On the Warpath!

It’s been brought up that we stole America from the Indians, and I don’t want to get into that.  Why don’t those who feel that way talk about how they are treated today? (Didn’t know?  Neither did I.  Makes you wonder why this is not worth the media’s attention, being a little closer to home than Libya. ) Maybe when the government decided to take care of the Indians, they were not able to do so themselves.  Being a hunting and agricultural society, they lacked the education to deal with many facets of modern life.  Would anybody make that claim today?

Handsome Native American man

So why haven’t the Indians been given full control over all aspects of their lives, including money held in trust for them?  Our government has for over one hundred years, not accounted for the Indians trust funds that supposedly, Indians are not competent to manage themselves.  Billions have been lost, as little as $2.4 on the low end, settlement numbers of $27 to 170 billion are being discussed.  And the government agency responsible ignored court orders, destroyed records, and is still in charge of Indian Affairs.

Would you like to own land with four oil wells?  Imagine it’s been in the family and pumping for  nearly half a century.   Monthly royalty checks!!  Sounds like the Beverly Hillbillies, an easy living that even Jethro could not screw up….  But there is a problem,  polluted creeks, fouled the air, and sickened her livestock.   Remember, the land is held in trust for you, by the government, managed by a federal agency.

Meanwhile, Indian landowners continue to wonder where their royalty money has gone. Navajo grandmother Mary Johnson, 80, owns land near Montezuma Creek, Utah, where four oil wells have been pumping for nearly half a century. They’ve polluted the creeks running through her land, fouled the air, and sickened her livestock. All that, for monthly royalty checks from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs that have averaged around $40. Speaking to Judge Lamberth through an interpreter in Washington this summer, she asked simply, “How can there be no money?”(1)

Native American Indian - Cheyenne

The Bureau of Indian Affairs gets to lease the Indians land, collect all payments, keep all records, and pay who and how they see fit.  Oil company not responsible?  You can’t do anything except contact Indian Affairs and watch your cattle die.  I would hate to tell an Indian they live in the “land of the free”!  A  report titled “Misplaced Trust was published in 1992, lawsuits filed in 1996, and it appears to still be unresolved.

The chronology of the Cobell decade, Posted : January 19, 2007

June 1996
* Lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell files a suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against the Department of the Interior (Cobell v. Babbitt) seeking reform of the Individual Indian Money trust system and accounting for 500,000 accounts over 119 years

February 1999
* Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Gover are found in contempt by Judge Royce Lamberth for failure to produce and protect records

June/July 1999
* ”Trial One” focuses on how to reform the trust accounting system

October 1999
* A mediator is appointed to settle the case

December 1999
* It’s determined that mediation will not lead to a settlement. Lamberth issues opinion stating that Interior has breached its trust responsibilities and orders quarterly reports on its reform efforts

September 2000
* Appeals court hears arguments on Trial One judgment

November 2000
* Treasury discloses that it has destroyed trust documents

January 2001
* Gale Norton appointed secretary of the Interior, making the lawsuit Cobell v. Norton

February 2001
* U.S. Court of Appeals finds in favor of plaintiffs

April 2001
* Lamberth appoints a court monitor to oversee trust reform and report on Interior’s progress

September 2001
* Report finds that IIM trust fund data is in disarray and decades behind schedule due to mismanagement by Interior and BIA senior officials

December 2001
* Lamberth orders Interior to disconnect from the Internet until security safeguards are installed

September 2002
* Norton and Assistant Secretary Neil McCaleb found in contempt of court for withholding evidence

January 2003
* National Congress of American Indians joins plaintiffs

March 2003
* Ross Swimmer appointed as special trustee over trust funds

April 2003
* Department of Interior appeals court ruling that said it is unfit to manage IIM trust accounts

May 2003
* ”Trial Two” commences in hopes of discovering amounts owed IIM trustees

July 2003
* The 44-day Phase Two trial closes
* Contempt charges against Norton and McCaleb thrown out, saying that they could not be held accountable for events that took place before they held office

November 2003
* U.S. Court of Appeals orders a stay of a lower court’s order for a full historical accounting of the IIM trust

April 2004
* Plaintiffs agree on Judge Charles Renfrew and John Bickerman as mediators

September 2004
* Lamberth rules that Interior must provide a ”full and accurate accounting” to IIM beneficiaries before trust lands can be sold by government

October 2004
* Mediation efforts are declared hopeless

December 2004
* U.S. Court of Appeals overrules Lamberth’s deadline of September 2007 for historical accounting, says Interior can use statistical sampling in settling accounts, and permits Interior to devise its own reform plans

March 2005
* Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, pledges to address trust reform in a concerted way and give it ”only one good shot”

April/May 2005
* Jim Gray and National Congress of American Indians President Tex Hall co-chair meetings of a national tribal task force working group formed to provide recommendations to the SCIA and the House Resources Committee

June 2005
* The national tribal task force presents a list of 50 principles, including a settlement number of $27.5 billion, to Congress

July 2005
* Lamberth orders Interior to admit to trustees that its accounting may be inaccurate. He calls Interior a ”dinosaur.” McCain and Sen. Byron Dorgan sponsor Senate Bill 1439 (Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005) to distribute IIM funds at a ”fair and equitable rate” and provide a method to consolidate fractionated land

August 2005
* Justice Department requests a hearing to remove Lamberth from the case

January 2006
* Interior is ordered to pay $7 million in attorney’s fees. Interior Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason responds by sending a letter to tribes stating that the payment would adversely affect funding of tribal programs

March 2006
* Norton resigns and Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne is nominated. Case becomes Cobell v. Kempthorne. McCain’s trust reform attempt reaches an impasse as Indian leaders disagree on the elements of reform legislation

July 2006
* Lamberth is ousted from case for intemperate commentary and an appellate court restores Interior’s connection to the Internet. McCain proposes an $8 billion settlement and two draft bills, S. 1439 and H.R. 4322, propose to compensate willing trustees

October 2006
* Plaintiffs reject SCIA proposals

December 2006
* District of Columbia Court Judge James Robertson is assigned to take over the case and congressional session ends with no action taken toward a legislative settlement.(2)

So we are now at 125 plus years of miss-management?  Maybe we (our government) did a good job sometime during that period, so lets just call it a century on criminal miss-management.  Government officials found in contempt of court, caught destroying records/evidence.  When a private citizen breaks the law in such a fashion, it usually ends in prison.  When a government official breaks those laws, they get to retire and walk away, frequently with their pensions.

This is a very one-sided article,  and for balance let me bring up another Indian issue.

(from an article on poaching in Sports Afield)       In July 2008, then Senator Bryon Dorgan of North Dakota testified at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, “From 2004 to 2007, the USA gov. declined to prosecute an average of 62% of reservation crimes.  This means that nearly 75% of adult and child sex crimes and 50% of reservation homicides went unpunished by the Federal system:, he said.

The article dealt mainly with the increase in poaching on reservations, which was a significant change.  Their model of conservation has been widely praised and copied.  Elk grew from hundreds to thousands under this plan.  But something seems to be changing, Indians may be poaching in a new way, where respect for nature is not present.   Killing multiple animals and removing only the best parts, leaving most to waste.  As I understand it, arrests on reservations are a little different.  A federal game officer can make an arrest, but the accused goes before tribal justice.  Nobody serves any prison time.  That may change, but I see this as a symptom of having conflicting authority and values.

I think the Indians have some fault in their plight.  I’ve heard a Google search of reservations will show fertile crops right next to barren wasteland.  The only difference, the well-tended farmland is individually owned by an Indian, the other is community property, that even when farmed, is poorly worked, nearly always at a loss.  I think in Cobell v. Norton, the Indians have  expectations that are not realistic.  Sometimes it’s not all about what you are “owed”, but what you can collect.  And I think the solution today is to phase out the Bureau of Indian Affairs, grant control and ownership of the land to the individual tribes.  Each tribe would propose when and how they would assume control.  As long as it complies with the constitution, it is implemented.  And yes, each reservation CAN become an independent state.   Terrorists, violent criminals, etc will not be allowed to flee across either border.

(1)http://www.hcn.org/issues/304/15719

(2)http://intercontinentalcry.org/cobell-v-norton-overview-and-chronology/

other sources not directly quoted

http://www.brokenpromisesthemovie.com/html/fact.htm

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110405_4093.php

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Darn good article LOI, Quite informative and revealing. The indians certainly deserve some justice, but that is unlikely to happen with our current govt.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I stopped by the Chevrolet Dealership yesterday, for a look at the new Silverado 2011, 1500 pickup. Just for fun, I took it out for a test drive. I wanted to sense that new “feel” before they become extinct…I really like trucks.

      The salesman (a black man wearing an Obama “change” lapel pin) sat in the passenger seat describing the truck and all its “wonderful” options.. The seats were of particular interest. He explained that the seats directed warm air to your butt in the winter and directed cool air to your butt in the summer heat.

      Feeling like messing with him, I mentioned that this must be a Republican truck.

      Looking a bit angry, he asked why I thought it was a Republican truck. I explained that if it were a Democrat truck, the seats
      would blow smoke up your ass year-round.

      I had to walk back to the dealership… Damn guy had no
      sense of humor.

      God Bless America

      • Mathius says:

        So it’s Republican to blow hot air and Democratic to blow smoke?

        Seems to me it should be the other way since we liberals are so anti-smoking..

    • Thanks GMan. I think this is another example of how our media chooses winners and losers. If anyone but the government were acting this way, they would hound them to death. Big gov. does what it wants and they ignore or make excuses.

  2. It’s been brought up that we stole America from the Indians, and I don’t want to get into that. Why don’t those who feel that way talk about how they are treated today?

    Talk about jumping the shark, LOI. Let’s not discuss how Native American Indians were robbed blind, then killed off their lands … let’s skp that part and get to the part where the government is involved so we can blame it on the government alone. Here’s what I don’t get about this particular argument of yours (and those who support it) … what moved the governmen to do so? Expansion? Pursuit of wealth? A financial manifest destiny I’d say was born of capitalism–the desire to own.

    Do I have a problem with how the native American indians are treated today? Of course I do. I lived in North Dakota for 3 years and saw what happened back in the 70’s on reservations. It is another despicable “great land of ours” tragedy inflicted on the weak by the powerful (and please don’t attempt to separate the money that runs this government–always has, always will) from the government itself. Keeping people on “reservations” is no different than placing them in ghettos … it remains a GIGANTIC blemish on this “great land of ours” (Stand up for America?) … in my opinion, a tragedy worse than slavery … but Gman is right, nothing will be done about it … not by this government (which is owned and run by big money).

    Okay, go crazy now …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Good Morning 🙂

      You make some excellent points in your second paragraph, and I agree with your thoughts there. This is the current problem that hopefully someday will be fixed. As far as why this happened over 200 years ago, that can be argued till next year, because we weren’t there and do not know the mindset of the people back then.

      For the sake of arguement, let’s say it was a result of capitalism, so what. It is a form of economics. People are responsible for the problems, not some abstract form of economics.

      • People are responsible for the problems, not some abstract form of economics.

        It remains interesting to me how so many of you seem to accept the violence enacted on the weak by the powerful and then resort to the preposturous argument that the weak made “choices” as “free men” … you’re willing to excuse violence, reap the benefits of it, then claim it was all by “choice” and for the sake of liberty. That is why you’re outnumbered (and will lose in the end)/not because progressives want to “take what isn’t theirs” or because they are lazy and want a nanny state … because for all your “rational thought”, it’s nothing more than a justification of the haves over the have nots and couldn’t be more obvious than when you sprout this patriotic bullshit (sorry, for but it’s the only appropriate word that comes to mind) about “freedom and liberty”.

        Sure you don’t “fear free men” … so long as it’s your definition of “free men” … it’s a big crock and it’s why your tea party has fallen apart (apparently at the seams) … why you’re Republican Party looks so ridiculous vs. a lesser shade of Republican (the democrats) … it is a bad joke that will sooner or later reap the whirlwind of a united workers party.

        Wow, that last line even impressed even me …

        People are responsible for the their problems …

        Gman, is the have’s (rich people, if you prefer/and or, actual human beings) who own and operate the government (capitalists if you will) or just some nebulous term such as mercantalist, corporations, government, etc.?

        Oy vey …

        • Terry Evans says:

          Oy vey indeed…you are scaring me.

        • Morning Charlie (or since you’re an NYer, afternoon)

          Lets wander this minefield a bit together some.

          What happened to the Indian nations in America was pure rape, robbery and murder. They had it and the “white” man (lets add in some Blacks, Mexicans, and Asians who helped out) took it, by force. We agree so far?

          Okay, who is guilty for it today? Me? You? All of America under some form of generational collective guilt? More importantly what do we do about it? Monetary compensation? Give it all back (which brings up a couple of points – like some we “stole” from Mexico. Those Mexicans stole it from the Indians so who do we give it back to, Mexico or the Indians?) I’ve said before I don’t have any guilt over it (especially since i don’t buy that bullshit idea of generational guilt for it or slavery, or a other tragedies in the nations history) so I need you to answer how we “right this wrong.”

          I certainly believe we can start by figuring out how much wee owe those tribes in revenues stolen from them over the years (I’d rather the country go into debt repaying them than handing it out to some foreign countries) and release their tribal lands to their exclusive control – either as a part of the USA or as independent nations – whichever way the tribes would like it to be. Beyond that my friend, offer up some real suggestions for how we fix this – not your continued haranguing on how they were raped, robbed, and murdered for what they had.

          • What happened to the Indian nations in America was pure rape, robbery and murder. They had it and the “white” man (lets add in some Blacks, Mexicans, and Asians who helped out) took it, by force. We agree so far?

            Yes, sir.

            Okay, who is guilty for it today? Me? You? All of America under some form of generational collective guilt?

            Of course not … and that has NEVER been my point. My point has always been the following:

            1) You cannot ignore what happened to the American Indian PRE-GOVT (official or otherwise).
            2) You cannot ignore that wealth subsequent to the taking of lands, etc. (by violence, etc.) has its origins in what BF likes to label “evil” …
            3) If the government is made of actual human beings and if those human beings (as government officials) enact laws, declare wars, etc. on behalf of those with the gelt to get them elected in the first place, (I’d call them pawns of the rich), then you can’t blame the government for what people made of it. The same way you can’t blame corporate welfare on the government, since it is people (actual real to life rich people) who wanted to protect their money in the first place by forming corporations. You simply don’t get to run this “free man” bullshit when all you have is a “theory” of how “free men” will act and everything else supports how those same “free men” formed corporations to horde what wasn’t theirs in the first place.

            I certainly believe we can start by figuring out how much wee owe those tribes in revenues stolen from them over the years (I’d rather the country go into debt repaying them than handing it out to some foreign countries) and release their tribal lands to their exclusive control – either as a part of the USA or as independent nations – whichever way the tribes would like it to be. Beyond that my friend, offer up some real suggestions for how we fix this – not your continued haranguing on how they were raped, robbed, and murdered for what they had.

            My continued “haranguing” is an “attempt” to keep all a’yous honest (tough thing to do, trust me). I have NO IDEA how to make things right … my best solution you don’t want to deal with (redistribution of wealth) … I know one thing … the middle class is fast becoming the new American Indian thanks to capitalism.

            Okay, fire away but I may not be here for a while (I bow to your applause) …

            • 1) You cannot ignore what happened to the American Indian PRE-GOVT (official or otherwise).

              I don’t and haven’t. It was still white men raping. robbing and murdering. Granted some got what the Indians had in other ways (peaceful purchase or by treaties) but we know that was only in a few instances early on.

              2) You cannot ignore that wealth subsequent to the taking of lands, etc. (by violence, etc.) has its origins in what BF likes to label “evil” …

              For the most part I will agree. Though I will add in that there were “adventurers” with little to their name who got wealthy after they stole the lands. Give a bit of credit to later entrepreneurship by some of those “white” men (not that it makes it any better).

              3) If the government is made of actual human beings…

              Okay, it’s a theory. But like all theories it can’t be proven until it is really tried and tested, yes? I mean lets look at pure, unadulterated communism….it might work in theory – but we’d have to try it without a government perverting the theory to find out wouldn’t we? The “devil” is the damn government instituted to “guide” society……..it would screw up a good wet dream no matter what!

              So lets talk about how we get around that government interference so we can truly test the theories?

              I have NO IDEA how to make things right … my best solution you don’t want to deal with (redistribution of wealth) …

              Okay, so that “redistribution” should start as I said – give em back what revenues they’ve had stolen for generations now and cut them loose to rule their own “nations.” That’s as close as I can come to your idea of redistribution for now probably.

              I know one thing … the middle class is fast becoming the new American Indian thanks to capitalism.

              Add in “with the help of governmental interference” and I’ll agree? I’m not saying unrestrained capitalism, or a free market would accomplish things any better either, so don’t try to pin that on me. I can’t say as I’m not a deep thinker on these economic systems – in theory or in practice. I just look at what seems to be realistic in the theories of them.

              Whew………..okay, your turn again. 🙂

              • I’ll get back to you later tonight, but we’re cool, Plainly … and thanks for being so civil … I was a bit abrupt before you.

              • No problem Charlie…take your time, enjoy your movie and all. I’m always around somewhere. 🙂

                And your welcome. It’s an interesting discussion as well.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Charlie,

              Why do you insist things in this country are happening due to CAPITALISM, when this country has an economic system which at BEST bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to Capitalism…

              You expect to win arguments by mis-defining terms, which just doesn’t work against other intelligent people.

              You say “capitalism” is bad, but you persist in mis-defining the economic system in America as BEING “capitalism” which it clearly is not. Michael Moore tries the same arguments against capitalism daily.

              So, first, get your definitions straight. Do some research if you have to. Find out what Capitalism (the big C kind) really is. Then study the ECONOMIC SYSTEMS of Socialism, Fascism, Mercantilism.

              Then, second, CORRECTLY classify the United States Economic System as it has existed since about 1870. You will find that the system we have had economically for the past 140 years BEARS ONLY PASSING RESEMBLANCE TO CAPITALISM.

              Then, third, share your insights with us on what you have discovered regarding the actual economic system which is currently in use in the United States.

              You (and several others here) might find the whole exercise quite enlightening!

              Finally, there never was anything “done to” the Indians in this country “pre-government”… Perhaps pre-United-States Government, but there has never been an action performed against a native American in the past 500 years which wasn’t sponsored or approved of by some government or other. Might have been England, might have been France, might have been Spain (I believe the Conquistadores probably can claim the MOST vile and violent deeds against Natives of North, South, and Central America if we held a contest), but the main point is, as far as this discussion is concerned, there is no pre-government. Government, as usual, was the ultimate source of violence against the non-violent, as usual.

        • Wow Charlie,
          You hit it right on the head. So many here think they are fighting for “freedom”, but they don’t realize that if their “no government” or “VLDG” society ever came about, the only “freedom” they’d have is the choice of alley’s to sleep in and street corners to beg on…

          It’s a funny conundrum, but the “powerful” use government to get what they want, but that same government does limit what they can do. Take away or limit government, and they’ll use their new found freedom to control even more. SUFA is fighting for a group of people that are licking their chops and just waiting for the opportunity to consume them…

          • SUFA is fighting for a group of people that are licking their chops and just waiting for the opportunity to consume them…

            Maybe it is thinking it is easier to shoot the bastards than it is to shoot the “government” that wants to do and is doing the same damn thing?

            • Plainlyspoken,

              Maybe it is thinking it is easier to shoot the bastards than it is to shoot the “government” that wants to do and is doing the same damn thing?

              Than your thinking is fatally flawed. These people already live in gated communities and have armed security. If by some chance you get close enough to shoot one of the bastards, the rest will come down on you and everyone else they disapprove of – in the name of “self-defense.” After all, you did attack them first…

              • Nope, not me. They have nothing in their gated community I want and I am uninterested in attacking them. Now, should they come to my property and try to take what is mine….then I’ll defend myself as I decide is necessary (and they’ll be the aggressor).

              • Plainlyspoken,

                Ok, but you did say you’d “shoot the bastards” in your original response.

                They don’t need to come to your property. They’re in no hurry and won’t give you an opportunity to claim self-defense. They’ll just slowly bleed you dry and consume you…

              • Todd,

                As you would have government do to me instead. So what makes your way any “better?”

              • Plainlyspoken,
                It’s hard to predict “better”, but for all it’s faults, America is still a pretty good place. I don’t recall anyone pointing out a “better” place to live?

                Could improvements be made? Absolutely! But throwing the whole thing out and starting over? That’s a pretty big risk, considering the ratio of “countries” to “good countries”. I think there’s a good chance we’d end up “worse” and less of a chance we’d end up “better.”

                I am surprised that, on a blog called “Stand Up For America,” so many people want to throw out America and start over…

                A more direct answer to your question – who would you rather deal with – the Government or The Mob?

          • Everyone in the world is not evil and irresponsible. In VDLG or No Government you are free to deal with whoever you want to deal with. The guy either has a good rep or a bad rep. You avoid the guy who is licking his chops and he never builds a customer base. What are you so afraid of?

            • For starters, maybe…….

              He’s afraid of people keeping their earnings and having the freedom to decide how to disburse those earnings.

              He’s afraid no one has the morals he approves of so his need to compelled on others through government.

              He’s afraid no one will practice any charity towards their fellow man.

              He’s afraid he might find people feel his actions toward them are unacceptable and decide to defend themselves against his behavior in ways he disagrees with.

              Take your pick.

              • Plainlyspoken,
                You obviously don’t know me.

              • You obviously don’t know me.

                Nope. I do not. I base my considerations of you on what I’ve read of your writings.

                As I am sure you do the same with the writings you read.

            • Todd’s afraid of not having an overpowering government to steal for him. How in any world would very little government result in us sleeping in alley’s? Does he mean the homeless?
              Funny thing back before the government took over, private charities did provide for them. Big government doesn’t like competition.

              • LOI,

                How in any world would very little government result in us sleeping in alley’s?

                The powerful will continue the “redistribution of wealth” up the economic ladder until the middle-class can’t even afford decent housing. You’ll be lucky to have a minimum wage job mowing their lawn.

              • Todd’s afraid of not having an overpowering government to steal for him.

                LOI: I hope you realize just how ridiculous this reads. It’s why the tea party has the following it has now. At least be reasonable in your assessments. Do you really believe Todd, myself, Matt want an overpowering governmetn to steal from us? If so, you’re not very bright, my friend. I suspect you are bright but that this type of argument (unless its pot stirring, then it’s pretty cool) just weakens your cause.

              • Of course no one thinks you want an overbearing government to steal from you, that would be silly. You want an overbearing government to steal from people who have more than you whom you have deemed “undeserving” of such wealth in your infinitely opinionated wisdom.

            • Anita,
              Right, not everyone is bad. But it only take a few rotten apples to spoil them all. See my response to Black Flag about Iceland below.

    • Charlie

      “Let’s not discuss how Native American Indians were robbed blind, then killed off their lands … let’s skp that part and get to the part where the government is involved so we can blame it on the government alone. ”

      The topic presented is about the Trust Fund money.

      I gave you the reason behind the invasion of North America but as usual you just keep yelling your bull shit. Until you recognize the major changes in human social/political actions over the past 1000 years you have little chance of having a coherent discussion on this particular matter.

      And YES it was the GOVERNMENT THEN AND NOW that provides the means of enslavement.

      • The topic presented is about the Trust Fund money.

        Ooooops … but your last line And YES it was the GOVERNMENT THEN AND NOW that provides the means of enslavement. is bogus … the indigenous population was screwed the day this great land of “theirs” was discovered … before the government existed. If you’re going to tell a story, tell it right.

        No more bullshit from me … I understand how much more convenient it is for yous guys to ignore the facts and skip to the good part (where you can attack the government you all admit is run by big money–yet defend big money) … talk about chasing yourselves …

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie,

          When it comes to this subject, your misplaced blame makes you incapable of seeing a fact, even if it is right under your nose.

          JAC is patently correct.

          “YES it was the GOVERNMENT THEN AND NOW that provides the means of enslavement.”

          • Peter, the Colts suck.
            🙂
            As to slavery, please reread your history books. Europeans landed here and immediately put immigrants from their own land and others to work as slaves … no gov’t was yet formed. Then, as I’ve been arguing all day, as wealth was accumulated (exploitation of slaves/taking of lands, etc.), gov’t was formed … by whom? The slaves? Right, the guys with the gelt … and they set up shop for their own protection, especially their wealth … and people became slaves to their wages (as well as financially superior masters) … and bada-boom, bada-bing, … a few hundred years later … the Wall Street bailout (the rich protecting the rich through the government they own) … now blame the government and mean it … because unless you refuse to see the money behind it (capitalism), you’re choosing to wear blinders.

            And, my friend … the Colts still suck …:)

            • Charlie,

              Europeans landed here and immediately put immigrants from their own land and others to work as slaves … no gov’t was yet formed.

              *cough*
              Sorry, Charlie, there was a government at that time.

              It seems to me you get confused between the types and models of government with there being “no” government at all.

              • Sorry, BF, cough, wrong again. name it, the government that was “here” when Columbus started whacking Indians? What were the governments called for the next 3 hundred years? Who made up the United States Government when it was formed? Who benefited from the taking of the lands/killing of indians? The government or the people who eventually inhabited the land? Once again, you’re on both sides of the argument …

    • Common Man says:

      Charlie;

      Although we differ in oppinion on many things I have to go with you one this one, except as it relates to Capitalism. It was just another historical event that the government used the army to garner what it wanted.

      They covet, then they plan on how to obtain that which they covet and then they devistate what they have obtained.

      Our Native America brothers and sisters have been abused, slaughtered and imprisoned since the white man first stepped onto North American soil. It is and has always been far more deplorable than even the treatment of the African American.

      Good article LOF

      CM

      • Thanks CM. Any thoughts on my “solution”?

      • Our Native America brothers and sisters have been abused, slaughtered and imprisoned since the white man first stepped onto North American soil.

        I agree, CM, but there wasn’t a government when it first happened … just people determined to horde for themselves (perhaps surviving, but they didn’t mind using other Europeans as slaves to do so while taking land that didn’t belong to them away from an indigenous population). That’s as close to a “free market” as it ever got.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Incorrect Charlie,

          There have always been governments involved in that particular slaughter. As I said earlier, it was sometimes the British, sometimes the French, quite often the Spanish, but any way you slice it, it comes up “government”.

          • and the government is made up of what again?
            People perhaps?
            And those people, should they be rich … were taking what via “evil” means? Accumulating what? Creating what?

            Chicken or the egg argument, except the ones always screwed are the workers …

    • Charlie,

      “Talk about jumping the shark, LOI.”
      I’m that kinda guy. Some might feel sorry for the shark, but I can live with their disapproval. I get pissed off at Red Lobster every time someone is attacked by a shark. Put them on the menu and lets make them an endanger species.

      ” Let’s not discuss how Native American Indians were robbed blind, then killed off their lands … let’s skip that part and get to the part where the government is involved so we can blame it on the government alone. Here’s what I don’t get about this particular argument of yours (and those who support it) … what moved the governmen to do so? Expansion? Pursuit of wealth? A financial manifest destiny I’d say was born of capitalism–the desire to own.”

      Sounds like a worthy article Chaz, look forward to you writing it so I can pick it apart or maybe spend the whole day bashing Obama. Speaking of Obama, who you voted for, does he even know we still have native Americans living here, much less how they are being treated by the government he runs?

      • Obama is a republican in drag, LOI … and I thought I recognized you on the Obama for President festival. Cool beans … and guess what? He’s gonna be President again!

      • LOI

        Actually Mr. Obama was officially “adopted” by a family on the Crow Reservation during his campaign for POTUS.

        A large amount of the “stimulus” money was sent to the various Reservations. That age old left wing view that you can buy eternal friendship.

        I am told that the natives are now recognizing this POTUS is like all the others. “Lets have a meeting and discuss what we will do for you.”

        I’ll bet you money he shows back up on the Reservations in Montana during his campaign. And they will show the love, forgetting he has done nothing to resolve their real problems.

        • Chief Walking Eagle?

          • Walking donkey with no head.

            • There’s a head – it’s stuck in his backside.

            • Terry Evans says:

              You missed the head…it is at the other end.

            • Mr. President … again … two terms … deal with it.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Perhaps…perhaps not. Only time will tell…

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Charlie,

                You should take bets on that.

                Many Republicans will lose money and you will become wealthy.

                Americans in general are too frigging stupid now to see anything even vaguely resembling reality, which very nearly ensures that your prediction is correct.

                The sad thing is, even if he does not win, it won’t make a damn bit of difference, but you already know that too.

        • That age old left wing view that you can buy eternal friendship.

          Because, as we all know, the Republican Party never bought favors, right? Man did you step in that one.

          • Charlie

            Further proof that you never hear a thing because you are too busy talking.

            The Republican Party has been a left wing party for quite some time.

            • JAC, you’re so fullllll of —- it is really starting to stink (all the way over here in Fords, NJ) … i’d bet big money (for me) you’ll be voting Republican in 2012 … hell, I’d bet anything on that one. Sorry, but the way you defend “their core mantra”, I can’t believe for a second you’ll vote Libertarian when push comes to shove … and that, your vote, is what’ll count (not the rhetoric).

              I, on the other hand (honest to a fault?) … will vote Nader, Socialist or communist … neither of these Republican Parties will ever get my vote again.

              Oooops again … it was all about trust funds, sorry.

              • Sorry Charlie, I hafta stick up for my buddy JAC. He’s gonna vote for the best name on the ballot no matter what their party name is.

    • Um, Charlie, you do realize that the vast majority of the destruction of the native American tribes was a military action. There were territory fights in the early settlements, but the massacres of the Conquistadors were commissioned by European governments, the French and Indian war was waged between the French and English governments and military with the Natives caught in between, and the vast majority of native destruction during the expansion of the US under the banner of Manifest Destiny was government sponsored action, most of the fighters were initially members of the Union Army, you know, the ones who freed the slaves in the South.

      So you want to get into the older history of it? Fine, but it was an overbearing and evil government then too. Sure, it was back when things were freer for American Citizens, freer than now, but it was still government action. Many of the western settlements were at peace with the natives until the government broke treaties, largely at the behest of businessmen who were playing the same games in back rooms with government officials as happens today. I think the point of the article is not to gloss over what happened in the past, but to show that the government has gone from outright slaughter to incompetent corruption, in direct violation of all the things they claim to be. Nothing has, or ever will, change, so long as government is allowed to control the lives of people.

      So yes, this government is owned and run by big money, as was the government of that time. The only solution is to literally follow what Jefferson envisioned: have a revolution every 30 years or so. Because as soon as power begins to consolidate, corruption will follow it. There is not, nor will there ever be, any such thing as a good kind of control of other people or the property of other people.

      • Um, Charlie, you do realize that the vast majority of the destruction of the native American tribes was a military action

        My last statement on this (since you ignore it anyway). The destruction of the American Indian began when this (Sp voiceover because I know it annoys most of you) “great land of ours, the united states of america” was “discovered” … what came later (some 300 years later) was a more systematic destruction and takeover … but you don’t get to ignore what began as the “civilization” of America …

        Now I’m done with this … too annoying and BF has just arrived (lord help me) … I’m gonna watch a foreign movie.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “I’m gonna watch a foreign movie.”

          Anything good?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          So, you are saying the the “civilization” of America was NOT a Government Sponsored Action??? You are just plain silly.

          America was COLONIZED by people from other countries, and this colonization was sponsored BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THOSE COUNTRIES with the direct desire to ENRICH the governments and the people of those other countries by taking and or taxing the resources of the new colonies?

          Learn some history man!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Amen Jon,

        Government, as usual, and as always, the tool of violence against the non-violent. It is the definition of the beast.

  3. LOI

    Nice summary of the legal proceedings. Did everyone notice how when the judge got pissed off at the lies and stonewalling they got the judge removed for speaking out?

    I wish the answers to the Indian’s plight were as simple as give them the land or a state. But it is not.

    Much of the lost money is on lands given to individual Indians. But they sold shares and passed it down to their kids, kids kids, etc. Some parcels have literally hundreds of owners but never recorded.

    It is the classic study in what socialism and the nanny state does to the will of humans. Those who want to see the benefits of these immoral systems don’t have to look to Russia or China. Simply look to the reservations.

    • Much of the lost money is on lands given to individual Indians. But they sold shares and passed it down to their kids, kids kids, etc. Some parcels have literally hundreds of owners but never recorded.

      Why inheritance is a bad idea.

      It is the classic study in what socialism and the nanny state does to the will of humans. Those who want to see the benefits of these immoral systems don’t have to look to Russia or China. Simply look to the reservations.

      Oh, brother, JAC … rob, rape and kill people, take their land, put them on reservations and then blame a “nanny state” … very convenient argument … makes absolutely no sense, but convenient.

      I can see this is going to be one of those days …

      • Charlie….. who is it, if it is not the government? You say it is the rich that owns the government….it is still the government….whether the rich own it or not. It is still policy. It would make no difference if another form of government were in there….it would still be the same.

    • Is there any workable answer other than putting them on the path of self-reliance?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Making the Federal govt powerless would be a good start

      • I don’t have a problem with that at all … but don’t you feel something is “owed” them? Just a little bit? Do you think they’ve had that “all men are created equal” fair shake … in their case, I’d say it’s at least as bad if not worse than slavery (which I think it was worse than slavery, if that’s possible)?

        USW should change this site to Stand Up for Money.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, I think we could all agree that the indians were screwed. None of us had anything to do with it. Let’s take the pensions from all prvious politicians who allowed this to continue, give it to them, give them their land and get the govt out of their lives.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I’m off to complete a paint job, will check in later.

          • Hey, I’m all for politicians earning minimum wage and having minimal benefits and absolutely NO PENSIONS until everybody has one but that isn’t going to happen in my lifetime. I’m not saying the government can fix it (especially THIS gov’t), I’m just not willing to make believe it isn’t money behind the government that keeps native American indians in their sorry state.

            • I’m just not willing to make believe it isn’t money behind the government that keeps native American indians in their sorry state.

              I can’t and won’t disagree here. Money always talks and bulls**t walks. True now, true then in governments.

        • Owed to them….yes, in the manner of getting them self sufficient but becoming self sufficient is NOT give away programs. Helping them become self sufficient means the Indians meeting half way and wanting to not become dependent. You know the addage…give a man a fish and he will eat for a day…teach him to fish and he will eat forever.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Funny, I always thought it went:

            Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

            • Oh……I forgot, Thanks for reminding me. I was being philosophical andnot realistic…shame on me.

              • BTW…good morning counselor, How are you today?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Can’t complain at all. Works keeping me busy during the day, rain is finally gone and weather is finally warming up around these parts.

                Yourself?

              • Doing ok….got through a set of storms last night that took out all my windows on the west side of the house….hail about softball size….not much water damage from blowing rain…but some nasty ice.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Geez, but at least no one was injured. Been some crazy weather of late. Don’t worry, I won’t go there and blame it on climate change though!

          • Terry Evans says:

            Agreed Colonel, for the most part the ones that remain on the reservation and on the governments teat, are the ones that suffer the most (recent history).
            I also enjoy fishing in the manner the good counselor suggested!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie,

          Is something “owed” to them?

          Perhaps…

          But, WHO OWES IT TO THEM AND WHY?

          Then, once you have figured that out, figure out how the entity that does actually owe them is gonna come up with the payment!

          Also, figure out how many Billions (yes, that was with a B) has already been “repaid” to them in one form or another, and figure out just how much good that has done so far….

          • Also, figure out how many Billions (yes, that was with a B) has already been “repaid” to them in one form or another, and figure out just how much good that has done so far….

            Peter, does it matter “how much good that has done so far”? If it belongs rightfully to them then what “good” they do, or not, is their business as free men/women isn’t it?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      JAC,
      My hometown is over 2/3 Indian(Cherokee) and almost all of my friends in school were Indian(real Indians don’t call themselves Native Americans on anything other than an application), as I was one of the only white homes in the neighborhood that the Cherokee Nation decided to build it Cooperative housing project. What you say about this being the classic study of socialism is completely true, and is the primary reason I believe the way I do. I watched many of my friends who had great potential fall into dependency-Not to drugs or alcohol(that came later), but to the government. The Government gave them more than enough to get by and most just used to not doing anything. When the time came for us to start college(They all went for free or close to it) most of them lasted about a semester, I, on the other hand, had to take loans in addition to my scholarships and knew that I had to pay them back if I quit. Fast forward 15 years, they are still in the same situation they grew up in and I am doing pretty well. In my opinion, handouts don’t do anything but repress people and keep them docile, dependant, and ignorant–i.e. controllable, it is the most evil thing I have ever witnessed in my life.

      On a positive note, I actually worked a trial presided over by Judge Lamberth, back in ’06, he is a good judge and person-even if he is UT Longhorn…lol I think D13 would enjoy all of the Texas memorablia in his chambers.

      • Okie

        Your experience is similar to mine. And now I watch the children of my childhood friends kill themselves with drugs and alcohol. Even though booze is no longer allowed on the reservation.

        The socialist effect is real but one thing often overlooked is the interaction of the welfare state of mind with the original cultural values of the particular tribe.

        Seems to me that some of those tribes in the worst shape are the ones where we “relocated” them far from their ancestral homes.

        As I have tried to explain to others here before. The problem and thus the solutions are truly complex. But nothing will work if dictated by more “greater good” types.

        There have been positive changes in some places. Generally there is a land base adequate to generate work or wealth.

        As for Judge Lamberth, I had high hopes he was going to put some bureaucrats in jail. This hope thing just never seems to work out.

        • Just a quick refresher here on drugs, my dear crazies on the right friends … the reason drugs are all over this country (not just on reservations, by the way) is because it is very PROFITABLE to sell them … especially to those without educations and/or opportunities … CAPITALISM is the basis for most crimes in this Sarah Palin voiceover again, “great land of ours, the united states of america” … so is extortion, loansharking, bookmaking … you name it, it’s profitable … and to those without the opportunities to live “the american dream”, it’s a way to survive (selling) and numb oneself (taking) … but feel free to blame it all on a government (you all acknowledge is owned by corporations) … funny, you have all these conspiracy theories you buy into but how about the one that goes “the rich don’t want to have to deal with certain people so they keep them in situations where they can’t help themselves” … but you want to pull the plug on the few resources the gov’t does give them.

          Ever wonder why there are still so few blacks in partnership situations at major law firms (counselors?) … how many native American Indians are there in those positions?

          Geesh …

          • What the hell are you talking about?

          • Never wondered why, my Plutonian Friend (I think the gasses are a little strong on Pluto today)….suppose you enlighten me as to why?Chains? Dogs?Whips?A conspiracy against the black man?

          • Indeed you are right. Drugs are profitable. The fact that an item in demand is restricted only increases the profit margin and funds evil people. It makes crime pay. The same thing happened with Prohibition in the 20s.

            The lesson you should take from this is that a market will exist and profit will be sought regardless of whether it is allowed. There is no such thing as a world with no market. The black market operates differently from a free market because it has artificial scarcity and is populated only by those willing to break the law. Would drug abuse decrease if it were not restricted? No. But it would not likely increase either, same as with alcohol after Prohibition was repealed. What would decrease is the associated crime and the immense profit going to evil men. To be honest, if I subscribe to any conspiracies in reference to drugs it would be that some of the big money controlling government are drug providers making sure their product remains illegal.

            • The black market operates differently from a free market because it has artificial scarcity and is populated only by those willing to break the law.

              And those who want the drugs, no? Supply & Demand at its best/worst? I agree … somewhat … I would love to see most laws gone in a flash (especially drug laws).

              Black markets also exist by need (when people can’t get what the need otherwise). What’s the difference between free and black when it’s survival we’re talking about? Price, that’s it. Nothing else. People need food to eat … (see WWII for example) … they’re willing to do pretty much anything to get food (sell their bodies, give up friends, relatives, etc.) … they’re sure “free” to do so … once desperate situations occur, nobody is safe. Black vs. Free (where the money is there to legitimize theivery, exploitation, etc.) doesn’t seem very different to me at all. Sorry.

              • Black markets also exist by need (when people can’t get what the need otherwise). What’s the difference between free and black when it’s survival we’re talking about? Price, that’s it.

                Government also, no? Government causes the black market to exist, yet has no direct involvement in the black market and desires to shut it down to regain doesn’t it?

              • Danged keyboard (it musta been made by a progressive! 😉 )

                It should read: “…to regain control doesn’t it?”

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            ““the rich don’t want to have to deal with certain people so they keep them in situations where they can’t help themselves” … but you want to pull the plug on the few resources the gov’t does give them.”

            First of all, government cannot “give” anyone anything without first TAKING it from someone else. The government does not produce anything, therefore the government does not sell anything, therefore the government has no income, other than what it takes from people in the name of “providing them with services and protection.”

            Secondly, “the few resources the government does give them” is a minimal amount (at the cost of FAR TOO MUCH MONEY) and the sole purpose of that minimal amount is to KEEP THOSE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE IN THE SITUATION THAT THEY ARE IN!

            If the minimal amount were actually designed in some way to get those people out of that situation (as they claim in the window-dressing), then that would be fine.

            However, since it is painfully obvious that the government programs in this particular area (drugs) FAIL MISERABLY, whereas private programs at least succeed in turning people’s lives around on occasion, I think I will continue to support the private entities which do actually provide help to people with drug problems, and I will continue to advocate for the elimination of government programs which produce nothing but failure.

            Sorry Charlie.

          • Oh Charlie. You poor dumb clueless bastard!

            Most people in those situations GOT themselves in that situation. I know lots of people who had far more growing up than I did, and they aren’t anything but dopheads and drunks now.

            I also know folks who were like I was and poorer, who went on to become sucessful businessmen or doctors or lawyers.

            It’s not how much money or how poor you were, it’s how willing you are to pull yourself out of it, or do something with it.

            As a matter of fact, in my experience. The richer ones were the most like;y to turn our sorry as shit.

            • Oh Charlie. You poor dumb clueless bastard!

              Essom, you’re a genius … I don’t know how somebody near where you live didn’t demand you run for office. Now, try and take off the confederate garb (you already lost that one) and smoke a joint … or take a Valium … just try and stay calm … i know it’s difficult having to deal with the facts of life … just keep your eyes closed and think it’s 1861 (or 1863, before you started losing), click your heels 3 x’s and say, “There’s no place like home before the civil war …”

  4. The only experience that I have is that I used to hunt on the Jicarilla (Apache) Indian Reservation in northwest New Mexico (Dulce and Farmington area. This was 20 years ago. I was amazed at the government waste and the entitlement which is generational. I was told that each Indian family got a stipend from the government, a new pick up truck every three years, and food stamps as well as lower taxes (no federal taxes I think…not sure). What was appalling to me, was the fact that driving around the reservation in this beautiful country, were rusted hulks of pickup trucks sitting in fields, dirt packed schoolyards, run down shacks, and I was told that the drinking problem with the reservations was out of control. Our government herded these tribes into areas that are beautiful (at least the ones that I have seen) and then just left them there it appears. There is no incentive for them and it is a shame. Generational poverty and generational welfare all createdby our government….like they are doing today.

    • Generational poverty and generational welfare all createdby our government….like they are doing today.

      All so those who “have” don’t have to share … nice system. Nothing like “free men”, eh?

      Good morning, Colonel!

      • Charlie

        Actually they are as free as the rest of us.

        • Oh, lord … I hope you were waving a flag when you typed that. Get it on video and send it to the tea party … i hear they’re having a hard time selling the american dream these days.

      • Good morning back Charlie….I like the system we have despite its flaws…as you know, I will never agree to taking from those that have and giving it to those that do not….just creates more generational wekfare.

        However, the subject is the Indian and the trust fund as it applies and they are both tragedies.

  5. Mathius says:

    So, there’s a story I heard years ago.. not sure if it’s true or not, but the source was pretty credible.

    Apparently, an Indian reservation in California was selling marijuana. Because federal laws don’t apply, they were doing so legally. The problem, of course, was that people would drive to the reservation, buy, and then bring it back.

    The governor at the time (Brown?) told them to stop. He sued (and lost). He asked nicely (and was rebuffed). He offered aid (which was rejected – weed is more profitable).

    Finally, he found the solution. Yes, they can sell marijuana if they want, but if they continue to sell it, he would barricade every single road into or out of the reservation.

    The Indians folded.

    • Mathius

      Federal laws apply to the Reservations, then and now. I don’t recall the story but it could have happened. Although the feds would have been involved as well.

      The enforcement of laws is subject to the agreements (compacts) between the Tribe and the Federal Govt. Each reservation and tribe has different situations depending on their desire for autonomy and the Govts’ willingness to give up power.

      But they ALL remain “wards of the state”.

      • Mathius says:

        Either way, it’s a great story.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        Fed laws do apply, although sometimes state laws don’t. In Oklahoma Bottlerockets are illegal, but fortunatly there are fireworks stands on every parcel of Indian land and they can sell them–made my childhood much more fun. 🙂

        • Yes, it is amazing. Our ranch is in the middle of the Indian Nations….out of Woodford, Oklahoma (Which only has avolunteer fire station now)…we actually have two parcels of Indian owned land on our property that are properly registered and have been trying to find the owners for years. These parcels have been there since early 1900’s. We cannot find even their ancestors. When the land was originally purchased from the tribal council, we still had to get permission from the Federal Government since it was government land given to the Tribes and then the Tribes were allowed to sell it. BUT, we had to agree that the parcels of land that are within our boundaries remain in the Indian name and family. We could purchase the land from them if we could find them. We have been unseccessful for over 22 years.

          • Oops…point being…when it is time to buy fireworks, we go to the Nations….and get M-80’s, cherry bombs, sky roclets, bottle rockets and the whole bit and if we smoked, cigarettes with no fed or state taxes.

            • Displaced Okie says:

              Oh, I forgot about the M-80’s.

              It’s good to see you made it through those storms last night Colonel–I thought that hail would never stop–My New Yorker wife was freaking out big time.

              • Yep…it was pretty exciting. I have a friend from Connecticut that is visiting here and this morning he was amazed at the fact that we all go out an watch it. LOL…. When he asked what the sirens were for, I told him that it was a tornado/hazardous weather warning…..his eyes got as big as saucers and he asked what do we do…and I told him….watch and listen. We will hear it if it is close. We were all running around and picking up hail stones hoping not to be hit in the head with a big one…but it was exciting and beautiful at the same time. Glad there were no deaths here like Joplin or Oklahoma.

    • Mathius,
      They can’t even stop Mexicans from another country getting in.

      You think they can stop Americans from getting out from inside of America??

      I would have said: Yeah, and whose 120 army divisions are you going to use???

      • Mathius says:

        Well, Kemosabe,

        A lot of the income depends on legal gambling. I think most people would opt to go elsewhere that risk running an (admittedly) flimsy blockade.

        • Mathius,

          Well, let them drive 300 miles to the next nearest slot machine to plug their nickels, who gives a damn?

          The Indians survived without slot machines before.

          But they will not survive without the sovereignty

  6. SUFA

    Re: Making right by the Indians.

    Curious how many of you are willing to give up control and possibly access to Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park? Oh, and the surrounding National Forest lands as well.

    And of course the Black Hills, including Mr. Rushmore.

    • I would be OK with it, they could charge tourist, same as the fed. gov. does now.

      http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

    • Good morning, friend JAC….. I see you are pot stirring today? Pretty stormy around here last night…never seen baseball stadium evacuated before….lots of hail…tornados (which we are used to) but the hail was pretty dramatic…a perfectstorm scenario….dry line stalled and three thunderstorms came together..exciting evening. Great light show….no deaths.

      • d13

        I am guessing more is on the way. We just had two days of hard COLD rain.

        When that air hits the Gulf Air I expect more excitement will arise.

        A few times I felt true FEAR was coaching little league kids and begging the umpires to postpone a game because of approaching thunderstorms. They would refuse and I sat there watching those kids surrounded by metal fencing swinging metal bats as the lightning hit all around.

        • Yeah….I hated that as well. I coached for a little while when my son was in little league…..The coaches would get together and agree to postpone…it would piss of the “blues” but what the hell…they were not swinging a lightning rod. I learned a very valuable lesson way back when as a teenager playing golf when a storm was close by…when the clubwas jerked out of my hand and the tree was split nearby…it was an attention getter.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      A couple of thoughts…..

      I demand restitution! My great grandfathers of the early 1600s bought land from the Indians. The records are available to this day. Then the Indians under King Phillip murdered my grandfathers in an ambush while they went to speak in peace. This too is on record. I can easily prove it in a court of law. What would I get in restitution and from whom? 😉

      I have a probable Mohawk ancestry, but can’t document it other than multiple Independent family stories and photos. An article on the St. Regis Reservation from an upstate New York newspaper in the 1800s, claims that even at that time there were very few pure blooded Mohawk Indians on the Reservation as most had bred with French Canadian. I wonder how many full blooded Indians are alive today, even on reservations.

    • I dont have control of it now, so that is not being given up. I no longer have any real control of our government or its actions, as it does not even follow the channels and procedures it is required to, and has found methods of manipulating those aspects that it still follows to prevent significant impact of the people on its actions and decisions.

      As for access, well, I think the Native Americans would A) do a better job of making sure those lands are preserved than the government does (which is the whole point of having those parks) and B) see that it could be very profitable as well as a way to teach others about their culture and their wisdom of conservation and maintain access. It would be a risk I would willingly take.

    • Where do I sign the quit claim deed to give it back to them?

  7. First, throw out this massive, irrelevant, pointless, red herring.

    How the Indians deal with themselves or how they manage their own property has NOTHING ABSOLUTELY TO DO with what is their Right and Compensation for loss under an agreement.

    This would be saying a thief has a right to steal your car because you don’t keep it full of gas or change the oil.

    But the real lesson: if you believe in a government promise, you’re naive and a fool.

  8. 😐

  9. Charlie

    Black markets also exist by need (when people can’t get what the need otherwise).

    Correct~!

    Black markets only exist where the government makes it illegal for people to get what they need.

    Example: wartime.

    Government seizes the allocations of goods, and uses rationing as a means instead of prices.

    The consequence? massive shortages. People who do not need the goods still get their “share”. Those that want more of the goods cannot get it.

    The consequence? The Free market – the people who do not value the goods sell it to those who do.

    But this undermines the government who believe they know better, so they use their guns to stop it.

    What’s the difference between free and black when it’s survival we’re talking about? Price, that’s it. Nothing else.

    Correct!
    You allocate resources only two ways:
    By price.
    By force.

    People need food to eat … (see WWII for example) … they’re willing to do pretty much anything to get food (sell their bodies, give up friends, relatives, etc.) … they’re sure “free” to do so … once desperate situations occur, nobody is safe.

    Desperate circumstances do provide any rational for norm interactions

    Your argument always fails here: you demand “magic” from the mechanics of Free man where your system of violence and force have utterly failed.

    But because your system has failed, you believe free men cannot figure it out anyway, so you demand more of the same failed system.

    Yes, in bad situations people suffer.

    There is no way around this Charlie, and you increasing their suffering by stealing and violence (by government) does nothing to solve this

    Using the price mechanism is the best solution, because the only other solution –massive violence– is far worse.

    Black vs. Free doesn’t seem very different to me at all.

    It isn’t at all.
    It is voluntary trade.

    Black is merely the trade the government hates.

  10. Darn negations
    Desperate circumstances do provide any rational for norm interactions
    should be
    Desperate circumstances do NOT provide any rational for norm interactions

  11. Jon,

    The black market operates differently from a free market because it has artificial scarcity and is populated only by those willing to break the law.

    Your analysis is flawed here.

    The Black market works exactly the same as the Free Market – wherever a trade is voluntary, there exist the Free market.

    There is no “artificial” scarcity. It is either scarce or it is not.

    What you are trying to say is “there are influences other than production that is creating scarcity“, such as government prohibition.

    When government makes freedom illegal, free people will break the law.

    Would drug abuse decrease if it were not restricted? No.

    Actually, yes. Studies have shown that a significant percentage of use is due because it is illegal.

    What would decrease is the associated crime and the immense profit going to evil men.

    Correct. The prohibition causes risk and shortages, which both impact the price of the goods.

    The price of oil today has a large part due to “risk” of access to supply. Risk comes in many forms, and one form is government violence.

    To be honest, if I subscribe to any conspiracies in reference to drugs it would be that some of the big money controlling government are drug providers making sure their product remains illegal.

    There is much documented evidence that the largest drug dealer and kingpin in the USA is the CIA.

    • Mathius says:

      Would drug abuse decrease if it were not restricted? No.

      Actually, yes. Studies have shown that a significant percentage of use is due because it is illegal.

      While this is true, there’s another fact that’s missed here. Drugs sold on street corners are frequently cut with all kinds of bad stuff. You have no guarantee of quality and no recourse. To say nothing of the inherent danger of dealing with individuals willing to engage in drug dealing, or the risk of arrest.

      I’d much rather be able to buy at Walgreens or CVS and know what’s being put in it, and have someone I can go to with complaints.

    • You are right about the terming of the scarcity argument, but there is another factor. The suppliers tend to be persons already outside the law, corrupt persons. This means that one is limited, not just for supply, but in the character of suppliers. Who one buys from is part of the standard free market decision. In a free market not restricted by law, an immoral or dishonest supplier would be shunned, because there would almost always be a supplier available that was not such a person.

      Also, studies have shown that there are some who do not use drugs because they are illegal. This means that some would use that do not currently.

      Granted, however, those are generally not the type to abuse drugs.

  12. Okay. There was a war, oh about a hundred and fifty years ago. Europeans came here to get away from crazy European royals and such. They bumped into some natives(bummer, and we all thought no one was here). The religious leaders of the time declared the natives to be non-human savages and heathens. So the Europeans took what they wanted and herded the heathens onto reservations where they could be taught the new modern ways – yet they ferociously and avidly clung to their ancient ways. To this day they do. Now in some states they are allowed to build gambling establishments called casinos where white folks go to spend their hard earned money on games of chance and the natives gladly scoop up the fools money and distribute it throughout all their tribes. Most of the natives who have been clinging to the old ways have no idea what to do with this money so they get drunk, get high on drugs and generally waste away their lives meaninglessly.

    However, on the positive side (and this is a minority among the natives) some do get an education and apply themselves toward a better life for not only themselves but their fellow natives. Although this number is few, it is also starting to grow, which is a positive thing.

    What most so-called Liberals do is make the mistake of believing that the old native ways are best when it is quite obvious they are not. When the Europeans first got here the natives were aggressively killing each other off, and most likely would have succeeded had they not been rounded up and put on reservations – now they do not kill each other off, or so it seems.

    I have no problem with the natives making their own money. However, I do have a problem with giving them my tax money. The government agency, BIA, is nothing but a waste nowadays. The Navaho Nation, located partly in north eastern AZ, has its own police force, political council (called tribal council) where elected officials oversee all the things in their community, and they do this much more adequately then we white folks do with our own government agencies.

    What is the answer? I have no idea, but I do ask one question of all of you who think we stole this land from the natives . . . What happened to those great seers of the past who could not even figure out a calender that did not have an end date? You know, the Mayans. If the ancient ways were so great, why didn’t those ways triumph over the invaders ways?

    Just asking.

    • If the ancient ways were so great, why didn’t those ways triumph over the invaders ways?

      Um….those invader were able to wield greater force upon the Mayans?

      Your argument could easily be construed as well to say that using force to take from another is acceptable….and that’s pretty disturbing.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “If the ancient ways were so great, why didn’t those ways triumph over the invaders’ ways?”

      Lack of guns.

    • G.A. Rowe,

      You have a perverted view of history.

      A bunch of Europeans came over, got wiped out by Indians, came back, and began wiping them out.

      Along the way, they came to an accord, called a “treaty” to make the peace.

      Then, one day a man found gold on “Indian land”. The government said “Oh, go get it, we don’t care about no stinkin’ treaty”.

      A bunch of people died, and then they decided to revise the treaty.

      But still more Europeans settled on “Indian Land”, and the government said “We don’t care about no stinkin’ treaty”.

      A bunch of people died, and the government imposed another different treaty on the Indians.

      Then, one day, on the piss-poor land that was allocated to the Indians – land no one really wanted – they found oil.

      The government said “We don’t care about no stinkin’ treaty”.

      Do you hear the consistent refrain here?

    • Poor immune systems (or at least ones not used to European dieases), too much trust of others, too much superstition, and too little technology, at least for war.

  13. Todd,

    ’s a funny conundrum, but the “powerful” use government to get what they want, but that same government does limit what they can do. Take away or limit government, and they’ll use their new found freedom to control even more.

    How?

    As usual, you have some perverted definition and understanding of government – which you then use to offer a completely incomprehensible argument.

    Take away government (“legitimized violence”) and the people “control even more” of (I assume) other people…how?….

    • Oh, BF, come off it with this bullshit already. The government is made of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which (especially back in the day) were RICH … so they called the shots as they wanted … the same corporations and mercantism you “claim” to hate, came from PEOPLE … people with enough power/influence and money to do whatever they wanted. They had the method to do so (government–they owned it) and they did it. How the hell do you go from there (a government made of people/rich people) doing the rich’s bidding to “blame the government for everything” while simultaneously supporting the very rich and the capitalism that gave them their wealth (in whatever form–mercantalism, corporations, etc.). People formed those institutions to protect their wealth. They didn’t give a flying F about “freedom” … it was and remains greed based.

      • Charlie,

        The “how”, please?

        How can the rich enforce themselves on the poor without using violence?

        The poor have the same ability to say “no” as the rich.

    • Black Flag,

      Remember you’re example of Iceland? Five families bought control of the “limited government” causing a civil war and the society to collapse.

      That’s how!!

      • Todd,

        Remember the Iceland example?
        It lasted longer then the USA has been in existence!

        And the lesson taught by Iceland – you can NEVER give legitimacy to the initiation of violence -PERIOD-

        For if you do, it will be used against the People is such a way to eventually destroy society.

        • Black Flag,
          Iceland was your example of a society that met or came close to your definition of “free”, right?

          But it still had a government that imposed taxes and eventually became corrupt and turned to violence.

          So maybe the lesson taught by Iceland – it’s hard to stop the initiation of violence -PERIOD-

  14. G.A.

    the ancient ways were so great

    So, based on your theory here, you believe the Mongol horde was a “better society” because they could rampage over top over everyone else?

    It is not always a better society that wins wars. Often it is the most ruthless, vicious, evil side that wins.

    Winning wars does not make society great, G.A.

  15. Charlie,

    Oh, BF, come off it with this bullshit already. The government is made of PEOPLE, the vast majority of which (especially back in the day) were RICH … so they called the shots as they wanted … the same corporations and mercantism you “claim” to hate, came from PEOPLE … people with enough power/influence and money to do whatever they wanted.

    You are a funny guy.

    You argue the evil of government.

    Your solution: more government.

    • oy vey … what a putz … a nice one, but a putz nevertheless.

      You’re a funnier guy … you claim you don’t fear “free men” … yet it was “free men” who created the government you hate.

      Your argue for “free men”
      They form a government and you hate the government formed by “free men” …

      What a putz …

      • Charlie,

        Men have choices. Evil is one of those choices.

        Because you fear free men, you chose evil means to stop all of them

        I know some men are evil, and want to stop only them.

        Free men do not form government, evil men do.

        Many free men give these evil men legitimacy – that is the root of the problem.

        People believe evil has a right to do evil on them. When the People finally say “no”, then all men will be free.

  16. Charlie,

    Sorry, BF, cough, wrong again. name it, the government that was “here” when Columbus started whacking Indians?

    As it appears your public education has failed you again, here is the history lesson.

    Columbus was “here” under charter by the Crown of Spain, with the Pope’s blessing and consent.

    When he “landed” he claimed the land by right of God in the name of the Spanish Crown.

    An agreement was signed by their Majesties and Columbus at Santa Fe, April 17, 1492, by which he and his heirs should forever have the office of admiral over all lands he might discover, with honors equal to those of Grand Admiral of Castile; that he should be viceroy and governor-general over the same; that he should receive one-tenth of all mineral and other products that might be obtained; that he and his lieutenants should be the sole judges in all disputes that might arise between his jurisdiction and Spain, and that he might advance one-eighth in any venture, and receive a corresponding share of the profits.

    What were the governments called for the next 3 hundred years?

    The Spanish Empire

    Who made up the United States Government when it was formed?

    People.

    Who benefited from the taking of the lands/killing of indians?

    Other people, given such claim by government.

    The government or the people who eventually inhabited the land?

    People – who legitimize government, who then legitimized their theft of land.

    Once again, you’re on both sides of the argument

    No, it is one argument, the same.

    Violence on non-violent people is evil.

    Legitimized violence on non-violent people is still evil, no matter how many people wave their hands in the air in agreement.

  17. Canine Weapon says:
  18. Jon,

    The suppliers tend to be persons already outside the law, corrupt persons.

    That is a judgement on the qualities of a person, and not a matter of economic theory.

    This means that one is limited, not just for supply, but in the character of suppliers. Who one buys from is part of the standard free market decision.

    Whether the individuals are upstanding citizens or decrepit individuals does not determine the free market, nor alter the application of the laws of economics.

    If they voluntarily trade, it is a free market and 100% of the laws of free market economics still apply.

    In a free market not restricted by law, an immoral or dishonest supplier would be shunned, because there would almost always be a supplier available that was not such a person.

    Let’s rephrase your position here.

    Because of barriers of entry exist for a particular good, the price of that good is will be higher than if the barriers did not exist.

    A barrier, for example, is that generally moral people do not deal with immoral people.

    However, if a barrier between access to goods is blocked by government, there is a cost in breaching that barrier – and not merely paid in money.

  19. Plainly … I’m back (lousy movie …) … okay, I think so long as we have this gov’t (this one we’re suffering under now), nothing really can get done to anyone’s benefit (certainly not the greater good) and I doubt native American Indians as well. On that point, I agree … this gov’t is way too corrupt to do anything (and from all sides). I do believe, however, that if it were stripped of its absurd lack of responsibility (here I speak of corruption that is NEVER punished … whether it was oil regulators who let the companies write their own reports or gov’t officials taking bribes in the form of contributions from unions — trying to be fair here and cover both sides), none of them ever suffers. Wall Street is the most obvious culprit to me (nobody has gone to jail). You or I rob an armored car (I have a friend who did 10.5 years for just that) and we’re gone. We don’t pay taxes, we get penalized. We work our asses off and either our pensions are suddenly stripped (whether by gov’t decree or bankruptcy-Enron), we’re the ones screwed and nobody responsible does any time. And they never will so long as they get to write the rules.

    So, let’s start by rewriting the rules, enforce term limits, refuse this lifetime pension bullshit until everybody can get one (and if everybody can’t get one, nobody does) … send them away to genuine state prisons (not club feds) when they’re caught being corrupt. Demand that an equal number of workers are elected alongside an equal number of owners instead of having a one-sided money only representation and maybe (MAYBE) things would work out a little better. Even then I have no idea … right now, it is a one-sided deal that is crushing the middle class with some (like most of SUFA) who believe it is entitlements and welfare programs that are crushing the middle class and those like me (and that hippie from Westchester, Tod, etc.) who believe most of those entitlements are just bones to keep the masses from revolting wholesale; that they are bandages on what a “the business of america is business” mentality has reaped. Both sides know the government is corrupt. Both sides fight for their different shade of corruption. Libertarians and socialists are the only other options, veering one way or the other, but this system as is cannot survive the population growths coupled with globalization (I don’t think).

    So, getting back to native Indians (long delay there), I agree, this government and most people, unfortunately, are very comfortable not having to deal with them (so leave them on the reservation, let them drink themselves to death, etc.) … while they obviously need to strike out on their own, there is very little in place for them to do so. Can they ever have their culture back? I honestly have no idea. I’m sure they’d like to, but is it something a country that took it from them should decide? Throwing money doesn’t solve problems, you’re right, but especially when the money that is thrown is done so for the specific purpose of not solving the problems. I have friends that taught on reservations and some complained that city ghetto school systems were better. I have no way of verifying it, but I suspect they are probably right (at least where they taught).

    I think native Americans suffer more than most because they’ve been so isolated (purposefully). Does a country with 9% (effectively closer to 20%) unemployment really want an entire new workforce to deal with?

    Examples of African Americans who left the ghetto to become prominent attorneys (or American Indians who did the same) brings me back to a question I asked earlier … really? How many minority partners are there in top tier law firms (not counting Asians, which is a market they are now exploiting). African Americans and Native Americans are non-existent by comparison to white partners. Those who are there are often referred to as token minority partners and are PROBABLY there because of a quota system/civil rights laws. It’s a fact of life. But it isn’t a fact of life that minorities don’t deserve their partnerships.

    I’m back to I really don’t know how to solve the problem, except to say until more people are treated fairly across the board, educational opportunities, healthcare, jobs … it isn’t going to happen that many of us see anything near a fair deal anytime soon.

    A starting point (for me) would be to find those who are corrupt (and how hard would that be? Christ, are there any that aren’t?) and put them away … real jail time … their wives can then go on VH-1 as Dirty Pol Wives.

    • Charlie Stella

      I do believe, however, that if it were stripped of its absurd lack of responsibility

      Serious Questions:

      How do you measure “responsibility”?

      Why is your measure the correct measure and not someone else’s (or the politicians themselves)?

      Wall Street is the most obvious culprit to me (nobody has gone to jail).

      No one went (on the government side) to jail over 9/11

      No one went (on the government side) to jail over Oklahoma bombings

      No one went (on the government side) to jail over Waco

      No one went (on the government side) to jail over Ruby Ridge

      What part do you think resonates here?

      Government can not do wrong or it loses legitimacy. Without legitimacy, it is just another criminal gang.

      Do not expect government to risk even thinking about changing this.

      So, let’s start by rewriting the rules

      Let’s see – who writes the law (answer: government)

      If you -ever- expect government to write a rule which impedes itself you are naive.

      If you -ever- expect government to enforce any rule that impedes itself you are naive and living in a fantasy.

      Can they ever have their culture back?

      No, nor do I believe that this is even a goal.

      No culture survives the manipulation of time and contact with other cultures. The “Western” culture is full of Arabic, Chinese, Nordic, African cultures, etc. too.

      What they can get is their RIGHTS back.

      Which is why I advocate for their status and treaties – because if they CANNOT DO IT when they have centuries of original documentation, ORIGINAL government treaties -signed, sealed and delivered, legal protection up the wing-wang, their human rights etc. then such a chance for the rest of us is utterly pointless and futile.

      If they cannot do it, no one – and I mean no one can do it.

      In my opinion, they will never get it.

      The government can never allow it, for it will be the small hole in the huge dam that will take down everything about government.

      But if they got it, the rest of us have a chance.

      Perhaps, this is the one futile hope I hold dear.

      • How do you measure “responsibility”?

        Why is your measure the correct measure and not someone else’s (or the politicians themselves)?

        As regards criminal activity; taking bribes, not doing one’s job when the consequence of not doing the job is potential disaster (whether medical, environmental, etc.) … simple enough. A government official lets the oil company write it’s own safety reports, that government offical goes to jail (in a state pen) for 10 years/no plea deals). If a union official bribes a politician or misuses union funds, same deal. Arrivaderci …

        BF, if that isn’t good enough for you, nothing will be …

    • Charlie…….sorry to hear the movie was crap.

      Okie dokie….let me get into this.

      …this gov’t is way too corrupt to do anything (and from all sides).

      Yes, it damn sure is and we need to correct that problem, one danged way or another. Federal elections are a waste of time…..we’re not going to get enough honest citizens elected – and even if we do I think they would be corrupted pretty darned fast and just continue the existing problems and issues, screwing us over just as we are being now. I know those sob’s will never face any kind of punishment, nor will citizens see any kind of justice, for the crimes they are almost all guilty of carrying out.

      That’s why I am so much on the side of cutting them out of our lives and replacing this absurd monstrosity of government with a much smaller, limited and restricted version of a national government. Let the States handle their turf, where citizens stand a hell of a lot more chance at actually accomplishing something than the feds will ever let happen against their desired goals. They’re bought and paid for, whether it is by the corporations or the unions – I agree that money talks in Washington DC. It is a government that has been perverted from any real ideals the Founders envisioned (and even then it was a government already made up of a lot of elitists).

      Sending them to prison (real ones like you point out – not “Club Fed”) is great. Pensions, I see no reason they should get a public paid pension. They can take some of their excessive salaries and set up private 401k’s. This crap of lifetime benefit is bull as well. Let them buy their own medical insurance (again from their pay) and suffer deductibles and co-pays like the rest of us poor bastards who are able to afford medical insurance. For housing they can rent extra military row housing on the various military bases and live just like the service members do that are offered housing. It’d be worth it.

      Wait……..I hear BF rattling around back there! I’m betting he’s sighing heavily at my comments so far.

      Of course none of this will happen, so to simplify it all – just fire them all and close down federal government. It’s gotten too far out of hand to correct now. We don’t forking need the money sucking, power hungry monster that it is. Tear it down and consign it to the trash heap of failed experiments.

      As to our Native Americans, I have to agree with BF in that no culture survives contact with another without changing. So no, they can’t get their culture back. But, as BF does point out, we should restore their rights to them and give them their independence from the forced control exercised over them by the US Government. They have the right to be responsible for themselves just as much as the rest of us do. Then they can work out what their existence is going to look like. We can never restore to them what was taken by force, but we can stop oppressing them.

      I don’t have all the answers Charlie. No one here does. We can’t predict just how the future will work out if we try any of the ideas or philosophies here that really haven’t been tried out. But, no matter what we do it isn’t continuing the garbage we’re doing now. It’s time to end the graveside service and lower the casket into the grave, bury it and go about future life.

      Will we make life more “fair” for all? Again, I don’t know, but I do know we aren’t doing it now either. Will the next go round be better? I don’t know, but I damn sure don’t believe it’ll be worse than right now. We’ve learned some lessons as a society of interacting humans and I believe we’ve outgrown most of the heinous ugliness we treated some of our societies’ inhabitants to and won’t allow them to happen again in any degree worse than we see them now. I believe we can find ways of non-violent societal persuasion to prevent/end them as they show up without some law to do it (which have failed as much as succeeded IMHO).

      So, there it is. I know it isn’t to everyone’s liking by a long shot, but then it’s the way I’m seeing it until someone can change my thinking with different ideas.

      • Well, I’m all for firing the SOBs, that’s for sure. They are useless, corrupt, etc., but as we agree, it won’t happen. The are entrenched until something devastating comes about; maybe it’ll be a revolution, maybe a devastating war … I’m pretty sure I’ll be dead either way.

        The one question I do pose is this: Assuming we took away the government without replacing it (as I suggested, with a less one-sided representation), what do you do with all those who can’t make it day-to-day (whether their fault (lazy) or not (unable/disabled, etc.). I know the “charity” argument rings pretty loud in here but let’s face it, there won’t be enough. And charities have been know to be a little corrupt as well (all bureacracies find their way there eventually). I think cutting people off at the knees, so to speak, will guarantee a revolution (and an ugly one) …

        My fear is without restructuring the gov’t in a more equitable way, cutting the feds out of the picture now will just free up big business to go apeshit crazier than they’ve already gone via globalization. Removing too many restrictions would cause havoc (in my opinion) …

        I won’t discuss the “free man” theory BF will respond with anymore becuase it’s a nice nirvana but silly nonetheless. It isn’t going to happen … and if it did, one could make the same type of assumptions from the other end of the argument; that it would create more evil (which I what I believe … the mighty would win and rule the weak (which for some of us, is pretty much what capitalism leads to anyway–but that’s another beef for another day).

        I am with you on locking up the entire government (my idea of firing them has often been described as tossing them off a roof but sometimes my emotions get the better of me). It is a very rigged deck and does most people no good at all.

        If we have to live wiht this system, I wouldn’t mind your and BF’s suggestion to Native Americans (so long as they get a financial/educational start before setting them “free” from gov’t aid) … and that might take a generation or two.

        • Charlie, I definitely have some points I’d like to respond to but tonight isn’t the time (I’m done in for the day). I will though tomorrow after a nights sleep.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, As long as people let fear lead they’re actions, change can never occur. Tyhe very people we want to help, will unfortunately have to suffer further to free them. If my memory serves me right, when the black man was freed from bondage, they seemed to survive just fine, allthough they struggled mightily early on.

          • Charlie, As long as people let fear lead they’re actions, change can never occur.

            Good morning, Gmaster! Now, does that quote of your apply to those who fear socialism as well?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I don’t know, I don’t fear socialism, I choose not to live under that form of government. Big difference.

              • Gman,
                So what type of government are you living under??

                If I choose to not live under VDLG, does that qualify for your “Big Difference”?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, I think we might agree that our government is corrupt and not doing the job that was intended. Maybe I’m wrong, be we both can see a change is needed when it cones to the Federal govt, it’s that change were we may not agree.

                If I had my way, you could choose to live as you like, with noone bothering or stealing from you and your family.

              • Gman,
                You said you choose not to live under socialism. But many times you have said America is or is becoming socialism.

                So, if you choose not to live under socialism, where do you live and under what form of government? 😉

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, I live in the country, with lot’s of trees and wildlife, and no government intrusion (yet). Whatever form of government it has become, it is surely corrupt, even you can see that.

            • Charlie,

              “fear of socialism” is a knowing it will lead to economic failure and collapse of civilization.

              Socialism only “works” as long as their are goods to steal.

              Once the goods stop being produced (by people tired of the thieves), socialism collapses into a violent mess of human slaughter.

              When the allocation of resources is done by the point of a gun, the producer loses to the thief. But the proof that violence wins goods produces more violence, until eventually the thief loses to the murderer.

              Socialism absolutely guarantees the eventual mass human slaughter.

          • Gman,

            The very people we want to help, will unfortunately have to suffer further to free them.

            Ok Gman, we all believe you and are behind you. Now can you explain – in detail:

            1. What you’re going to do
            2. How it will impact me (and everyone else)
            3. How much and exactly what we’ll “suffer”
            4. What things will be like on the other side
            5. How long this will take

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Todd, I honestly don’t have enough information on the subject to answer your questions. I’m basing my comments on todays article and comments, but lack better info to make educated decision type suggestions.

              • Gman,
                If you can’t answer those questions, than how do you know that your changes will improve things for the people you “want to help”?

                Doesn’t “want to help” sound kinda like a Liberal-Progressive thingy?? 😉

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, I have not offered any changes, nor do I intend to do so.

        • Okay Charlie, I had a nights sleep (not a great one) and I am more awake now.

          Assuming we took away the government without replacing it…

          Charlie, I am not in the “no government” camp. While what BF supports is an enticing ideal – primarily because it means humans have learned to control their worst behavior aspects and can cooperate respectfully in a – more or less – benevolent society with the hand of government being necessary, caring for one and all. I have stated before that I don’t believe we are at that level yet and that humans can’t control their evil behaviors. As long as portions of societies inhabitants, either individually or in groups, seek to gain power and control over others there will be governments in our societies.

          I believe though that we have out of control government, expanding relentlessly. There is much that is unnecessary at federal levels, IMHO. And, I believe that while I constantly call for dumping the national government and replacing it with a smaller, more severely restricted national government, we are overlooking in the discussion the fact that State and local government will still be in existence – so it is not like there will suddenly be this incredible void of no governments at all that shall throw society into complete chaos.

          what do you do with all those who can’t make it day-to-day (whether their fault (lazy) or not (unable/disabled, etc.)….

          I’d like to think we’d all “take care of our own,” but that isn’t completely realistic – primarily because of human behavior. So, while charity will do as much as it can there will likely be some level of assistance granted by government, societies will demand it. The counter-questions are, how much has the continued largesse of government benefited those who abuse the system? Is it right that someone who becomes unemployed should expect to have almost two years of unemployment insurance payments handed to them (they paid not one dime into the unemployment insurance system)? Isn’t it fair to say that our “welfare” system is out of control and the often repeated “reforms” and calls for reducing fraud, waste and abuse are not working or are pure political fiction (lies)?

          And charities have been know to be a little corrupt as well…

          Yes, they have. Yet, drying up their private contributions and forcing reform on them is a lot easier and a lot more likely to occur versus getting our government to do the same thing with the welfare system.

          My fear is without restructuring the gov’t in a more equitable way, cutting the feds out of the picture now will just free up big business to go apeshit crazier than they’ve already gone via globalization. Removing too many restrictions would cause havoc (in my opinion) …

          As I said above, we’ll still see State and local governments in all likelihood. Society isn’t ready to throw off ALL government (nor did they when thirteen colonies told the Crown to stuff it either – there were still State governments in existence). They’ll try to go crazier I am sure (greed and avarice will play a part there). The States should be dealing with it as demanded, and in the manner demanded, by the citizens of the State. So your fears that a free market will be a free-for-all can be laid to rest – at l;east some – don’t you think? Plus, I think those very same feds create as much opportunity for corporations (now there’s an artificial entity that needs to be buried) to screw us as they “protect” us from and we already know how much “reform” we’ll get there (that “money talks” issue again).

          In regards to our Native Americans – how we accomplish restoring their rights and independence to them is a discussion of interest that could be an article all on its own. For instance, surely we don’t trust our national government to give it up to them without screwing them over in every possible way they can find to, do we?

          • Well shoot – blaming fat typing fingers:

            “…benevolent society with the hand of government being necessary…”

            should read: “…benevolent society without the hand of government being necessary…”

          • It’s a very cognizant argument, Plainly and I have to say so long as there was genuine (and I mean GENUINE) consequences to those who abuse such a system, I might go along with it (understanding that genuine means putting the SOBs in state pens and without the benefits of plea deals). This government spends a lot of time going after “organized crime” and was clever enough to use RICO statutes against the catholic church when it was harboring pedophile priests (which it continues to do in the vatican) … how about using RICO to go after itself? BF is right, it won’t, but that’s where I believe a new structure needs to be in place (assuming the current structure is stripped of the pols currently running the system).

            As to those who are left out in the lurch (fairly or otherwise) … it is a big problem that society has to address or it will bite us all in the ass. I guess my problem is with “this” government (not the structure necessarily, but the players and how they are permitted to operate without consequence). Why I opt for a more inclusive government, but I do see your point(s). As it stands, it is out of control … not just wasting and spending, but doing so to the benefit of the very wealthy at the expense of workers. I don’t have a problem with union workers getting pensions, health care, etc. (public or othewise) while % of profits are absurdly out of proportion (with the blessing of the government put in place to do so).

            • Terry Evans says:

              I agree that punishment of elected officials who commit abuse with their positions should be swift and severe. If they continue to operate with impunity then nothing will ever change…for the better. If a few of them had to start busting rocks, or some other hard labor prison camp, and the ranks of the politicians grew in those prisons, then MAYBE some of the elected officials would at least have some fear of reprisal…

              • If a few of them had to start busting rocks, or some other hard labor prison camp

                Put the sob’s on good ol southern style chain gang so everyone can see what the “reward” is for being a corrupt politician.

            • there was genuine (and I mean GENUINE) consequences to those who abuse such a system, I might go along with it (understanding that genuine means putting the SOBs in state pens and without the benefits of plea deals).

              I’m all for that! But for sure that won’t happen while the criminals control the system.

              • Plainly,

                But for sure that won’t happen while the criminals control the system

                But that are the only people who control the system!

                No moral man wants to rule other men.

              • Thank you BF, you once again prove my point why governments will always exist as a part of societies.

              • Plainly,

                No such proof from me, sir.

                You are confused.

                By me saying that you wait in vain for a non-criminal to control government, does not prove government is inevitable.

                It proves that a government is always criminal.

                Its existence is up to you.

              • lol….yes sir BF – I am getting use to the way you “turn” things.

                Since it is up to me….then I decree that you’re stuck living in society suffering under evil governments.

              • Plainly,

                stuck living in society suffering under evil government

                Ah, but it only applies to you, good sir.

                You curse yourself, not me.

              • BF…see below

        • Charlie,

          “free man” theory BF will respond with anymore becuase it’s a nice nirvana but silly nonetheless. It isn’t going to happen … and if it did, one could make the same type of assumptions from the other end of the argument; that it would create more evil

          Charlie’s thinking:
          We must do evil on free men because if we don’t free men will do that evil on themselves.

          As usual, you fear other men’s freedom, but not your own.

          You place bizarre attitudes on other men, but hold yours are not bizarre.

          “Freedom for me and not for you” is your constant mantra – which guarantees enslavement of everybody, including you.

          the mighty would win and rule the weak

          You fear the “rule” of consumers over producers and are willing to trade that for rule of violent brutes over non-violent people.

          You seem to think that living in jail is a great life.

          (so long as they get a financial/educational start before setting them “free” from gov’t aid) … and that might take a generation or two.

          And that is exactly why they will never be free.

          Freedom does not depend on money or education. But you make a condition, and thus, it can never be met because every government moves the goal on this generation and places the dream on the next generation.

          But the “next generation” never comes, because it does not exist – it is always this generation and the next generation is merely a dream.

          As long as you demand service from government, government will never leave.

          It probably will not leave either if you stop demanding, but at least there is a small probability.

          • I’m not getting into this yet again with you, BF.

            “Human being and fish can co-exist.” George W. Bush, The President’s Speech.

            No government = absolute chaos. It’s why your nirvana is a pipe dream (see Iceman Cometh and have a couple of shots of Jameson).

    • On the obvious disparity and double standard of the apparent ruling class and many of the super wealthy:
      I agree. Not all business people of great success and wealth are a part of this aristocratic class, but enough are to make those who are not more of an exception than a rule.
      On the apparent futility of changing that system using the tools that aristocracy gave us.
      I agree, in fact it is a bit silly to think that they would vote a rod unto themselves, and equally silly to think they would grant the people they choose to control and screw over the proper tools and power to affect any real change in what they do or their immune status.
      That we should go after the corrupt ones and see that they pay for their crimes.
      Agreed, now it is a matter of how. It is not likely possible using the current system. We have to control the system first, or make a new one.
      That there is still a disparity between minorities and non-minorities, that is obvious, but the reasons for it we differ on. You had to make exception for the asian group for a reason. If you look at those in positions of power and wealth that did not get there in the entertainment industry or through politics, they are all very different than the average “minority culture”. They are also, quite often, first or second generation immigrants. It is not an African culture that holds back the American black population, but a culture of their own making. One that is self-perpetuating because those daring to set it aside are counted as “not black” or “uncle toms” or some other sort of betrayers. Mandating equalization has done nothing to repair this issue, in fact it has propped it up. As Dr. King said, we must judge people not by the color of their skin but by th content of their character. If that is indeed the dream, then it should not matter what the percentages are of people in the work place, only what their qualifications are.

      I dont know how to fix it all either, but I agree that going after the corruption first is the starting point, or at least a really good starting point. The only problem is, we may have to overthrow or allow to melt down what exists before even that would be possible.

      • The only problem is, we may have to overthrow or allow to melt down what exists before even that would be possible.

        I agree with you. The system has become deeply entrenched, with a root system that would be the envy of any tree. The “fix” will be very painful in either case.

        • Charlie,

          we may have to overthrow or allow to melt down what exists before even that would be possible.

          As I have posted, this is the only way systemic change can occur with government.

          Government is NOT reason – it is irrational and violent.

          You cannot REASON government to be better. It will refuse any rational argument and merely wave its guns to prove its point.

          Thus, the status quo always wins.

          Thus, collapse is the only method left to crack the status quo.

          Then everything is up for grabs.

          If this collapse is created by violence, nothing essential will change. You will replace a violent entity with merely another violent entity.

          If the collapse is non-violent (ie: economic) there is a chance that a far better system – one of massive decentralization and collapse of institutional systems – may arise.

          But for that to happen, People need to be prepared. You cannot replace a “something” with a “nothing” in this matter.

          • If the collapse is non-violent (ie: economic) there is a chance that a far better system – one of massive decentralization and collapse of institutional systems – may arise.

            An economic collapse today of the scale in 29 would cause a HUGE revolution, but I’m not sure it wouldn’t be one of absolute chaos … If we returned to the state of nature tomorrow, BF, the same shit would happen all over again; that’s the only given.

            • Charlie,

              We are in a state of nature there is nothing to return to.

              An economic collapse would create a tremendous amount of disorder throughout society and cannot be avoided – this is no revelation for anyone.

              Whether the “same stuff” happened again – that’s up to us.

              I’d suggest we should learn from the past, and illegitimatize government.

              But some people are hard learners.

              Who knows?

              The think I do know, however, is that the optimum is freedom, not slavery even if the slave master is government.

  20. gmanfortruth says:
  21. FINE! Nobody wants to talk?

  22. from John Lott,

    Senate Gives Ryan Budget 40 Votes. Obama’s Budget Gets Zero Votes.
    The media might be focusing on Ryan’s budget getting only 40 votes in the Senate. But Obama’s budget got zero. Hours after the Hill newspaper has this headline “Senate votes unanimously against Obama’s $3.7 trillion budget,” the New York Times has this: “Senate Rejects House G.O.P. Medicare Plan by 57-40 Vote.” From the Hill newspapers:

    The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.

    Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.

    Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

    Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint.
    McConnell said Obama’s budget “continues the unsustainable status quo.”

    He noted during a floor speech Wednesday that Democrats initially applauded the plan.

    The president’s budget called for ending tax cuts for the wealthy and a three-year domestic spending freeze, saving an estimated $1.1 trillion over ten years. Democratic senators at the time called it “an important step forward”, “a good start” and a “credible blueprint”.

    No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over twelve years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.

    The White House Office of Management and Budget declined to comment on the president’s budget receiving zero votes in the Senate. . . .

    • Obama Dems Don’t Listen to Clinton on Debt

      By Chris Stirewalt

      Published May 26, 2011

      Senate Dems Ignore Bubba’s Debt Warning

      “The Democrats want to cherry-pick issues and make it just about Medicare, whereas the challenge for Republicans is to broaden it to make it about economy, jobs and making government solvent, and Medicare is part of that”

      — Republican strategist David Winston, talking to the Wall Street Journal.

      Former President Bill Clinton provided a stark warning to his fellow Democrats about the consequences of failing to take the lead on issues of debt and deficit.

      “The Democrats are going to have to be willing to give up maybe some short-term political gain by whipping up fears on some of these things if it’s a reasonable Social Security proposal or a reasonable Medicare proposal,” Clinton said at a bipartisan debt forum in Washington. “We have to deal with these things. You cannot have healthcare devour the economy.”

      Clinton also downplayed administration warnings that the current impasse over raising the government’s maxed-out $14.3 trillion credit limit.

      His message, made more explicit in a caught-on-camera exchange with Rep. Paul Ryan recorded by ABC, was that Democrats shouldn’t let their Tuesday victory in a three-way race in a Republican-heavy House district in Western New York go to their heads.

      Democrats have been crowing non-stop about the win and, as Vice President Joe Biden told supporters that night in New Hampshire, bashing Ryan’s budget proposal and his overhaul of Medicare is the primary path to Democratic success in 2012 (along with taking lavish credit for the mission that killed Usama bin Laden).

      Neither had the Big Dog’s message seeped in at the Democratically controlled Senate by Wednesday evening. Senate Democrats forced Republicans into an explicitly political vote on Ryan’s budget plan. The result was a bit of a surprise. Rather than jumping away from the plan, Senate GOP mostly embraced the plan, with only five members voting against it.

      The four most liberal Republicans, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against the measure. And Rand Paul of Kentucky, now fully exploring his role as the skunk at the Senate garden party, also voted against the budget plan, but he said it was too wimpy.

      But even Paul’s budget alternative did better than Obama’s. Paul got six Republicans to join him in his plan, which makes Ryan’s austerity proposal look like the New Deal. The slashing seven are: Paul, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and, most interestingly, Senate Majority leader (and fellow Kentuckian) Mitch McConnell.

      No Democrats, though, cast any votes for any budget proposal – not even President Obama’s proposal for 2012, which garnered zero votes.

      Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has maintained it is not necessary for Democrats to have any budget plan whatsoever, despite it having been more than two years since congressional Democrats put forward any annual spending plan.

      When Paul’s budget can draw more support in a Democratic Senate than Obama’s one begins to see what Clinton was warning about. Remember, even though Obama’s budget got low marks from fiscal conservatives for punting on long-term debt drivers, the president still took heat on the left for being too aggressive on debt reduction.

      While Obama might not like the idea of Clinton looking to reach a separate peace with Ryan and the Republicans, potentially forging a deal that would diminish the current president, it’s also clear that the status quo of bashing Republican plans for fiscal reform while crying only for tax increases is not a sustainable plan.

      Republicans, now aware of the costs of their support, are going to hold the rope on fiscal reform. The Obama Democrats, unwilling to embrace Clintonian triangulation on the subject, seem to be paralyzed by their own desire to retain fodder for negative campaign ads.

      House Republicans today will lay out a broad proposal for tax and spending overhauls that Team Boehner says will kick-start the sputtering economy.

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/obama-dems-dont-listen-clinton-debt/#ixzz1NTBE6dCA

  23. Al Roker say global warming caused the tornado outbreak!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/media-accurately-reporting-links-between-climate-change-and-tornadoes/

    Media accurately reporting links between climate change and tornadoes
    Posted on May 23, 2011 by Ryan Maue

    Charlie Riedel/AP Photo Post by Ryan Maue

    We all pray for the survivors and victims of the tornado tragedy in Joplin.

    Headline story from USA-Today

    The mainstream print media has done an excellent job reporting on the disaster. When asking questions about relationships between climate change and tornadoes, it is very encouraging to see who is on the journalists’ Rolodex in this instance: forecasters and scientists who are actually responsible for severe weather warnings and are true tornado experts — rather than the usual attention-seeking political climate scientists and their sycophant bloggers. I’ll highlight some of the quotes by prominent experts in three articles from ABC, CBS, and Reuters. Suggestions for comments: find alternative viewpoints, clip a sentence or two, and provide the “expert” along with the URL link. The hand waving may require a wind warning…

    Brave souls should get a vomit bag ready when listening to simpleton Al Roker pontificate on the cause of these tornadoes: climate change which is bringing typically rural tornadoes into urban areas…yep.

    WUWT May 9, 2011: NOAA CSI: no attribution of climate change to tornado outbreak

    Lead forecaster Greg Carbin of the National Weather Service’s National Severe Storm Laboratory was asked why the 2011tornado season has been so extraordinarily devastating. — Question (1): Have there been more tornadoes in 2011 than previous years? From ABC News online: Joplin, Missouri Tornado: What’s Causing the Rise in Deadly Storms?

    Carbin’s answer: “There is no indication of an upward trend in either intensity or numbers. We’ve had a lot more reports of tornadoes, but most of those tornadoes are actually the weak tornadoes, the F-0. When you take out the F-0 tornadoes from the long-term record, there is very little increase in the total number of tornadoes, and we don’t see any increase in the number of violent tornadoes. It’s just that these things are coming, and they’re very rare and extreme, and they happen to be hitting populated areas. So right now, no indication of an upward trend in the strong to violent tornadoes that we’re seeing.”

    Next question (2): Are strong tornadoes a result of global warming?

    Carbin’s answer: “With respect to a connection to climate change … it’s an unanswered question, essentially. We know that there are ingredients that thunderstorms need that could increase in a warmer world, but we also know there are ingredients that may decrease, so the connections if any are very tenuous and the scientific discoveries on this have yet to be made.”

    CBS News online: Deadliest tornado season in 50 years – but why?

    Quoting the article:

    At the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma last week, lead forecaster Corey Mead was already tracking the early stages of a storm system that would devastate Joplin.

    We don’t fully understand how tornadoes form,” Mead says. But, as CBS News senior business correspondent Anthony Mason reports, this 17-year veteran of the National Weather Service says forecasting has improved significantly.

    “We can actually anticipate the potential for those types of storms several days out,” Mead says. “But the exact locations and timing of more significant tornado threats – sometimes we don’t know up until just a few hours leading up to the events.”

    …City College of New York’s professor Stan Gedzelman … He says superstorms are formed by an instability in the air that usually occurs in the Spring. “Yesterday’s instability – and the instability of the storms that hit Tuscaloosa is just about as large as I have ever seen,” he says.

    Gedzelman sees nothing strange in the weather pattern this year. But year-to-date, tornadoes have killed more than 500 people. That’s seven times the average, making this the deadliest tornado season in more than half a century.

    “The warning system was absolutely as good as it could be,” Gedzelman says. In fact, Joplin residents were given a 24-minute warning. Studies have shown that warning of just 6 to 15 minutes reduce the expected fatalities by more than 40 percent.

    “It’s really remarkable the accuracy of the forecasts,” Gedzelman says. “It’s just that the level of destruction is beyond belief.”

    It’s rare for tornadoes of this force to form at all. It’s rarer still for them to find population centers like Tuscaloosa and now Joplin.

    Next up in the mainstream media: Reuters — La Nina weather pattern may be factor in more tornadoes

    “La Nina typically has a more active southern jet stream. This spring that has played a role in the severe weather,” said Mark Paquette, meteorologist for AccuWeather.com.

    Another factor may be warmer temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, which helped contribute to a warm and muggy air mass in the south, Paquette said.

    But meteorologists said it was impossible to determine if climate change is responsible for the surge in natural disasters.

    It could be climate change might cause more tornadoes, or less tornadoes, or there might be no change,” Wurman said.

    The tornadoes that hit the south in April were exceptional in their number, according to weather experts. What was unusual about Sunday’s Missouri tornado was that it made a direct hit on a small city.

    “It’s bad luck,” said Paquette. “Sometimes you have tornadoes that hit in the cornfields of Kansas or Nebraska or Iowa and the only person affected is that farmer and it doesn’t even hit his house. But here we have a tornado that hit a hospital.”

    The expanding population of the United States, with accompanying suburban sprawl, has created more areas for tornadoes to cause serious damage.

    • Well dang it…global warming huh?

      And here I blamed it on the chaos theory…..you know, a butterfly flapped its wings in Bejing…….

      Ah well, shows how smart I ain’t I guess. 🙂

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Waaaiiiittt a minute!

      you mean it WASN’T Bush’s fault?

      Go figure.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Climate Change” is a null descriptor.

      Climate has always changed, and it will continue to always change REGARDLESS OF HUMAN INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM.

      In the article above, “Climate Change” is a code-word for “changes in the climate directly attributable to inputs into the system by human action”

      As such, it is a null descriptor. You cannot measure changes in the climate directly attributable to inputs into the system by human action.

  24. Whatever Happened to Liberal PATRIOT Act Opposition?

    “He’s fighting for an amendment to protect the right – not of average citizens, but of terrorists – to cover up their gun. It he thinks that it’s going to be a badge of courage on his side to have held this up for a few hours, he’s made a mistake.”

    — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor denouncing Sen. Rand Paul’s efforts to amend the PATRIOT Act.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday went beyond questioning Sen. Rand Paul’s patriotism, accusing the Kentucky freshman of trying to aid terrorists.

    Paul wants an amendment to the extension of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 that makes clear the gun-purchase records already shielded from prying federal eyes must remain secret.

    Reid, some of whose members would be forced into politically damaging votes on an issue important to Second Amendment activists, pulled off an end run around Paul by tacking the entire PATRIOT Act onto an un-amendable House small-business bill.

    Paul, rising to his own defense, made the point that the bill, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, has never been given proper scrutiny and that Congress hasn’t addressed potential unintended consequences and was derelict in its duty.

    It was a stunning reversal from the days when Republican congressional leaders had to hold the line on PATRIOT against fiery denunciations from liberal lawmakers who warned that the law gave the Bush administration the power to snoop on the library records of opponents of the Iraq war and the power to listen in to the conversations of ordinary Americans.

    With Obama in power, Democrats have lost their appetite for warnings about Big Brother and instead are accusing libertarian-minded Republicans of coddling terrorists.

    To make his point, Paul may hold up passage of the four-year extension long enough for the legislation to technically lapse. The political consequence for Democrats of the high-profile fight may be further disheartening their supporters who backed Obama in 2008 and the Senate class of 2006 because of their opposition to what Democrats then said were Bush’s civil-liberties violations.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/obama-dems-dont-listen-clinton-debt/#ixzz1NTDeOGVB

    • It will suddenly return when those liberals are no longer in the driver’s seat?

      I read one article in which a comment by Reid was of interest. I don’t have it handy but Reid said of Paul’s attempts to attach amendments would change when he (Paul) better learned how things were accomplished in the Senate.

      I took that clearly to mean “when Paul learns to play the game the way we say the game is to be played.”

  25. Charlie

    As regards criminal activity; taking bribes

    What is a bribe?
    What if I take you to a golf game?
    What if I take you to dinner?

    , not doing one’s job when the consequence of not doing the job is potential disaster (whether medical, environmental, etc.)

    How do you measure not doing their job?

    Maybe they are doing their job, and you just don’t like how they are doing it.

    Maybe you just don’t like the decisions they are making.

    … simple enough.

    Subjective enough that no matter what they do, they can justify it.

    A government official lets the oil company write it’s own safety reports,

    Somebody has to write it, right?
    Who is better – the guy who lives and breathes it, or some bozo pulled off the street because a bunch of hands waved in the air?

    Oh – but no thought from you that there needs no regulation – that oil companies do not -naturally- like their $5 billion rigs blowing up and don’t need a law that says so.

    If a union official bribes a politician or misuses union funds, same deal. Arrivaderci …

    So bribery to you only deals with money – you don’t see bribery where one pays in golf games or dinner.

    But you see, that is why you are not an economist.

    You do not see money as simply another economic good.

    When you do, you see that it is all bribes, all the time – the whole system works on such a thing as it is necessary for mercantilism to operate.

    Where corporations demand government to create the market place government demands compensation for its presence.

    All you want is for this feature to be covered in a blanket.

    BF, if that isn’t good enough for you, nothing will

    I will take “nothing at all ” from government any day, all the time. It is always the best choice for government to do nothing.

  26. Off topic…..USA no longer the worlds leader is possession of nuclear weapons. We are number 2…. to Russia.

  27. Senator McConnel and Senator Reid on TV right now demanding that the PAtriot Act…in its entirety…needs to be extended….immediately. Hmmmm…..perhaps I am missing something here….liberals wanting the PAtriot Act that they lambasted Bush over?

    • Dems learned how willing Americans are to continue giving up their rights by letting these sob’s (both sides) pass horrific legislation like the Patriot Act.

      It makes you wonder if we deserve to have any rights at all?

  28. Plainly,

    While what BF supports is an enticing ideal – primarily because it means humans have learned to control their worst behavior aspects and can cooperate respectfully

    Absolutely ass-backwards.

    Humans have always known that cooperation is a successful method of societal organization.

    Darn, you guys need to get up to speed on the profit of violence, and its roots and beginnings.

    Briefly, prior to the agricultural revolution, property was only what could be transported – and essentially no man had any want of another man’s property because he had no need or ability to carry more than his own.

    Agricultural revolution naturally created private property. I tend my fields for my food. You tend your field for your food.

    But with land property, a man could do nothing to tend the fields but still get the food – called “theft”.

    We “learned” that theft is profitable.

    We are good learners.

    We learned that organized theft is more profitable then disorganized theft.

    We learned that legitimizing the organized theft is the most profitable of all stealing.

    What we also learned that the better an individual is at defending himself, the less profitable the theft – regardless of the legitimacy or the gang.

    Every improvement at the individual’s level of self defense has always expanded human freedom.

    The long bow expanded the freedom of the peasants over the feudal lords.

    The rifle expanded the freedom of the peasants over the King.

    Free market system and capitalism expanded the freedom of the serfs over their masters.

    Free communication -the internet- expands freedom of men expression and ideas and destroys the gatekeepers.

    • lolol……ok BF. I wondered when you’d take my comments to task.

      I don’t care which way you put it…..either that we’ve learned how to be evil, or learned to control those evil desires to live together without governments we arrive at the same point:

      There will be no society without government of some kind/flavor. Humans can’t exercise (or if it makes you feel better – lost) the abilities of human behavior needed to do so.

      You can argue until you’re blue in the face otherwise – it won’t change the basic facts of how some humans will behave against their fellow humans. End of story.

      • Plainly,

        I don’t care which way you put it…..either that we’ve learned how to be evil, or learned to control those evil desires to live together without governments we arrive at the same point:

        How we arrived at this point is vital to understand so that we know the root cause – otherwise, you end up trying to fix something that has no effect, or worse – makes it worse.

        There will be no society without government of some kind/flavor.

        There have been, there are, and there always will be such societies that have no “government”.

        The matter: will such society become pervasive, or will most of society writhe in the cesspool of violence and evil.

        Humans can’t exercise (or if it makes you feel better – lost) the abilities of human behavior needed to do so.

        We sure can. We do such 99.999% of the time – what merely is necessary is to stop legitimizing evil.

        We stopped legitimizing individual violence.
        All we need to do is stop legitimizing organized violence

        You can argue until you’re blue in the face otherwise – it won’t change the basic facts of how some humans will behave against their fellow humans. End of story.

        How people behave towards other people is not my concern nor worry.

        There will always be evil people; you see that in the news now, and no matter how much evil you do on the non-violent people, evil people still exist.

        So if doing more evil does not stop evil, how about a different approach – such as, stop legitimizing evil.

        As Basiat, Rousseau, Thoreau, et al have long said, all it takes to stop evil is …. to stop doing evil. Simply stop.

        • BF,

          I have said more than once….I believe anyway….that I like the ideas you put forth and would very much enjoy my life in that type of society. I wish no harm/violence/aggression to anyone and I wish to keep what I have earned or made without harm to another.

          I just do not believe there is the capability within humans to make it so. What you classify as legitimizing evil others will say isn’t necessarily evil.

          Basiat, Rousseau, and Thoreau have said it – enough people haven’t listened and agreed it’ll work. If they had we’d have done away with governments already, yes?

          Keep “teaching” and maybe someday societies will get there – though not in our lifetimes.

  29. Terry,

    I agree that punishment of elected officials who commit abuse with their positions should be swift and severe.

    The ancient Greeks used to vote on the performance of their government officials and bureaucrats, and if they felt the job was mismanaged, had the officials executed.

    • Mathius says:

      Well that would qualify as severe..

      What was the required approval rating?

      • Mathius,

        As far as I know, simple majority.

        It was rarely enforced – for specifically obvious reasons, it was rarely necessary.

    • Terry Evans says:

      I could live with that…and as you alluded to below, it would rarely have to be envoked…but when it was, it would sure send a message.

      • Terry,

        Ah! But there is a reason this changed.

        In a City State, the bureaucrat lived next door. Oversight was easy – you looked in his backyard, went over for a BBQ and a beer, and wondered how he could afford that horse and chariot “Ferrari”.

        In a Nation State, the bureaucrat lives 1,000 miles away. Oversight is impossible – you can’t look in his backyard, you never go over for a BBQ and a beer, and he tells you he worked “hard” for his Ferrari.

  30. Plainly,

    You plainly demonstrate why it is so hard for people to free themselves.

    Just listen to yourself.
    First, you say this:

    I wish no harm/violence/aggression to anyone and I wish to keep what I have earned or made without harm to another.

    Then, you say this:

    I just do not believe there is the capability within humans

    You, as a human, says “Humans can”, then next sentence say “Humans can’t”

    You are not really different from Charlie in your root thinking – the only difference is your solutions.

    You hold yourself one way, but attribute utterly bizarre beliefs to others

    Basiat, Rousseau, and Thoreau have said it – enough people haven’t listened and agreed it’ll work. If they had we’d have done away with governments already, yes?

    No.

    Some people profit from the violence and theft – and the game is run in a way that almost anyone has a chance at this profit.

    Losing the game, you suffer a relatively small loss.
    Winning the game, you win extravagantly.

    The game is maintained because a small number of people profit, while the loss is spread broadly over a large number of people – and there is an active competition of who the small number of “winners” will be.

    Few want to stop the game – I mean, free money is very attractive.

    Only principled people want to stop the game – because they understand that Rights takes precedent over immoral profit.

    As Gandhi stated: “You love evil too much to let it alone”.

    Keep “teaching” and maybe someday societies will get there – though not in our lifetimes.

    It can happen today, if you choose it.

    • You are not really different from Charlie in your root thinking – the only difference is your solutions.

      Plainly, we’re right …

      Free men cannot co-exist … or THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

      I think I just gave myself a headache …

      • Charlie,

        You’re stirring the pot giving him an opening like that………..lol

      • Charlie,

        Free men coexist just fine – Because we are doing it right now

      • Charlie, free men can, and have, co-existed. In fact, many are freely co-existing right now. There is no law currently on the books that is allowing me to co-exist with others better than if there were no such law. Evil men will be evil with and without laws. Good men will be good, with and without laws. Government prevents nothing. The problem is that living free is hard. Some seek an easier path. Others seek power, and can easily convince those who seek ease that their dreams will come true if only they will grant them power. That is why governments exist.

  31. Then, you say this:

    I just do not believe there is the capability within humans

    You, as a human, says “Humans can”, then next sentence say “Humans can’t”

    Well heaven forbid I wasn’t real clear. Shame on me.

    The capability is there in each of us – yes. That enough of us will exercise the capability to operate under your thinking – nope.

    Why? Because so many do want to – as you point out – from the “violence and theft.”

    Is that better?

    No matter, whatever the majority wants to profit from doesn’t mean that I – as an individual – can’t refuse to do so and try to live my life to a moral standard that is in opposition to the majority. Don’t you try to do that yourself?

    It can happen today, if you choose it.

    Wrong. It can happen in society if enough people choose it.

    • Oops…..imperfect human left out word.

      “Why? Because so many do want to – as you point out – from the “violence and theft.”

      should read:

      Why? Because so many do want to – as you point out –profit from the “violence and theft.”

    • Wrong. It can happen in society if enough people choose it.

      thinking about this I realize I’d better be more specific as to what I mean. certainly individuals can choose to live differently in a society, but what I specifically mean is that a society will not live that way (without government) until enough people to choose it.

      Hopefully that heads off what I suspect may have been your return comment?

  32. Plainly,

    The capability is there in each of us – yes. That enough of us will exercise the capability to operate under your thinking – nope.

    You have not changed your position at all.

    You attribute on other people what you do not attribute on yourself.

    There is a vast majority who think “my way”. They act that way 99% of the time.

    Why? Because so many do want to – as you point out – from the “violence and theft.”

    It is a compelling “gamble”. A small loss for a large win.

    The goal: make the game immoral to participate.

    Don’t you try to do that yourself?

    I do not try.
    I do.

    It can happen today, if you choose it.

    Wrong. It can happen in society if enough people choose it.

    Nope.
    All it takes is you.

    Be the change you wish for the world.
    -Gandhi

    • Well darn – good for you.

      We’ll – at this point – have to agree to each stand where we stand.

      You – in your own thinking – can believe me to be whatever you wish, as I can where you are concerned.

      We could spend all day twisting the conversation on individual words, or a single word – to argue our meanings.

      It doesn’t change one fact – your no-government society will not be at this time in human civilization. Nor will it in the foreseeable future. In other words – there will be government. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to participate in it as much as you can avoid doing so. You can speak against it. You can quote Ghandi or anyone else you want till the cows come home. In the end:

      Government will exist in society.

      • Plainly,

        There is nothing -absolutely nothing- necessary about government in society.

        • I didn’t say there was anything necessary about government in society BF.

          I said:

          there will be government. I also said Government will exist in society.

          So your reply is/was useless.

          • Plainly,

            When a man says “x will exist”, means the necessity of it, that is, existence has to be

            I do not agree, for there is no necessity of it. Thus your claim “government will…(whatever)” is not true.

            It MAY exist in society for a very long time to come
            or
            It MAY NOT

            The choice is YOURS to make, (and mine too).

            • BF, do you practice being an ass the way you are at times (IMHO only of course)?

              You are not incapable of understanding my meaning from the words I use. I do believe this.

              I don’t believe I need to be any clearer, you just need to be less of an ass about it.

            • Plainly,

              I absolutely understand your words.

              As you require the necessity of the thing, you dismiss any dialogue about its unnecessary existence because you -a priori- premised yourself on its necessary existence.

              A self-contained loop.

              So, when I state specifically how it came to be, why is sustained and how to remove it, you dismiss all of it out of hand as “impossible” because you’ve premised yourself on its necessity.

              • Okay BF, believe as you desire to. In your world only your logic is rational and reasonable – I get that. You (and those who think as you do) are the only one who “know” the right way to do things. The rest of us are just slaves supporting evil, violence, and theft. Damn us all to hell (oh wait….probably not a concept you subscribe to).

                I’m sure I fall into the intellectually inferior group that doesn’t even make worthy arguments (which is below Mathius’ category probably).

                Now pat yourself on the back – you’ve given me a headache.

              • Tes, I know what you’ll say.

                I gave myself the headache.

              • Plainly,

                Headaches are good. Listen to it.

                Contradictions are not good. Do not listen to them.

      • Precisely Plainly,
        Society does not need government, but it will exist. It will not exist because of those who want to rule. Such tyrants could be done away with in and not allowed to return.

        Humanity will have government because so many will DEMAND to be governed. It is not the seekers of power and control that prevent freedom, it is the seekers of being controlled, both those who want to be controlled themselves so that they need not think or be adults, and those who want things fixed and just want “someone else” to do it. They are the real source of government. It is their demands that create the power void that is immediately filled by those who seek to control others and have power.

        • Yes Jon, I believe you are getting at the heart of it more so than I am. The large majority of people do demand to be governed and so we have those power seekers giving them what they demand.

          So, short of being able to convince enough people that we don’t need to be governed by anyone other than ourselves, wherein we could have BF’s society replicated all over this nation, we will need to structure government to keep it out of our lives as much as possible.

          Unlike BF seems to, I can desire one thing (no government) while advocating for what the realistic occurrence will be (government will exist so lets control it to the max we can). At least what I advocate for what will be an improvement (in my opinion BF) over the garbage in the can now.

          • Plainly,

            (government will exist so lets control it to the max we can).

            But you cannot control it.
            If you learn nothing but this, it would be enough.

            You cannot enforce yourself ON government by using government as your enforcer.

            Even you can see the inherent contradiction.

            Government exists by legitimacy and is mitigated by threats to that legitimacy.

            But be under no illusion, this is not control of the “volume” of government – it is an on/off switch.

  33. Ludwig von Mises – Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War


    In order to grasp the meaning of this program we need to imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme.

    Either all the states in it are liberal, or enough are so that when united they are able to repulse an attack of militarist aggressors.

    In this liberal world, or liberal part of the world, there is private property in the means of production.

    The working of the market is not hampered by government interference.

    There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want.

    Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities.

    Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens.

    Governments and their servants restrict their activities to the protection of life, health, and property against fraudulent or violent aggression.

    They do not discriminate against foreigners.

    The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom.

    Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes.

    Education is not subject to government interference.

    Governments are like night-watchmen whom the citizens have entrusted with the task of handling the police power.

    The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage.

    Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens what language they must use in their daily speech or in what language they must bring up and educate their children.

    Administrative organs and tribunals are bound to use each man’s language in dealing with him, provided this language is spoken in the district by a reasonable number of residents.

    • I’m assuming – God help me for saying that – your asserting these are good things and the “right” kind of thinking?

      • Plainly,

        No – I am not judging “good”. What you do with your freedom is up to you as long as you do not impose upon my freedom.

        Whether you do good or bad with it – (shrug) it’s your consequences, not mine…good or bad.

        Mises himself was troubled by government. He, too, felt it was a necessary component of society that was needed for specific roles (police). Yet, he was contradicted in the reality of government and how it operated.

        Hayek moved one step away from government, but again held it as necessary.

        Rothbard moved all the way from government – he analyzed it to its core, and found no government can be contained into a specific role in society – it will eventually pervert everything.

        But all of them held the same philosophy – free men are best at choosing for themselves.

        • When my headache lessens I may have more to say here…..

        • But all of them held the same philosophy – free men are best at choosing for themselves.

          In an ideal world … that doesn’t exist … so the consequence is always government (whatever form) … the problem is making the best of the situtaion (however inherently bad it is) … but not because we’re morons and can’t think like you (you lunatic!!!!) … because your world (no gov’t) cannot exist (your universe may insist it will but the REAL WORLD disagrees).

          Okay, now I need to finish blowing my brains out …

          • Charlie,

            That world exists around you all day. You just chose to ignore it and pretend its not there.

            Yes, people do make the best they can of their situation, no revelation here.

            We make choices, and better choices tend to have better outcomes.

            We can also make poorer choices and continue to make those same choices too.

            I’d suggest we choose better – but you think differently.

  34. Todd,

    The powerful will continue the “redistribution of wealth” up the economic ladder until the middle-class can’t even afford decent housing. You’ll be lucky to have a minimum wage job mowing their lawn.

    How does your economic theory work here?

    Somewhere you seem to believe wealth is accumulated by doing nothing and that doing something valuable earns no wealth

    • Black Flag,
      It’s not an “economic theory”. It’s the ECONOMIC REALITY we currently are dealing with.

      • Todd,

        I applaud your perception. That is the first step.

        If what you see is undesirable, then it is natural to change it. This is human nature.

        But if you do not understand why it is the way it is, you cannot change it properly – you are near-infinitely more likely to make it worse.

        This understanding is called “theory”.

        You offered a comment that presents your hypothesis that wealthy do nothing but still accumulate wealth, and “middle class” people do work and cannot accumulate wealth.

        If you are going to profess policy of change based on your hypothesis, you need to come up with some coherent economic theory to support it.

        I am willing to bet “all in” you can’t.

        • But if you do not understand why it is the way it is, you cannot change it properly – you are near-infinitely more likely to make it worse.

          Wanna make it worse? Remove Government completely … mass chaos and a further divide between the haves and have nots.

          • Do you have any evidence to support this?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, why would abolishing the Federal govt lead to your assessment?

          • Charlie,

            Yep, I guess unless there was a government law regulating walking down a street, no one would get anywhere!

            And that law about how to brush your teeth – utter chaos without it!

            And don’t forget about the law regarding how to use a fork and spoon – don’t use the wrong one at the wrong time or its jail time!

  35. Anita … my love … you just gave me severe heart and brain trauma … Madam President Palin?

    Thank God I can’t load a shotgun and type at the same time …

    • psssssst Charlie, over here………..

      It’s okay. No worries cause I’m willing to take bets she won’t get there.

      Here, have a cannoli.

    • Charlie, Charlie Charlie,

      Please don’t shoot yourself..it’ll be ok.. The first few times it will be hard to say “Madam President” but it will grow on you.

      🙂

  36. BF and Plainly,
    The fact that there is a demand for government is in no way an indicator of its necessity. There is demand for cable television, but it is not a necessity for life or even for functioning in our society. In fact, it is, at least for some, more a hindrance than a help. Yet, it is surprising how many people I know who are having budget problems and will give up eating healthier foods and their budgets for excersize and even education before giving up on their cable tv service.

    So, since it is not within the power of we few to convince and teach people how and why they do not need government, much less make them think and function and act sufficiently to exist without it, we need an alternative plan. In addition to this, we have all agreed that pulling the government out of society too quickly would, indeed, be chaotic and full of suffering because of the level of dependency. Many in need depend on government because they have not learned any other way. Many who are not in need depend on government to take care of the needy because they too have learned no other way. Transference of responsibility, be it for oneself or for the ills and suffering one sees in life, is at a severe level in our society.

    Government requires legitimacy to exist. As BF says, legitimacy is an on/off type control. It is not a control rod in a nuclear reactor per se, it is more of an emergency shutdown. The reason myself and other constitutional proponents have hope in a piece of paper is that it provides a unified standard for when you throw the emergency shutdown switch. In other words, you say specifically what is allowed and what is not, and then when things go out of bounds, you shut the whole thing down. The founders of this country, if they were legitimately seeking freedom for all, were thinking along this line. Jefferson expected a revolution every other generation because it was known that government would always seek to grow too large and too tyrannous.

    Is it possible to utilize such a control measure successfully? I do not know. It did not work this last time around. People got lazy and paid too little attention. Power seekers used this to grow well past the boundaries set for them and have all but ignored most of the intent of the constitution. Still, it has managed to keep certain things in place for a long, long time. So perhaps a better, tighter one could be written for the next government. It may fail, but it might last longer or, even better, be shut down sooner next time it grows too much.

    That would, of course, require this current government to collaps or be shut down. I am not against that at all, but I understand the suffering involved in that as well, so if another plan is available, or perceived to be available, I certainly can see the allure of it.

    I do not think anything other than the total collapse and/or revolt against this government would be effective, but for the sake of argument, let us pretend that a large number of non-aristocracy persons were elected to Washington. An alternate party perhaps. Like Plainly, I can advocate for that which is not ideal. I do not want any government support for anyone. Such a thing is theft. Stealing someone else’s lunch is wrong. It does not matter if they are already fat, can easily go get more lunch, and have a lunch larger than they can eat already. It does not matter that I have no lunch at all. I still would be in the wrong to steal the fat guy’s gluttonous lunch.

    Having someone else decide what is enough and what is too much, what is need and what is excess, does nothing to justify theft. All it does is involve a third party. Its sort of like hiring someone to steal the fat guy’s lunch for you. Doesn’t make it right.

    Currently, however, there is a huge theif in our midst stealing all sorts of stuff, wasting half of it, keeping some for itslelf, and giving some to those it deems needy. I could advocate significantly less stealing, stricter rules on who is needy, and a complete removal of waste. To take away a long standing system of theft instantly involves weilding too much power to be assigned to anyone, and would be more of the same ends justifying the means crap. Keeping it in place, even a little might be ends justifying the means as well, but regardless there is no ideal solution just as there is no such thing as utopia. So should the fat guy be grateful that I steal less of his lunch now? Sure, but he should not be satisfied with that. The key to fixing a leak is not stopping till it is fixed. When you have a huge hole in your boat, you try to patch it before you sink. That sometimes means that you have to patch part of it and keep bailing. To not patch it at all because you cannot instantly patch the whole thing is ludicrous. The problem with humanity and gradual fixes is that if things start to get better, because the fat guy gets to keep 3/4 of his lunch instead of 1/2, everyone loses interest in fixing the problem because it is a tolerable problem.

    This is why I tend to think that a collapse would be best. It is the only thing that might work realistically, a full reboot. Even after a reboot, however, there will be enough demand for government that one will have to be created. The key is to lock it down so that it risk illegitimacy if it grows too much or too fast. That last constitution did not go nearly far enough. The next one needs to be better.

    • So, since it is not within the power of we few to convince and teach people how and why they do not need government, much less make them think and function and act sufficiently to exist without it, we need an alternative plan.

      It is within the power to try to though. Yes, convincing them in sufficient numbers to have a reasonable chance to bring it to fruition – there’s where the problem arises.

      Knowing the chances are slim to none (as it stands now) I have, and will continue to, advocate for the alternate of having that much smaller, very restricted, restrained and more reasonable government intruding into our individual and societal life.

      I agree with all you have said. I see the collapse as being the only effective opportunity of forming the next government, hopefully having learned well the lessons that brought us to that point so that they aren’t repeated.

  37. Off Topic-but worth reading-“nonacademic way” really trying to figure what the heck this boy means by these words.

    An accidental semester at Hebrew University
    By BEN HARTMAN
    05/26/2011 22:23

    Students evacuated from Cairo during the January 25 revolution reflect on their roller-coaster time in Israel.
    Talkbacks (1)

    The irony of being evacuated from Cairo to Jerusalem because of safety concerns, only to be faced shortly thereafter with a bus bombing in central Jerusalem, is not lost on Penelope Shepherd.

    “I remember when I heard about the bus bombing, I immediately worried about my parents… They went through a lot when I was in Cairo between not having a way to contact me during some of the most dangerous days of protesting and calling me in the middle of the night only to find out that I could hear looters and gunshots in the distance. The last thing that they needed was to hear that there was a bus bombing.

    RELATED:
    Hebrew U takes in 12 US students fleeing Cairo upheaval
    New Hebrew U students who fled Cairo see ‘other side’

    “At this point, though, I think they might be getting used to me living in dangerous places, and I did see the irony (it was pretty great).”

    Shepherd, a 21-year-old undergraduate at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania and a New York native, was enrolled in a study abroad program at the American University of Cairo when she and 11 other students were evacuated during the rioting in early February and given refuge at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

    A little over a month later, a bus bombing rocked their newfound home, killing a 59-yearold British woman and wounding more than 30 others.

    Shepherd said that after the bombing she cast away her reluctance to take Jerusalem’s public transportation. “I certainly had no qualms with riding the bus after I heard about the bombing. If Israelis can face the danger and not allow terrorism to interfere with their lives, then I can too.”

    At the Hebrew University in February, Shepherd recalled how one night a mob in Cairo had accused her and her friends of being Israeli spies, and how on other occasions they listened to the sounds of looting nearby. In addition, she said she was taken aback by what she said were the racist attitudes she encountered from Israelis in her initial days in the country.

    Their study abroad program came to a close on Thursday.

    Shepherd took the time to describe how the experience of becoming an accidental study abroad student in Jerusalem has been memorable, with its share of ups and downs.

    “My semester in Jerusalem has been a roller-coaster ride: one minute I hate it here the next I love it. There’s always something new to learn from the people here, but I became very weary of political debate, especially regarding Israel, because sometimes it seemed like the only thing people wanted to ask you about as an outsider,” she said.

    “What I missed most about Egypt was that everyday was an adventure because it is so different from what I’m used to, while here often times it felt like I was in Europe, which is not what I was aiming for in my study abroad experience.”

    She said that as an outside, non-Jewish student in a study abroad program in Jerusalem she didn’t run into any hostility from her fellow students, though she felt that there was a climate that left out people like her.

    “The worst thing was probably the exclusionary atmosphere that I sometimes ran into especially in Jerusalem since I am not Jewish. My friend and I call it the three questions – “What’s your name? Where are you from? Are you Jewish?” And sometimes that third question can end the conversation.”

    Still, living in Israel, even for a short time, did have an effect on Shepherd. She said that the moment of silence on Remembrance Day was “very moving. I was on the bus and when all of Jerusalem stopped I just remember thinking that Americans need to learn this kind of respect for everyone in the history of our country that has made a sacrifice to maintain our freedoms. I was especially moved because my brother is serving in Afghanistan and every day I worry that one day the moment of silence might be for him.”

    Also, she said that being in Jerusalem has taught her the virtue of not picking a side when observing an intractable conflict.

    “Living here definitely gave me a different perspective on the conflict and changed the way I feel about it. I have met so many wonderful Israelis who hate Palestinians, and awesome Palestinians that hate Israelis, and I’ve realized that the two will never get along, but that taking a side certainly doesn’t help the two achieve peace. So after three months in Israel I’ve become neutral on the subject, and I think that’s the best place to be.”

    Jeremy Hodge, a 22-year-old Jewish Los Angeles native, said this week that while he had been sad to leave Cairo, “overall I enjoyed it [Jerusalem] a lot, and although I probably would have preferred to stay in Cairo, I do not regret coming here and really enjoyed myself. The other students and I who got evacuated from Cairo all became very close and it wasn’t long before we became known around campus as ‘the Cairo kids.’” Hodge has been interning as a research assistant at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University, where he has helped translate archived articles from the Arab press for a book that institute fellow Hillel Cohen is writing on the 1929 Arab riots.

    Hodge had some complaints about the “very weak” level of Arabic classes that he enrolled in at Hebrew U, following three years of Arabic study in the United States and fulltime language classes at the American University of Cairo’s Arabic Language Institute, and about Hebrew U’s restrictions on students’ travel to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which he said made it difficult to work on his Arabic.

    He also said he missed the camaraderie he had with study abroad students in Egypt.

    “Obviously the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very polarizing issue, and as a result people who choose to study in an Arab country are going to be different in many ways from those who choose to study in Israel. Although I wouldn’t label what the Cairo kids encountered as outright hostility, some elements of the student body here at Hebrew University speculated (sometimes in a negative light) about our motivations for coming to the Middle East and where our sympathies lie, often times in a way that caused us to feel like we had to defend ourselves in ways that became tiring. Being surrounded by more like-minded individuals in Cairo was one thing I think we all missed,” he said.

    Hodge said he never felt threatened in Israel, though like Shepherd he was struck by the randomness of political violence inside Israel, the way it can strike without warning.

    “In my opinion, even during the revolution Cairo was a safer place, as staying inside and avoiding certain neighborhoods was a pretty good guarantee of safety, whereas in Israel, you can literally be blown up in what is considered an upscale safe area without having any way of knowing or preparing for it ahead of time. The extent to which this random violence is applicable to everyone here, even relatively protected study abroad students, is emphasized by the fact that the woman who died in the recent bombing [near] the Jerusalem central bus station was a student at the Rothberg Institute of Hebrew University; several of my friends had class with her. It could have very well as easily been me or someone I was close to who died instead of her.”

    Unlike Shepherd, Hodge was familiar with many aspects of Israeli culture and Judaism, but still he found himself learning how different the Israeli experience is from that of American Jews.

    “Living in Jerusalem really exposed me in a way that only living here can as to how living in a constant state of war affects your train of thought and how one conducts one’s life. I really began to notice that there is in fact a difference between American Jews and Israelis. For example, I remember the day after the central bus station bombing I was in a bank which had Jewish and Arab customers.

    Although I do not consider myself a racist person, in fact on the contrary, one who sympathizes very much with Palestinian calls for self-determination in addition to other issues regarding the Arab world, I remember thinking that it was odd that Arabs could be allowed to openly mix with Jews in such public places 24 hours after a terrorist attack occurred which was rooted entirely in hatred between those two groups.

    “I caught myself immediately, and rationally reminded myself as to why this was obviously the case, that to segregate Arabs and Jews would be racist and morally wrong.

    However, this was probably the first time in my life where my gut reaction and biological need to preserve my own safety so strongly contradicted my morals and ideals in a way that caused me, even for a split second, to go back on what I believe.”

    Hodge said that while being in Jerusalem “didn’t really overturn any pre-conceived ideas I had regarding Israel, it absolutely shed light, in a more emotional, entirely nonacademic way, as to why and how the conflict has gotten where it has.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?ID=222420&R=R1

  38. I don’t understand. Tulsa, Oklahoma…. A blackkid pulls a weapon and walks into a pharmacy to rob it. The pharmacist pulls his own gun shoots the kid…the kid goes down…then the Pharmacist walks over and pumps a couple more rounds in the kids head. The Pharmacist is convicted of murder for “overkill”. Only in Oklahoma….

    Texas Justice…..we would convict the Pharmacist only if his shot group was too wide. Sigh….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      I heard there was quite a stir at your Statehouse the other night. Any comments on the actions of your LT. Governor?

      • Are you referring to the educaction bill?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The anti groping bill that was to make it a Federal offense to touch genitals (aimed at the TSA, passed the House 138-0).

          • Ahhh…that one. Yes, it was poised to pass the Senate when the Feds came in and threatened to shut down all airports and not allow flights into Texas under the guise that the invasive pat downs are a requisite to security. Dewhurst caved to the Feds and it pissed a lot of people off. We wanted him to fight it and he talked some Senators into pulling their support. It is rumored that it will come up again in a special session. It will likely pass because the Feds are unconstitutional in blocking flights into Texas….

            • d13

              Actually I think they were going to prevent flights OUT of Texas not in.

              Which of course raises the chance of good humor.

              • Yes…it was flights out, my bad. They would not guarantee security…….like they can now? LOLOLOL.

              • Terry Evans says:

                I want to say I read somewhere it was flights out of AND into Texas they would block…admittedly my memory is not as good as it used to be though…

              • Terry Evans says:

                Maybe my memory is not as bad as I thought…

                Texas: Anti TSA bill pulled after letter from DOJ
                Submitted by senseido on Wed, 05/25/2011 – 18:27
                in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
                21
                votes Correspondence from U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy warned of the potential consequences — including the cancelation of flights to and from Texas — if the anti-TSA-groping bill passes.

  39. This has also become a very hot topic here. NOTE: to Charlie and BF….on the free market.

    Like a raggedy, overthrown tyrant, in handcuffs rambling on and on about the changing conditions of his former dictatorship, Texas Democrats are finding themselves crying over a Texas revolution that cannot be stopped. A newly formed Republican Hispanic Caucus shows how far Texas has come in making sure we do not follow in the footsteps of California. There in the Golden State, the state party GOP has been declared dead, and large voting blocs have continued their patterns set in stone by generational stereotypes and myths.

    In Texas, grassroots efforts have emerged from within the Republican Party structure. Concerned Texas citizens, Republicans, have risen to place the Republican message in the Latino context, communicating and building the networks that will continue to pay off in the future. Texas Democrats can cry all they want, and claim they and only they can understand the interests of the Latino community, but the truth is, they have been replaced by the real giver of power and freedom, the Texas free market. The Texas free market has shown itself as the real place where one obtains what one seeks, and government should reinforce the free market. You cannot build your entire political machine on the notion that all is divided up in life by race, color and class and expect to survive.

    Texans from all backgrounds exchange services and products, and with a strong Texas economy standing strong during America’s least performing times, Texans of Latino descent have been introduced to a clear, bold conservative, pro free market message. The reception has been amazing with the switch of Rep. Aaron Pena, and the addition of 6 new Republican Hispanic legislators. The Democrats are in serious trouble in Texas because the truth is, Republicans actually do know exactly what the interests of the Latino community are, and they are as follows: they are the same as any other Texan!

  40. The other hot issue is the loser pays lawsuit that passed the house and senate. The trial lawyers put up a huge fight but there is a new bill that requires loser pays. It is aimed at the frivilous lawsuits that were plaguing our business environment. The only people that are pissed are the trial lawyers. They lost.

    • Terry Evans says:

      I like that approach. I have heard others here argue that it would discourage folks who actually have a legitimate case.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Depends entirely on how it is implemented. To get my support, as I’ve argued here before, there must be some sort of mechanism to protect the legitimate lawsuit that winds up losing. Otherwise, a loser pays system will inevitably provide a barrier to people having their day in court.

        You want loser to pay upon a finding of frivolity? Fine. You want the attorney involved to be sanctioned and pay a fine as well? Fine. But I just can’t support a blanket ‘loser pays’ system.

        • Terry Evans says:

          What would you suggest? Some sort of means test applied to lawsuits before they are allowed to proceed? Something needs to be done, and not just in Texas.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            There are already procedures in place at the federal level for one party to more for sanctions against opposing counsel based on frivolity. This procedure isn’t used often enough out of respect for one’s colleagues. Set up some sort of body to review each complaint to make a ruling on frivolity (of course there would need to be clear guidelines as to what constitutes frivolity and some appeals process put in place) prior to proceeding, in which case sanctions are automatically imposed. Not so certain this would work either, but a blanket ‘loser pays’ would stop people from instigating a lawsuit in certain cases out of fear they could lose and be forced to pay.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Loser pays seems much more direct to me. Your suggestion seems (to me) to simply require more lawyers…nothing personal, but IMO we have too many of them now.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But what to do about those who are impeded from having their day in court??

                How about imposing some exemption to the requirement based on financial hardship? This would effectively allow loser pays to go forward, but limiting its application to the poor to enable them to seek redress without having to fear being forced to pay.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                My main concern here is the unintended effect of impeding an individual’s day in court.

                But, at the end of the day, I still don’t believe a plaintiff should be punished for bringing a valid claim simply for losing.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Unintended consequences…yes, they are always the booger nobody thinks to pick, until it is so big their nostril is clogged.
                I like the way Plainly is thinking on this subject…some simple rules that a 3rd party makes decisions with…

            • Since I distrust the idea of lawyers deciding if other lawyers brought a frivolous lawsuit (kinda like the cops investigating themselves and say “all was legal”), with the proper guidelines put in place (unfortunately the lawyers would probably get to work those out) maybe we need something like the citizens review boards that many localities have instituted over the years to “police” the actions of the police?

              No lawyers allowed. No technical game playing or other BS that gets so many pissed off at lawyers. Simple rules, simple guidelines and straightforward review by citizens to make a call on “cases” brought before them.

              Might be a direction worth considering?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not so sure I like the idea — what may appear to be a frivolous suit to a third party, is not necessarily ‘frivolous’ under the law.

              • So you believe that lawyers writing the rules/laws, and then policing themselves in following them and in deciding to penalize one of their own is the best course of action?

                BTW – as an aside. What is the “average” percentage a lawyer gets paid in a contingency case? I’ve heard they demand as much as 45%, plus the extra costs of litigating they charge?

              • Buck, that seems to me to be more of a problem with the law than with the third party. If the law allows for frivolous suits, then it is the law that is foolish. If the law is so comples that a case cannot be tried without a lawyer, or so convoluted and vague as to be able to be easily manipulated by a skilled lawyer, then it, again, points to a problem with the law. No offense to your profession, it is not so much your profession that is at fault. It is more the legislative and judicial branches that are at the root of the problem.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Contingency is typically 1/3, plus out of pocket costs and expenses which are owed regardless of who wins.

                And Jon, I don’t see this as a problem with the ‘law’ or the profession. The law does not allow for frivolous cases – most attorneys I know will and have turned down cases that they believed were frivolous. The law provides for sanctions against attorneys for bringing a frivolous case. But there are always going to be frivolous cases that get brought anyway – either by pro se litigants, unscrupulous attorneys, or the odd case that an attorney arguably believes is a valid claim but is determined to be frivolous. The question is how do we deal with these claims.

                But, for now, its a holiday weekend. I’m out!

              • Buck, I was saying that in the context of third party or citzen review. If, as you say, it appears frivolous, but is not frivolous according to the law, then I am inclined to think it is a problem with the law. I trust citizens more than legislators and their work any day of the week. Even the mindless fools who pay more attention to ET than any other news source are more trustworthy than those known to be corrupt collaborators.I would like to see a citizen review of many things, return the power to the individual, regain it from the politician and the politician’s appointed and approved “experts”.

                At any rate, enjoy your holiday weekend!
                🙂

        • Hi Buck…..it is initially aimed at the frivilous lawsuits. There are some checks and balances but you could well be right aboubt the “unintended” consequences.

          I am on the fence about the blanket loser pays issue…but I do see your reasoning about a legit suit that just gets a bad rap.

          When we had labor unions at one time (until I eliminated checkoff)…I never let a grievance go to arbitration that I knew we coud not win. If we were wrong, I settled the grievance. We had a loser pay agreement. It did stop stupid grievances and controversial ones as well. YOu better be right.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            What types of checks and balances were inserted into the system?? I’d be curious.

      • Mathius says:

        Seems to me that a blanket loser-pays should spark a legal arms-race.

        That is, if you spend more, you improve your odds of winning. Money isn’t a guarantee, but it sure helps. And if you win, you don’t pay. Therefore, the default strategy should be to pay for the best possible law-firm and money is no object.

        This will force the other side to spend more money following the same logic.

        Seems like this is something the lawyers should get behind.

        • Actually, Mathius, they are not behind it at all. The trial lawyers were on this quick. Buck could respond better than I.

        • Terry Evans says:

          But Mathius…what about the poor? They don’t have the means to spend more for those high priced lawyers like Buck!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Doesn’t work that way. Remember: a sizable portion of these types of cases are taken on contingency – we’ve all seen those crappy ads: “We don’t get paid unless you get paid!”

          As it is, the attorney gets nothing if the plaintiff loses. Now throw in the possibility of the plaintiff being responsible for the OTHER ATTORNEY’s legal fees!?

          Though I do agree that this would serve to ratchet up legal fees on the defense side.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Heck, I thought it was only the ambulance chaser types that made those kind of deals…admittedly though, I have had very little need for lawyers in my life, I try to fly low and under the radar, and stay out of trouble.

    • I seem to recall bring this up months ago only to get blasted quite hard from Buck. I support loser pays in the case of frivolous suits. When a plaintiff loses, the losing defending lawyer should request a fivolity hearing. This hearing would proceed immediately without delay using the same judge and jury that just settled the case. Each lawyer would get one stab at convincing the jury the case was or was not frivolous. The jury would then decide. The jury should be in the best position to know if their time was wasted. A ruling of frivolity would mean the losing plaintiff’s lawyer and his client owe the defendent’s lawyer and the defendent an amount equal to what they spent bringing the case to court.

  41. Any thoughts on this D13-and anyone else of course.

    Saudi Bid for Anti-Iranian Alliance Worries U.S.

    Published May 27, 2011

    | The Wall Street Journal

    Saudi Arabia is rallying Muslim nations across the Middle East and Asia to join an informal Arab alliance against Iran, in a move some U.S. officials worry could draw other troubled nations into the sectarian tensions gripping the Arab world.

    Saudi officials have approached Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Central Asian states to lend diplomatic support-and potentially military assistance in some cases-to help stifle a majority Shiite revolt in Sunni-led Bahrain, a conflict that has become a symbol of Arab defiance against Iran.

    Saudi Arabia’s efforts, though against a common enemy, signal increasing friction with the Obama administration. Its invitation to Pakistan in particular could complicate U.S. security goals in South Asia. The push also complicates U.S. efforts to guide popular uprisings in the Middle East toward a peaceful and democratic conclusion.

    The chief of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, asked Pakistan’s powerful generals in March to lend support for the operation in Bahrain, according to Pakistani, U.S. and Saudi officials briefed on the meetings.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/27/saudi-bid-anti-iranian-alliance-worries/#ixzz1NYjGdNjv

    • The region is scared to death of Iran. I have postponed my third article (Iran, the end game) because of the things that are happening over there right now that fit my predictions perfectly. Remember that this region is tribal. That is important to remember. If the US was not there and we were minding our own business, this would be happening anyway. A-JAd wants control. He wants the new caliphate. He wants to control the entire arab region and he is winning the war against the mullahs in IRan. They are disappearing and it is frightening. The mullahs and clerics are steadily losing control and there is a tremendous internal conflict going right now. If Iran is succesful in becoming part of the nuclear family in weaponry….watch the fireworks. His move will be against every little kingdom and fifedom over there….and no one to stop them. You will see unholy alliances with Israel.

      To be continued……………………………………….

      • D13,

        If Iran is succesful in becoming part of the nuclear family in weaponry….watch the fireworks.

        Boy we do not see the same thing here at all.

        Iran most certainly “scares” the region full of US puppet regimes.

        The People suffering under these regimes are agitating – just like the People of Iran agitated under the puppet Shah.

        These regimes see the writing on the wall – they are going out the same way the Shah did.

        The US has significant choices to make. Their puppets are going to fall – sooner or later.

        Either they will go down sooner as Egypt has, or they will fall when the economic collapse of the bankrupted USA occurs (re: USSR vs its satellites).

        But blaming Iran for this is strange.

        It may be an example of a People expressing their own self-determination in the face of a global hegemony.

        • Of course, the puppet regimes are scared…as they should be. I am not blaming Iran for anything other than their aim…their goal. They wish to unify it under a radical Islamic code (which is their business of course)..but, and I know you disagree,Iran is very dangerous.

          However, the people of Iran are just as agitated today….they are even more suppressed than the puppet regimes and dealt with much harsher. No one can ignore this fact.

        • At BF……believe it ornot,Iwould like to see it not explode. I just see it differently and with the funding trails that are popping up…I do not see a peaceful Iran at all. By that, I mean, the ME will become a powder keg mort unstable than it is now and the funding of the Isamic fundamentalist will increase and the iron hand will become a fist. I see this happening if it continues.

          Suffice it to say, I do not support giving Egypt and Tunisia 20 billion. I also do not see global hegemony by the US right now either. However, the big kids, US and China are going to duke it out economically pretty soon. The US will probably lose because it will be an uneven playing field. Russia, right now, is an also ran.

          I just see really bad things happening in the ME if and when Iran gains nukes as weapons, which you do not feel they are up to and I do. Iran has a huge stake in this and a whole lot to gain, IMO.

          On a lighter side, how is your injury coming? Are we walking straight without pain yet?

      • Terry Evans says:

        They should be scared of Iran…whackjob running that isylum…

  42. @ Gman….. I am proud to say that we have a very strong grass roots movement going on here and I am part of it. We have gone to most of the major local races and are getting the free market and fiscal conservative word out. The Hispanics are solidly behind this and are on our side to rid the State of the only two sanctuary cities ( Austin and Dallas ). The Hispanics that have come here legally and established their business accordingly are tired of being profiled with the illegal immigrant that is costing this state billions.

    The next thing in our sights is the use of single family residences being turned to havens for illegal activity and the false use of addresses for school and entitlement enrollment.

    • a message from God or his fallen angel?

      May 27, 2011
      America’s Ten Most Dangerous Cities and their Mayors
      Patrick Jakeway
      Here are America’s Ten Most Dangerous Cities and their Mayors:

      1. Flint, Michigan

      Dayne Walling, Democrat, term 2007- present

      2. Detroit, Michigan

      Dave Bing, Democrat, term 2009 – present

      3. Saint Louis, Mo

      Francis G. Slay, Democrat, term 2001 – present

      4. New Haven, Ct.

      John DeStefano, Democrat, term 1994- present

      5. Memphis, TN

      AC Wharton, Democrat, term 2009 – present

      6. Oakland, CA

      Jean Quan, Democrat term 2011- present

      7. Little Rock, Ark.

      Mark Stodola, Democrat, term 2007 – present

      8. Baltimore, Md

      Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Democrat, term 2010 – present

      9. Rockford, Illinois

      Lawrence Morrisey, Independent term 2005 – present

      10. Stockton, CA

      Ann Johnston, Democrat, term 2009 – present

      • Terry Evans says:

        I am amazed that New Orleans is not on that list…perhaps there are not enough people here anymore…BTW Democrat Mayor Mitch Landreu. Yes that is Mary’s brother.

    • Bamadad says:
  43. New breed being developed – Raptoshark II…..

    THe cunning and hunting abilites of the Raptor..
    The speed of the Mako..
    The ferociousness of the Great White..
    The agility of the Tiger Shark..
    and…the addtition of Eagle Eyes…

    Dual laser guided system with GPS interactive lock on and new dorsal fin stabilzer for accuracy.

  44. Todd,

    “Stand Up For America,” so many people want to throw out America and start over

    Your position is a fairy tale.

    You measure your good by a reverse beauty contest. As long as the US is not the worse place on Earth, you’re fine with it.

    But the ugly gets worse everywhere, and faster. Your attitude ensures it.

    You have yet to come up forward with any real idea on how to “change a system” that is immune to change. Yours is a pipe-dream that will leave you and those that believe as you in a real thick, ugly, sticky mess for you will have no preparation and no answers.

    “Starting over”, unfortunately, is inevitable whenever a system is self-contained and organized to resist external change, whether it is a multi-national company or a nation.

    The USA as you know it will evaporate. There will be “America” but its face and attitudes will be completely different and it will occur -in geopolitical timescale- overnight.

    Get ready or get run over.

  45. Todd,

    Iceland was your example of a society that met or came close to your definition of “free”, right?

    All true – but then one can point to the tyranny of the King, and say the same thing trying to discount the expansion of freedom from the Magna Carta to present.

    It is an example that works. Like all human things, it is frail.

    But it still had a government that imposed taxes and eventually became corrupt and turned to violence.

    So maybe the lesson taught by Iceland – it’s hard to stop the initiation of violence -PERIOD-

    I agree – it is very PROFITABLE to steal. It probably always will be very profitable to steal.

    The only course is to up the risk on the thief, not lower it.

    Government lowers the risk of organized theft by legitimizing it. Ending the legitimacy of theft will significantly up the risk of theft.

    It won’t disappear of course – as long as mankind has property; as long as mankind requires effort to live; there will always be some men who will want to steal the property and effort of other men.

    But the risk of illegitimate theft is very high – as D13 posted above – often the thief dies badly.

    But agreeing with the theft guarantees it will expand, not contract.

  46. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    As a small aside…..

    Just read the novel “One Second After” by William R Forstchen. It’s almost as if he’s been following the discussions on this blog for years.

    Reading and discussing this little novel among the various crew here at SUFA would probably result in digital mushroom clouds over the internet!

    If you get a chance take a look at the novel…I felt like I needed a shower after reading it.

  47. BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL
    Politics from the Nation’s Capital
    The truth behind Chrysler’s fake auto bailout pay back

    By: Conn Carroll 05/24/11 4:26 PM

    It is not every day that the White House and Democratic National Committee celebrate a supposedly private company’s debt restructuring plan, but such is the marriage of big government and big business under the Obama administration. The New York Times reports: “Chrysler said Tuesday that it had paid back $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, marking another significant step in the revival of the company, the smallest of the Detroit automakers.”

    But as The Truth About Cars reports, the loan pay back is just another Obama con job:

    Back in November of 2009, when GM announced that it would repay its government loans, it didn’t take much investigation to realize that The General was simply shuffling government money from one pocket to the other and that true “payback” was still a ways off. … And now that our government finds itself “contemplating a runaway deficit and getting rid of its 8 percent of Chrysler’s equity,” would you believe that a similar federal money-shuffle is under way? Believe it.

    American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?

    The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion. TTAC comments:

    Now, technically the DOE loan program is supposed to be used for specific, qualifying retooling projects, so Fiat can’t literally take the DOE money and use it to pay back the government loans. But freeing up $3.5b in capital that would otherwise be spent on retooling with low-cost loans will make it infinitely easier for Chrysler to secure the $3.5b in debt refinancing it needs. And, in light of the GAO’s pointed criticisms of the DOE loan program’s fairness and transparency, it’s hard to overlook the coincidental nature of Chrysler’s need for $3.5b and the government’s allocation of extra funds to apparently guarantee a low cost loan to Chrysler for precisely the same amount. After all, we’ve seen this movie before..

    So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

    Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/truth-behind-chrysler-s-fake-auto-bailout-pay-back#ixzz1NZFhL4T5

  48. D13,
    re: Injury

    Leg is back to normal.
    Left arm, still a bit painful, stiff and suffering some mobility loss – but I expect that will take a few more months yet.

    It took about a year for my broken heel to heal, so probably the same for my elbow.

  49. Todd, down here sir.

    Could improvements be made? Absolutely!

    When Todd, when? The “reform” game has been run on us before and government has improved what? I would bet there’s been little to no improvement throughout the “welfare” system and it still has unacceptable amounts of fraud, waste and abuse. Show we some true reform in defense spending – my gosh the way manufacturers get prices that will be paid locked into the contracts is enough to make one choke on the huge amounts of money being wasted (I remember when I was in the Air Force at Dover, DE. I had a friend in C-5 avionics maintenance who showed me a small spring – the kind, quality, and size you’d find in a click style pen – and then told me what the cost of one was, $400.00! What BS). Contractors – believe it or not – don’t make their money on what they build, but on the maintenance and parts costs they lock into the contracts for upkeep of the system they sold DoD.

    We all know, and could likely point out, areas that need reform. But, do we honestly believe Congress will accomplish true reform, or just give us what amounts to nothing more than a feel good measure so they can campaign on the “reform” they put in place? I suppose you’ll argue there is no reform because the voters won’t make them reform? We know that is a pure BS argument too, don’t we?

    But throwing the whole thing out and starting over?

    We have before. Remember that document called the Articles of Confederation? We threw it out and started over, replacing it with the United States Constitution. In that very Constitution is there not a way specified to “throw out” government by calling a Constitutional Convention should enough of the States so call for one? I might add also that we threw out the British Crown too (yes that led to fighting a war, but we did it none-the-less). So, throwing out government has been done before and could be again. Will it be easy? No. Will it be painless? No. Is it a pretty big risk? Yes. But, in my mind it is a risk worth taking, which is likely where we differ.

    Let me add, as I said to Charlie, throwing out the federal government does not mean throwing out ALL government. State and local government would still be in place, just as it was when we tossed out the Crown is 1776; just as it was when the Articles of Confederation was tossed out. So this “chaos” of having all government “gone” is – at best – disingenuous. There will be government, it will remain governing – it will just be at the State and local levels while we “reform” national government.

    I am surprised that, on a blog called “Stand Up For America,” so many people want to throw out America and start over…

    I guess that depends on how you define the America you are standing up for doesn’t it? Were the Founders standing up for America when they overturned the Articles of Confederation because they felt it necessary to do so?

    A more direct answer to your question – who would you rather deal with – the Government or The Mob?

    To me the government is just another mob. The government mob just has greater oppressive power.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t see anything bad about throwing these corrupt SOB’s out on the street and starting over. Take away their power to start with, as it has proven to corrupt. Anyone who thinks that keeping these jokes in power isn’t thinking with their brain.

    • Right on PS!

  50. Todd

    A more direct answer to your question – who would you rather deal with – the Government or The Mob

    Excellent!

    That is the question!

    As man is doomed to suffer the theft by a few men, the question becomes What theft do you want to suffer?

    Do you want massive, organized theft – but predictable and broad over a large number of people and somewhat orderly?
    or
    Do you want small and minor, disorganized theft but unpredictable on a very few (unlucky) people and highly disordered?

    Centralized or Decentralized Theft, which one?
    Ordered or disorderly, which one?
    Organized or disorganized, which one?
    Legitimatized or illegitimate, which one?

    Either pay the IRS or pay the Guido, which one?

    That, sir, is exactly the right question to ask…..

    • So which one?

      I pick Guido.
      Why?

      Illegitimate theft is massively risky.
      This limits the amount of theft – keeps it small and rare.

      The perpetrators are reviled and condemned. They tend hide in the dark and under rocks and often dare not come out – except when they need to ‘eat’ – and they are not fat.

      Legitimate theft is not risky.
      There is no limit to the amount of theft – it grows and grows until it consumes all society.

      The perpetrators do not hide, in fact, they glory in the amount of theft they undertake. They demand titles of honor and respect. They walk in the open, bragging about their success, and are incredibly fat.

      When men found themselves defenseless against the criminal, they certainly enslaved themselves to the King.
      The stories of an entire village of peasants -numbering in the hundreds- wiped out by 3 rogue knights; no surprise, the King’s knights – but only could be contained by other King’s knights.

      But when the individual has capability to defend himself from rogues, his need of a King diminishes greatly.

      It is no surprise that the rise of the long bow and the rifle and the handgun correlates with the rise of freedom of men.

      There are real reasons why governments hate self-defense and an armed population. It makes the promise of government -defense- moot, thus making government moot.

      • I would pick Guido too, in a heartbeat. He would quickly be outnumbered. He would be constantly battling and competing with other Guidos. He would be far less powerful, even if he were more evil-natured, he could accomplish far less evil. Its like having to fight a warlord instead of having to fight the US military. I will take my odds against a mafia boss any day over the entire might and technology of the military.

      • Guido is my choice as well.

  51. Obama, in Europe, signs Patriot Act extension
    GOP’s Paul, some Dem senators express alarm over renewal of terror-fighting provisions

    Our “benevolent” government continuing the trampling of the 4th Amendment.

    This time it will be four years before the topic is revisited again. Hope everyone feels safe?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security/

    • PS,

      The Enabling Act was renewed every 4 years by the Riechstag.

      Hitler never missed the date or the deadline.

      But anyone voting against it knew they would be dead.

      • That whole Act has, from the day it was proposed, sickened me!

        • Mathius says:

          More than anything else about it, the name pisses me off.

          And they knew – THEY KNEW – when they named it that nobody would vote against it because, hey, how can you be against patriotism in a post-9-11 era?

          I’m going offer up my repeal amendment and call it the Only-Fascist-Nazi-Baby-Seal-Clubbing-Wingnut-Assholes-With-Really-Bad-Personal-Hygiene-Would-Refuse-To-Vote-For-Repeal-Of-The-Patriot-Act Act.

          OFNBSCWAWRBPHWRTVFROTPA Act, for short.

    • That’s what scares me about this whole process is the big arguments during the 2008 campaign cycle were getting out of the middle east and spitting on the Patriot Act. Even for the republicans. Neither of those things have happened or even close to happened under Obama. It makes me believe there’s something the American people aren’t being told

      • Mathius says:

        Hi Don!

        Can I call you Don?

        You see, Don, I’m a bleeding heart big-government type and even I know that “there’s something the American people aren’t being told” is a massive understatement.

        Here as StandUpForAmerica, I like to think that that opinion is pretty much a given.

        Now ask yourself the more important questions:

        What, exactly, aren’t we being told?
        Who, exactly, is holding out on us?
        Why, exactly, are they doing this?
        And what, exactly, if anything, can we do about it?

        Oh, and Don, one more thing…

        Have an awesome Memorial Day.

        —–

        I’m out of here.. got my weekend hall-pass from this asylum.

        Good luck, and good night!

        • Wow…..you sound a lot like BF in they style of this comment!

          Hmmm…….

          • Mathius says:

            Now what in the world did I ever do to insult you enough to make you say a thing like that?

            • I just said the style. I heard the metered pace of the BF voice in my head when I read it. No insult intended. lol

              Cmon, you know….you have an internal BF voice too – you can admit it. 😉

              • Mathius says:

                My internal BF voice is named Dread Pirate Mathius.

                He has a peg leg.

                And a really cool hat.

      • Makes you wonder what information was gathered on you through the use of a National Security Letter (NSL) doesn’t it?

        Though I am not a fan of the ACLU, they’re usually considered accurate in the information they put forth so I’ll use their statistics on the use of NSLs:

        143,074: The number of requests for information from 2003 – 2005. Approximately half concerned U.S. persons.

        Of those:

        43: The number of confirmed criminal referrals made to prosecutors from the FBI after it obtained information through a NSL. (19 involved fraud, 17 were immigration-related and 17 were for money laundering.)

        Makes you wonder where all the terrorists were hiding since we constant hear how this act is aimed at protecting us from the terrorists?

        Oh wait:

        1: The number of terror-related convictions the Inspector General was able to confirm (material support) stemming from the 143,074 persons’ info that was collected through NSLs.

        Whew – I feel safer now!

        And this is – admittedly – only for 2003-2005. Think of the numbers today.

        I’ve heard commentary that the NSL’s can be issued by any federal law enforcement officer – not just the FBI, that the uses are not restricted to terror cases only (which the above stats show).

  52. gmanfortruth says:

    Have a great holiday weekend everyone! 🙂

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/memorial-day/

  53. Have a great weekend everyone. I will try to figure out why we are giving 30 billion in aid to Egypt and Tunisia and borrowing the money from China to do it.

  54. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/27/fireworks-shows-need-environmental-review/

    I’m so proud of my state!! We are broke but have the resources to ensure that our little annual birthday celebration does not harm the flora and fauna. Remember to bring your environmental impact study the next time you use a park in CA.

  55. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html

    Glad it is in TX. It would take a century to do the environmental impact study in CA.

    • Yes sir…all the more reason for Texas to become a Republic….the nice thing? We do not give a shit about the EPA and they know they are not welcome…..neither is BO….and he knows that as well.

      • PS. What the article did not say is that Texas will monitor the hiring very closely. Any hiring of illegal immigrants will be dealt with harshly as in revoking drilling permits. Any immigrant that desires to work in Texas can do so legally and Texas has set up a state visa permit (in direct violation of the Feds) and will fast track criminal background and finger print checks. What the article also left out was that there are two more shale fields just like this one.

      • In all due respect, for the health of then nation, it would be better if CA figuratively slid into the ocean and TX stayed put.

  56. It’s All Over: Kyoto Protocol Loses Four Big Nations
    Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:58 Agence France-Presse

    DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

    The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

    Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

    Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

    But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

    They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

    At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

    The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

  57. The Doc says (picking on your favorite Plutonian, once again …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/05/doc-says_30.html

  58. Teen on Mission to Preserve and Honor the Fallen

    by Anne Marie Riha | May 30, 2011

    Quiet, soft-spoken 17- year-old Ricky Gilleland spends most weekends surrounded by tombstones, as he walks through Arlington National Cemetery just outside Washington, D.C. looking for the burial sites of those individuals who have died in the line of duty since September 11, 2001. Gilleland has taken on the job that the historic cemetery has not been able to do itself.

    Through his website, preserveandhonor.com, Gilleland has cataloged the thousands who are laid to rest in Section 60 of Arlington Cemetery. With a camera in hand, Gilleland shoots a photo of both the front and back of the headstone, “to provide a virtual place for loved ones and friends to both locate the graves of the fallen and reflect on the memory of their sacrifice.”

    Gilleland explains it’s a way for those who cannot return to the cemetery to see a loved one’s final resting place. “They can go back (on the website) and they can find their loved one…and find a little more comfort,” he told Fox News on a recent Sunday afternoon.

    The Stafford, Va. teenager estimates he’s spent over 400 hours during the last year cataloging almost a thousand names. It’s a project he decided to undertake last June after learning Arlington National Cemetery had mismanaged many sites. It was discovered that one service member had been buried on top of an existing grave, and other graves had been mismarked. These blunders cost two top administrators their jobs. The scandal tarnished the reputation of the cemetery.

    Gilleland decided there had to be a better way. “I figured this day and age there should be an electronic record of all of this information.” So with $200 of his own money, he decided to create a website.

    Coming from a military family dating back to his great-great-great grandfather who fought in the battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, and with two brothers currently serving in the U.S. Air Force, Gilleland says the graves represent something personal for him.

    But it’s his efforts that represent something very important for others. Paula Davis and Xiomara Mena sit side by side in Section 60 on the weekends. Their sons’ respective graves are just a few feet apart.

    Davis’ son, Private First Class Justin Ray Davis, was killed in Afghanistan June 6, 2006. She wears her only child’s dog tags around her neck and understands the need for families to stay connected to the memories of those they’ve lost. “It just makes a big difference when you can’t be here to see a physical picture,” Davis explains.

    Having had other families ask her to take photos of a loved one’s grave, Davis says it means a lot that Gilleland has taken on this “huge responsibility.”

    She’s heard about the young man with the camera before.

    “I was hoping one day, I’d run into you to thank you,” she tells him, jumping up to give him a hug.

    The cemetery scandal last year weighs on her mind also. “I’m just glad that someone is making sure that forever, 100 years from now, someone will be able to see where the tombstone is and who’s in that place,” Davis says.

    Gilleland is a high school junior and hopes to enter the U.S. Naval Academy when he graduates. Documenting gravesites has given him a unique understanding of the perils he might encounter. “A lot of the people buried here, unfortunately, are very young, not much older than me,” he says. But serving his country is too important.

    Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/30/teen-mission-preserve-and-honor-fallen#ixzz1NqC3pn77

  59. Bottom Line says:

    In recognition of Memorial Day, I would like to pay my respect in honor of all the innocent children who have died as a result of war.

  60. …and all the innocent who are immediately forgotten as mere collateral damage….

  61. And I pray the consciousnesses of those demanding and commanding the sacrifice of all this human life, death and destruction be especially troubled this day.

    May they find the courage to stop all this insanity called war!

  62. Memorial Day Pledge

    I will not raise my precious child to kill your precious child.

    And if it is within my power,
    I will not hand over my beloved child to others to kill your beloved child,

    or to learn how to kill the one you cherish.

    –Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy.

    • Mathius says:

      Now that’s something I can agree with.

      Happy Memorial Day.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Memorial Day Pledge

      I will not raise my precious child to live in this country enjoying the freedoms preserved by our veterans while calling them “killers”.

      Late to the blog today…..but my thanks forever to those veterans who have made the sacrifices to serve us in order to preserve our freedoms….may you never be forgotten!

      Murf

  63. Happy Memorial Day! May the Good Lord watch over and protect all those who have and are fighting for this country and it’s people!

%d bloggers like this: