After the Fall: Part Two

Life has now quieted down a lot. The violence that occurred during the early stages of the fall, are non-existent now. Crime is almost unheard of, as people are working together to survive and pick up the pieces of their now very changed environment. Most people made it through with just some moderate problems, neighbors stepped up and helped those who were less prepared. The U.S. dollar is still here, but things sure cost more. Food is finally hitting the grocery stores, but not cheap at all. The cities are almost empty, as government crackdowns of civil disobedience turned deadly. Those who could fled, those who couldn’t were killed in the violence or later rounded up. Where they are is only a guess. Rumors have it that a Communist group is trying to take over and form a new government, time to start pushing a better plan, with a new constitution.

During the first installment of “After The Fall”, I presented an idea for a new form of governance at the Federal level to replace what we currently have in place, in the event that opportunity would ever exist. While our current constitution is revered by many, it is also flawed in many ways, that have opened the door for government tyranny. In this draft of a new constitution, I’m hoping to close those doors, appease all sides of the current political spectrum and end up with a document that everyone would agree to. I by no means am going to attempt to defend what is written, I will argue it’s merit, but if it don’t hold up, it should be changed. I will outline the form of governance, as I will call management, at the Federal level, as I did in part I, but adding some things based on the debate that occurred.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, insure domestic Tranquility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I.   Establishment of the National Security Management Committee

Section 1. The National Security Management Committee will consist of one elected member from each state.

Section 2. Responsibilities: The National Security Management Committee will

A. establish an annual budget for the National Security Forces.

B. vote to activate the National Security Forces in the event of invasion or imminent invasion by a foreign army.

Section 3. Limitations: The National Security Management Committee will NOT

A. activate the National Security Forces for non defensive reasons.

B. Activate the National Security Forces against the American people.

C. make and pass laws

Section 4. Term of Service: National Security Management Committee members

A. will serve a term of four years

B. at the end of a four year term, will no longer be eligible for future Federal service

This begins the journey in developing a new Constitution. For the sake of saving everyone from reading about the other two parts of the Federal Management System, they were outlined here: As was discussed during debate of After the Fall, the Federal Management System committees and Spokesperson have no law making powers. All laws and law making power lies with the people within their individual communities.

This next article is new!

Article 4. National Security Forces

Section 1. Within five years from the ratification of this Constitution, The National Security Forces WILL

A. Vacate all foreign bases

B. Return all property to stateside locations (to be determined)

C. Revert to a part time militia

This will greatly reduce the size of our military, probably by more than half. The military will become a part time entity after a five year downsizing and returning from overseas. Excess equipment will be shared with the states National Guards units. This will also reduce costs. This article will require some debate to get it right, as I’m not sold on the idea that we need a standing army, even on a part time basis.

Article 5. Bill of Rights

Section 1. Unalienable Rights Guaranteed to the People

The unalienable rights of the people will not be abridged or interfered with. They are:

A. Right to Free Speech

B. Right to Freedom of Religion

C. Right to Assemble

D. Right to Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury

E. Right of Free Press

F. Right to Bear Arms Openly or Concealed, in Private or Public for Self Defense.

G. Right to Free Travel Between the States

H. Right to Own Property Free of Taxation

I. Right to be Free of Unreasonable Search and Seizure of Both Person and Property

J.  Right to Abolish any Form of Local or State Government that Infringes on the Rights of the People

Section 2. No Laws Shall be Passed that Infringe on the Rights of the People.

A. All laws passed must be of moral discipline, murder, rape, assault, theft or any action by person(s) that negatively affects the liberty and freedom of another person or persons. All laws will be passed and enforced at the state and local levels.

B. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Shall Not be Interfered With.

The rights of the people is the whole purpose of having a constitution. This legal document, when ratified by the people, will protect them from government tyranny of any form by any centralized government. In our current day, there are many examples of the government infringing on the rights of the people. This needs to stop and never occur again. Two more articles to go.



Article 6. Funding the National Defense Forces and Taxes

Section 1. A National Sales Tax of 5% will be applied to all purchases with the United States for a period of five years. After five years the National Sales Tax will be adjusted lower to continue funding of the part time National Security Forces.

Section 2. At no time can the people be taxed more than 10 % on purchases.

Section 3. There will be no income tax.

Section 4. There will be no corporate tax.

Section 5. There will be no property tax.

Article 7. Amending the Constitution

Section 1. Amendments will be initiated at the state level. The people od the initiating state will vote on the proposed amendment.

Section 2. If the Amendment fails to pass, it is no longer under consideration.

Section 3. If the Amendment passes, it is presented to the remaining states for a vote in the next general elect.

Section 4. Passage of the Amendment by all 50 states is required to be added to the Constitution.

Section 5. Failure of passage by one or more states kills the Amendment and it may not be put up for a revote for five years.

So there we have what a new Constitution can look like. There are many things to address, things may need added and/or subtracted. Changes should occur for all the best reasons. We can never allow a form of governance that can grow out of control and turn on the people, if our current corrupt group of thieves are dissolved. While trying to keep this short, I have other ideas that may be received well, and will bring them to the table during debate. Hopefully, we can end up with a document that everyone agrees to.

Live Free!



  1. Ray Hawkins says:

    Good morning G-Man – you getting any of this hot/stinkin’ weather in your neck of the woods?

    Anyway – nice work on the article.

    Question – can you reasonably expect a part-time militia to be effective in quickly acting/reacting to a threat?

    • Mathius™ says:

      hot/stinkin’ weather It’s going to be 96 up here. I am so excited. I cannot wait to go outside over lunch and bask in it for a little while. In my younger years in Cali, I probably would have taken an extended lunch and hit the beach for some surfing – can’t really do that out here.

      can you reasonably expect a part-time militia to be effective in quickly acting/reacting to a threat? Depends on the threat. Local nuisances, sure. Gangs, sure. Bloodthirsty Mountie raiding parties, not really.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Ray 🙂

      We sure are getting the heat, calling for 96 today. I don’t mind it much, but Dad has a hard time with it, so he sit’s in the AC and stays cool.

      Answer to your question. I’m not sure. I would think that the threats would be minimal for many years to come, most nations will need decades to rebuild their economies, as we will. The standing army issue was a tough one to hash out for this article, and I hope that there will be much input on the matter, so as to have a concensus as to what is the best way to go.

      Stay Cool!

  2. Mathius™ says:

    Life has now quieted down a lot. Because most of the population has died off. The dead are, indeed, quiet.

    The violence that occurred during the early stages of the fall, are non-existent now. Because local warlords have assumed control of everyone and everything, so no one acts out because doing so is a death sentence for that person’s entire family.

    Crime is almost unheard of, Because there is no such thing as “crime.” Crime necessitates a law. Law necessitates a government.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It’s not likely that warlords will become relevant in the U.S. It’s not in our history. You have to consider that people want their peaceful existance back. If anyone tries to play warlord, he will by hung in the town square, as a warning to others who would act in such a way.

      • Mathius™ says:

        You’re skipping the anarchy stage.

        It starts with hungry people breaking into vacant houses looting and looking for food.

        When the easy food runs out, they will go after poorly defended people who have food. This will be in desperation. Starving, desperate people will do anything in order to eat.

        Sometimes the intended victim will kill the assailant, sometimes not. But there will be no town-square for quite a while. It won’t be safe to leave your home dragging a corpse just so you can put it up as a warning. They’ll bury the body in the back yard, unless they are really hungry themselves, in which case the other-other white meat is what’s for dinner.

        The bandits will band together quickly. Homeowners will have to be more cautious as doing so will involve risking their food hoard and valuables. Defense is far harder to play than offense.

        In the early stages, the bad guys are going to have the distinctly upper hand.

  3. Section 2. No Laws Shall be Passed that Infringe on the Rights of the People.

    Good morning, Gman! Charles Colbert here … just wanting to point out your initial flaw in this round of “Gman rules” … You’re already passing a law by listing this (am I right or am I right, BF)? The fact you are telling me (a soverign anarchist) ANYTHING is an infringement on my rights as a “free man.”

    Now, back to the drawing board and eliminate this false God you call a “better plan” (I call another from of government) and this time just use the eraser, please.

    • Charlie (both of ya), Good Morning 🙂

      I think you may have missed the purpose of the whole idea. Please go back a read the part says that.

      • I will outline the form of governance, as I will call management, at the Federal level, as I did in part I, but adding some things based on the debate that occurred.

        Government/Management/Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts … damn you kings! It is still an infringement on my rights as a FREE MAN. What part of that are you not getting?????

        You are STILL requiring me to live under YOUR ideas … and that, sir, is EVIL …

        🙂 This gets better and better …

        • I am simply presenting ideas for debate and discussion. I am requiring nothing, I am asking for opinions on what is written, so it can be completed, not by one person, but by many. I have no problem with you and Flag setting up your community with like minded people as you see fit. Everything presented is open for change. But, to protect your desires, a binding agreement by all the people is needed to protect against future government intrusion.

  4. Mathius™ says:

    Most people made it through with just some moderate problems, neighbors stepped up and helped those who were less prepared No they didn’t. When the dollar collapsed, the JIT supply chain collapsed with it. After three days, every scrap of food in the country was hoarded or consumed. Neighbors did not share because they could not risk giving away what they had in the event that things took longer to normalize. (I would not share with you if doing so might doom my wife and I to starvation).

    With the collapse of the organized police force, roving bands of criminals begin sweeps of “soft targets,” breaking in at night or the early morning, killing the inhabitants and taking what food/water/gas and other valuables they happened to own. At this stage, the likes of Buck, Charlie, and Todd are wiped out. Sorry guys.

    Whole crops rot on the vine as there is no way to pay workers (due to a shortage of “real” money, ie gold/silver/trade). Foreign countries are unwilling to deliver oil to us as they no longer accept FRNs, so it doesn’t really matter if the crops were harvested anyway, there would be no way to deliver them to the cities.

    Steve Jobs buys a warhead on the open market and nukes Redmond, WA.

    Detroit burns to the ground, but no one notices. The “big one” hits LA, and it separates from the mainland, becoming an island ruled by a man by the name of Snake.

    As the “soft targets” are picked off, the situation is a little like graduating from high school at the top of your class. You made the cut, congratulations. And you are now in a good college. But the competition is stiffer, and the lessons are harder. The roving gangs now more closely resemble well-armed well-trained battle-hardened paramilitary units (riding raptors, no less). They hit “medium targets” with military planning, precision, and execution. At this stage, the likes of BF, LOI, and BL are wiped out.

    Those who survive, are like college graduates in this scenario. But they are now in an elite graduate school program. They’ve banded together to form more formidable defenses against the raiders and blood-thirsty Mounties. They’ve pooled their resources and maybe even formed small walled-in city-states with a regular guard posted 24/7 and budding farms. They are “hard targets.” They represent a mere fraction of the current population of the former US.

    The roving bandits judge the cities too dangerous to strike, but maintain dominion over the countryside. Because old the vast resources they’ve accrued, trade with them is necessary. The city-states pay tribute to the gangs (generally in the form of food) because they require the use of fields outside their walls (and thus unprotectable) in order to feed their societies. They cannot afford a siege, nor is victory a guarantee in a direct fight. It’s an uneasy standoff.

    This is where we start, not your sunshine and puppy dogs scenario.

    Ok, take it away!

    • Terry Evans says:

      I thought Snake was dead…

    • Matt, We’re dealing with all hypathetical situations here. Your ideas could very well be right, as mine could about how things play out. But that’s not the subject of discussion.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Except I find yours to be completely unrealistic. When have you ever seen a society collapse neatly and peacefully?

        This constitution would have to be passed against the backdrop of a hostile, desperate, war-torn, starving, and shattered society. The initial demand on the government would not be individual rights but breaking the back of the roving gangs. Much like the initial constitution charged the government with tackling piracy, so too would this government be charged with defending The People from their modern day equivalent – and to do so, I’m sure there would have to be some means of raising and paying an army.

      • Terry Evans says:

        You see G, Mathius comes from where his view most likely would be true…California and New York. In other areas where crime is not as prevalent and there are at least remnants of values by the majority of the populace, your scenario may well play out.
        I can understand the dim view of humanity that Matt has, given where he originated from and where he now resides.

        • Terry, I come from the south and I figure things will be very dangerous if my world falls. People will stick together and share between family and friends to survive. And others will stick together to rob and kill. I find Matt’s take as probably pretty accurate.

          • Terry Evans says:

            I hear you V…I am in the South as well. I was simply trying to tweak Matt early today…

          • V, I have found most southern folk to be rather polite for the most part. There will be danger everywhere, to what extent will be determined by how quickly the local populations can get organized. Even several neighbors from a few blocks in an urban area can stave of attackers.

            • Hi G-Not meaning to be difficult-if the worse happens, I have no doubt that things will eventually calm down and civilization will come back-I just have a problem with the “let it fall so we can start over crowd” It falling would be horrible and people need to remember that fact.

              But personally I think the best way to create a new Constitution -is to put up the Old one and discuss how it was manipulated. Then to change words, add
              definitions, etc. It is a good document and it would have worked if people didn’t intentionally look for loop holes-so closing those loop holes might be the answer-one we might be able to implement without our society having to fall

              • Your not being difficult at all V 🙂 I do not wish for a fall, I don’t think anyone really wishes for that to happen. It may happen, but the results may be similar to the Great Depression. I don’t recall reading about much violence back then. Things are quite different than then, so if the fall happens, it’s anyones guess as to what will transpire.

                My ideas are a good experiment to see if the folks here at SUFA can work together, despite their differing political views, and bring peace and prosperity back in an orderly fashion, should this ever happen. I’m not promoting doom and gloom, but rather trying to gain hope for the future.

        • Matt’s dim view is likely correct during the early stages of a collapse, but over time it will subside. The time of this article is after the violence. I think many people underestimate the American people’s ability to overcome adversity. The spirit of peace and freedom while come out ahead in the end.

          • Mathius™ says:

            It’s our spirit of peace and freedom vs our spirit of opportunistic nihilism..

            • Matt, I don’t have a spirit of nihilism, and most people don’t as well. Nihilists are a small minority.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I do.

              • You have a spirit of nihilism??? Yes-No-Why?

              • Mathius™ says:

                We all do.

                I’m just more in touch with mine.

              • WRONG..I don’t!

              • Perhaps you should define the word-because I do not have a spirit of nihilism-at least not by the official definition.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Try finding yourself in a survival situation where you choice is to steal from your neighbor (possibly sentencing them to death) or letting your family starve. You might find out differently.

                You know, or you might die.

                It’s how we’re programmed. Human beings are predators (not the forward facing eyes for binocular vision). When push comes to shove, the older parts of our brains take over. Society and civil living can mask it, but it’s who we are deep down. Don’t fool yourself.

              • Are you not describing self preservation instead of nihilism?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m talking about a total rejection of established laws and institutions. when they run against our interests – not just our survival, but our mere interests.

                Soccer hooligans will burn whole cities just to watch them burn.

                When the gloves come off, and they will, people will rape and pillage and destroy and murder because they can. It’s pretty much all of the worst parts of human nature that we pretend we’ve outgrown. 300 million people who have never been allowed to exorcise their worst demons will suddenly find themselves in a situation where they can do whatever they want with impunity.

                There will be a total and absolute rejection of established laws and institutions. You and everyone else, will quickly drop the veneer of civility and defer to your reptile brains. And the results will not be pretty.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:


                I commented previously on a novel that’s out that pretty much describes the United States as you have suggested.

                If you get the time, read One Second After by WILLIAM R. FORSTCHEN.

                It explains a most likely scenario.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I miss the days when I had the time to read for fun…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Caribou Unit,

                Yup. Sounds about right.

                But I don’t buy anything with a forward by Newt Gingrich.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:



                Know your enemy…right?

              • I still don’t think we are talking about nihilism-but it doesn’t really matter 🙂 . I agree that there will be many who will turn into just animals, mostly because that is what they always were- but I do not believe the majority will. I think most would fight if they were attacked but most would band together with family and friends for protection-not to go out and attack other people. A truly starving human might well turn away from all his principals but man knows how to grow food they know how to hunt and they do not have to rape and kill to survive- so the majority wouldn’t At least in my humble opinion.

  5. Mathius™ says:

    insure domestic Tranquility,

    Dear God, man! Have we learned nothing in the 214 years since this was initially written?

       /ɪnˈʃʊər, -ˈʃɜr/ [in-shoor, -shur] verb, -sured, -sur·ing.
    –verb (used with object)
    to guarantee against loss or harm.

       /ɛnˈʃʊər, -ˈʃɜr/ [en-shoor, -shur]
    –verb (used with object), -sured, -sur·ing.
    to secure or guarantee

  6. Mathius™ says:

    Section 1. The National Security Management Committee will consist of one elected member from each state.

    I must refresh my objection. As a representative of the great states of both California and New York, I believe that more populous states should have a greater say in matters. It is unfair that a state such as North Dakota with its 15 residents should could equally to the 1st and 3rd most populous states in the union respectively.

    If this issue is not remedied, we will decline to ratify your Constitution.

    • Matt, Objection overruled. We now have far too many California and New York people running things and if you haven’t noticed, it’s a frickin mess. One state, one vote. Federal activity is part time, on a as needed basis, or what was mandated in part 1. There will be little activity of importance to be concerned with, unless we are invaded.

      • Mathius™ says:

        And who, pray tell, will they invade? With they invade Kansas? Why would they bother? They’ll invade New York and California (it seems unlikely they’d be stupid enough to invade Texas). So who should have the most say in matters of defense?

        Either way, you cannot overrule me. As the duly appointed representative of those states, I will not ratify without remedy.

        Might I humbly suggest a bicameral house?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          We can even provide one half (lets call it a House of Representatives) with proportionate representation by population and provide for the other half (lets call it, for arguments sake, a Senate) with equal representation from each state.

          • Buck, That basically puts us right back where we are today. No thanks, I’ve had enough of the corruption and theft.

        • Terry Evans says:

          I can see invading California…for the wine and the beaches, but NY…what the heck for?! Nothing left there except criminals.

        • Invade the Republic of Texas….we need the target practice.

          • Terry Evans says:

            You guys run out of prairie dogs, or are you just itchin’ for a different target?

          • Texas would be easy, just call up the leader, tell them your a psychic and that an army is coming from the South. Invade from the North, simples!

  7. Mathius™ says:

    F. Right to Bear Arms Openly or Concealed, in Private or Public for Self Defense.

    Whoa there cowboy.. thought you’d just slip this one in there and I wouldn’t see it?

    Please define “arms.” Am I permitted to mount a Gatling gun to my car? Can I own and wield openly a grenade launcher? Does this extend into biological/chemical/nuclear armaments?

    “in Private”.. can you clarify? I assume your intent is that I can carry a gun on my private property, but does that mean that you can’t stop me from carrying a gun in your grocery store? (I think I know your answer, but I’d like to hear it anyway)

    • An armed society is a polite society. Matt, this has been proven time and again. Please look up Kanisaw Ga. I think that’s the spelling.

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Peeople would probably be a whole lot more polite to the owner of a Gatling gun than the owner of a .22; the end result is the same, but, over-compensating does have benefits!

      • Mathius™ says:

        I don’t know.. I can draw a .22 much faster than you can aim and crank a Gatling..

        Just saying..

  8. A lot of tragedy has been caused by calling the Bill of Rights by that misleading name. Rename yours The Bill of Prohibitions, and place the emphasis on the fact that these are not simply enumerated rights for you and me, but a list of things no government anywhere at any time for any reason may make laws concerning in even the smallest way.

    (Also, check out my latest essay over at Zero Gov)

  9. Mathius™ says:

    Article 5, Section 1. A National Sales Tax of 5% will be applied to all purchases with the United States for a period of five years. After five years the National Sales Tax will be adjusted lower to continue funding of the part

    Article 5, Section 2. No Laws Shall be Passed that Infringe on the Rights of the People.

    We’ll ignore that you have two section fives.

    I find these two sections to be mutually exclusive. Either you an violate my rights and steal my money via a sales tax, or you can not violate my rights and cannot tax me.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not to mention what if the national sales tax needs to be adjusted HIGHER to continue funding the militia due to increased threats?

      • Buck, I actually considered have the Federal military taken over by the states. But there is some issues with unfair funding requirements by states with more bases versus states like New York where the military don’t want to be in the first place.

      • Mathius™ says:

        What really interests me is how they intend to capture this 5% sales tax.

        Presumably, this means a national currency, or they’ll have to collect in all manner of local coinage.

        So now we have the mint.

        Presumably, this would have to be collected by each retailer/wholesaler/distributor/etc, and reported to the government for analysis and collect.

        So now we have regulations on business (record keeping / reporting) and a collection service (the IRS).

        Presumably, you’ll need some kind of enforcement arm to investigate fraud and collect on evaders.

        So now we have some type of federal judiciary arm (if only for tax law) and a national policing arm (if only for tax law).

        All of these, of course, will have to be paid for…

        Boy, this sure spirals out of control real quick, doesn’t it..

        • Buck the Wala says:


        • Matt, Nothing is mentioned about forms of money, except in the beginning, where the dollar still exists. It will be phased out in time as the states get their act together. Maybe an Amendment that states that all money, issued by a state or states, must be backed up by gold. Any thoughts?

          • Mathius™ says:

            I think I’d like to know how you intend to capture the 5% tax..

            As for gold backing the currency, let the states and private entrepreneurs settle it for themselves. Maybe I’ll opt to use Liberty Dollars, maybe I’ll opt to use the California Peso, maybe I’ll use the Vietnamese Dong (yes, that’s a real currency). And maybe, as a business man, I’ll only accept Liberty Dollars, or maybe I’ll accept Liberty Dollars, gold-by-weight, and California Pesos, but not the official currency of Nevada (they use sand.. talk about hyperinflation..).

            • I have an idea on the capturing of the 5%, if we all decide we actually need the tax at all at the Federal level. I’m waiting to get further input and ideas on this area.

              Let the states and the people deal with the money issue, this I agree with.

    • Dang, I can fix that.

      One deals with National Defense Forces, the other with rights. Two seperate subjects. But I did mention that I’m not sold on the standing army part, so might I suggest you make some suggestions. That’s the point of the article, to fix it, change it and make it as close to right for everyone.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I suggest we stick with our current government with a few tweaks:

        add a balanced budget amendment with an exemption for wartime

        permit foreign operations on in response to direct attack, and only within the scope of neutralizing that threat

        require a floor reading with full attendance for any bill congress wishes to pass. A quiz may be given at the tend, and failure to pass the quiz will result in another reading.

        Ban earmarks – only one item per vote.

        Reinstate the line-item veto.

        Any bills introduced to congress must include a 1-page rider in plain English explaining why this is permitted under the Constitution. This paper will be evaluated by a panel of high school civics teachers selected by lottery. 75% must agree to the Constitutionality of the bill (giving it the benefit of the doubt) or it is rejected (note, the Constitutionality, not the advisability of or agreement with the bill itself, just whether it passes the sniff test for Constitutionality).

        Rick Santorum is not permitted to hold any political office.

        Eliminate federal recognition of political parties.

        Anyone in Federal office convicted of taking bribes or violating a certain class of ethics violations will lose their citizenship.

        No pensions for congressmen.

        Congress and the White House are not allowed to exempt themselves from laws they pass (ie, OSHA standards)

        I could go on, but I just got bored with this.

        • You could still invade Texas.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I just might.. I recently acquired a rail gun after a daring raid on an unsuspecting pirate ship..

            • So, that is where it went. How did you manage to drug the rapto-guard?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I cashed in some points you gave me the other day, remember? It was easy with the assault raptor and GPS.

                As for drugging the guard, you forget that all Raptors have a well known weakness – I stopped at in ‘n’ out first. After that, it was no trouble to slip some Red Bull into patty – throw it on the desk, guard gobbles it up, Red Bull poisoning dropped him immediately. He’ll probably be out of commission for at least another week.

              • you are evil. I knew those points would come back to haunt me……well done, sir….well done.

        • Yes Matt, The same old crap is boring. Despite your proposed changes, shit is still shit.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Maybe, but I’m pretty ok with the status quo.. I just think it needs to be patched up in a few places. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say.

            • So Matt, if things go as you have written, you want to return to the staus quo so we can have the same form of corrupt government that led us to the fall in the first place. Is that smart thinking?

        • Terry Evans says:

          You say…
          Ban earmarks – only one item per vote.

          Reinstate the line-item veto

          What good is a line item veto when only one item is allowed per vote?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Because even though it’s one “item,” there will still likely be multiple parts to it.

            So, say it’s a bill to fund the highway system, they can’t add something to build a dam in the sponsor’s district (no earmarks), but there will still be several pieces to it:
            A. Interstates
            B. Support roads
            C. State matching funds
            D. etc

            And the line-item would allow the veto of say, section C, without wiping out the whole thing.

            By the way, this means that there would never be an omnibus budget bill – that’s annoying for the senate, but so be it.

            ooh, another thing to add to my list:

            All bills much be in plain language, not legalese

  10. 😐

  11. A step closer to Anarchism over at my place.

    The new official TK motto (compliments of a friend):

    “Leave the (political) party. Take the cannoli.”

    • Mathius™ says:

      Save one for me!

      On second thought.. save two or three for me.

      Thanks! I’ll have USW send you my address to mail them to me.

  12. (My apologies for any spelling as I am posting from my wife’s IPad thingy – damn small screen for my old eyes and really small “keyboard – sheesh)

    After reading Mathius comments on how it may be one wonders how the nation ever came into existence since the expansion usually left the national government behind. Golly, how did the citizens survive all those roving gangs of murderous, raping, pillaging, and plundering bandits I wonder?

    They musta done something because here we are (and Mathius sits safely in his NY money-pit and tells us how evil bad gangs and Snake will rule us all).

    I ask again why so many think that if national government collapses that means ALL government collapses?

    OK, that’s all I can hamdle for now on this tiny flipping screen. 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      America wasn’t founded with 300,000,000 people and not enough food.

    • I think people are much more used to being protected-I think more people have a mentality of “I’m owed something-I basically think alot of people simply aren’t prepared or haven’t learned how to protect and fend for themselves. And I think many people are just plain angry-You add this up and I think more people today would have less of a problem hurting or just not helping their fellow man. Talk about gloom and doom but that’s the way I see it-you open any type of news and all you see is our young vandalizing restaurants, beating up people, and generally just letting their anger rip and that’s just with our economy going south. Now I don’t know if all government would die or not-but I know once the checks and whatever else the federal government now controls went away -the local governments would have their hands full-kinda like it is in Mexico right now.

      • V. You make good points, once the government cookies go away or become worthless, there will be problems. As the current government tries to hold it’s power, they will deal with this swiftly. They have all the plans written and ready to implement. They will act, they will kill, they will make people very angry. That will set the stage where it’s possible to run them off.

  13. Here are a few reasons why we need to expell our Federal government if possible, these people are thieves and corrupt to the core.

  14. Down here folk 🙂

    Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

  15. I’m very surprised that noone has offered any changes, other than Kent, to make this a better document. I had several ideas that I excluded on purpose to see if they get raised in discussion. One, I would think would have been offered by Buck, Matt, Todd or Charlie almost in the beginning of the debate, but I guess that subject is not as important now as it was awhile back.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’ve offered a bunch of changes.. you rejected them.

      I raised several questions.. I’ve received no satisfactory answers.

      • You offered more of the same. If the article was about keeping the status quo, the article could have been written like this:

        Bend over, we’ll keep the same shit. The end.

        What questions have I failed to answer? Remember, I have not presented the State governance article yet.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I want to know how they raise the 5% sales tax:
          A.) why does this pass muster with the not-violating-rights rule
          B.) how do they do this with different coinage, or do they establish a mint
          C.) how do they find/prosecute evaders
          D.) does this require record keeping / reporting regulations on businesses, if not then why not?
          E.) if the sales tax is earmarked strictly for defense and defense only, then way pays for the collection/enforcement/regulation/minting arms?

          And this:
          Does each state pay an equal amount, or do they pay based on their transactions. It seems that a sales tax raises more money from wealthy states. If everyone gets an equal say in government and everyone gets equal benefits, how is this not the dreaded wealth-redistribution?

          • Matt, The people will vote on this document. They are aware of the tax and it’s purpose when they do this. If they ratify it, it will be a tax that is agreed upon.

            Most of your questions are state issues, but I’ll try to answer, although I haven’t written this yet.

            a. No, it’s a voted tax. Therefore agreed to (if we even have it)
            b. Payments will be made in each states coinage, as all military are now stateside.
            c. an agreement with banks by the states will solve this problem
            d. Banks, by agreement, will collect and send to a bank that agrees to maintain and dispurse the funds.
            e. Already answered that in d

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And for those people who vote against ratification? Will they still be subject to this tax against their own free will??

              • Unfortunately, if the people have the power with their vote, majority rules. Remember, in my scenario, we have no government at the Federal and state levels.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ah, so now the truth comes out! You seek to infringe upon my rights, subjecting me to taxation against my own free will.

              • Buck, do you have a better idea? If we stop having a military in five years, would that be a good thing?

              • Hey, no one promised you a rose garden 🙂 Just more options-a less centralized government. Majority rule is impossible to get away from, at least in my opinion. But if we are going to talk about how to finance the military-than we need to look at history because I’m pretty sure it was this same problem-or paying for the war that started our problems.

                The only people I hear talking about no taxes

              • Just ignore that last line-it should have been deleted. 🙂

    • Well, you got me-I have no idea what idea you are talking about. As far as making it better-I am still thinking 🙂 The standing army-if you are talking after the fall and all other countries are in the same shape we probably wouldn’t need one right off -but if they didn’t all fall -I think we would.

      As far as making it to where no one could ever again take away our freedoms-I think that is a wonderful dream-but impossible to accomplish with any constitution. We could make it alot harder! But when we say rights and imposing on someones rights-too many questions are left open and I see no way to answer those questions-cultural norms will always determine what these are-so man will always be able to impose-just by how they define what these are. Slavery-any arguments that this was imposing on a persons rights-but they managed to do so-because of societal norms and changing the underlying definition.

    • “Section 1. A National Sales Tax of 5% will be applied to all purchases with the United States for a period of five years. After five years the National Sales Tax will be adjusted lower to continue funding of the part time National Security Forces.”

      I think a small standing army is a must. More in the way of air force and missile forces. Naval air craft carriers can be retired, we won’t be invading anybody. Would defense include research and development, including space?(I want my lightsaber)

      Sorry for not posting more, work and other demands. Will be out of town for a few days.

      • As I said, everything is open to debate. As to your question, it depends on how the rest of the world faired. If there is no chance of an invasion in the distant future, why have anything expensive that the people pay for. We are an armed society, noone will invade.

        • Even if we didn’t start out needing a standing military-I suspect we would eventually need one. So you might as well figure out the best way to finance it. We also have nuclear bombs and such and someone has to pay to keep those in safe and viable order.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’d rather pay to dismantle and safely dispose of them…

            • Matt I’m surprised you didn’t ask for this in Article 5: Quality healthcare will be available to all people, regardless of ability to pay.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Didn’t really occur to me that it was even a remote prospect in your government plan.. you’d have to regulate and tax way too much.

                I assumed that medicare/medicaid/ss/parks&rec/PBS/etc are all cut entirely.

                The pirate in me likes this.

                The Red Bull drinker in me.. well let’s just say he politely disagrees.

              • Basically, when the government disolved, all programs ended. Most local governments still operate, but there is no money for welfare and such. Welfare is gone, those who were on it are either dead or got off their butts and managed to survive. The healthcare industry has been greatly depleted, it will take time to get it back up and running full steam.

              • Mathius™ says:

                If the federal government collapses, it’s taking the states with it.

                We’ve been over this.

                But I agree, it would wipe out pretty much all entitlement programs.

              • Cheers 🙂 We are in agreement.

              • Did I miss something-just how is medical care gonna be available without paying for it?

              • Matt….gotta disagree with you on this point. If the National Government fails…..I do not see all the states going with it. I see 2/3 but not all.

              • Mathius™ says:


          • I agree V.H. There are many issues to deal with. The first and foremost is to ensure that our freedom is secured. Once that is accomplished, we can then deal with the issues. The whole purpose of my ideas are to do just that, secure freedom first, have some management in place and go from there. I have a state management idea as well, as they will need replaced as well.

  16. Mathius™ says:

    Holy crap..

    Chilean volcano..

  17. Canine Weapon says:

    Let’s party like it’s 1993!

  18. DisposableCarbonUnit says:


    Just thought you’d like to know the origins of DPM….I found the answer!

    It’s actually the RedBull talking….

  19. Hmmmm-Buck you might need to use caution around Mathius 🙂 🙂

    Stephen Coffeen: ‘Red Bull Killer’ not guilty by reason of insanity, will receive no jail time
    1:35 PM, Jun 8, 2011 | comments

    Written by
    Grayson Kamm

    Clearwater, Florida — A man who admits he killed his own father will see no jail time after a judge found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

    An expert has said drinking Red Bull was one of the things that led to the crime.

    Stephen Coffeen admits he smothered his father Robert with a couch cushion two years ago. He originally claimed was he was defending himself.

    His defense Wednesday was temporary insanity.

    And Wednesday, Judge Nancy Moate Ley accepted a deal worked out between his lawyers and the State Attorney’s Office. Under the deal, in six months, Stephen Coffeen could go free.

    “The defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity due to mental illness,” Judge Ley said, after explaining she had no choice but to send him to a mental hospital instead of putting him on trial.

    Instead of going before a jury, Coffeen will be sent to an institution in the Panhandle.

    He’ll be evaluated there, and six months from now if he’s found to be mentally healthy, he could be released.

    The judge said she had never seen it before.

    Four doctors — two hired by prosecutors, two by the defense — all agreed: Stephen Coffeen lost touch with reality and was legally insane when he suffocated his elderly father.

    The experts and all of the attorneys involved came to the conclusion that at the time, Coffeen could not tell right from wrong. And under the law, that means he can’t be punished for a crime.

    Stephen’s brother Thomas found their father’s body. He says Stephen knew just what he was doing. Thomas pushed for a murder trial.

    “This is not justice. Justice has not been done today,” Thomas said, standing outside the Pinellas County Courthouse with a despondent look on his face as his wife sobbed nearby.

    The judge said she considered every point he brought up, but after reading the doctors’ private medical reports, she said the insanity case is remarkably clear-cut.

    “I have spent many many hours on this case. Reviewing it, thinking about it, considering it, looking at case law. And I have determined that I have no choice, because it is also my duty to follow the law,” Ley said.

    Thomas says his brother Stephen was jealous of his success — and that led Stephen to plan the murder of their father, 83-year old Robert Coffeen, in St. Petersburg in 2009.

    Thomas says he’s worried if Stephen is released, Stephen will come after him and his family.

    Stephen Coffeen will now head to Florida State Hospital, a mental hospital in Chattahoochee, northwest of Tallahassee and near the Georgia state line.

    The doctors’ reports in the case are medical records and can only be released with Stephen Coffeen’s consent.

    His attorneys say the killing was a momentary snap and that their client is already mentally well, which is a sign they may ask the judge to release him at his next hearing in December.

  20. Judy Sabatini says:

    I thought I’d throw this in with the mix here.

    Hope all are doing well today.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    Sorry for the duplicate, looks like some changes on the posting area.

  22. Buck the Wala says:

    I don’t even know where to begin…

    • Good Morning Buck 🙂

      I didn’t know this was a problem. It seems rather silly to pass a law about it, doctors who are concerned could just pass out a gun safety pamphlet and never ask any questions.

      More importantly is the real reason, a strong lack of trust of the Federal government. This is growing every day in this country. I don’t trust Obama any further than I can throw Michele.

    • Mathius™ says:

      “Which raises a very important legal and constitutional question: Huh?”


      I heard about this when it was under consideration.. I didn’t think it would pass.. doesn’t Florida have, you know, more important issues to deal?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        No, of course not. The only thing on Florida’s agenda right now is ensuring doctors can’t question patients about their ownership/storage of guns. Because the only reason a doctor would be asking is to report this data to the federal government so they can later seize all guns dontcha know…

        • Good morning Counselor…..please dont tell me that asking questions about gun storage is falling under the guise of public health? What is next? Bicycles? The storage of lawn mowers? Where I keep my medicines? Goose down pillows? Hard candy?

          Please, sir…you cannot advocate this…surely.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Yes sir, I would say these are fair game questions for a doctor to ask as part of a patient’s health and safety.

          • Mathius™ says:

            He’s a doctor. If he thinks it’s salient, he should be free to ask.

            Pediatricians are trained—indeed, they are explicitly advised by the American Academy of Pediatrics—to inquire about the presence of open containers of bleach, swimming pools, balloons, and toilet locks in the homes of their patients. It’s part of their job to educate parents about potentially lethal dangers around the home.

            More importantly, however, is this question: why should the legislature get involved? If you don’t like the question, don’t answer. If you’re feeling pressured or harassed, find a different doctor. Easy.

            And, just for the sake of argument:

            65 children and teenagers are shot every day in America, and eight of them die; one-third of American homes with children under 18 have a firearms in them; and more than 40 percent of those households store their guns unlocked and a quarter of those homes store them loaded.

            Just saying… I don’t think it’s harassing for a doctor to ask the question and then maybe suggest you lock your guns up so your young child doesn’t accidentally shoot himself.. why is that something so antithetical to the American way of life that there needs to be a (very harsh) law against it?

            • I agree that there shouldn’t be a law written that restricts conversation between a doctor and a patient—–BUT there is no reason for a doctor to ask for specific information about whether YOU have a gun-it is none of his business-he is capable of advising you about known dangers without demanding you give him this type of personal information. It would be like a doctor demanding to know all the details of my sex life in order to tell me
              about sexually transmitted
              diseases and then dropping me as a patient because he doesn’t approve of my morals.

              because he doesn’t aprove of my morals.


              • What is with these new comment boxes-they will not move down as you type.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                He’s a doctor, of course he’s asking you (and you are providing) personal information. This is why there is doctor/patient confidentiality.

                Or do you buy into this notion that doctors are secretly taking inventory of everyone who has a gun and reporting it back to the big bad federal government so they can send over secret agents to come seize your guns?

              • Mathius™ says:

                That’s not exactly right, V.

                The doctor in the story dropped the patient for refusing to answer, not because he didn’t like her answer.

                And doctors regularly inquire about all manner of personal information in order to give the best advise they can.

                I remember going to a doctor..
                How many sexual partners have you had?
                Did you wear a condom?
                Do you know if any of them have an STD?
                Have you had ever had sex with another male?
                Are you sure?
                Have you had sex with a prostitute, even if you didn’t pay?
                Are you sure?
                and on and on…

                .. very personal, very prying, but very pertinent to his job of advising me in his best medical capacity.

              • His being my doctor does not give him a license to ask me any personal question he wants and demand that I answer or else.

                As far as the rest-if the doctor gave my information to an outside source I would sue him, though it is doubtful that I could prove it. But yes I do worry that these doctors that are making an issue of gun ownership to the point of dropping their patients if they don’t get the information, which is not necessary information for them to do their job-are attempting to harass and intimidate their patients. I would simply find another doctor but I do wonder with the way insurance limits ones choices in doctors-if everyone has that option. So at some point I might change my mind and decide that a law is necessary-if it is proven that the doctors are making a habit out of this type of intimidation and control of their patients based on their views on issues.

                find this

            • Good morning Mathius…. you say”65 children and teenagers are shot every day in America, and eight of them die; one-third of American homes with children under 18 have a firearms in them; and more than 40 percent of those households store their guns unlocked and a quarter of those homes store them loaded”.

              My opinion is “none of your business”. and I would do exactly as you said…..go to another doctor…..

              But let me ask YOU this question as I asked Buck….as a doctor, if a patient refused to answer your questions and you refused treatment as a result…..what is the difference if a doctor refusing treatment because of the color of your skin? Where does your argument fall on this and then explain to me the difference. I know we will probably disagree but I am interested in the line of thinking.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As I answered above, one affects the doctor’s ability to perform his job. The other doesn’t.

              • Well, that is the root cause of our disagreement-I do not feel the information is necessary for the doctor to do his job.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Then don’t answer and find another doctor.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Who are you to tell a doctor how to do his job? Does he tell you how to do.. whatever it is that you do?

                Next are you going to tell Buck that he can only write legal documents using his left hand, because you know how to lawyer* than he does?

                *yes, I used that as a verb, deal with it.

              • I already said I would not answer the question and if the doctor insisted that I have to answer all his questions no matter the subject even if the information was not necessary for him to do his job-that I would find another doctor. We haven’t been arguing about whether a law should be written-just whether the doctors actions were reasonable. So no I would not tell the doctor how to do his job-but I do still question the doctors motivation in demanding exact information instead of just warning the parent of the risk. So you tell me -why do you think a doctor knowing if , where, and how I store a gun is necessary to him doing his job? Will this information change the basic knowledge that he has on this subject? Will it suddenly become his obligation as a doctor to report that I have a gun which he doesn’t believe is safely stored to the authorities? Why does he need this information?

              • Buck the Wala says:


                I believe you were just….lawyered!


      • Actually….doesn’t the doctor have more important health issues than to ask about a weapon. I do not like the fact that a law has to be passed but I like it even less that a doctor asked this question and then tells the patient to take a hike. (Which I would have anyway after telling this idiotic physician to jam it up his ass sideways).

        There is no justification in this that I can see just as there is no justification in telling parents no brainer things like …do not leave open bleach within your child’s reach….do not leave sharp objects….etc etc.

        As Buck says…I dont know where to begin.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So, freedom for the patient (don’t ask about my guns!) but no freedom for the doctor (allow me to ask questions pertaining to health/safety or I will not see you as a patient)?

          These are routine questions that doctors – especially pediatricians – are trained to question. You would be surprised at how many parents neglect to take any measures to protect their infants/toddlers/children in their own house. Sometimes that reminder from the doctor to lock up some chemical or weapon actually would save a life. There is no evidence that doctors are taking this information and using it in any other manner.

          • Yes, as a mater of fact, I do see it that way. And I understand perfectly about the stupidity of parents. I can see no problem with the passing out of pamphlets that lists household injuries and the causes thereof…..ALL the causes. Not just about weapons that this article referred to….it was ONLY guns. THAT is very bothersome to me. A doctor is no more qualified to tell me about weapons and how and where to store them than I am to tell him about pathology. So, I see a problem with it from MY standpoint. However, that said, I do not think that a law suit should have been filed and should be thrown out. I call that one a frivolous suit that should carry a stupidity penalty.

            Even worse, if a doctor tells me to find another pediatrician because I will not tell him/her where my weapon is…..I wonder what would be your answer if a doctor refuses to work on a patient for…..say…..the color of his skin? The reasons do not matter, do they?

            Anyway…..that is my opinion. By the way, I looked up the statistics on accidental gun deaths and bicycle deaths among ages of 0-18. Take a look and then ask the question why a doctor does not ask…..where is your bicycle and how is it stored?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Bicycle deaths aren’t a result of improper storage. Gun deaths can be.

              And I’m still not so sure why its so horrible for a doctor to be asking this question – it is clearly pertinent and necessary so the doctor can give you the best advise possible for the safety of your kid. If you refuse to accept his advice, then so be it, that’s your right. But its not like the doctor is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do.

              And refusing to see a patient because they refuse to answer questions relating to their health and safety is very very different from refusing to see a patient because of their race, religion, etc. I’ve refused to take on clients that wouldn’t answer questions about their assets, because I’ve judged that this information is essential for me to provide the best advice possible and their unwillingness to provide this information stops me from doing my job.

              • Ok..I am sure that I will get the same answer from Mathius….thanks. We disagree but cool a mundo. How I store my weapons is not a doctors concern ( especially if that doctor has my name and address and now knows WHERE I store them and writes it down….sorry but I do not subscribe to the confidentiality argument either…a doctor will give that info up in a heart beat, no pun intended, but that is my choice and my choice would be to change doctors) and how I teach my child to ride a bicycle is not a doctors concern…but……so be it. Have another unrelated question to ask you but scroll down off this thread.

              • Mathius™ says:

                how I teach my child to ride a bicycle is not a doctors concern So, in your considered opinion, it would be unacceptable for a pediatrician to ask you if you make your son wear a bicycle helmet while teaching him to ride?

              • @ Mathius…….Not only yes, but hell yes….he would be out of bounds and I would not answer the question.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The article raises an interesting question:

      It is apparently acceptable to require a patient to receive “counseling” or pay for and view an ultrasound or listen to a medically dubious (at best) prepared script in order to receive a legal procedure

      Yet, at the same time, it is so invasive for a doctor as about a potential danger to children in a home that the government is justified making it illegal to ask about guns ownership.

      In one, they force the doctor to be invasive to the patient, in the other, they stop him from asking legitimate questions. Doesn’t this seem.. conflicted?

  23. Hey Charlie! Tell your troubles to Rush. He has four different articles in one day defending Palin! Run, Sarah, Run! 🙂

    If Sarah Palin Gets in the Race, She Will be the Candidate to Beat

    A Self-Described Lib from Branson on Why the Democrats Fear Palin

    Vinny in Queens Returns, Explains
    Now he says he was misunderstood. He loves Palin!

    Annette: Women Have Palin Envy

    • Mathius™ says:

      Is there anything on there about how she is factually incorrect about Paul Revere?

      I don’t know if I want her to run or not.. she’d be hell in a handbasket in the primaries, but if she won that.. oooh boy.. it’d be a mess in the general..

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Stop trying to reopen the can of worms — she was reasonably correct about Revere riding around, guns ablazing, ringing bells, shouting at the top of his lungs, running right up to every single damn redcoat he saw to provide an explicit warning that the Americans had guns and were not afraid to use them should the British try to seize them.

        Though in retrospect, the British were pretty stupid on this one — if they wanted to get the guns all they had to do was ask the doctors where they were.

      • Give it up about Paul Revere. I’m with BF. You’re hatin because she knew something and you knew nothing! There are an awful lot of credible folks saying that though she may have garbled the answer, she was correct. Now…! Mornin Matt…..

        • Mathius™ says:


          She would have gotten a D- from a very generous teacher if she’d given that as a short answer question in history class.

          I could have BS’d an A-, at least.

          Yes, I did not know that he was captured during his ride, nor that he “warned them” that 500 militiamen were en route. (since this was false, it seems to me that it might better be considered a bluff than a warning.. just my opinion..).

          But what I did know is that he was out to warn revolutionary leaders to help them avoid capture (his self-stated mission purpose), and that he warned citizens of the approach of the British (a seemingly secondary goal). And that, though the militiamen were technically British citizens (nominally, at least), he wasn’t out to warn the “British” (ie, the Red Coats) about anything, nor was he ringing bells, nor was he firing warning shots (especially considering the annoyance of reloading a front-loading musket while riding a horse and ringing bells.. in the dark – this would be technically challenging to say the least). Warning of the British was, at best, an incidental aside to the story.

          It’s as if I asked you about Weiner’s Twitter scandal and you responded by babbling incoherently about the relative merits of boxers verses briefs, and then added something about how Wiener is a 26th degree mason and was sending those pictures in an attempt to warn the space alien reptile shape-shifters that they better not attack because we are in good physical condition and well endowed. You might happen to mention something which I wouldn’t have known (that he apparently prefers briefs), but it’s really incidental to the facts of the narrative, and the rest is both stupid and false.

          But you and Flag would say that that’s apparently reasonably accurate..


          • :::sigh:::: Take your PMS pill….. 🙂 🙂

            • I think it’s quite comical that Palin seems like such a threat, considering the moron holding office now. Palin would probably do a much better job than Mr. Teleprompter.

              • Mathius™ says:

                This has nothing to do with the President. Nor does it have to do with the threat she poses (though I do believe she poses a considerable threat). This is about the truth or falsity of a word-jumble statement and the fact that it is not supported by primary evidence. This is about the fact that, when questioned, she defended her statement as accurate rather than calling it a flub and moving on.

                Read the document I posted. It is a first hand account. Argue the merits, stop misdirecting.

          • Everyone seems to take her words about Revere-as if she meant them as an insult-I didn’t take them that way. I heard “he told the British to stick it-they were going to lose, big time” others seem to have heard an insult-other than that-she was correct enough that all these stories and headlines are just nuts-it ain’t that big a deal and I just pretty much don’t care. 🙂

      • Oh! ….and then there’s this:

        The Story of Palin and Paul Revere
        She had her information right. The media didn’t know it.


  24. Government thinking at it’s finest 😦

    Janet Napolitano: Using Common Sense and Concentrating Terrorist Screening Efforts on Muslim Men Under 35 Is Not Good Logic

  25. Interesting argument put forward yesterday in the suit against the government on the health care issue. The use of words in the application of the commerce clause.

    The Obama administration, catching heat on the use of the word “tax” changed their wording in the bill to use the term penalty. Now, the attorneys yesterday, reinserted the term “tax” (on the spur of the moment) instead of penalty and it caught the judges totally off guard and raised a lot of eyebrows. The attorney’s concern, of course, in order for it to fit the commerce clause, it was their judgement that “penalty” does not fall under the purview of the clause.

    It is interesting to see how all this works and the hypocrisy of it but it sure caused some fireworks among the lawyers and the originators of the bill.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      From my understanding the exact term used doesn’t matter. The law would call for looking at the effect in this type of case, not the precise word used.

      I do find it strange that so much attention has been paid on all sides on the word given SCOTUS precedent to not look at the word ‘tax’ or ‘penalty’ but instead look to effect.

      • Then, to you, the words penalty and tax carry the same effect? I am asking in the context of the term commerce.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Ignore the term used, look at the effect of the clause in question.

          • Ok so when I do that….tax and penalty are synonymous.

            • On effect…..both take money. But, to me, penalty means a punishment for not doing something.

              • Mathius™ says:

                The other punishes you for earning money 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As far as I know, tax vs. penalty doesn’t matter — both operate as a tax and both are constitutional.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Is it your opinion that both are constitutional? Because, it is mine that they are not…strictly speaking in the indivdual mandate vein. If this is allowed, where will Congressional power end?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Hate to burst your bubble Terry, but that’s pretty much what I’m saying — the individual mandate is constitutional.

              • Terry Evans says:

                You’re not bursting my bubble at all…in fact you are incapable of bursting my bubble…unless you suddenly have the SCOTUS decision thrown to you to make. It will go there, and there are opinions that differ from yours, so at this point it appears to still be up in the air.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The only way for SCOTUS to rule this unconstitutional would be to completely discard decades upon decades of jurisprudence.

                Given the current makeup of the court, this could very well happen, but I doubt it. Only a few years ago Scalia himself wrote an opinion (I forget the case) which basically asserted the constitutionality of this type of mandate. I’d be very curious to see how he tries to walk that one back.

              • I would just call that “fixing their mistakes of the past” here’s hoping they overturn years and years of their “jurisprudence” mistakes and oversteps.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Amen V.H.! We can only hope, but until that decision comes down, that is what I’ll do.

          • Buck

            The reason the terms matter is because the Administration keeps changing the argument. The provision in question was first called a tax because the Commerce Clause argument might lose, given past rulings. Then it changed to Commerce again when they thought the Taxation Clause might fail. That little thing of all taxes originating in the House. Then back again.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And as I’ve said, from my own understanding of the matter, from a legal/judicial point of view, the exact term used is completely irrelevant to the argument. I don’t know why the administration is futzing around with it in this way. As I’ve long said, its completely constitutional regardless of how you slice it.

  26. What is sweltering? 99 in New York is sweltering? Geez…guys…wait until it gets hot. 88-100 considered sweltering up there? I guess it is relative…if it gets below 65..I am hunting a sweater.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m with you on this one.. though you do have to take into consideration humidity.

      99 in Texas is very different than 99 in New York.

      Still, what a bunch of cry-babies! Sweaters below 70, and don’t complain about heat until the mercury tops 110.

      • I guess…when it is 110 here..the humidity is only around 65 in Fort Worth, a little more down in Fort Hood and a helluva lot more in Houston…….our heat indexes only get to 115-120….

        But I am not a cold weather person at all…..this winter…chill factors were a little rough for me….zero degrees even for one week…was waaaay to I guess relative works.

    • I would kill for 65 right now…Extreme heat is by us now but today is rainy..I’ll never get out of this house! 👿

  27. Mathius™ says:

    It has come to my attention that Buck has turned away a client for refusing to answer questions about their assets during the process of estate planning.

    I got together with my lawmaking buddies today and we have passed a new law!

    It is now illegal for an attorney to violate their clients’ rights by asking about their asset holdings. We have decided that this is not a necessary part of the estate planning process. If an attorney is accused of harassing their clients by asking questions about this sensitive and private topic, they may face disciplinary action up to and including disbarment and/or jail time.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Alright, no more questions from me. I’ll just write up something for your estate plan, but no lawsuits for malpractice when they don’t do what you want because of missing information.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Don’t worry.. we also want to limit damages awarded to those pesky trial lawyers in malpractice suits!

        We expect that by tampering with the way doctors and lawyers do their job and then minimizing the rewards that malpractice victims can recover that we will create the best possible result for the patients/clients.

        Your donations to the Republican Party of Florida at work!

  28. By the way…..for you Arizonians……quite trying to emulate Texas in your wild fires….if you try to match the size of the fires we had…your state will disappear. Quit it.

  29. An aside:

    If you were in Greece, what would you do now:

    An article in the London Telegraph offered an idea about what will happen after a default on Greek government debt.

    – Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent.
    – The Greek government will nationalize every bank in Greece.
    – The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks.
    – To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law.
    – Greece will re-denominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting)
    – The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting on 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts.

    This is a very likely scenario.

    If you were living in Greece, what would you do today?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Move to Austria.

      Is this a multiple choice question?

      • Mathius,

        So you are saying that you, Mathius, have the money (not local currency), bank accounts, a house and a job, etc. already in another country?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Even better.

          I’m a member of the secret cabal the rules the world. When the revolution comes, I’ll be well taken care of. The other day in my weekly meetings with George Soros, he gave me an access card to his secure bunker for the New York area (“District 18”) and told me “the time is nigh!” (he talks like that, I’m not sure why).

          Don’t worry, when we establish our one-world government, as a member of the ruling junta, I will be sure to try and help out my buddies at SUFA.

          I can’t make any promises though.. so maybe you should make backup plans.. you know, just in case.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Let’s see:

          money? convert to whatever currency you feel you will need
          bank accounts? open an account
          house? rent
          job? start sending out applications

    • Assuming that the banks have not yet been nationalized, I would immediately withdraw all my funds and put them into say…American dollars (even at this day and age) ….in the Caymans or some such shelter. Keep only what I needed for the immediate. I would then use the exchange mercantile until the Greek money collapsed and then buy the discounted currency using those dollars.

      • Then I would wait and see what the interest rates for investment would when the new currency took place and then re-invest.

        Remember the Carter years and the deflationary values back then. CD’s were in the 10-12% range. Those with dollars made a sizeable windfall.

    • As this is a serious question, I’ll ignore Mathius.

      This is real. Greece is about to undergo this disaster. It is a lesson and a motivation to actually sit down and think about your own personal circumstance.

      I will post some thoughts later – perhaps even make this a whole post on itself.

      • Mathius™ says:

        No fair ignoring me!

        (and can you be completely sure that I wasn’t being serious?…)

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Buy food with a long storage life and a shovel, maybe some styrofoam. Dig shallow holes in dry area and bury your food, cover with styrofoam if freezing is a problem. Bury enough food for your own consumption and for bartering. Lose weight to appear under fed. Hide your pets. If you can feed your pets you must have food. Be seen digging for worms and eating bark off trees. Appear to be worthless and no one will bother you.

      Ok I am grinning a bit, but then again………..

  30. Buck,

    money? convert to whatever currency you feel you will need

    So think about this a bit deeper, Buck.

    Greece is about to tank their currency.
    The reason they are doing this is to escape their debt.
    They need the citizens – that is YOUR – money.

    Do you believe the day they announce the tanking of currency they will allow you to run to another currency?

    bank accounts? open an account

    Where? How?

    house? rent

    Rent means you have to pay … with what?

    job? start sending out applications

    To who? Doing what? How are you going to get paid? Are you working for free?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not sure why you’re having trouble with my answers.

      Given an impending collapse as you described, to move elsewhere:

      Money/Accounts — withdraw money from my accounts (prior to crash) in whatever currency I feel would be most useful and open new accounts in locality where I will be headed (this can even be accomplished by wire transfer if I can open up an account online in another locality)

      Rent — not very difficult to line up, and very possible of lining something up (especially for short term) online without having set foot in the other country; to pay rent, I would use the money I have plus money I receive from a job

      Which brings us to the job — start sending out applications, hopefully you will find soemthing, if not, take whatever you can get just to be able to keep paying your bills.

      • Buck

        Where are you going to apply for work? You are now a tourist or at best on a “visitor visa” more than likely.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Work at a hostel, coffee shop, whatever it takes to get your foot in the door and earn some money to support yourself.

          Apply for a work visa, student visa even and go back to school if you have some funds saved up to get a degree in that country.

          Plenty of options, not all ideal, but given the scenario its not going to be easy regardless of what you do.

          • Buck,

            Apply for a work visa

            It will take 12 to 48 months to get a work visa in another country – if you get one at all. Hundreds of thousands are trying to do this at the same time you are and countries that speak the same language at you are overwhelmed by the applications – and you probably will not get one anyway.

            How can you survive for 48 months on a hope?

            , student visa even and go back to school if you have some funds saved up to get a degree in that country.

            if you have funds saved… do you? Do you have 12 months of cash (not in your currency)?

            Plenty of options, not all ideal, but given the scenario its not going to be easy regardless of what you do

            An economic collapse is not ideal for anyone. That’s the point. This is happening, right now, in Greece. 99% of Greeks are like you – don’t have a plan IN PLACE, and will get “whacked” hard by this.

            The Greeks are giving lessons to Americans, if Americans are listening.

            • BF–what do you think will happen in Greece-are we looking at that body with all the knives taken out at once? Or will the world step in and help?

              • V.H.

                The bankers will pour good money on to the flames and burn it up. Then they will stop when it threatens their own solvency.

                But the domino has fallen, and one by one, each currency will follow Greece – massive default and revaluation.

                I expect within the next 10 years, every country will devalue its currency by 50%/75% – literally stealing 3/4 of your wealth – and toss the world into a massive Depression.

                But, eventually, in 20 or so years, all will be well again.

                It’s then next 10 that will be a serious problem to make it through.

              • I normally don’t think any question is stupid but maybe this one is-or maybe it’s just too hard to answer. But Why Why Why-are they doing this-do they just not know how to undue the harm they have caused? I can’t believe they don’t see the damage, that they are not cognizant of what they are doing? Is it that they want a one world government? Is it just a total lack of caring about anything but the present? Are they just evil?

                -what the?

      • Buck

        Not sure why you’re having trouble with my answers.

        No trouble.
        Your answers are fantasy.

        I want reality.

        Given an impending collapse as you described, to move elsewhere:

        Where? Do you have a house -RIGHT NOW- somewhere else? The collapse is happening – you have to go NOW.

        But now is NOT the time to look start for another house somewhere else, if you haven’t even started. Do you think you can do this in, say, 24 hours???

        Money/Accounts — withdraw money from my accounts (prior to crash) in whatever currency I feel would be most useful and open new accounts in locality where I will be headed (this can even be accomplished by wire transfer if I can open up an account online in another locality)

        The bank has closed their doors, because, like you 100 million people are trying to do the same thing.

        Now what?

        Rent — not very difficult to line up, and very possible of lining something up (especially for short term) online without having set foot in the other country; to pay rent, I would use the money I have plus money I receive from a job

        What money do you have? The banks closed. Are you holding the collapsing currency? Do you think others will accept it?

        What job? Do you have another one already in the pipeline? How did you do this from another country? How long do you think it will take you to find a job in another country, given you need to get work visas, etc.?

  31. d13thecolonel

    Better convert prior to crash…

    Yes, if even possible after a crash.

    Assuming that the banks have not yet been nationalized, I would immediately withdraw all my funds and put them into say…American dollars (even at this day and age)

    As you pointed out, a day difference may mean the difference between survival and not.

    ….in the Caymans or some such shelter

    Do you know how long it takes to do this?
    Do you believe this is even affordable for the average American or Greek?

    If you do not have it now, it is too late (in this scenario).

    • Is all gold bought and sold in dollars no matter what country you are in?

      So as the dollar declines gold goes up, right?

      So would it be smart to trade gold for a stable currency before a crash or do you still hold onto gold?

      And even after a crash it’s still cool to hold silver, correct?

      Boooy, I hope these aren’t dumb questions 🙂

      • Anita,

        Is all gold bought and sold in dollars no matter what country you are in?

        No, it is bought and sold in all sorts of different currencies.

        So as the dollar declines gold goes up, right?

        …in relation to the dollar, yes.

        So would it be smart to trade gold for a stable currency before a crash or do you still hold onto gold?

        Gold in very useful to “reboot” your personal economic situation. But there are always risks.

        Government does not like people who avoid their attempts to steal from them. They may put currency controls which might interfere with your selling of gold.

        Further, you must find someone willing to buy gold. When all the gold bugs decide to sell at the same time, the price will drop. There are “secret” indicators that “now is the time to sell” that is not obvious to 99.9% of the people who own gold. I will let you know when these indicators appear.

        And even after a crash it’s still cool to hold silver, correct?


        Boooy, I hope these aren’t dumb questions

        Not one bit 🙂

        • Thank you BF…if you die before the crash please have Mrs. Flag post the bail out warning. 🙂

  32. GMan

    Perhaps I missed it but I never saw your explanation as to how this New Not Govt was formed, or is to be formed.

    Especially following a national economic or financial collapse.

    • JAC, You missed nothing. I never said how that may occur. I don’t know how that will occur, but I hope that good people like yourself, those who post here, and like minded people will step up and make a difference. I do not know of any organizations who are organized enough to make this happen. My best hope is the American spirit will rise up and help with this transistion (if it ever happens).

  33. Charlie Stella

    Your attacks of GMan’s proposal on the grounds it somehow imposes a law upon you is absurd.

    Stopping Govt or someone else from creating rules that impose upon you is not an imposition upon you. Unless of course you believe that not allowing you to harm others is an imposition.

  34. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Been busy here lately so I have not kept up. Last evening I heard mention of the following on CNN. Obama may not need congress to approve an increase in the debt ceiling because of the 14th amendment.

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned”.

    I guess it could mean all debt obligations must be met so it is constitutionally requried to pay those debts.

    What do you think, Buck?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sorry, don’t know much about this from a legal perspective. Interesting argument though, but doubtful theres any real precedent or guiding light on it.

      Perhaps though this would just mean that while existing obligations must be met, absent a rise in the debt ceiling, no new debt can be taken on?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Maybe, I need to think it over. It also seems to make it clear that if The debt ceiling is not raised on time, incoming revenues must go the interest on the debt along with SS and medicare and any other debt.

    • Debt greater than the “debt ceiling” is not “authorized by law”.

  35. GMan

    In your effort I would suggest that you don’t need to be so radical in your reinventions. Representation on your “management committee, for example, could be the same as the current Senate.

    Americans have certain cultural expectations regarding govt. So any revision will more than likely have to be similar in structure or construct to gain the confidence needed for establishment.

    Which brings me to the point that after your core principles you must decide whether Republic, Confederation, or Democracy best fits the principles. You basically describe a corporate Confederation at the Federal level and a Democracy at the local. But how will the Rights of the citizens be protected when it operates as a Democracy at the local level?

  36. SUFA

    For those of us who wish to construct a non-govt govt, or a VDLG govt based on individual sovereignty, freedom, liberty and justice for all, then we must address a key question in its construct.

    How do you allow those who DO NOT agree with the majority to avoid being imposed upon in the building of “laws”?

    In other words, how do you keep from making a person a “criminal” by legal edict when they have done nothing to coerce or impose force upon another? Taxation is a good example of this effect.

    I believe that rule by “majority” is a generally accepted method of decision making among humans. So much so it has reached the point of essentially a Common Law among many. However, how big should the majority be? Is it 50% plus one? Or something more substantial to avoid the “passions of the moment”?

    And of course, will the opponents be allowed to avoid the decision of the majority? Remember, the Chief or tribal council may have made the decision in the good old days, but the young brave could leave if he did not agree. “No man should tell another man how to live” (famous Sioux Chief quote, courtesy of Hollywood).

    • It is impossible to do so; that is what makes BF’s argument so powerful (and unrealistic). You can argue for truly free man (no gov’t) all you want, you cannot implement it.

      That said, I’m leaning more and more toward an anarchist belief, except anarchism-communism; not free markets. Communal sharing of resources rather than a lifestyle based on greed/power. Yes, it is another form of idealism but … we’ve already tried it the other way and too many are falling behind because of it.

      No, I’m not going to go through the “free market” bullshit arguments again … life is too short.

      • Charlie

        You say you we can not live without Govt yet many of us do quite well most of the time. Those of us living in rural areas are affected and in fact benefit from govt but it is in a much more removed way than those of you living in urban areas. In fact, roads are pretty much the only regular effect of govt on our lives. Well at least the only effect where govt is active as opposed to simply being a “regulator”.

        Charlie, please think on this hard and long. We believe we must have govt because that is what we know, both currently and historically. Our civilization, including its infrastructure, was built upon it. So most of us can not fathom the possibility of these things existing without the govt that built them. Yet it was all possible at one time.

        There is no doubt that converting from here to there would be much more difficult, perhaps impossible, than if we had built our nation without govt from the start. But I think that transition would be most difficult in the cities. Certainly not in the country or states dominated by rural citizens.

        You are free to form a commune with your Communist friends and live your lifestyle to your hearts content. Just don’t reach out to the rest of us to try and force us to support you when your community fails.

        • Yet it was all possible at one time.


          I’m fine with free communal living and free markets so long as your free market doesn’t cripple my commune. If that can happen, it’s a beauitful thing … but i doubt a free market wouldn’t seek to impede my commune (holding us up (pricing) for needed resources, etc.).

          • Charlie

            It was possible when those white guys met to address the problems of the Confederation.

            They could have just dumped the whole thing at that point. But they to were slaves to history.

  37. Hmmmm and just how do you plan on being anarchistic but at the same time MAKE people share?

  38. The Obamacare Lawsuit: From the Courtroom in Atlanta

    Posted by Ilya Shapiro

    ATLANTA — In the most important appeal of the Obamacare constitutional saga, today was the best day yet for individual freedom. The government’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, spent most of the hearing on the ropes, with the judicial panel extremely cautious not to extend federal power beyond its present outer limits of regulating economic activity that has a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

    As the lawyer representing 26 states against the federal government said, “The whole reason we do this is to protect liberty.” With those words, former solicitor general Paul Clement reached the essence of the Obamacare lawsuits. With apologies to Joe Biden, this is a big deal not because we’re dealing with a huge reorganization of the health care industry, but because our most fundamental first principle is at stake: we limit government power so people can live their lives the way they want.

    This legal process is not an academic exercise to map the precise contours of the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause — or even to vindicate our commitment to federalism or judicial review. No, all of these worthy endeavors are just means to achieve the goal of maximizing human freedom and flourishing. Indeed, that is the very reason the government exists in the first place.

    And the 11th Circuit judges saw that. Countless times, Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce. Even Judge Hull, reputed to be the most liberal member of the panel, conducted a withering cross-examination to establish that the individual mandate didn’t help that many people get affordable care, that the majority of people currently without coverage would be exempt from the requirement (presumably due to their income level).

    In short, while we should never read too much into an oral argument, I’m more optimistic about this case now than any other.

  39. This is a scene from a truly beauitful Italian movie(with a truly beautiful eye-talian tomata, Monica Buccelli) …. turn up your volume to get the full effect.

  40. Like I typed, Bellucci … oy vey

  41. JAC

    How do you allow those who DO NOT agree with the majority to avoid being imposed upon in the building of “laws”?

    In other words, how do you keep from making a person a “criminal” by legal edict when they have done nothing to coerce or impose force upon another? Taxation is a good example of this effect.

    How do you make “white” be “black”?

    You either impose with violence … or you do not.

    Thus the concept of “Panarchy” – a person chooses the legal arrangement he wishes to abide by – it is not imposed.

    • BF

      Your assumption and thus claim is FALSE.

      We already have laws that exempt certain classes of people from those laws.

      So it is entirely possible to create a law that allows voluntary compliance. Just as the original laws were regarding taxation.

      I will grant you that to meet this requirement would greatly restrict the number and type of laws.

      Another example. Laws regarding murder. These laws do not make criminals of those who DO NOT murder someone. Only those who DO murder.

      • JAC,

        Your assumption and thus claim is FALSE.
        We already have laws that exempt certain classes of people from those laws.

        So you have a contradiction – you are using a law to exempt a few from a different law.

        This is wholly different from being subject to (that is, imposed upon by) law.

        So it is entirely possible to create a law that allows voluntary compliance. Just as the original laws were regarding taxation.

        If I agree to your “law” that exempts me, I automatically agree to your law – which will claim I must submit to your law.

        That is the trap – to appeal to your law, I must agree to your law.

        I do not agree with your law – period.

        I will grant you that to meet this requirement would greatly restrict the number and type of laws.

        Another example. Laws regarding murder. These laws do not make criminals of those who DO NOT murder someone. Only those who DO murder.

        However, everyone is subject to that law, even those that do not murder. Those that do not murder are law abiding – which means they are subject of it.

        I am not subject to your law – period.

        • BF-per our talks you have stated that there can be laws in a non government world-then you have stated that there is only one law allowed-which is one will not impose-so murder is indeed imposing-so what is your problem with being subject to this law?

          • V.H.

            No, it is being subject to your law by your demand. If I agree with your law and legal system, then I voluntarily subject myself to it.

            But if you impose your law on me, that is evil.

            Now, using “murder” as an example is a bad example. No society can exist where “murder” is legal, so it is moot to describe such.

            Natural Human Law – that is, proclamations against the use of the initiation of violence – would be essentially universal, no matter whose “law” you subject yourself to -even your own personal “law” – by the mere necessity that for civilization to exist, such Natural Law would be enforced.

            Beyond that, what law you subject yourself to is yours to choose. That is the Panarchy Philosophy.

            • Totally confused by this answer-sorry if it is a bad example but to me murder is the most imposing one can do-so if no man is subject to any law unless he does so voluntarily, not even an essentially universal law- how does man enforce that which out of necessity must be enforced for civilization to continue-without people being subject too these natural laws-whether they agree or not?

  42. Charlie,

    You can argue for truly free man (no gov’t) all you want, you cannot implement it.

    Here, I do not agree. It is easily implementable and workable.
    The desire for most people does not exist…. yet.

    Most people believe they are a net beneficiary of the lottery of theft distribution. As long as they benefit or believe they may benefit, they continue to support the thievery.

    Only when they are convinced that they no longer benefit from the theft will they be motivated against it – for they will then see themselves as the hopeless victim.

    This is why the argument for Freedom must come from Moral Principles.

    Though the argument is powerful from an economic position, the argument of economics will fall on deaf ears.

    People judge their economic outcomes personally, and rarely take into account the broad consequences. They may benefit personally from theft, and wholly ignore the degradation of society such theft causes – until it is too late.

    Thus, the argument must come from the Moral Principle that all theft – all of it – is immoral and evil, even if it benefits you.

    This is where the battle is won or lost. If you cannot convince people to live within their own Moral Principles, no argument however well reasoned and logical will make a difference.

    • Most people believe they are a net beneficiary of the lottery of theft distribution.

      I read no further because that is such a blanket statement (and way too presumptuous) to accept. Not all (probably hardly any) who oppose a gov’t free society are even cognizant of “theft distribution” (as you phrase it).

      I’d like to believe it possible, but I know better.

      However, judging from the crap we are all putting up with today with government (red thru and thru and whackjob righties as well), I have no problem with seeing this gov’t dissolved (or executed) … this last joke (Weiner) has been one too many smacks in my chops to believe in anybody in this government or “in this government” as it is currently structured.

  43. Charlie,

    I read no further because that is such a blanket statement (and way too presumptuous) to accept. Not all (probably hardly any) who oppose a gov’t free society are even cognizant of “theft distribution” (as you phrase it).

    Charlie, it is a blanket statement and it is the truth.

    People believe they benefit from government.
    Government funds itself solely on theft – either by direct theft (taxes) or by counterfeiting (inflation).

    But most people agree with it – called “legitimizing” because they believe government doing of such things they call “defense” and “police” and “courts” and “law” is “good”.

    But they do not critically think about these things to understand that none of that is a real benefit and that all theft no matter who does it and for what reason – is an act of evil

    I’d like to believe it possible, but I know better.

    People figured out -eventually- that slaughtering one another was a “bad” thing.

    We humans civilized ourselves with this one understanding – attacking another man was evil – and we humans in creating civilization de-legitimized it for all reasons except for self-defense…. except for government.

    The reason government avoided civilization was due to the organizational and centralization of the violence, and much of it due to the Romans. The Romans, in centralizing and organizing their military, created the “modern” concept of the State – a “Republic”.

    As long as people believe they benefit from such evil, they will not put it down.

    As Gandhi said:
    We love evil too much to let it go

    • The Romans, in centralizing and organizing their military, created the “modern” concept of the State – a “Republic”.

      And here I thought it was The Sopranos fault …

  44. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Regarding the issue of youths being killed with guns or “utes” as I prefer to call them, the stat is usually off because it does not account for the bad “utes” who some might call gang bangers. For Example: As Joey is on his way home from coping some dope, he runs into Jeff who would like to relieve him of the dope and any spare cash. Both Joey and Jeff draw down on each other and simultaneously (one could only hope) dispatch each other into the next world. The next day the story is covered as Altar boy and Choir boy accidentally shoot each other on the way to High Mass. Mayor Bloomberg decries the easy availability of guns while the BATF puts out a preemptive press release stating that they did not deliberately allow the sales of these Glocks to who they thought were Mexican Drug Cartel buyers in Arizona the week before.

    Several weeks ago several old friends and I were discussing the slicing and dicing of one Michael Farmer of Incarnation parish, Washington Heights, Manhattan in 1956. As kids, we were required to attend his funeral Mass. In the time period in question, young Farmer was struck down by a dastardly Street gang from Harlem. Farmer himself was portrayed in this Irish neighborhood by the predominantly Irish Police force and by the devoutly pro Irish NY “Daily News” as something just short of the 2nd coming of Christ, an Altar boy who was on the short list to be accepted intro Harvard Medical School where he would have no doubt found the cure for Cancer. The reality, which we had a good laugh over, was he was a drop out, racist, trouble maker with a Napoleon complex who decided to bring a switchblade to a fist fight, had it taken away from him and got it back in a manner he did not expect.

    Trust statistics but distrust statisticians and those they work for.

  45. V.H.

    I normally don’t think any question is stupid but maybe this one is-or maybe it’s just too hard to answer. But Why Why Why-are they doing this-do they just not know how to undue the harm they have caused?

    The Masses will continue to maintain the ‘status quo’ as long as they do not suffer.

    When they start to suffer, it is usually too late to avoid it. They now have to suffer, and often great suffering – called the Reckoning.

    Such bobbing and weaving has been a human history lesson for all time – the Bible speaks of such things as “inevitable”.

    I can’t believe they don’t see the damage, that they are not cognizant of what they are doing? Is it that they want a one world government? Is it just a total lack of caring about anything but the present? Are they just evil?

    They do see the damage, but want to avoid the Reckoning – so they act in a manner that is contradictory, making things worse.

    There are those that will try to use this crisis to their advantage – which may be to try to organize a more centralization of government power. I do not think they can succeed as the basis of such a plan is dissolve at its core. But they may try anyway.

    They care – about today, at the expense of the unobserved future. This is a common condition present in most people.

    They are not necessarily evil.

    They are ego-centric and suffer short time preferences – sacrifice their future and their children for good times today. “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die!”

    • Sounds spot on BF. The sheeple don’t know and don’t want to know. Most have become inured to the government ‘fixing’ the problems.

      Most of the rest will waffle until it’s too late.

  46. Check out honor of guitarist Les Paul..pretty cool!

  47. Anita,

    A great interview with a homeschool Mom – I think you’ll hear yourself in it!

  48. Yep, BF, my daughter sent me a link to that sight for a certain recipe and I realized then that it was also a homeschooling sight too and I check in there regularly. I am still pleased with my decision to homeschool. We’ve been done with the curriculum for weeks already. I’ve seen a positive change in my son, a mellower attitude, more patience, and more independence. He’s proud to have completed the task – with good grades to boot. The gang still at the public school?…I still hear horror stories of the kids running the asylum, suspensions, and bad grades. Several of them, including my estranged step son are looking at summer school. I feel sorry for them!

    The recipe I went after?…check it out! mmmmm mmmmmm!

    • We love Monkey Bread for those special occasion mornings! My recipe is a little different, but similar. A couple tips (learned from a friend’s experience):

      *Do not use the deluxe style of biscuit (or whatever it’s called), just the regular, small biscuit or your pan will overflow and you will have monkey bread all over the oven; and

      *Do not use a pan with seams like a 2-piece tube pan or cheesecake springload pan as the juices will run out and your oven will be a mess and you will burn yourself getting it out!

  49. As my Pappy would say, Charlie, you would complain if you were hung with a gold rope!

    This article is simply a list of ideas. If you are so against anything any of us say, then why don’t you come up with your OWN. Don’t just complain that everyone else is wrong.

    Besides, I thought you were Socialist. If it were up to you, no one would have ANY rights at all. Right?

    While I don’t think it’s perfect, at least G-man has a start. That’s what negotiation is for.

    You will NEVER satisfy everyone. 350 million people. Not going to happen.

    • Essom: I’m not sure which Charlie you’re referring to. Charlie Colbert is the right wing anarchist (like BF); Charlie Stella is a Plutonian (who believes in the greater good before greed); that we should all sacrifice for one another but he’s also a bit of a fascist dictator (statist, if you will) and would shoot the current gov’t rather than vote it out of office. He might even be a libertarian if you could start everyone all over again with the same level playing field. Until then, he’ll opt for violent revolution … or something like that.

  50. V.H.

    Totally confused by this answer-sorry if it is a bad example but to me murder is the most imposing one can do-so if no man is subject to any law unless he does so voluntarily, not even an essentially universal law- how does man enforce that which out of necessity must be enforced for civilization to continue-without people being subject too these natural laws-whether they agree or not?

    Unwind your argument.

    Can civilization stand if murder is legal?

    • Then,
      Do you agree man seeks civilization?

      • Then,
        Thus, any man seeking civilization will recognize the Natural Law, and will have codification describing the mitigation, prohibitions and restitution of such acts of violence, including murder.

        • Therefore,
          Debating about the existence of Natural Laws is irrelevant as any civilized society will have them, even a society of one.

          That is why “murder” is a bad example. You will find no example – not one, anywhere, ever in history, present or in the future that survives the legalization of murder

          (Which, by the way, is why abortion is so deadly to a society – it legalizes murder, and should the broad society accept such, will eventually lead to the involuntary euthanasia of vast segments of the helpless of society, leading to civil collapse)

          • That is one of the simplest, yet best argument I’ve ever read against abortion.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Silly ‘slippery slope’ arguments tend to be simple. Wouldn’t call it a good argument though.

              • Silly-You are free, obviously to believe want you want-but it is a pretty simple and not silly at all fact-that if man devalues life-we are devaluing our own worth. And less value means it is alot easier to dismiss the killing of the supposed valueless among us.

              • Buck,

                It is not a slippery slope argument – it is a conditional argument.

                – if you accept the premise that civilization cannot stand with the legalization of the killing of the innocent – accepting the killing of innocent will cause conditions that erode and collapse civilization.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Your argument boils down to: Abortion will lead to euthanasia will lead to civil collapse.

                It is most certainly of the slippery slope variety.

        • Men seeking civilization are not the problem-so civilized man has all this information, so what, if he cannot use it against a man who does not voluntarily subject his self to it, without supposedly doing evil. I’m in the same place-confused or your nuts 🙂 🙂 Now I realize that if one tries to murder me or anyone else in my presence I have the right to defend myself and others. But if they simply kill someone-and I have proof-how do I enforce this natural law. That is what I want to know.

          We had a similar discussion once. If there was no law and I didn’t have away of protecting myself from a clear and future danger-even if he wasn’t an immediate danger -that I would have the right to kill said person-is this the same argument here.

  51. And to balance that out, here is an article on the tactics used by the unions, progressives in WI to attack Walker. Their goal?

    In the meantime, says Frank Emspak of Workers Independent News. “We need to make the state ungovernable.”

    Their tactics are shameful; you may have heard or seen the video of the “Zombie” march that interrupted Gov. Walker speaking to the Special Olympics group. Ummm really? How low can you go?

    Our capitol grounds are now filled with the tent city they’ve labelled “Walkerville”.

    I no longer care to find common ground with the likes of people that can support this kind of disruptive, gross behavior. Any why? Because some of their government goodies are being taken away. (And the pockets of the unions are being threatened).

    Add to it the low moral standards recently exhibited by those on the left during the Weiner incident, unfortunately not uncommon reactions, and it makes me think that a split nation might be best.

  52. V.H.

    Men seeking civilization are not the problem

    Good – so we now can leave completely our dialogue regarding law and legal systems for such things only exist in civilized societies

    So no more questions about “what law do you follow if law regarding murder it is not imposed”. Merely understanding that law – Natural Human Law – exists presupposes and requires prohibitions on violence. – so you don’t have to worry about whether “my law” legalizes murder – if it does, I cannot civilize and will evaporate – if I have civilization, you implicitly know murder is not legal.

    So, your next concern:
    The Barbarian. The man who believes Might is Right.

    First, no human law can contain him, for he is a believer in force and violence as the determiner of what is right or wrong – not reason.

    Violence replaces reason.

    So appealing to this man with your law – no matter whose law – is moot. While you are explaining the reasons, such as social order and prosperity – he is clubbing you to death.

    But such men are few and the few will not last for long.

    They cannot civilize nor exist in a broad society. The benefits of civilization and society are not theirs to enjoy and most often they implode upon themselves into orgies of violence upon themselves.

    Your law deals with such men as criminals – and its up to your own law on how you deal with criminals.

    • Okay, I understand-and I can see where in a truly free society this type of individual justice or chance of the draw might be necessary. But this seems much different than your discussions of common law and courts or voluntary associations that are not backed up by government. How do these two arguments come together?

      • V.H.

        My 2 cents.

        Murder laws serve a purpose of announcing that murder is unacceptable. No harm in that. But they also document the “penalties” for that crime deemed appropriate by that society. Making this known to all in advance is also no harm in my view.

        As for the “deterrent” effect of such laws, this can be true only if we believe that there are some among us who might NOT commit the crime due to the penalty. That the knowledge of the law might cause them to think twice.

        Those who don’t care about human life or civilization won’t give a damn whether a law exists or the penalties, written or otherwise.

        So the debate centers largely on this unknown group of “might do it if there was no penalty”.

        Now, I think that if we viewed our laws in this context we would eliminate most of them.

        • I think it would also take away the” take the law into your own hands” situations that BF and I have been discussing.

          • V.H.

            Yes, in my view it serves that purpose. Well not the law itself but the creation of the enforcement mechanism, ie police.

            Written laws with govt or “singular authority” for enforcement, prevents two competing private security firms from having a gun fight in my yard over my neighbor complaining about my boat parked in the driveway. 🙂

  53. Buck,

    Your argument boils down to: Abortion will lead to euthanasia will lead to civil collapse.

    I have explained my argument well enough.

    Murder of innocents leads to the collapse of society and civilization.
    Abortion is the murder of innocents.

    If you can justify the killing of innocents “over here” for “this reason” – you can justify the killing of all innocents for any reason.

    The first -after babies- that are the easiest to kill – the helpless.

    Those not so helpless will tend to resist, but may not intervene as the justification has been accepted once already. However, the broad scope of the helpless will leak into the “not so helpless” and massive, mutual slaughter will occur.

  54. BF

    Re Laws and imposing.

    At first your response seemed to go astray once more. Then I see I might have used a bad choice of word in my comment.

    When I said we have laws that exempt certain people, the word EXEMPT is incorrect. We have laws that APPLY to certain groups and not others. Such as the tax laws or those regarding murder.

    Another we have discussed before might be a stamp tax law. You could avoid the tax if you choose to not record your legal documents with a county recorder. But then you would not have access to the govt court of contract dispute. The law does not exempt you, it simply doesn’t involve you unless you avail yourself of the Govt services.

    So this is not the contradiction that you claim. My law does not force you to pay the tax or to use the govt courts. You are free to get your friends together and use some other dispute resolution if you wish. And it is not my law but OUR law. That is those of us who are civilized. OK, yes that was baiting. Couldn’t resist.

    Laws regarding murder don’t actually make murder illegal. They establish murder as a “crime”, same as common law, but they then establish penalties for the crime. Codifying Common Law would thus avoid imposition just as much as the Common Law itself would.

    But what laws do that Common Law did not always do is it documents the rules of society or the local community. Man should be able to know the rules in advance. Thus written laws serve a very “civilized” purpose, if they are limited to those types of things.

    In my view the concept of law is not the problem. It is whether it is possible to constrain govt or some not-govt body from piling on with laws to address every little issue, which then in turn criminalize non criminal behavior. Criminal in my point is the initiation of force against others.

    • JAC,

      Another we have discussed before might be a stamp tax law. You could avoid the tax if you choose to not record your legal documents with a county recorder. But then you would not have access to the govt court of contract dispute. The law does not exempt you, it simply doesn’t involve you unless you avail yourself of the Govt services.

      Ok, I see what you mean here, and I agree. That is a clear example of acknowledging by free choice whether to subject oneself to a certain legal remedy or not.

      Laws regarding murder don’t actually make murder illegal. They establish murder as a “crime”, same as common law, but they then establish penalties for the crime. Codifying Common Law would thus avoid imposition just as much as the Common Law itself would.


      But what laws do that Common Law did not always do is it documents the rules of society or the local community. Man should be able to know the rules in advance. Thus written laws serve a very “civilized” purpose, if they are limited to those types of things.

      This is where is goes astray.

      Law is violence. There is no such thing as a law that is merely a suggestion.

      To use Law to enforce codes of conduct will always lead to massive tyranny for you will apply violence upon non-violent men to force their compliance to your social “code” – the latter being rather subject and whimsical. Hence, violence will be applied on a whim.

      “Rules” are another thing altogether.

      In my view the concept of law is not the problem. It is whether it is possible to constrain govt or some not-govt body from piling on with laws to address every little issue, which then in turn criminalize non criminal behavior. Criminal in my point is the initiation of force against others.

      You cannot constrain government by trying to bury it in paperwork. It will dutifully fill out all of your forms then hang you.

      The way you prevent “piling up” the laws is by understand what law is – it is violence.

      Where you would rightfully use violence is where you rightfully can make a law. Making any other law beyond that will shatter human rights.

      • BF

        OK, we have identified the core disagreement. It is not a contradiction on my part but my disagreement with your position.

        My position: Law is NOT violence.

        My case?

        Common Law put in writing is still LAW.

        You seem to claim law is violence because you are only equating law with your definition of government and those rules made by that govt..

        • JAC,

          Law is violence. It is an edict enforced by violence, no matter who enforces such.

          Common Law is violence, too. It is enforced by violence – it need not be “written” down.

          This is why I clarify -carefully- the differences between Rules and Laws. One uses non-violent enforcements and the other uses violent enforcement.

          • BF

            Utah legislature passes a LAW forbidding the Great Salt Lake to exceed a specified elevation.

            The Lake violates the law.

            Govt law: No violence.

            The root of the violence is not law by itself.

            In order to deal with the conflicts you are relying on a distinction you create. I understand why you use rule and law in this manner.

            But the fact is that most of us humans understand that LAWS include a broad range of things and not all LAWS require violence.

            So in my arguments it is not LAW but a PARTICULAR law that is of concern. But even here the root is not reached. For that is the moral underpinning and thus authority granted to those who make the LAW(S).

  55. Buck the Wala

    The murder argument regarding abortion is not the slippery slope you are discussing.

    The dispute you have with V.H. and BF’s comment is that you do not agree that an unborn human is a person or a human being.

    Therefore you think that abortion will not create a devaluation of human life and thus lead to euthanasia.

    The problem I see with your argument it the fact that there are people within the power structure who support abortion and also seem to support or at least are willing to discuss the need for, or possibility of, euthanasia. This sure looks like the manifestation of the slippery slope that V.H. is concerned with.

    That is the essence of the debate, in my opinion.

    • Buck

      Please ignore the first sentence. My mind is muddled a little right now and that sentence is not necessary and only confuses my discussion.

  56. V.H.

    Okay, I understand-and I can see where in a truly free society this type of individual justice or chance of the draw might be necessary. But this seems much different than your discussions of common law and courts or voluntary associations that are not backed up by government. How do these two arguments come together

    So, let’s dispell government.

    Government is the barbarian – Might is Right. You cannot reason with it, so don’t expect your rights to be an argument with it, either.

    So Natural Human Law backed up by government is a contradiction. You always and only get government law – which by necessity must compel and coerce free men into compliance

    Moving on:
    Civilized men naturally organize themselves.
    This means they naturally organize their own laws – the concept “Common Law” derives here. No man dictated Common Law; Common Law is what individual men found to be successful in maintain social order. Men seek to be successful, so they will discard law which impedes them, and accept law which enhances them. You do not need to force a darn thing.

    However, there are many modes of success, thus, many ways to organize ones self for success, and hence, many ways to organize law.

    Free men choose which way to organize and which law works for them.

    • When we go from the discussion of individual man determining what law he will be subject too or enforce-to free men organizing together and forming common law courts-it seems to me that you just jumped to majority opinion and are in fact-subjecting free men to other men’s laws.

      • V.H.

        Can I give you a great big hug?

      • V.H.

        I do not confuse the good choices of A man being good enough to impose on another man.

        However, good choices tend to multiply as men tend to use good answers and discard bad ones.

        So, naturally good laws expand over society and “bad” laws disappear, because good law does good and bad law does bad and men move toward good more than they move toward bad.

        • I agree with this statement-if one is forced by locality to suffer the consequences of the laws we impose-things would be better. But what I am trying hard to figure out is-are we separated in our understanding by a difference in words-such as law or rule which JAC brought up-or am I still somehow missing the principal you are trying to define when you say man shouldn’t be subjected to another man’s laws. Because our discussion today seems to have contradictions.

  57. Anita,

    Here is something for you and your questions, from the Mises Institute.

    Professor Leoni’s major thesis is that even the staunchest free-market economists have unwisely admitted that laws must be created by governmental legislation; this concession, Leoni shows, provides an inevitable gateway for State tyranny over the individual.

    The other side of the coin to increasing intervention by government in the free market has been the burgeoning of legislation, with its inherent coercion by a majority—or, more often, by an oligarchy of pseudo-“representatives” of a majority—over the rest of the population.

    In this connection, Leoni presents a brilliant critique of F.A. Hayek’s recent writings on the “rule of the law.” In contrast to Hayek, who calls for general legislative rules as opposed to the vagaries of arbitrary bureaucracy or of “administrative law,”

    Leoni points out that the real and underlying menace to individual freedom is not the administrator but the legislative statute that makes the administrative ruling possible.

    It is not enough, demonstrates Leoni, to have general rules applicable to everyone and written down in advance; for these rules themselves may—and generally do—invade freedom.

    Leoni’s great contribution is to point out to even our staunchest laissez-faire theorists an alternative to the tyranny of legislation.

    Rather than accept either administrative law or legislation, Leoni calls for a return to the ancient traditions and principles of “judge-made law” as a method of limiting the State and insuring liberty.

    In the Roman private law, in the Continental Civil Codes, in the Anglo-Saxon common law, “law” did not mean what we think today: endless enactments by a legislature or executive.

    “Law” was not enacted but found or discovered; it was a body of customary rules that had, like languages or fashions, grown up spontaneously and purely voluntarily among the people.

    These spontaneous rules constituted “the law”; and it was the works of experts in the law—old men of the tribe, judges, or lawyers—to determine what the law was and how the law would apply to the numerous cases in dispute that perpetually arise.

    The body of judge-made law changes very slowly; furthermore, since judicial decisions can only be made when parties bring cases before the courts, and since decisions properly apply only to the particular case, judge-made law—in contrast to legislation—permits a vast body of voluntary, freely-adopted rules, bargains, and arbitrations to proliferate as needed in society.

    Leoni brilliantly shows the analogy between these free rules and bargains, which truly express the “common will” of all participants, and the voluntary bargains and exchanges of the free market.

    The twin of the free-market economy, then, is not a democratic legislature ever grinding out new diktats for society, but a proliferation of voluntary rules interpreted and applied by experts in the law.

    Professor Leoni concludes his highly stimulating and important book by saying that “law-making is much more a theoretical process than an act of will” (p. 189). But certainly a “theoretical process” implies the use of man’s reason to establish a code of law that will be an unbreachable and unflawed fortress for human liberty.

  58. JAC,

    Law is a set of commands; the principles of tort or criminal law which are negative commands or prohibitions, on the order of “thou shalt not” do actions X, Y, or Z.

    In short, certain actions are considered wrong to such a degree that it is considered appropriate to use the sanctions of violence (since law is the social embodiment of violence) to combat, defend against, and punish the transgressors.

    • BF

      Yes, CERTAIN laws may do just as you say.

      But not ALL LAW, and that is the point.

      I see part of the problem here is I am considering ALL LAW but it seems you are focused on Tort and Criminal Law.

      By the way, imposing a monetary fine on someone and confiscating funds from their paycheck if needed is not violence. So a Law that establishes said fine and allows for court designated collections would not be violent.

      • JAC,

        We are talking about human law, not laws of nature.

        And thus, all laws (within the human laws) are violence.

        And by the way, fines are violence – they are backed by the threat of violence should you not pay.

        Regarding making a law against lake, your example is ridiculous,

        • BF

          It was a LAW, real as any other law.

          Ridiculous maybe but it was real.

          A fine is not violence. Garnishing someone’s wages is not violence.

          By your own definitions, violence does not occur until actual violence occurs, not just the possible, eventual or inevitable, according to you.

          We just agreed that a stamp tax is voluntary. A stamp tax would be implemented via a law. It does not require violence to enforce it. No money, no document recorded by the Govt Court.

  59. SUFA

    This evening will probably be the last time I get to comment here for a few weeks. Movers have been packing boxes and loading all afternoon and the computer goes tomorrow morning. But I wanted to comment and possibly discuss some things about this whole collapse and rebuilding issue before I go on my forced sabbatical.

    First, when the country suffers the economic collapse I do not believe the Federal or State governments will cease to exist. There may be an example but I am not aware of a modern country where this happened. There will be people within Govt doing things in response to what happens. Whether the police, military, FEMA or some poor fellow trying to get the Soc Sec checks mailed out.

    The biggest concern is WHO starts running things when the Wolves are run out of town. The people will suffer a massive recognition that they were lied to by those whom they thought were in control. They will look for their (wolves) head. But others will immediately step in to take their place. I would bet big money the first to step up will be the hard left, or Progressives with a Capital “P”. There will also be the hard core Socialists and Communists trying to rest control from the P’s.

    When the flit hits the shan I think BF is correct regarding the need for building strong local relations, govt and prevention plans. This is needed to prevent the same chaos that will occur in the cities from spreading. And to protect the smaller communities and rural folks. Quite frankly, I don’t know how to prevent the tragedy in the cities or the damage that will spread around them. The only chance is if those on the outside are organized and able to provide essential living, food/water/sanitation, to those inside.

    Regardless of WHO claims to be in charge, once the dust settles the reconstruction will more than likely utilize our current Govt structure and processes. Namely our Republican form of Govt and the various rules within the Constitution regarding elections, etc. Depending on WHO gets control the Constitution itself may then be used to eliminate it or modify it.

    If there are enough folks organized and prepared at the local level and the state to some extent, who believe in the VDLG or similar concept then this will be their chance to make significant changes. Because the local, county, and State voting and legal structure will be used to from a new Federal Govt. Even if that means dumping the Republic and moving to a Confederation. But it will be done within our existing structure.

    So, as I see it there is no harm in participating in one or more of these levels today. It is NOT wasted time or energy, as long as you prepare for your family’s survival during the shan flitting stage.

    If we do this then we are prepared for two possible scenarios. One is a collapse like I describe. The other is that no collapse occurs but we remain in a long drawn out period of YUK. Participation today might allow us to make changes within the system before collapse if time is on our side.

    If time allows I think there will be an opening as the general public begins to awaken to the understanding that wolves are running the show. Confidence and acceptance of Govt will diminish to the tipping point before total collapse occurs. If we can make a solid argument for changes, based on solid core principles, and be able to articulate what changes look like, it may be possible to garner a majority needed to run the wolves out of town.

    This means preparing for a Constitutional Convention.

    I think we almost reached that point when the tea party manifested itself. This effort was stifled by the Wolves, within and without, but it has not subsided all together. Instead of despair over lost opportunities, we need to learn from that experience. We now have a solid understanding of how the Wolves will attack. They are creatures of habit, just like their four legged cousins. Once you know their patterns of behavior you can anticipate, trap and even destroy them if needed.

    Focus on Congress for 2012. That includes the bozos that were elected last year. Many of them are already chasing stupid rabbits which damage future efforts. Who becomes President is irrelevant when you hold 2/3 of the House and Senate. Besides, I don’t see a single Diamond in the field of the Republican candidates. There may be some who could win, but they will not lead the charge so many of us hope for, because they ALL products of and believe in the system we seek to overturn.

    Run for local office or badger someone you highly respect into running. As BF noted, apply for vacancies in Govt that are appointed when available. Form neighborhood disaster coops if possible. This includes agreeing on how to defend the tribe against attack if needed. Then partner with local law enforcement and convey to them you are a friend not an enemy. The police will be the most brutal during the collapse. You will have a better chance if they recognize and trust you before the crisis.

    GET PREPARED for the collapse if you are not already.
    GET ACTIVE POLITICALLY if you are not already.
    VOTE, VOTE and VOTE but do not settle for second best. Utilize the WRITE IN where it is available and fight to get it where it is not.
    DON’T give up hope and certainly DON’T STOP trying to create positive change.

    Special Note to the politically active. As in make sure your candidates understand this one thing. If you want to make deep cuts in govt spending, if you want to eliminate or severely revise the entitlement programs there are two thing that MUST be done.

    1. You must be able to PROVE that these changes will keep those in need from becoming destitute. This may mean providing interim support programs as needed.

    2 You must CONVINCE the public that you are HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY in your goals and predictions of outcomes. The voters must be able to believe you and trust you. HONOR and INTEGRITY will be everything in making the case for change.

    I hope this provides some food for thought in the coming days. I will be around tonight and maybe early tomorrow morning for those who wish to discuss anything here. I know there will be one for sure :).

    To be free you must live free.

    Living requires ACTION.

    Best Wishes and Happy Thinking

    • USWeapon says:


      Good luck with your move and we will certainly miss your commentary and contributions while you are away from SUFA. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if there is anything that I can do for you!


    • JAC, good luck with the move.

      Two things: This effort was stifled by the Wolves, within and without, but it has not subsided all together.

      The tea party stifled itself by those who took the microphone and started yapping literally insane shit. Michelle Bachmann, Sara Palin … if you take them serious, you’re barking up the wrong tree. While they may be no less deceitful than the professional thieves in D.C. today, they are dumber than dirt and will never survive trying to hide it (although apparently bachmann isn’t even ashamed of how stupid she is). Palin is, and tries to cover her tracks (making it worse for herself and her caues).

      The other thing: People (especially the middle class) are too busy trying to survive what big money has done to us; they will never be cognizant enough to do anything about it; they’ll keep taking it until some other country nails us with a dirty bomb/or nuke. And like I always try to warn you crazies on the right; the real big money (0.2’sers for USW), they’ll be waving to yous from their private jets while yous wave your little american flags on the runway.

      • Charlie

        In the beginning the Tea Party was nothing but those regular middle class folks you speak about. And of course the Libertarians and Constitutionalists thrown in for spice. The Tea Party was then a grassroots revolt against the govt ignoring the People.

        It did not take long for the wolves to see an opportunity as the Tea Party had no real leaders nor were they allowing “politicians” to even speak at most gatherings. At that time the quintessential Tea Party leaders were folks like Revolution 2012 and Mad Mom who frequented SUFA. In my area the Tea Party is still led by Citizens. And they are at war with the proff. politicians and party power all the time.

        But in the end the name and image of the Tea Party was hijacked by the likes of Bachmann and Palin, and of course Dick Army. I like a lot of what Bachmann and Palin say, but they were part of the establishment. I take them seriously for who they are and what they do. Call them stupid if it makes you feel better but they are certainly aren’t stupid. However, I will not vote for nor support either for the office of President..

        But here is the thing Charlie. The original Tea Party is still out there working. Regular folks are still organizing and working to improve their under standing and to make things change. You don’t see it because the media ignores it.

        • I’d probably be amenable to some of what the original tea party is for (not all by any means) but if they can allow Palin/Bachmann to take them over that easily, they aren’t very formidable. And the fact they aren’t distancing themselves publicly (and the media would love that), suggests to me there isn’t much there.

          • @ Charlie……you really need a life Charlie…..why is everybody so enthralled with Palin/Bachman? I do not get it. They are great fund raisers and that is all they are… different than the Democratic drum beaters. They are NO THREAT WHATSOEVER……….You seem to think this Tea Party is run by them. I certainly do not see it. They raise money….legally……..not the Obama way. Why everybody is scared of them is beyond me.

            • Dear Colonel (good morning, sir) … you’re not getting it, sir. The Bachman/Palin factor … nobody is afraid of them. Nothing could be better for Obama (if I wanted him to win in 2012) than Bachmann and Palin … they are a joke everyone on the left is laughing at, but it is independents who count and very few of them can take either Bachmann or Palin serious. They make fools out of themselves over and over and dilute whatever cause they’re supporting. They’re only preaching to a very small choir, sir (you and some other here) … that’s it.

              • Good morning…errr….afternoon back. You are severely mistaken, kind sir. My views on Palin/Bachman are very plain. I never have supported them in any fashion other than the attention that they are getting is unbelievable. The msm is afraid of something or the attack would not be there…..Palin/Bachman are not hurting anybody, much less any cause or side, out there. But…do not deny the fact that Palin is considered the top money draw and she draws more than anyone out there on either side. It is the money that upsets the left…not there stance on anything. The more the msm tries to trounce them, the more people will go to see. But…….that is the way of the left.

                I am an independent of the first order….I do not take Palin/Bachman serious on presidential bids…but they do resonate and the problems that they are talking about are real. People like that. I like a lot of what she says but she does not get my vote. I discount the Revere story and anyone with half a brain will also….I discount the msm reporting of seeing Russia from her doorstep and anyone with half a brain knows her play on words….but it is entertaining to see everyone lambast them…a lot of wasted energy.

                But…hope that Stella Casa is doing well….

          • Charlie

            They didn’t take over the tea party. That is the point.

            They hijacked the NAME and used it to consolidate the “conservatives”.

      • Charlie

        Regarding the 2%. First of all you need to realize they are not all bad guys and they all are not responsible for the middle class’ problems. Focus on the actual culprits instead of stereotyping all Rich people.

        But I’ll tell you this. While they may not all be bad or helped in this mess, they ALL are certainly smart enough to get off the ship before it sinks. So in that respect you are correct. When all goes to hell they will be waiving at us from distant places.

        The question is what are you going to be doing.

        • I suspect I’ll be long dead … if not, I’ll make do.

          No, not ALL rich people are bad (and it’s really pretty silly for you to attempt to catagorize my politics that way but I suspect it’s your best diversionary tactic {similar to BF judging all those on the left as envious takers and forgetting there are some rich lefties out there too}) but I digress. This system was built by the wealthy for the wealthy. It has seen its better days. There are simply too many Americans (never mind illegals) to think you can reduce government and it’s doles (which I’d be for if it was legit) overnight and not have mass chaos on your hands. I know some of you (Gman) likes to fantasize about waring with all those envious takers but you have to be a damn fool to think you’d win that war. Strip this government tommorrow and I’ll be right there with you; make it truly democratic (representation as well) and remove corporate perks and subsidies and you can remove unions, etc. But what you can’t do is permit money to run the ship all over again (which is what would happen unless there were strident consequences for those who tried.

          • I am willing to take on the masses…..reduce it over night….now. There will be no rioting in the streets European Style…..which is NO style.

            • Colonel, I see you’re in Rambo mode this morning. Try and remember it was a movie. In reality, much of the army is from the same class of people getting screwed over by big money and the government it controls. You’d be way outnumbered in such a clash. I think even BF realizes that. It isn’t a good bet to make that you’d win. Martyrdom isn’t all its cranked up to be.

              • You would rob me of my fun? I have gone to great lengths to start grass roots movements in Texas and training my raptors…and you would rob me of this?

                Actually, I disagree with your and even my intrepid friend BF on the rioting. I do not see the burning of cities by the masses at all…..I disagree that we will do that…..(all bets are off in California and Chicago and Detroit).

          • @ Charlie. You know all too little about me. Your comment “I know some of you (Gman) likes to fantasize about waring with all those envious takers but you have to be a damn fool to think you’d win that war. ”

            First, the last thing I want is violence. Second, the first thing I do is prepare for it. I was raised to be prepared. It comes from my lifelong hunting background, my military background and simple daily living. I know war, I don’t want to see that here in this country. But if it comes, I’m at least mentally prepared. My equipment is ready at all times, weather to hunt or fight. Hopefully it will only be used for hunting.

            You don’t know enough of my background to suggest that I fantasize about anything, I would appreciate if you would refrain from such moronic comments in the future.

            • G-man … i love ya’, brother, but your need to remind us (or me) about your readiness and vigiliance is a bit over the top. We get it, you’re rambo (who I think is a moron) but I digress. I’m glad you’re ready for the great fall, etc., but it reads a bit paranoid, and quite frankly, a bit like a fantasy. And for future reference, while I admire your service, etc., preparedness, etc., I’m not much impressed by it.

              But you’re still my favorite Gman …

              • Maybe that’s because you are a man-as a woman G’s preparedness impresses me a lot. 🙂

    • Good luck JAC…..I am here if you need anything.

      • d13

        Thank you sir. Hope you know the same applies here.

        By the way. What are your thoughts on this character Perry running for Pres.

        Seems the left is already trying to assassinate his character. So does he have lots of skeletons or is that just the usual whining and gnashing of teeth?

        • Is there anyone without a skeleton? All his skeletons came out in the last race…nothing to speak of…he was easily re-elected. He was re-elected primarily because of his pro business attitude and we did not raise taxes to solve our budget problems. Nor is he raiding the “rainy day fund” to provide funds for any entitlement programs. All programs from education to welfare to state aid are being cut a minimum of 20% to include all state functions. Texas is a fee based pay as you go state and we like it that way. His stance on border security and his stance on states rights over federal is huge here.

          From a Texan point of view, we do not want him to run but he has presided for years over the 12th largest economy
          in the world and all with a balanced budget. He learned his lesson a few years back by using federal dollars to balance the budget and the populace of Texas was incensed and he got the message. Texas has a very strong conservative grass roots program started and it is taking hold extremely fast especially in the Hispanic community which does not want the illegals either. It is hurting them because of the association (ie: profiling) and rightly so. Even the HIspanic Community understands the profiling…they do not like it but understand and support it. Perry is strongly behind eliminating sanctuary cities (Texas only has one anyway and that is Austin) and neighborhoods and we like that.

          Perry is very good at bridging dems and repubs but remember that most dems are pretty conservative here anyway. There are a few far left Liberals but we keep them bottled up in Austin. So, we hope he stays.

          The left has to attack because he has provided leadership. The results speak for themselves. We have the lowest in about everything and we have a balanced budget amendment in our Constitution. Perry dislikes the Federal government almost with a passion and feels very strongly that the Feds are the problem and not the solution. So, because of his and Texas’ success in a lot of areas….he has to be attacked. He is a credible threat and more so than Palin/Bachman that everybody seems enthralled with attacking. We want him to stay. He runs an economy and has more power here than in Washington probably.

  60. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Ronald Reagan’s great strength was in “not hearing” the gotcha questions. Perhaps an advantage to aging. Palin and Bachman’s weakness and many other candidates too is answering questions too quickly. It is a curse, I suffer from it myself. I anticipate what the question will be as it starts, jump in, give a good answer and then find out it was not exactly what was being asked. End result, I’m a dummy.

    Gotcha is just so damn easy. Quick, answer me this, What is the sixth amendment? You are on TV, you have no time to look it up and it came from nowhere. How many times have we been caught off guard on something, gave an answer and then spend the next six months thinking of what you should have said? Even simple non political things, Name your top ten movies, songs, books or whatever RIGHT NOW, no thinking allowed. If dropped on you out of the clear blue will cause you to give answers that are not only not your best but probably not even correct. If you are going to be a politician, if you are going to run and be watched by an openly hostile press, you had damn well keep your mouth shut and not volunteer anything. The alternative is to be honest but go on the attack. For example, you ask me about the sixth amendment, I can’t remember off the top of my head . I state the fact admitting to my weakness and then turn the table on the interviewer by asking them if they know the seventh amendment or the seventh commandment or where the Yankees (or the local team) stand in the playoffs. I have cleverly cut them off at the knees and can even afford to lecture a bit.

    I think that both Palin and Bachman are damaged goods. They are not stupid but are perceived as such. 90 some odd percent believe that Palin actually said she could see Russia from her porch rather than know the line came from Tina Fey on SNL. In my amateur study of propaganda and subversion I was always impressed by “misinformation” vs. “disinformation”. One thing for a reporter to be just plain stupid as so many are. Quite another for his or her questions to be designed in such a way as to be impossible to answer leading the interviewee to look stupid, uninformed or foolish. Propaganda is such a wonderful tool. Some 50 years after the Goldwater/Johnson race people still believe Goldwater wanted to blow up the world after he cut off the Eastern seaboard, tore up your social security card and put Strontium 90 in your daughters ice cream cone.

    • SK

      I think your assessment is spot on. Well done.

    • Once again, here’s that now famous “Gotcha” question the genius couldn’t handle:

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Poorly prepared to say the least! along with her “defense”. Looked to me like she was under the weather but as Harry S. Truman used to say, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

        Better to ask, how would I have handled the question?

        Q. “Well Mr. SK, what did you learn today?

        A. It was such an honor to be in the same places where these patriots stood and walked. The day brought back memories to me of what great risks those people took to bring us the freedoms we have today, What was it they said, “they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to bring about our independence.’ What a chance they took, what a lesson they taught us. We too should never be afraid to stand up for freedom”.

        Q. “Yes but what did you learn?”

        A. What?, that’s not enough for you (scowling) ? To be reminded of the sacrifice and dangers they faced (more scowling and impatience)! ….. Next question.

        You can never take this stuff seriously. Stick with Shakespeare, “all the world is a stage”. Palin has not figured that out. It’s probably too late for her to do it. She is so tense now when questions are leveled, she goes immediately into defense mode. Bachman too. Probably excellent reasons to bypass them. It leads to bad judgment calls (See Nixon-Watergate).

        • People can learn to be better at communication-their principals and ideology is what matters.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Re reading this I was actually reminded of Bill Clinton at Normandy for the 50th Anniversary of the invasion. It was common knowledge that he had to be briefed on the meaning of perhaps the most important day in western history, the day of days. He later was seen to bend down while walking bloody Omaha and use some pebbles to form a small crucifix on the beach. Not too close to the cameras but just close enough. Those even more cynical than I wondered if the different color pebbles had been planted. Stupid? Hell no!

  61. SUFA

    Well this is it. The movers are now in my office so I must sign off.

    See ya’ll in a few weeks.

    Best wishes to all

  62. Doc says (and he called it–within an hour of his post on my blog, Weiner announced he was seeking treatment. What a jerkoff.

  63. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Just thrown out here for thought. When and if the collapse comes, an economic one, the analogy might very well be to study post WW 1 Germany. Things were bad and got worse. The government (brand new) was impotent. There was no food, money was worthless and there were a whole lot of ex-soldiers hanging around.

    There were riots in the streets, killings and threats of total anarchy. Communists and Socialists were making their political moves. The economy, according to people I knew who were there, devolved into barter. In their favor, the Germans had a much smaller population, little in the way of Social Safety Nets and progressive experience over the war years in living with less and less and making that less go a lot farther. they were adaptable.

    Many think it was the strong tradition of German militarism that prevented the country from completely collapsing. It was the small but effective post war army plus army veterans who stepped in and put down the civil unrest. Of course we all know what happened over the next thirteen years or so.

    For a while I was thinking of the US during the great depression as an analogy but it is not really relevant any more. The pre-depression US was a by and large a self sufficient society in the sense that people took care of themselves and did not rely on government., If the same circumstances happened today and you threw in double or triple digit inflation (which did not exist then), You don’t have the ability for many to survive on their own. At the very least, if society hangs on, things like foreclosure and paying your bills will have to cease, otherwise everyone will be living in the streets. If there is no penalty for not paying up, then money becomes a joke and less than worthless. You know, based on past performance, that government and more specifically our power hungry legislators will arrange the wildest and woolliest bail outs imaginable to maintain their positions. We have all seen “wage and price controls”. During the war (WW 2) we saw rationing and criminalization of many otherwise routine financial transactions . With a total collapse, those measures would become child’s play. Expect that there will be whole classes of people designated as “profiteers” and damn near drumhead courts martial punishments for them.

    Whatever government tries will ultimately fail. This society has very little self control. It is no longer rural, there are very few farmers who could rush to the cities and trade food for grandma’s silverware. Can’t see agribusiness doing that. Hoarding will dry up food and energy supplies. Nightly news stories involving dragging hoarders out into the street and publicly executing them will have little or no effect. As Mom used to tell me, it was the cops, looking out for their own families that led the way in the war in bypassing the rationing system. I remember a gentleman I once met, now deceased, who was quite proud of how well he ate because he was a rationing administrator. He did not need coupons, he had the power of life and death over butchers and other merchants. They just loved keeping him happy.

    Law enforcement will collapse. there is no “cadre” of ex-soldiers in this country large enough anymore to have an effect on rioters. the cops will be more concerned with their own families as well the members of the National Guard. Think hurricane Katrina, and that emergency was local and lasted only a few days. There will be food riots, murder in the street and roving gangs. The biggest mistake anyone can make is saying “It can’t happen here”. Just because it hasn’t does not, repeat not, mean that it can’t. It is one thing to point out that Rwanda went nuts but quite another to point out the “civilized” former Yugoslavia or the “Paris” of the middle east, Beirut went equally nuts.

    Unless you are from an urban environment, you cannot readily understand just how serious any supply disruption would be. For example, I was born on West 171st Street in upper Manhattan. That one city block between Broadway and Ft. Washington Avenue contained thirteen apartment houses which contained 476 housing units! Conservatively, 1,600 people lived and still live on that block. How, in an emergency, will they be serviced? Who will service them? Where will the emergency supplies come from? Who will deliver them? What happens when they run out and cannot be replenished?

    This is obviously an exercise in what ifs? God willing it will not ever happen but if it does????

    Semper paratus!

    • Good Day, SK 🙂

      Good assessment. If a economic collapse does occur, urban areas will be a mess. It will be sad days and very scary for the 95% of the population who live in those areas. Much different than the Great Depression era. I hope it don’t happen, but there sure is alot of people saying it will.

  64. Anyone understand the reasoning for doing this??? Is there any way this benefits our country? Because I don’t understand.

    Zero Hedge: The Fed’s $600 Billion Stealth Bailout of Foreign Banks Continues at the Expense of the Domestic Economy, or Explaining Where All the QE2 Money Went

    * Posted on June 12, 2011 at 6:44am by Scott Baker Scott Baker

    Courtesy of the recently declassified Fed discount window documents, we now know that the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed’s generosity during the peak of the credit crisis were foreign banks, among which Belgium’s Dexia was the most troubled, and thus most lent to, bank. Having been thus exposed, many speculated that going forward the US central bank would primarily focus its “rescue” efforts on US banks, not US-based (or local branches) of foreign (read European) banks: after all that’s what the ECB is for, while the Fed’s role is to stimulate US employment and to keep US inflation modest. And furthermore, should the ECB need to bail out its banks, it could simply do what the Fed does, and monetize debt, thus boosting its assets, while concurrently expanding its excess reserves thus generating fungible capital which would go to European banks. Wrong. Below we present that not only has the Fed’s bailout of foreign banks not terminated with the drop in discount window borrowings or the unwind of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, but that the only beneficiary of the reserves generated were US-based branches of foreign banks (which in turn turned around and funnelled the cash back to their domestic branches), a shocking finding which explains not only why US banks have been unwilling and, far more importantly, unable to lend out these reserves, but that anyone retaining hopes that with the end of QE2 the reserves that hypothetically had been accumulated at US banks would be flipped to purchase Treasurys, has been dead wrong, therefore making the case for QE3 a done deal. In summary, instead of doing everything in its power to stimulate reserve, and thus cash, accumulation at domestic (US) banks which would in turn encourage lending to US borrowers, the Fed has been conducting yet another stealthy foreign bank rescue operation, which rerouted $600 billion in capital from potential borrowers to insolvent foreign financial institutions in the past 7 months. QE2 was nothing more (or less) than another European bank rescue operation!

    For those who can’t wait for the punchline, here it is. Below we chart the total cash holdings of Foreign-related banks in the US usingweekly H.8 data.

  65. ‘Pretty Ambitious’: Beck’s GBTV Plan Intrigues Media

    * Posted on June 10, 2011 at 11:27am by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl

    When Glenn Beck announced his new endeavor to bring a TV station to the internet, exclusively, people took notice. And while there were those who asked, How could that work?, there were others who realized it is truly a groundbreaking endeavor. In fact, some in the media are intrigued and excited about what it could mean for the future of television (or, webevision?)

    Regarding the launch of the network, which took place via an hour-long web show Wednesday, Business Insider called it “impressive” while adding:

    What‘s clear is that Beck’s team has no real interest in producing a web show; they fully intend to turn-out a high quality television show that just happens to air on the web.

    It’s a strategy that has a resulted in a lot of speculation and skepticism from media types (and presumably the attention of a LOT of media execs) but which in the viewing feels like far less of a stretch — watching TV online isn’t exactly a new thing, in fact it’d be interesting to know how many people actually see the Daily Show during its airtime vs. next day clip viewing.

    The site says one‘s politics shouldn’t factor into what he thinks of the idea:

    Think what you will about Glenn Beck’s politics, you have to admit his newest venture is pretty ambitious: Beck is launching a subscription-only online TV network this week. GBTV, as the venture is called, promises “a mix of news, information and entertainment programs,” but its biggest attraction is undoubtedly a daily two-hour talk show hosted by Beck himself.
    Click here to find out more!


    Subscribers will be able to watch the show online starting Sept. 12, and also access it through an iOS app as well as a Roku channel. The latter could be a boon for Roku, introducing the device to new audiences and helping it on its way to reach its next milestone of three million sold devices by the end of this year.

    In one article, Mediate says the plan is “revolutionary:”

    If Beck really is making a TV network that is separate from the cable company system (and, seriously, the difference between computer and television is going to be nothing more than screen-size soon), then this new venture may actually be as forward-thinking and revolutionary as all the marketing talk makes it sound.

    Later, in a follow-up piece, the author writes:

    …I’ve believed for a while that the idea of people subscribing to the content they like directly from the providers and not having to pay for packages from the likes of cable company middle men is the direction we’re heading in so, I stand by those proclamations.

    Those who want to see what all the excitement is about can watch the hour-long launch below:

  66. Interesting comparison-I’ve always found the idea that retaliation in a war should be equal as some what naive-that it would in fact just lead to the idea that one was free to attack again. I believe in the” don’t point a gun at me unless you are ready to use it and ready to possibly die” philosophy of war. I suspect we would have far fewer if we used this stance.

    June 12, 2011
    What Does Peace Mean Anyway?
    By Rob Miller

    Peace is said to be a high priority, no matter whom you talk to. People crave it and pray for it, and rightly so.

    This is a much more important issue, I think, than most of us realize, especially in these days when people use terms like ‘The Long War’ and ‘the peace process’ .Yet few of us, especially in the West actually stop to think of what we really mean by peace, and what you can’t define clearly is frequently illusory.

    The Bible provides one definition, with the prophet Isaiah talking of a time of peace so profound that men will not only transform the arms of battle into implements of peace but cease to study the arts and strategy of war.

    That’s obviously an unrealized ideal in the immediate future.

    Islam is much more direct about the matter. Westerners are confused when Muslims say that Islam means peace (actually, it comes from the Arabic aslama, which means submission).

    To Muslims, who divide the world into dar Islam, the part of the world where Islam rules and the non-Muslim world, referred to as dar harb ( literally the house of war), peace is much simpler. It’s a condition where the entire world is dar Islam, exactly what Mohammed ordered his followers to strive for right before his death in 632 CE, according to the Hadiths.

    If some Muslims talk of peace when they actually mean a time of dar Islam, it’s understandable that something gets lost in translation — sometimes deliberately so.

    So, is peace then simply an absence of war and conflict? It ain’t necessarily so.

    After the signing of the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI in 1918, France’s Commanding General Ferdinand Foch said in an amazingly prescient remark, “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

    What Marshall Foch understood was that while Germany had been bled white and the home front was collapsing, the German Army had not been decisively defeated. He guessed that the German military establishment and their political allies would use that fact to inflame revanchist sentiment as a springboard to a new war as soon as possible, and realized that the Versailles Treaty would last only as long as the allies maintained military superiority over Germany and occupied a strategic part of the German homeland.

    The first fifteen years of the armistice between the World Wars could be said to fit this definition of an absence of war and conflict, but beneath the surface the conflict seethed, and as Foch predicted, the German Army continued to claim it had been ‘stabbed in the back by traitors at home’, a refrain that was echoed by the Nazis, the Stahlhelm and other groups who favored abrogating the Versailles treaty. The army continued to enjoy prestige in Germany and became almost a state within a state, drilling and training men in secret in a de facto violation of Versailles.

    When the political climate was right and Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933, the violations became even more blatant, German rearmament increased and three years later Hitler sent the army into the strategic Saar and the Rhineland and ended the allied occupation. Outright war came only a few short years after.

    The Middle East is currently witnessing a similar example of the ending of an ‘armistice’ that arose from similar circumstances. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a war of annihilation that was essentially a continuation of the Six Day War in 1967.

    Unlike the 1967 war, Egypt and Syria caused considerable Israeli casualties and advanced before they were ultimately thrown back with heavy losses. Israel General Arik Sharon made military history by ignoring his orders and crossing the Suez Canal behind the Egyptians, trapping the main Egyptian Third Army in an iron ring. Rather than destroy the 3rd Army as a fighting force and go for a decisive victory, as Sharon advocated, Israeli PM Golda Meir and the Labor government in power at the time followed American and UN direction to seek a ceasefire and avoid an Arab ‘humiliation’, and ordered Sharon to release the Third Army almost intact back to Egyptian lines.

    Meanwhile, on the Syrian front Israeli Brigadier General Rafael “Raful” Eitan led a division that stopped the Syrians at Nafekh, threw back the Syrian forces and advanced to within striking distance of Damascus.

    It’s interesting to contrast the two results. In Syria, there was never any talk of peace with Israel, but there was comparatively little overt hostility either, except through proxies like Hezb’allah. With the IDF only a short hop from Damascus, the Syrians had motivation to avid outright war with Israel. That motivation would disappear, of course, if the Israelis ever returned the Golan to Syria.

    In Egypt, there was a similar situation analogous in many ways to what occurred with Germany after WWI. Even though Egypt’s forces were defeated, their armies were not defeated decisively, to the point that the Egyptian regime was able to propagandize to their own people that they had not lost the 1973 war at all, that they had in fact won.

    In that context, the Camp David Accords, by which Egypt obtained the Sinai could be seen as an accommodation and even a capitulation from Israel by Egyptians, and it had the additional benefit of removing Israeli forces from striking distance of the Suez Canal and Cairo. In war, after all, it is the victors who gain territory and concessions.

    In consequence, what has occurred between Egypt and Israel is not peace but an armistice, as Marshall Foch would have put it. The two countries signed and kept a formal peace treaty (largely subsidized by US baksheesh to Egypt of over a billion dollars per year) but demonization of Israel and Jews never stopped in Egypt’s mosques, schools and media. The Mubarak regime kept the arrangement, but was never unwilling to use the Egyptian hatred for Jews and Israel to its own advantage.

    The US-trained and equipped Egyptian Army has been rebuilt and has always performed its war games exercises from the standpoint of fighting Israel as its main foe on its Eastern borders, and indeed the Egyptian Army’s weaponry and deployment makes no sense otherwise.

    With the fall of the Mubarak regime, the key points of the armistice — diplomatic relations, trade and the demilitarization of the Sinai — are all likely to be suspended by Egypt as the country reverts to its overt hostility towards Israel, and if outright war is unlikely simply because Egypt cannot afford it financially or in terms of stability right now, it certainly will not be ‘peace’ and Egypt will almost certainly be siding with Israel’s enemies Hamas and by extension Syria and Iran as the Muslim Brotherhood takes over more political power.

    Let’s examine, in contrast an instance of real and lasting peace, the one between the victorious Allies and Japan and Germany after WWII.

    The allies made a point of insisting on an unconditional surrender in both cases, and refused several offers of an attractive armistice from the Nazis, who attempted to split the allies by offering a separate peace to the Western allies so that they could devote all of their efforts to throwing back the Soviets.

    At the end of the war there was no question either among Japan and Germany’s armed forces or their people that they had been decisively defeated. Both countries had been devastated, suffered severe shortages of food, housing, medical supplies and fuel and were forced to accede to military occupation in order to avoid being totally destroyed.

    Both countries lost significant territory — the Germans lost Alsace-Lorraine to France and a huge swath of territory to Poland and the Japanese lost the Kuril Islands, Saipan and the oil rich and strategic territory of Sakhalin.

    To put it in perhaps a more modern context, both countries suffered major real and concrete costs for launching and losing a war of aggression, both were forced to absorb and resettle a significant number of their nationals as refugees in their remaining territory and there was never any question at all of ephemera like ‘land for peace.’

    As a consequence, the populations of Germany and Japan both came to the realization that their respective countries had come perilously close to ceasing to exist, and made a collective decision that their survival lay in real peace, an end to aggression, the pursuit of prosperity and western-style democracy.

    Real peace is, after all, a collective agreement to live and let live. Only when two peoples mutually decide to make that a heartfelt goal can it exist, and without that basic realization all the schemes and negotiations, all the promises of land for peace, territory swaps, redrawn borders and the like are just a prelude to another round of conflict.

    Or to put it in even simpler terms, real peace comes when the cost has been so great for the aggressor that resorting to hostilities again for anything other than an existential threat is almost unthinkable.

    Because, in the end, real peace is the fruit of a decisive victory.

  67. Despite Plainlyspoken’s brush fire issues, having to evacuate, all is well. He can still write though 🙂

  68. A Puritan Descendant says:

    My post from the other day >
    “Been busy here lately so I have not kept up. Last evening I heard mention of the following on CNN. Obama may not need congress to approve an increase in the debt ceiling because of the 14th amendment.
    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned”.
    I guess it could mean all debt obligations must be met so it is constitutionally requried to pay those debts.
    What do you think, Buck?”

    Buck says > “Perhaps though this would just mean that while existing obligations must be met, absent a rise in the debt ceiling, no new debt can be taken on?”

    From Jac > “Debt greater than the “debt ceiling” is not “authorized by law”.

    Now from >
    “The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.”
    Me again > I admit this all makes my head spin. However, I think that the argument the treasury can continue to borrow beyond the current debt ceiling without congressional approval has merit. It would be unconstitutional to Not pay Current debt obligations. “With no other means” to pay the debt obligations, the requirement for congressional authorization could be ruled Unconstitutional. Now back to > “With no other means”. What other means would be available? Sell the White House and the rest of the U.S. on e-bay?

  69. ‘On the Beach, I Bring von Mises’
    The tea party favorite on her start in politics, where she learned her economics, and why she disagrees with Reagan on the War Powers Resolution.


    “If I’m in, I’ll be all in,” says Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, artfully dodging my question of whether she’s running for president. Given that she just hired campaign strategist Ed Rollins, whose past clients include Ross Perot and Mike Huckabee, rumors abound. “We’re getting close,” she says, “and if I do run, like all my races, I will work like a maniac.”

    That’s pretty much how she does everything, and it helps explain how the relatively junior congresswoman has become a tea party superstar—and uniquely adept at driving liberals bonkers.

    View Full Image
    Terry Shoffner

    After spending a good part of two days with her in Washington as she scurries from one appointment to another, I have no doubt that Ms. Bachmann will announce her presidential bid soon. And it would be a mistake to count her out: She’s defied the prognosticators in nearly every race she’s run since thrashing an 18-year incumbent in the Minnesota Senate by 20 points in 2000. Says Iowa Congressman Steve King, “No one has electrified Iowa crowds like Michelle has.”

    Ms. Bachmann is best known for her conservative activism on issues like abortion, but what I want to talk about today is economics. When I ask who she reads on the subject, she responds that she admires the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. “I’m also an Art Laffer fiend—we’re very close,” she adds. “And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises,” getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like “Human Action” and “Bureaucracy.” “When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises.”

    As we rush from her first-floor digs in the Cannon House Office Building to the House floor so she can vote, I ask for her explanation of the 2008 financial meltdown. “There were a lot of bad actors involved, but it started with the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter and then the enhanced amendments that Bill Clinton made to force, in effect, banks to make loans to people who lacked creditworthiness. If you want to come down to a bottom line of ‘How did we get in the mess?’ I think it was a reduction in standards.”

    She continues: “Nobody wanted to say, ‘No.’ The implicit and then the explicit guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sopping up the losses. Being on the Financial Services Committee, I can assure you, all roads lead to Freddie and Fannie.”

    Ms. Bachmann voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) “both times,” she boasts, and she has no regrets since Congress “just gave the Treasury a $700 billion blank check.” She complains that no one bothered to ask about the constitutionality of these extraordinary interventions into the financial markets. “During a recent hearing I asked Secretary [Timothy] Geithner three times where the constitution authorized the Treasury’s actions, and his response was, ‘Well, Congress passed the law.'”

    Insufficient focus on constitutional limits to federal power is a Bachmann pet peeve. “It’s like when you come up to a stop sign and you’re driving. Some people have it in their mind that the stop sign is optional. The Constitution is government’s stop sign. It says, you—the three branches of government—can go so far and no farther. With TARP, the government blew through the Constitutional stop sign and decided ‘Whatever it takes, that’s what we’re going to do.'”

    Does this mean she would have favored allowing the banks to fail? “I would have. People think when you have a, quote, ‘bank failure,’ that that is the end of the bank. And it isn’t necessarily. A normal way that the American free market system has worked is that we have a process of unwinding. It’s called bankruptcy. It doesn’t mean, necessarily, that the industry is eclipsed or that it’s gone. Often times, the phoenix rises out of the ashes.”

    She also bristles at the idea, pushed of late by the White House, that the auto bailouts were a big success for workers and taxpayers. “We’ll probably be out $15 billion. What was galling to so many investors was that Chrysler’s secured creditors were supposed to receive 100% payout of the first money. We essentially watched over 100 years of bankruptcy law thrown out the window and President Obama eviscerated the private property interests of the secured creditors. He called them ‘greedy’ for enforcing their own legal rights.”

    So what would she have done? “For one, I believe my policies prior to ’08 would have been much different from [President Bush’s]. I wouldn’t have spent so much money,” she says, pointing in particular at the Department of Education and the Medicare prescription drug bill. “I would have advocated for greater reductions in the corporate tax rate and reductions in the capital gains rate—even more so than what the president did.” Mr. Bush cut the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% in 2003.

    She’s also no fan of the Federal Reserve’s decade-long policy of flooding the U.S. economy with cheap money. “I love a lowered interest rate like anyone else. But clearly the Fed has had competing goals and objectives. One is the soundness of money and then the other is jobs. The two different objectives are hard to reconcile. What has gotten us into deep trouble and has people so perturbed is the debasing of the currency.”

    That’s why, if she were president, she wouldn’t renominate Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman: “I think that it’s very important to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Reserve will have a new sheriff” to keep the dollar strong and stable.

    As for foreign policy, she joined 86 other House Republicans last week in voting for the resolution sponsored by antiwar Democrat Dennis Kucinich to stop U.S. military action in Libya within 15 days. Is she a Midwestern isolationist? “I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the very start,” she says. “President Obama has never made a compelling national security case on Libya.”

    Even more striking, she says the 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval for military action after 60 days, is “the law of the land” and must be obeyed. That’s a notable difference from every recent president of either party, including Ronald Reagan.

    Ms. Bachmann attributes many of her views, especially on economics, to her middle-class upbringing in 1960s Iowa and Minnesota. She talks with almost religious fervor about the virtues of living frugally, working hard and long hours, and avoiding debt. When she was growing up, she recalls admiringly, Iowa dairy farmers worked from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

    Her political opponents on the left portray her as a “she-devil,” in her words, a caricature at odds with her life accomplishments. She’s a mother of five, and she and her husband helped raise 23 teenage foster children in their home, as many as four at a time. They succeeded in getting all 23 through high school and later founded a charter school.

    She got started in politics after seeing the failures in public schooling. “The kids were coloring posters in 11th grade algebra class,” she says. “I decided to do my duty, go to the Republican convention. I had on jeans, a sweatshirt with a hole in it, white moccasins, and I showed up in this auditorium and everyone said, ‘Why are we nominating this guy [Gary] Laidig every four years?'”

    “I thought, ‘I’m nobody from nowhere but maybe if I challenge the guy, he’ll shape up a little bit.’ So I gave a five-minute speech on freedom, economic liberty and all the rest. And no one could believe it, but I won a supermajority on the first ballot and he was out on his keister.”

    She ran for Congress in 2006, the worst year for Republicans in two decades. “Nancy Pelosi and all her horses spent $9.6 million to defeat me in that race”—almost three times what Ms. Bachmann had raised. She won 50% to 42%. In 2010, the Democrats and their union allies raised more than $10 million to try to defeat her. “My adversaries have certainly been highly motivated,” she says.

    But her adversaries—or, at least, rivals—aren’t limited to the left. There’s Sarah Palin, with whom journalists are convinced she has frosty relations, and fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty, now running for president. About Ms. Palin the congresswoman shrugs, “People want to see a mud-wrestling fight. They won’t get it from me because I like Sarah Palin and I respect her.” As for whether Mr. Pawlenty was a good governor, “I really don’t want to comment.”

    Ever ready to cite stories from American history, Ms. Bachmann notes with a grin that the last House member to be elected president was James Garfield in 1880. If she were to take her shot, she’d run on an economic package reminiscent of Jack Kemp, the late congressman who championed supply-side economics and was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. “In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.”

    The 3.8 million-word U.S. tax code may be irreparable, she says, a view she’s held since working as a tax attorney at the IRS 20 years ago. “I love the FAIR tax. If we were starting over from scratch, I would favor a national sales tax.” But she’s not a sponsor of the FAIR tax bill because she fears that enacting it won’t end the income tax, and “we would end up with a dual tax, a national sales tax and an income tax.”

    Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.”

    On the stump she emphasizes an “America-centered energy policy” based on “drilling and mining for our rich resources here.” And she believes that repealing ObamaCare is a precondition to restoring a prosperous economy. “You cannot have a pro-growth economy and advise, simultaneously, socialized medicine.”

    Her big challenge is whether the country is ready to support deep spending cuts. On this issue, she carries a sharper blade than everyone except Ron Paul. She voted for the Paul Ryan budget—but “with an asterisk.” Why? “The asterisk is that we’ve got a huge messaging problem [on Medicare]. It needs to be called the 55-and-Under Plan. I can’t tell you the number of 78-year-old women who think we’re going to pull the rug out from under them.”

    Ms. Bachmann also voted for the Republican Study Committee budget that cuts deeper and faster than even Mr. Ryan would. “We do have an obligation with Social Security and Medicare, and we have to recognize that” for those who are already retired, she says. But after that, it’s Katy bar the door: “Everything else is expendable to bring spending down,” and she’d ax “whole departments” including the Department of Education.

    “I think people realize the crisis we face isn’t in 25 years or even 10 years off. It is right now. And people want it solved now—especially Republican primary voters.”

    I understand what the Libs don’t like about Michelle-but what exactly do you on the right dislike about her?

%d bloggers like this: