be subject to them.

    You fear “other people” too much.

    The people across a line on a map are the same as you. If you do not fear your next door neighbor’s decisions about “laws”, do you fear the people in the next block, the next street, the next city, the next county, the next state? I didn’t think so.

    Yet suddenly, 2 feet further, you are afraid of those people

    On a related note, this brings up an interesting topic. I believe that, just because something is a law doesn’t make it wrong. Breaking the law is wrong, though (as long as you don’t believe in anarchy I suppose). If there is a conflict, you must decide which is more immoral, but that does not excuse you from the consequences. If a man murdered my family in cold blood and was let off without punishment. Perhaps I would believe it is more wrong for him to get away with it. If I did kill him, I would accept the punishment of the courts. (hypothetically speaking of course)

    I do not accept a third party, without my permission, forcibly inserting itself between me and my rights.

  64. Buck

    But don’t blow your cancerous smoke in my face.

    Then get off my property, and you don’t suffer it at all.

    You want to drink? Be my guest; I’ll gladly sit down and enjoy a few with you. But don’t get behind the wheel of your car to drive home and put me in danger

    You behind a wheel -period- is a danger to me.

    I demand your arrest.

    (I am not kidding)

%d bloggers like this: