The Quiet Infiltration

Good Day Friends.  After a busy summer and a great vegetable harvest, it’s time to get back to the business of blogging.  Today I bring you words written over 50 years ago.

With that said, let’s look at a part of our Congressional record from 1963. Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 . Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

In the 1950’s, the Communists knew they could not defeat the United States in a war scenario, so they developed 45 goals for which they would infiltrate America and turn it into a Socialist/Communist shithole that they desired. I will present all 45 goals, while commenting on the most obvious. This may come as a shock to some, but some of this has come true today. These goals are over 50 years old, you decide what is happening.

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

(#3) It is well documented over the course of the Cold War that this was not going to happen militarily. The Communist agenda affectively changed this goal to attempt to disarm the American people. Gun control being the biggest weapon, it has been losing, which will help in the long run. However, after Hurricane Katrina, I trust no one in government to abide by our Constitutional rights when things go terribly bad.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N

(#6 and #7) The U.S. provides aid to over 100 countries on this planet, including Russia and China. The American people should be outraged by this, but it’s little known. China has since become a member of the U.N. Can you see how your tax payments are being used against you and I and what we stand for?

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths

We are not halfway through this yet and you can see for yourself what is really happening in our own country. I will concentrate on #13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. How many of you remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school? I do! But that is all but gone in our schools today. What a shame. HMMM!

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights

#15 and #16 are very interesting. I will not claim that one party or the other has been taken over, but both have surely been infiltrated by Socialists. It is known that the Democrats have 68 admitted Socialists in Washington D.C. right now. There is no admissions by Republicans, but I’m sure they exist. Our courts are what I’m most concerned with. #16 has and is happening in our country, are our courts in many cases following the Communist agenda?

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks

18. Gain control of all student newspapers

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions

Now we are headed into an area we all know about, our poor education system. If there are any questions as to why it is poor, and if it will ever get fixed, you may have just gotten your answer. Remember the student riots against the Vietnam War, specifically Kent State? How about our Liberal Left Wing media? Is there any question as to where they stand and what the goal is.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV

How often have we talked about the breakdown of morality in our country? Our Great Grandparents would roll over in their grave if they could see what’s on our TV screens each day. Our nation has changed a great deal in 50 years, at this point it’s becoming clear as to why it may have been happening. It continues today, and we are only a little over halfway through with the Communist agenda.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state

I have seen all three of these in action. I doubt at this point that anyone could deny what has been occurring to our nation.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Seattle 2006

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

So there you have it. The 45 goals of Communism, written over 50 years ago. There have been some failures, but there have been many of these goals that have been achieved. Our governments are a corrupt group of thieves. They are the problem, not the solution to any of the problems we face today. This is part of the Congressional record in 1963, it is not a conspiracy theory. Anyone who cannot see what is going on, and what the future may hold, is blind to the reality of our world. Maybe it’s time to act upon the words of this great Patriot and former President of the United States.

“The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.” Ulysses S. Grant (Memoirs 1885)

Live Free!

G!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Then again, maybe it’s all just coincidence.

    • G-man, good article. It is impressive how far they have actually come. Control of the media is one of the huge factors in their success. Interviewers slant questions quite frequently depending on the person being interviewed. They make the left leaners look good and make those on the right like bad. I can remember a presidential debate decades ago when the universal response was the examiner was far more qualified than the candidates. Now all we get are gotcha trivia questions that do not probe the candidates indepth knowledge of economics and world politics.

      I recently read a NYT article/editorial that said the elimination of monogamy/fidelity was the next big target now that gay marriage is becoming acceptable. So there certainly is an agenda.

  2. ~ We need the second coming of Pope John Paul II. Say what you will..he was a kingpin in the fall of communism in the now People’s Republic of Poland. We can also look to Reagan’s involvement in the fall of the wall. Fidel Castro now saying that communism isn’t the way to go.

    ~ As a new homeschooler I’ve read plenty on the ongoing shift to homeschooling. It is happening slowly but surely. Speaking of which, I’m late!

    ~ In the end it still comes down to personal responsibility.

    • Speaking of second comings.. GBTV starts today. That should stir the pot..

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I’ve always struggled with whether Pope John Paul II can be considered a great leader (disclosure – my wife’s family is 100% Polish and Catholic). While it is true he had a definitive spiritual role in the overthrow of Communism in his homeland of Poland – he also ruled over one of the darkest periods in the entire history of the Catholic Church – the crimes committed by his own priests against children. There is no playbook on how to view someone like this. I for one will acknowledge his good – but also his evil – and not wish for a second coming of him.

  3. September 12, 2011
    What Awaits Young Americans

    By George Scaggs

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what America’s younger generation is thinking. Perhaps they are too distracted by the fast-paced blur of modern existence to notice that the freedom and prosperity Americans have enjoyed for generations is quickly evaporating, and that such qualities are not merely arbitrary characteristics of the national landscape guaranteed for time eternal.

    Given what our education system has been teaching (or not teaching) for the last several decades, perhaps they do not understand that freedom and prosperity are inextricably intertwined. Maybe they genuinely believe that government exists to provide for them and that government’s ability to do so could never possibly be threatened.

    Because they have lived only in a time of quickly accelerating technological advancement, perhaps they have confused those leaps forward with the advancement of mankind itself, assuming that whatever life their parents enjoyed, their own could only be better.

    Maybe they do not understand that the definitive expression of liberty, and the only means of maintaining it, is personal responsibility. Perhaps some truly believe that an endless array of piercings and tattoos, the exploration of sexual deviancy, and other personal pleasures are the ultimate measures of articulating freedom.

    Maybe they are blinded by idealism, unable to see that the concept of “big government” is a failed notion — that every time it has been tried, in any and all manners, at any place on earth during any time in history, it has resulted in widespread misery and brought once-great nations to their knees.

    Perhaps they do not recognize that the current era we live in epitomizes that failure — that those painful lessons are being learned once again as the social experimentations inherent in big government crumble throughout America and Western Europe.

    Not only has the current American version of big government failed, but it is dying a horribly dramatic death. In doing so, that failure has finally culminated in an extended economic downturn which is stripping an ever-growing number of Americans of a stable future.

    With each passing day, the scope of our nation’s debt dilemma is growing, and the probability of painless solutions is quickly dissolving. No doubt, the difficulties America is currently facing are daunting, but when combined with major demographic shifts, the significant development of other countries, and a U.S. government so bloated that it may collapse under its own weight, today’s challenges will likely pale in comparison to what awaits younger Americans.

    A confluence of change is underway. Due to the combination of global evolution and the acceleration of long-emerging social trends here at home, the assumptions and norms of yesterday are quickly melting away.

    Unfortunately, many among today’s younger generation are oblivious to these realities, seemingly determined to learn the hard way that you cannot eat freedom of expression. It won’t pay the bills nor provide future opportunity for your children.

    The evidence is right before our eyes. We now know that massive federal entitlement programs (as they are designed) have a shelf-life and that their inevitable collapse is drawing uncomfortably near.

    On the positive front, young Americans seem to be developing a healthy skepticism about Social Security and Medicare providing for them in their later years. Albeit, to a 25-year-old, this is an issue to be dealt with in the distant future, a threat much too remote to stir the passions of youth.

    Meanwhile, the young are being cheated in their formative years. Unchecked illegal immigration and minimum wage laws have increasingly forced them out of the workplace. As a result, many have not had the benefit of the basic lessons of responsibility one acquires while working as a teenager.

    On the front end of adulthood, they face considerably heavier burdens than did their elders: total student loan debt has recently surpassed credit-card debt at a cool $1 trillion, most of the nation’s manufacturing has moved overseas and millions of good paying lower-skilled jobs are gone, programs built upon notions of “social justice” have not resulted in the panacea that government promised, and the quality of education that the children of today’s young adults will receive has been seriously degraded.

    Politically, the left’s only “solutions” are more of the same bitter tonic, made palatable by wrapping it in the guise of providing something for nothing. ObamaCare, if not ruled unconstitutional or outright repealed, may prove to be the pinnacle of this charade, forcing healthy young people to purchase health insurance.

    With government mandates that defy the marketplace, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, the insurance premiums for young adults can only be pushed higher and higher, placing additional weight on the class of youthful Americans who are actually willing to produce and make their own way in the world.

    The federal government is out of money. It is broke. Actually, currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends, it is beyond broke. Though political spin may temporarily obscure this fact, it cannot prevent the unfortunate results that eventually flow from reality.

    It stands to reason that at some point, out of sheer necessity, citizens will have to learn to make due with significantly less government than the last few generations of Americans have become accustomed to.

    It is only a matter of time before the struggling permanent underclass which has long propped itself up on the backs of taxpayers will find that they must do more for themselves or suffer for it. The horror of so many unnecessary deaths witnessed during Hurricane Katrina may serve as a precursor, a perfect microcosm of what the socio-economic future may hold.

    Similarly, the latest lunatic ravings of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), telling the Tea Party to “go straight to hell,” symbolize this struggle. Unable to provide any real solutions to her suffering constituency, in an attempt to diffuse the painful truth that the jig is up, Waters could muster nothing more than lashing out at her political opponents.

    On the heels of decades of unprecedented prosperity, many among older generations could not foresee the calamity ahead. They merely presumed that what once was would always be. In the process, they pampered the younger generation, largely insulating them from the cruel realities of human existence.

    Ah, but reality beckons. Soon, its uncomfortable consequences will be in full bloom. If twenty-somethings ever figure out what government has set them up for, the counter-culture unrest of the 1960s may look a picnic.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/what_awaits_young_americans.html

    I look back through my life and I have to say that the 60’s seems to have been the beginning of the end. I know we had problems before but the sexual revolution was and is, in my opinion nothing more than the true beginning of the total rejection of responsibility-of the do what feels good no matter the cost attitude. When freedom became nothing more than the right to act like a fool-to act with total disregard for the actual outcome of your actions-when the declaration “I have a right” became an excuse for immaturity-instead of a proclamation of freedom and the corresponding need for responsibility to go with it.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Randomly responding:

    “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy

    Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch

    Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”

    I won’t give any Communists credit for presenting homesexuality as normal/natural/healthy – I’ll give credit (a) to those who taught me its not of my concern what two consenting adults do in bed, (b) to homosexuals I have come to know over the years that have taught me that they put their pants on one leg at a time just as I do, and (c) and finally, I’ll give credit to ignorance which perpetuates the notion that my station in life is somehow determined more by what two guys do to each other with their peckers (or women/vaginas) versus what a bunch crooks in Washington or Harrisburg do with my money.

    Discredit the Bible? Doesn’t it sorta do that by itself in some ways? How unfortunate that those who have a religious life limit it to what is prescriptive on Sunday and to what the Nicene Council pontificated all those years ago.

    I’m okay with eliminating religious expression in school. Really……I am. My family and I attend Church. We are active participants. We read our two year old books with religious or faith-based content. The last thing I want is for his school trying to introduce religion in any form – because they are far more likely to screw it up. Stick to the basics reading, writing, arithmetic, learning 2nd/3rd language, etc – I got the rest thanks…..

    • We could certainly turn this into a conversation about homosexuality-but the main point in this discussion, IMO, is the attempt to promote irresponsibility in our private lives-having children outside of marriage-sex without commitment-and making religion a bad thing.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        On irresponsibility?

        Is irresponsibility “promoted” in our private lives by having children outside of marriage?

        Of course it is! It is more responsible to force two people who hate each other to get married…..or to force two people who have lived together for years – and will live together until they die into some social construct to appease the sensibilities of the rest of us.

        Is irresponsibility “promoted” in our private lives by having sex without commitment?

        You betcha! Bring back the chastity belt baby! It is inconceivable that pleasure be shared by two consenting people without some form of commitment. And to be clear – save the congratulatory hug or back slap for that new promotion I just received – we need to discuss our commitment to one another first!

        Is irresponsibility “promoted” in our private lives by making religion a bad thing?

        Don’t ever refer to religion as a bad thing. It always has and always will be a good thing!

        • You Betcha! , the crap you just ranted is exactly what is promoting irresponsibility.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            No V.H. – I am tired of obnoxious culture warriors trying to define for the rest of us what is and what is not “responsible behavior”.

            (a) I know of several couples who are unmarried and have had children – they simply elected not to get married for their own private reasons. They are completely upstanding people, some with military experience, some attend Church regularly, all work their asses off and have raised or are raising incredible kids. And you say they promote irresponsibility? Wow!

            (b) Sex without commitment is irresponsible? Seriously? You’re more than welcome to have that view on your own. But why push this on others as somehow the decline of America? Are you kidding me? (Note to masturbators everywhere – YOU are the reason we are so so screwed)

            (c) Religion – what a whopper there – especially a day after observing the 10th anniversary of a horrific event committed in the name of religion.

            • Well, we’re all tired of something-I’m tired of the people that think one can promote these ideas as the way to go and think everything is going to be just great. We have huge numbers of teenage pregnancy, single households who can’t afford to take care of their children, millions of abortions-but lets keep promoting the idea that sex without commitment works. It may for a few-but for the majority who go this way-it doesn’t. What is the percentage of black out of wedlock birth-70%-whites, I don’t remember the %-how is that working out-mothers raising children by themselves-without enough money to take care of them-Men fathering children with numerous different woman.

              So you just keep on being tired of us obnoxious people-we are just as tired of those who ignore the consequences of these ideas, based on the few that can handle it-and the much more numerous that can’t.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Please try to stay calm lest you end up in some government sponsered ‘Anger Management’ program, with some character like Jack Nicholson diagnosing you as having repressed memories of a childhood upbringing by male elves or something.

              I was joking, but I think your Phillies are going all the way. I doubt my Red Sox will get that far as they are sinking fast.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Not sure about the Phillies – Ryan Howard stops hitting in the playoffs and if they clinch early there is worry they will lose a lot of momentum.

                I hope the SOX go in – there is still time for them no?

              • The Sox will be fine. They will make it and will have their pitching come around. Just a bad spell for a while. Remember they started out 2-10 before later having the best record in MLB.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Yes, actually too much time for then to blow it. The starting pitching can’t be trusted. Beckett has been reliable but the rest are skitso and Buck is still injured. It don’t look good. They will need some luck.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m not injured, not sure where you’re getting your information.

                Even if the Bosox were to stick it out and make the playoffs this year, they’ll quickly lose to the Yanks anyway. 🙂

              • Bull crap. The Yankees are the one team that we can beat. 11-4 versus the Yankmes this year.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Buck = Buchholz

                But if you can pitch, please apply, the Red Sox can use all the pitching they can buy. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You wouldn’t want me pitching for the Bosox, but I’d be glad to step in and lose the game for them. Though they don’t seem to need much help in that department at the moment!

        • So much of what people reject about “religion” is the notion of morality. That something can be considered good or bad even when I don’t want it to be.

          “Of course it is! It is more responsible to force two people who hate each other to get married…..or to force two people who have lived together for years – and will live together until they die into some social construct to appease the sensibilities of the rest of us.”

          Better solution, don’t have children with people you hate. Don’t get married to someone you don’t love. Don’t treat marriage like a disposable commitment that you just do because you want to feel good. THAT is personal responsibility.

          “You betcha! Bring back the chastity belt baby! It is inconceivable that pleasure be shared by two consenting people without some form of commitment.”

          Better solution, treat sex as a meaningful act between two people. There is no more personal act than this. Why would you throw it about to people for whom you care nothing. Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it can be destructive. I share an incredible bond with my wife, why would I want to taint it by sharing that same bond with various other people just because it’s fun?

          “Don’t ever refer to religion as a bad thing. It always has and always will be a good thing!”

          I don’t think anyone would ever say ALL religion is good. Neither should ALL religion be written off as bad because of the perversion of it by some wacko. I think that’s the main point. If we treat all religion as one and the same, then we are destroying what could be an incredible instrument of good!

          While we’re on the topic, the point of Christianity is not that people are bad for doing these things. The point is that NO ONE can NOT do these things, at least the intent, and so we are all beholden to the Grace of God through Jesus Christ. Anyone who thinks that my main goal on Sunday is to deride gay people for being sinners is missing the point entirely. That being said, freedom from sin does not give me permission to do as I will. If I truly accept the mercy and grace of God, I will do my best to align my will with His and avoid these sins.

        • Do you ever watch MTV? I have a teenager so I am forced to watch every now and then. There is a show on there called Teen Mom. It comes down to, they are following these girls around during their pregnancy and after. These girls are stars because they got knocked up! I would say this was promoting irresponsibilty, wouldn’t you?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Kristian – I quit watching MTV with any regularity around twenty years ago….when they stopped actually playing music videos. The “stars” on Teen Mom are stars because people like your teenager watch them. Having said that – I watched one episode sometime last year. While that gave me but a glimpse of the lifestory of a couple of the girls – the obvious lightbulb-going-off-in-head is that a teenager with a still developing brain watching one of these shows may be duped into thinking that it is somehow cool to have a child at such a young – duped because the teachable moment has long since past them.

            Try getting rid of MTV.

            • That would be my solution! Like you I stopped watching when they stopped playing music videos. I always thought that was the whole point and purpose of that station. I have been fortunate enough that my daughter has no desire to be a teen mom. I think that has a lot to do with her father and his late in life child she is helping to raise. See, here’s the thing, adults who should know better are still doing the whole “if it feels good, do it” thing. That works great in theory, not so much in real life. I think that people have forgotten that for every action you take, be it good or bad, there are consequences. If adults have forgotten that, how the hell are our kids going to have a chance?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Kristian – at the risk of me sounding like an “old guy” – there literally is not sh*t on TV any more. Other than sports – I get zero enjoyment out of anything on TV and the cable bill is not helping that predicament either. I mean – Al Sharpton now has a slot on MSNBC for chrissakes? What the hell is going on? Thankfully, my son shows more interest in books than TV.

            • Hard to teach that which society has forgotten or dismissed as unimportant-it is one thing to say one Has the right to be immoral -it is another to declare nothing is immoral. Words are important but actions teach much more than words. Dang it-gotta go-but I have much more to say about this subject 😦

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Really!? That’s pretty odd, since it was the Communists that taught me all that.

  5. G Man….good morning……having a dose of McCarthyism today? I do not see a Communist around every corner nor under my bed. I do see a Socialist track, however.

    I remember the saying…..”We can defeat America without firing a shot. We can beat them in their schools, in their church, in their politics…….American’s have no staying power. Independence is individual and not collective. In a collective, there can be no independence. An individual is defeated one at a time…a collective is control.”

    You know the saying, I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us……and it is. So, make a few changes and drop the Communist manifesto….and you appear to be pretty close….which is what I think your point is.

    I have no problem with being the big kid on the block. I have no problem with being number one. I have no problem with people being rich. I do have a problem with political correctness…I do have a problem with,” it is ok to lose”……I really like Vince Lombardi’s saying….show me a team that is not afraid to lose….And I will show you a loser. I like the saying,…..Winning in the only thing.

    I do not believe we should share technology to be “nice”. Like Patton once said, ” in school we always admired the fastest runner…the champion marble shooter…” I have a huge problem with the mindset that it is ok to lose….NO IT IS NOT OK….if it happens, correct it so you can go undefeated. I used to coach Little League Baseball…..and we had drafts for the best players….Now if we have drafts…EVERYONE gets picked. At the end of a season….everyone gets a “participation trophy” so they do not feel left out because it makes them feel inferior. Well, they were. They were inferior ball players or coached very badly. I coached for nine years in between assignments but quit when the emphasis came off of winning to “everyone plays”…win or lose, it does not matter. Coach, put little Johnny in, he has not played yet……forget that it is the top of the 6th in a tied game for the Championship and he would be the weak link….it is not winning that counts….it is his feelings will get hurt.

    That is a mental attitude that I do not like and see the world, not able to achieve it with rugged individualism, then decides to play the game in another way but we do not change to meet the challenge…..we quit being number one because we want everyone to like us.

    I want to be number one militarily. I want to be number one economically, I do not want to be “equal” to anyone in the world. We should not have given up computer science to China as Clinton did. We should not have given up nuclear secrets to our friends, as Carter did, who then gave it away to ensure that we are “equal” as if being equal is a deterrent. We should not allow GE to go to China with the avionics division that has the advanced military avionics and the caveat for going there is to share that intelligence. We think China and the rest of the world is going to “play fair”. Let’s have a trade imbalance because we are a super power and can handle trade deficits.

    I have no problem with people being rich. I have no problem with people being workers. I have no problem with someone driving a Lexus, or having one for each day of the week. I have no problem with the United States going into another country and buying or trading for their assets or their gold, or tin, or sulphur, or oil or whatever. I have no problem with building a school or bathrooms, or play grounds or giving trinkets in trade for natural resources if they are STUPID enough to negotiate them away. What I do have a problem with is being a nanny state. I have a problem with enabling an entitlement mentality. Not everyone is equal nor should they be.

    I am fed up with this entitlement mentality and that it is immoral to be number one. Shit.

    Ok…time for my rant to be over…and time for my Dr Pepper……and time for Charlie to catch his breath because I just made him throw up. Buck will tell me to have a cup of coffee and he knows I don’t drink it…JAC will say, “Damn Colonel, you need to chill, baby.” Mathius will be Mathius. DPM will just say, “ARRGGGHH” in between sips of grog and firing his brand new laser guided anti ballistic rail gun, LOI will chuckle because I got on the soap box and it fell in, Bama Dad will still be wondering what happened to his defensive line, Canine Weapon will look at US Weapon and say, WTF? Feline Weapon will secretly steal Canine’s chew toy and hide it…and blame US Weapon…D13..well, he is tired from being on the border shifting assets to fight fires and maintain his portion of the border, revamp his SOP to include fire fighting assets in deployment of military equipment and then try to teach a young second Lieutenant how to read an SOP with out screwing it up….(one of them “educated” Harvard types that does not know what a rattlesnake is or what poison ivy looks like and uses it for camouflage and that a Mesquit thorn does not make a good toothpick….they are barbed)…

    I feel better now, SUFA…..thanks. And to VH, Cathy, BF and the rest….did not leave you out on purpose…ran out of steam.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Maybe now would be a good time to start drinking coffee?? Or at the very least some red bull.

      • Doing ok now Buck…….just one of my “Colonel” rants. Calmed down and without that nasty coffee stuff. A good healthy cold DP with real sugar and calories and all…better drink them now before the Calorie Police are formed and come get me.

    • 🙂 Rant-maybe, but still true.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Colonel,

      I feel better after your rant too! This country is going in the wrong direction with a Socialist leading the way from the Oval Office. The desired goal of these whackballs can only be done if the people beg for it. That means to get to a Socialist country, there has to be much suffering before it can occur. I’ll let your imagination take over now! 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – (tongue in cheek maybe slightly)

      You must have been a real pleasure to have as a coach eh? It is very apropos to have that 8 year old see his Saturday afternoon ball game as a life and death Lombardi-esque struggle no? What coach wouldn’t want to channel Herb Brooks?

      “Boys…..you lose this game you’ll take it to your fucking graves”

      I recall “fondly” a High School football coach I had – just prior to our biggest game of the year against the next town over (Greencastle, PA) – at the conclusion of the last practice that week he instructed the team to remove helmets and shoulder pads and then proceed to the infield of the baseball practice field. We were all told to get on the ground face-down and literally rub our faces in the dirt…..as the coach, in a moment I am sure he smacked his pee pee to many a night bellowed – “you lose to those fucking cowards tomorrow and they will rub your faces in dirt the rest of your lives”. Well, we lost the game. I turned out ok (I guess). Didn’t get a participation trophy. And I certainly have not had my face placed in dirt. I have for all the years since thought that coach was a complete dick for pulling such a stunt.

      Is it okay to lose? Sure it is. Just keep some context eh? In the history of Division I wrestling I am aware of only one wrestler to go undefeated – Cael Sanderson. Even the great Dan Gable lost (once to be precise). What do we think of all those other wrestlers? John Smith……Bruce Baumgartner…….Jeff Blatnick……Dave Schultz…… They never set out to lose – but a loss showed them the holes in their game – and how to improve/excel.

      I often wonder what my son’s athletic experience will be (I will start to find out in another year). If I am paying $$$ for him to join a team at the Y or some local league – then yeah – I expect him to play. He’ll know soon enough if he is suited for the sport once talent becomes the arbiter of playing time (school-based teams). If simply doesn’t have the aptitude to play then I can either work harder with him or help him look at something different.

      So Coach – I gotta ask you – how bad to YOU want that trophy?

      🙂

      • LOL…..good Ol’ Ray……I was not the Simon Legree that it sounds. My approach was …..we accept that there will be losses…I told my boys that there are better teams on any given day and no matter how well we play, we will lose….but to just shrug and grin and say , well, that is the way it goes…..is not what makes a team. The integrity of the team is to take the loss in stride…and learn from it and correct it. I was not the rub your face in the dirt kind of coach….but the championship is what we were striving for….to get to Pennsylvania was the objective and to do that, we had to win. YMCA, local baseball groups is another matter, but to get to the LLWS was the league that I was coaching. I never made the LLWS but I did get to regionals three years running…Losing is inevitable….I know this….but keeping it in context and using it as a teaching point is called integrity in my book. I NEVER ran up to a kid and called him a loser nor did I ever denigrate a player for mistakes….but talent did win out.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I eagerly look forward to sports with the kids if they go that route. I hate “participation trophies”.

    • LOI will chuckle because I got on the soap box and it fell in…

      But he landed on his feet folks! Just like a cat, he’s still got the reflexes.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      ::wag::

    • “Bama Dad will still be wondering what happened to his defensive line”

      Not one bit, now offensive line that’s another story. Other than the first Penn State drive and the 4th quarter drive when we had the 3rd string in, we dominated on defense. Offensive line need much improvement if we are going to run consistently.

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting E mail I just received:

    As if pushing a murderous abortion agenda weren’t evil enough, Planned Parenthood has sunk to new depths of depravity – promoting the overt sexualization of infants and children. And now the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is parroting notorious Planned Parenthood’s talking points by commanding parents to view and train children and even infants as “sexual beings!”

    The Department of Health and Human Services offers a new Q&A section on sex. On that site, HHS links directly to a page that states, “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings… It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have [sexual] curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

    The statements on the page closely imitate a “Parenting” page by Planned Parenthood, where parents are told to “give babies a sense of themselves, their sexuality, and their bodies from birth.”

    Both pages instruct parents to encourage children to masturbate even in infancy.

    I hesitate, but must ask, how does an adult “encourage” children and infants to masturbate? Is this not a grotesque, blatant, government-sponsored solicitation for pedophilia and child molestation?

    In an age where pedophilia and pederasty, all manner of sexual abuse of children, is rampant, why on earth would any organization – but especially the Federal Government – encourage adults to view and train children as sexual objects?

    Why would a society be seeking to rob our children of their innocence?

    With sexual promiscuity already a profound national tragedy, why would the Federal Government want to train from infancy our children to be hyper-sexualized?

    Furthermore, why is OUR tax money being used to grant license to and promote this intrinsically evil agenda?

  7. G!

    Outstanding! Thought of listing examples of every one, but that would be a lot of writing. Easier, is there a single one that we cannot see has been tried?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/active_measures_and_the_truthers.html

    • LOI

      Or perhaps this author is trying to convince us that Alex Jones is the one who is crazy, but he really isn’t because this author is really the one trying to manipulate us!!!!!!!

      The problem with climbing down a rat hole is that everything starts to smell and look like rats.

  8. 😐

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    The Ulsterman Report, known for their White House insider reports, has published an interview from a Wall Street insider that, if accurate, threatens to fundamentally change the make up and loyalties of the United States Military. According to a Wall Street insider with first-hand knowledge of the goings on in the Obama administration, there are interests within the White House – perhaps going as high as President Obama himself – that are positioning to unionize the entire military. According to the insider interview, the motive for the move is to ensure that U.S. military personnel are “justly represented.”
    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/insider-report-obama-administration-intends-to-unionize-u-s-military-with-executive-order_09122011

  10. @Ray
    Had to move down, no room left to reply up there! You don’t sound old at all, you’re right, there isn’t anything worth watching on tv anymore. The cable bill certainly doesn’t make me feel any better either! Have you ever seen that channel Current TV? It’s for people with really short attention spans, I think teenagers watch it. I was flipping channels one day and happened to run across this, dumbest damned thing I’ve seen in a long time!

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA,

    I saw today as quiet on the subject. This pleases me in some ways because maybe it is a wake-up call. We real Americans cannot fight what we don’t see, maybe today we can see the enemy. Freedom will never be without sacrifice, nor will it be secured by being nieve and ignore the facts. Fear cannot be an option and losing is not going to happen. It’s time to stand up collectively and say “HELL NO”!

  12. Okay, so let’s try real science
    By FRANK FLEMING
    Last Updated: 3:20 AM, September 12, 2011

    People have alleged that Rick Perry and others like him are anti-science. That’s horrible. Science is extremely important. It’s given us microwaves, dinosaurs and the “Mr. Wizard Show.” And medicines. Except for the homeopathic ones.

    It’s critical that we all accept science’s conclusions. For instance, if we don’t agree on the age of the Earth, how will we know what to do when the Earth tries to buy liquor? And without knowledge of evolution, when a species goes extinct, how do we know who to notify as its next of kin?

    But despite the obvious importance of science, one group of people does everything in pure defiance of scientific methods: politicians.

    What do politicians do when they think they have a great idea? They just go and implement it. It’s like someone thinking he’s got a cure for cancer and immediately injecting it into everyone he can. That’s a madman, not a scientist. You always have to at least try out your idea on monkeys to make sure it doesn’t kill them.

    Were farm subsidies first tried on monkeys? Social Security? Bank bailouts? No, the unscientific politicians went straight to trying all their ideas on humans, and now we have a bunch of bankrupt people instead of harmless bankrupt monkeys.

    But the problem with testing political ideas on monkeys is that forcing them to go billions into debt would violate animal-cruelty laws. The only ones we’re allowed to do that to are people.

    So we have to just observe the effects of the politicians’ policies — but that’s not so simple. Many say the Obama stimulus was a failure; others say we’d be even worse off without it. With the data we have, we can’t prove who’s right.

    In science, when testing things on people, you always use a control group. If you have a drug you think will cut cholesterol, you give it to one set of test subjects. If everyone in the group that took the drug turns purple and starts choking but the control group is fine, we scientifically conclude there’s a problem with the drug.

    We have an economy that’s turning purple and choking. Did the stimulus cause that? If we had a control group that looked fine, we’d know.

    So what we need to do is isolate part of the country to be the control group. They’ll be free from new taxes, won’t take part in government programs and regulations and can have all the guns they want. In the rest of America, politicians can go crazy with every Keynesian idea, ban trans fats and salt and just generally control everything. Then we can compare the results of the two groups and finally have a scientific answer on what works.

    After several years, we’d finally have a scientific answer on big versus small government, so there will be no more arguments. If someone does try to argue about it, you just hold up your palm to his face and shout, “Science!,” which means that the science is settled, so the discussion is over.

    Think of it: A world without partisan bickering because science has blessed us with an answer. We just need to make our experiment, and if science tells us that limited government is best, we’ll get right to dismantling government everywhere.

    If, on the other hand, science tells us huge government is better, then we’ll impose government regulation and high taxation on everyone — though it might be a little bit difficult since the control group will have lots of guns.

    🙂

  13. Oy vey, Gman, you’ve gone over the edge again.

    Nothing to say to this (it’s insane) … but I still love ya’, Gman.

    Capitalism has kept us a terrorist state and will continue to do so until the big money flees and we can take care of each other the way we’re supposed to (communism, baby) … I do find it entertaining how you use Hitler and Mao very selectively … completely ignoring the paranoid hysteria in your post … the commies are out to get you (I’m already got) … watch out!

    Like I said, oy vey … politics by bumper sticker slogans … the GOP in a nutshell … you betcha.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I believe I see far more democrat bumper stickers than Republican ones, but your post misses the mark. It misses the mark because both parties are essentially the same team wearing different color ties to confuse the public.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie,

      I lomg been over the edge when it comes to the lies of government and the MSM. They are both evil and sadly many will suffer for their need for control. Until the people stand up and thell the Federal government to go to hell, it will continue.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This isn’t rocket science folks, really, it’s not.

    It takes WORK to have individual responsibility, it takes WORK to be free.

    It takes very little effort to submit to being controlled, especially if you can be convinced that it is for “your own good”, or even better yet, for “the greater good”.

    Most people are lazy.

    • HERE HERE!!

      @Charlie:
      Did you read the post at all? This is on the record in congress, what else do you need to see? Most of us don’t want someone else taking care of us, most expecially government! If what they are doing now is any indication of what would happen if we went communist, we are SO screwed!

    • Peter, nice segue … “Arbeit macht frei” (“work sets you free”) … you might want to tone that bumper stick down a little …

  15. We have stories throughout the ages – across cultures and different civilizations – that tell of societies that spin out of control due to tyranny and immorality – Sodom and Gomorrah are Biblical reminders – and recent discoveries point to the loss of Central American civilizations to be caused by similar circumstances.

    This stuff is not new.

    The lesson is the same – no society can withstand the destruction of social order that comes from the hands of tyranny and its depravity.

    People do not spin out of control for no reason.

    Social order is a natural state, it is NOT established by force nor design.
    Social order is a consequence of family as the Family is the root and establishment of all human interaction.

    The destruction of the family unit always leads to the destruction of social order.

    Any system that requires force and violence to exist always attacks the family unit bond in some manner – directly or surreptitiously – in an attempt to replace the family with itself and make permanent that system whether the system is religious or political.

    All these systems continue to force this interference with the family, and will eventually succeed in fracturing the family bond – with the direct result of a destruction of social order – ironically collapsing the system that attempted to replace the family!

    Human society -like all natural Law- heals the damage to itself and overwhelms the distortions eventually.

    One of the means of this healing is collapsing the structure from which the damage comes, which allows the re-creation of the natural order of human society to re-evolve from the ashes…

    How many times this needs repeating is up to man himself.

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Reclaiming The American Dream
    September 13, 2011 by Robert Ringer

    PHOTOS.COM
    The American Dream is about self responsibility — about an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the only way he can pursue those rights is if the government leaves him alone.One of the many patriotic slogans that has become popular as the 2012 election campaigns swing into full gear is “reclaiming the American Dream.” But in order to reclaim something, you must first understand what it is, and I can tell you with certainty that the American Dream is not what power-focused politicians would like you to believe it is.

    It is not about “socially progressive” judges promoting “social justice.” It is not about government micromanaging people’s lives. It is not about punishing success. And it certainly is not about politicians divvying up an imaginary financial pie in a way that they believe is most likely to keep them in power.

    The American Dream is about self‑responsibility — about an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the only way he can pursue those rights is if the government leaves him alone.

    No government has a right to interfere with the sovereignty of any individual. “American Government,” said Rose Wilder Lane, “is not an Authority; it has no control over individuals and no responsibility for their affairs. American Government is a permission which free individuals grant to certain men to use force in certain necessary and strictly limited ways; a permission which Americans can always withdraw from American Government.”

    People who believe they need big government, run mostly by those who have never worked a day in their collective lives, to “reclaim” the American Dream for themselves are sadly mistaken. Government has nothing to do with the American Dream. The American Dream is a way of life that can be experienced only by free individuals.

    Those who believe in the real American Dream cannot be distinguished by race, religious belief, nationality, occupation or sex. They can be distinguished only by their common belief that liberty must be accorded a higher priority than all other objectives.

    The American Dream means the freedom to pursue a better life, and it was that freedom that inspired millions of people to cross the oceans to reach America. Those millions of immigrants were not looking for government handouts. They were looking for opportunity, and that’s what the American Dream gave them.

    In The Federalist Papers, James Madison warned, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

    Madison’s warnings were not heeded. The government did not, and does not, “control itself.” “Government by the people” has come to mean government by those in power. Ironically, the way this is accomplished is through a sleight of hand called “representative government,” which gives people a false sense of control.

    As Alvin Toffler pointed out 30 years ago, representative government is but an illusion. Letting people vote every few years is the equivalent of throwing them a piece of raw meat. Once the election circus is over, they learn once again that they have virtually no power.

    As early as 1857, Thomas Macaulay, the British historian, predicted what the inevitable results of majority rule would be when he said:

    The day will come when [in the United States] a multitude of people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink Champagne and to ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? … When Society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by your own institutions.

    Macaulay’s powers of prophecy were incredibly accurate. Our democratic republic has destroyed itself through an excess of democracy. Majority rule has evolved into a free‑for‑all stampede of citizens appealing to politicians to give them an ever greater share of the plunder. And there is never a shortage of vile human beings who are willing to resort to euphemistic slogans like “reclaiming the American Dream” in an effort to accommodate them.

    Rational people know there is something very wrong with our once-proud culture. We live in an age of tension and uncertainty. Ill will and fear are all around us. In the 1970s, Eric Hoffer observed that “the feeling of doom is stronger now. There is a widespread feeling that our economic system and our civilization are nearing their end. In the 1930s we still had values, ideals, hopes, illusions, certitudes. In the 1970s many people see life drained of meaning, and there is hardly a certitude left.”

    Which begs the question: If those were Eric Hoffer’s thoughts 40 years ago, what would he have to say about today’s state of the union? I kind of doubt he’d buy into the notion that the promise of more government control over people’s lives equates to “reclaiming the American Dream.”

    Even if we are successful in evicting the nation’s first anti-American President from the White House in 2012, people must understand that a new face in the Oval Office is not the solution to their No. 1 problem: a continuing loss of freedom. Freedom will always elude those who are not willing to fight for it.

    Thus, the dominant question that confronts us is: Do moral, self-responsible individuals in this country harbor a great enough love of freedom to fight to reclaim it? Regardless of how the 2012 elections turn out, we will get the answer to that question fairly quickly because we are just now arriving at the tipping point.

    –Robert Ringer

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Hit the nail on the head. My Dad used to say the reason the US could not compete with the Sov. Union in the cold war was that they promised instant gratification, we promised a better world IN THE FUTURE. So, they toppled governments and installed their puppets. By the time people realized there were, ahem… conditions on the instant gratification, it was too late. They had the guns.

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Late last month, without much fanfare, scientific titan CERN released new evidence that could dramatically alter the balance of the global warming debate. Potentially vindicating the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, new CERN research from their CLOUD project demonstrates that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. As a result tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for the earth’s variations in temperature. Such a revelation throws into question whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening, or whether cosmic rays and the sun are the dominant controllers of the earth’s climate.

    Such an important discovery should surely be big news. However CERN’s Director General has attempted to play down the study and it’s potential conclusions in order to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” So, instead of what should be a debate concerning the causes of global warming we are struck by an entirely different debate, the autonomy of scientists who receive government funding. CERN receives millions of euros in funding from it’s member states, the top three being Germany, France and UK, a list which is ever growing as more countries clamour to join the well-respected establishment. However such government funding undermines the very credibility that makes CERN the scientific goliath it claims to be. Nigel Calder makes a similar point, arguing that:

    “CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”

    The scientists behind the CLOUD experiment have been in a battle for over a decade to continue and publish the results of the project due to their state-funded position.

    Jasper Kirby, a CERN scientist, postulated back in 1998 that the cosmic ray theory would “probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” This admittance of a hypothetical alternative to anthropogenic theories was apparently a step too far for global warming activists who pressured the Western governments that control CERN’s funding to suspend the project. It is only after a decade of negotiation that the project was allowed to continue, and even now it’s results are being stifled by a need to placate political influences. As a result last week’s CLOUD paper perhaps reveals more about the distortion of science by government intervention than it highlights any real scientific breakthrough.

  18. 3rd World, here we come!
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/

    Not so hot for the greatest nation in the world, you ask me. Not to mention our prison population, violent crime rate and ever decreasing education rating …

    Yous really think capitalism has nothing to do with this? Remember, the government you’re about to blame it all on is owned by big business … bought and sold American.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie,

      Yup, capitalism has nothing to do with this. You continue to mis-define capitalism, so as usual there isn’t any point in further discussion.

      Also note that the poverty rate increased 6% in the last year alone, so that would have to be blamed on the current administration… So, are you saying that Obama is the most capiltalist president ever since the rate of poverty went up 6% in just the last year alone?

      Slavery (government entitlement programs) has a lot to do with it, and corporatism/mercantilism has a lot to do with it. The point you make about the government being owned by big business has a lot to do with it.

      HOWEVER; GOVERNMENT BEING OWNED BY BIG BUSINESS (or big business being owned by the government, depending on which way you look at it) is NOT the definition of capitalism.

      Please apply the proper terms and definitions and try again….

      You see, I AGREE with you that the government being owned by big business is one of the major causes of the increase in poverty… really, I do! You have that part right! However, since your definition of capitalism and my definition of capitalism are not the same definition, we cannot work together to solve the problem because we cannot agree on the cause of the problem.

      Your answer is usually something along the lines of “giving power to the people”, yet your METHOD for giving power to the people is usually MORE government (but you cannot seem to come up with a way that MORE government would mean less influence from big business….)

      My answer is usually something along the lines of “giving power to the people” through self-sufficiency, individual responsibility, and freedom.

      To paraphrase our old friend Kent: “Freedom isn’t going to stop bad men from doing bad things, but government simply institutionalizes the ability of bad men to do bad things and makes these bad things “legal””

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        The government and big business working jointly for their own (not the country’s benefit) is fascism. Anybody see any parallels between IG Farben, Krupp and GE. We are though, as Americans different. The leaders do not stay in power forever. Eventually they leave and get cushy jobs on the board of said corporations.

      • Also note that the poverty rate increased 6% in the last year alone, so that would have to be blamed on the current administration… So, are you saying that Obama is the most capiltalist president ever since the rate of poverty went up 6% in just the last year alone?

        He’s no more or less guilty of being a corporate lackey than the last imbecile in the white house; he just looks better and speaks much better, but why point to Obama? It’s business that runs the country and you know it. Set the blame where it belongs, mon frer.

        Slavery (government entitlement programs) has a lot to do with it, and corporatism/mercantilism has a lot to do with it. The point you make about the government being owned by big business has a lot to do with it.

        Thank you … I made a point .. here, at stand up for socialism?

        HOWEVER; GOVERNMENT BEING OWNED BY BIG BUSINESS (or big business being owned by the government, depending on which way you look at it) is NOT the definition of capitalism.

        Are you arguing against BF’s cup of coffee scenario? Capitalism works, he claims, because I can buy a cup of coffee on the corner. I say it requires a ton of exploitation for that coffee to be affordable. Now that capitalism has run amuck (corporatism/mercantalism is a natural development of capitalism–people protecting their private “hard earned” (sarcasm intended) gelt), the gap between rich and poor widens and eliminates the so-called middle class … at some point, the poor’s cup will runeth over … then you’ve got a real headache.

        Please apply the proper terms and definitions and try again….

        Any way you slice it, Jr., it doesn’t work.

        You see, I AGREE with you that the government being owned by big business is one of the major causes of the increase in poverty… really, I do! You have that part right! However, since your definition of capitalism and my definition of capitalism are not the same definition, we cannot work together to solve the problem because we cannot agree on the cause of the problem.

        Your answer is usually something along the lines of “giving power to the people”, yet your METHOD for giving power to the people is usually MORE government (but you cannot seem to come up with a way that MORE government would mean less influence from big business….)

        Actually, no, it isn’t. What’ I’ve stated here numerous times is I believe that socialism will be the natural result of capitalism and that something closer to an anarchistic situation (never fully) can only come after socialism has been as corrupted as capitalism requires. Capitalism is dying, my friend. It cannot stop itself from dying. While my fantasy requires people live together for each other, your fantasy requires capitalists to halt their greed at some point and that will never happen. Never ever … and the widening gap will require a revolution of some kind (violent or otherwise). Even assuming the greed is not some immoral or evil intent, the fact is capitalism requires the acquisition of more for the few at the expense of the many.

        My answer is usually something along the lines of “giving power to the people” through self-sufficiency, individual responsibility, and freedom.

        And here I agree with you, believe it or not, but that is an impossibility so long as society remains so class stratified. The wealthy just won’t let it happen and you’re foolish to believe they would (if you even believe that). The wealthy could not remain so if people were treated fairly; if workers were given fair share of profits, etc. Forgetaboutit …

        To paraphrase our old friend Kent: “Freedom isn’t going to stop bad men from doing bad things, but government simply institutionalizes the ability of bad men to do bad things and makes these bad things “legal””

        Except what Ron Paul said the other night (or implied) about someone who hasn’t the means to take care of himself while very sick (“he should take responsibility for himself”) was about as stupid and callous an answer as I ever heard and I can no longer even listen to him (he joined the whackjob team with that one). It was the Ayn Rand philosophy on steriods (even though she used government help when it came to being sick). You can’t let people die because they can’t afford to pay for medical insurance, especially those without the ability to do so (i.e., mentally incompetent, palsy victims, etc.). Hitler handled that in a similar fashion, except he helped speed the plow, so to speak and just put them out of their misery. You don’t see anything bad in that? Not Hitler, but Paul’s “responsibility” mantra … let the church’s take care of them? And if they be atheists? At some point, Peter, this implied social darwinism will lead to one hell of a pissed off population that well outnumbers all those “responsible people” you feel deserve the spoils of their moral victory (and I mean moral victory in the most sarcastic way possible).

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      OK, so let’s shut the borders, begin deportation of illegals as was done by Eisenhower, Truman and Hoover in tough economic times and see if that increases employment, reduces poverty and cuts down the size of the incarcerated population (especially in California). Ever wonder why the uniform crime stats never break down the immigration/citizenship status? Guess?

      • SK…we are shutting our border. We are just simply doing it. We are making it awfully tough on business here and we are not nice on border crossings. We do not give a shit what Washington says…….and Perry……he has done one thing that we are calling him down on. He says one thing for the elections and does another on the Texas border. He has ordered 4,000 more National Guard troops to the border. I cannot speak for New Mexico and Arizona…California simply does not count. I know they are pissed now because our border tightening has made them move Westward. We have stopped sanctuary cities, apartments that are renting to illegals, etc etc. This is not an issue of “hungry” people. It is a social issue and a significant one at that.

        • D13,

          It is a social issue and a significant one at that.

          You are exactly correct.

          It is a moral issue to the core – a group of people imposing violence on men seeking to earn a living.

          In every culture in all history, such a group of violent people ALWAYS end up destroying themselves by their own actions, for such actions ALWAYS end up being applied upon those that so easily apply them on others, and Texas and the USA will prove no different.

  19. SK,

    OK, so let’s shut the borders, begin deportation of illegals as was done by Eisenhower, Truman and Hoover in tough economic times and see if that increases employment

    Nope, not even statistically significant.

    “Legal” Americans do not compete for the jobs of “Illegal” Americans. “Legal” Americans have little interest in these jobs, which is why “Illegal” Americans do them.

    reduces poverty

    Bundling up the poor and shipping them off to the nether regions of the Empire does great for the local stats on poverty – but does not ‘reduce’ poverty.

    It merely moves it somewhere else.

    and cuts down the size of the incarcerated population (especially in California).

    Tell you what would do even better in reducing the incarcerated population.

    Stop making “Illegal” Americans illegal.

    • They are NOT Americans.

    • Stop making “Illegal” Americans illegal.

      ::stifles nose bleed::

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      1. Really? How do we know? My experience is cheap, illegal labor drives out better paying labor. This may be fine with you but it decreases social stability. There is that nagging 45% unemployment rate among black youth in this country.The guesstimates on the Eisenhower version of operation “wetback”, (I just love how non-PC we used to be). were 1.5 to 3.5 million in a population of approximately half the current level.

      2. I do not particularly care if there is poverty in Calcutta, I want to eliminate poverty here, not import Calcutta to Queens NY. Besides, there is the thought that a stronger, more economically healthy United States could assist in reducing world poverty more than a weak economically sick United States. One thinks of the Marshall Plan for example or several of the “New Frontier” initiatives. Importing poverty does not seem to be a particularly bright idea.

      3. I was thinking more of the state prisons full of thugs and murderers.

      • SK,

        1. Really? How do we know?

        Because “legal” Americans are not doing those jobs! It’s called “Observable Fact”

        My experience is cheap, illegal labor drives out better paying labor.

        What you are saying is that forcefully limiting competition causes prices for economic goods to rise? I agree – but that should not be a source of pride – it is a statement of perversity that you support limiting competition; ie: monopolies

        You want monopolies when they benefit you.
        You complain when monopolies hurt you.

        You do not understand that if you support forceful prevention of competition (when it benefits you), you also support the forceful prevention of competition when it harms you — and believe me, your support of monopolies definitely hurts you far worse then it benefits.

        This may be fine with you but it decreases social stability.

        No, it does not.

        Your violence upon non-violent men decreases social stability.

        It is a long worn out lie that immigrants creates social instability – yet, a simple review of North American immigration demonstrates something completely different.

        There is that nagging 45% unemployment rate among black youth in this country.

        ….has ZERO to do with illegal immigrates.

        2. I do not particularly care if there is poverty in Calcutta, I want to eliminate poverty here

        You do not solve poverty by STOPPING people from working.

        3. I was thinking more of the state prisons full of thugs and murderers.

        The vast majority of prisoners are non-violent drug pushers.

        You want to lower prisoners, eliminate the war on drugs.

        • ANd why are all the “prosperous” countries in Europe stopping their immigration policies? Germany, Spain, Netherlands, France, Italy……..all of these countries are beginning to shut their borders to all immigration recognizing that immigration is a social pariah if unchecked. Open borders are not working.

          There are no illegal Americans. JAC is correct and I do not care how much you want to minimize North American from Central America and South America. Semantics is becoming a major problems….and you are wrong about one thing…..Legal Americans do want the jobs. These illegals are getting things that legal Americans are not getting and that simply is immoral.

          • D13,

            ANd why are all the “prosperous” countries in Europe stopping their immigration policies?

            Because they are equally stupid as other governments. They all hold Keynesian economics, don’t they?

            Germany, Spain, Netherlands, France, Italy……..all of these countries are beginning to shut their borders to all immigration recognizing that immigration is a social pariah if unchecked. Open borders are not working.

            Utter Bull.

            If you have no problem with the “immigration” of Texans to California, but a inch difference on a line on a piece of paper, you have a problem.

            That is utter idiocy.

            Immigration is not, never has been, nor ever will be an issue.

            It is racism, blunt and simple.

            Legal Americans do want the jobs.

            Bullcrap

            They want “clean” jobs, not cleaning toilets.

            These illegals are getting things that legal Americans are not getting and that simply is immoral.

            Bull crap.

            You are claiming a man who is constantly looking over his shoulder, taking crap for jobs, and all the other shit he has to face has it better than most Americans???

            You are daft.

            • BF…..” They all hold Keynesian economics, don’t they? ” LOL…..good point.

              BF stated…”Utter Bull to the post about Europe having a problem with immigration……but the Lady Chancellor of Germany has cited that the immigration to Germany is causing all sorts of social problems…. the President of France has asked his legislature for tougher laws and it seems as if he will get it…….the Netherlands has openly admitted that the immigration into their area is a direct cause of their problem….They are not assimilating….they are creating their own country within a country….the Lady Chancellor of Germany says.

              BF stated “Bull crap” to the fact that illegals are getting things that citizens cannot get.

              Let me start with FREE in state tuition. Illegals get this…. Texas citizens do not. Let me add that illegals get free school breakfast, lunch, and dinner….. Texas citizens have to pay a fee. Let me add that illegals get free medical services….. there is a lot more, if you care for me to list them

              They are here illegally….they should be arrested. We have laws, good or bad…..it is illegal and it is immoral for them to openly flout our and it is NOT discrimination to enforce the law.

              • D13,

                but the Lady Chancellor of Germany has cited that the immigration to Germany is causing all sorts of social problems

                It is pandering to the white racist crowd that gets the politician votes. It has no sense economically or socially. It never made sense, but history does show that such racism works wonders to ferment an enemy within for government to blame all the ills upon – whether it is the Irish, the Celts, the Blacks, the Jew, the Slavs, or any other group who is a MINORITY.

                It is amazing don’t ya think that a MINORITY of people have so much POWER over society so to overwhelm the wimpy WHITE FOLK…..
                …cause that is what you are arguing, D13….. think about it carefully.

                Let me start with FREE in state tuition. Illegals get this…. Texas citizens do not. Let me add that illegals get free school breakfast, lunch, and dinner….. Texas citizens have to pay a fee. Let me add that illegals get free medical services….. there is a lot more, if you care for me to list them

                Do ya think it will help your case against me?

                Do you want a list of the hardships these people suffer? I know that won’t make a dime’s difference to you.

                The fact is it is a moral issue – men with guns preventing men from earning a living. Such an act has destroyed society, but the morons around the guns assume it was the men trying to earn a living that caused the destruction – and completely ignore the guns that actually did the damage.

        • A drug pusher is non violent? Interesting.

          • D13,

            Explain what violence he is doing by selling drugs.

            If you can demonstrate selling is violent, then everything economic is violent, and therefore Charlie’s solution – a bloodfest – is justified.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              BF,

              It is pretty well known that a large majority of drug pushers, and especially the large organizations which are involved in the drug trade are violent.

              You could certainly argue that the source of this violence is the laws which prohibit the use of the drugs which they are selling, but claiming that people in the drug trade are non-violent as a general rule is simply not true.

              The act of selling drugs to someone who wants them is not a violent act in and of itself, certainly. I believe that is what you are trying to say. Any transaction freely entered into by both parties is certainly anything but “violent”. However, there are plenty of examples of violence on the part of people involved in the drug trade, and even people who use drugs.

              Members of one organization kill members of a different organization because organization #2 was encroaching on organization #1’s “established territory”. That is violent in my book.

              A few years back, a guy here in Indy took PCP, freaked out in an intense bout of paranoia, and beat his girlfriend nearly to death. That’s violent too.

              So, while you can state perfectly factually that the act of selling drugs to a person who wishes to buy them is a perfectly free and non-violent act provided that both parties wish to enter into the transaction, I don’t think you can necessarily argue that the drug-trade is nothing but a bunch of non-violent people going about their business.

              Now, the important question is, would deregulation remove the violence from the equation, or not?

              • Peter,

                It is pretty well known that a large majority of drug pushers …… are violent.

                Please provide your source to make such a claim.

                claiming that people in the drug trade are non-violent as a general rule is simply not true.

                First, I said the majority of people in jail are there due to non-violent acts – including most of those in jail for drug possession and distribution.

                The facts support my view.

                Members of one organization kill members of a different organization because organization #2 was encroaching on organization #1′s “established territory”. That is violent in my book.

                That may be, but that is NOT the majority of crimes of the people in jail.

                Now, the important question is, would deregulation remove the violence from the equation, or not?

                To a large degree, yes.

              • Peter

                The facts:

                Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003.

                7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes

                Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades.

                The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, “three strikes” laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders.

                Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes.

                Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national “war on drugs.”

                The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

  20. Gotta love Texas..

    Katy, Texas (suburb of Houston)

    Muslin group purchases land next to a Pig Farm to build a Mosque and this Muslim group is protesting that the pigs, which have been there for 35 years, is an affront to the Muslim Community and has demanded that the pig farm close down or move…..The Mosque, which has not been built yet, will house 40

    The owner of the Pig Farm told them to go to hell…..and now hold pig races every week…..especially on the days of their meetings.

    According to the Muslim cleric, all pig farms are an affront to Muslims country wide and should be moved or closed to accommodate their religious preference.

    And you wonder why Muslims are in the cross hairs?

    • D13,

      Bullshit.

      In any democracy, a group of people have the assumed right to protest any actions of their neighbors – a simple review of millions of cases shows this.

      To pull one in a attempt to vilify a specific group is terrible.

      • Not saying that they do not have that right….I am saying that it is NOT right for them to simply move in tell someone who has been there 30 years he has to leave. If you believe this is their right……then it is also the right of the pig farmer to do what he is doing all things being equal and it should not be considered an affront.

        But…..it is things like this that cause problems and stereotyping….the Mosque is wrong. It is the same frustration that we are all feeling about the illegals entering our country. They get things for free when a citizen cannot. It is a common reaction to stereotype. You are not going to change this. You are not going to change my assumption that a truck load of Mexicans in the back of a pick up truck is 99.9 % illegal. We have proven that and we are having an impact…..You may not like it……ok…cool. But your belief and my belief are no different…..we both think we are correct.

        • D13.

          Not saying that they do not have that right….I am saying that it is NOT right for them to simply move in tell someone who has been there 30 years he has to leave.

          But I bet you wouldn’t have noticed for one second if a Christian White Dude did the same thing.

          • Quite the contrary, sir, and you know me better than that.

            • D13,

              But, I see that you haven’t presented the White Dude upset about his neighbor’s pig farm? Why not?

              • Because the white dude knows that if he doesnt like pigs then dont move next to a pig farm.

              • Because no one else, that I am aware of, is upset with the pig farm. If any other person or entity moved next to the pig farm, I would say the same thing. They, whoever they are, have no moral standing and no right to insist the pig farmer move. THAT is violence upon the non violent, is it not?

              • D13,

                They, whoever they are, have no moral standing and no right to insist the pig farmer move.

                And you are right.

                My point is, though, you would not have gone out of your way to post that a white dude is insisting a pig farm move after he moved next to one.

                You would have moved right along, not typed a word here at SUFA and shrugged to yourself.

                But if it is a Muslim, you did not move along, you typed words here at SUFA and highlighted it.

  21. BF, I personally know dozens of people in Michigan who are out of work right now who would gladly pick cotton all day if they had to just to pay the bills and to be productive.

    I’m curious what in your mind constitutes being an American? What constitutes being a Canadian or an Australian? Can you live in Sweden and still be American? Does an American have any morals ( besides the Golden Rule) he must live by? What about a Canadian? Should a citizen of any country be loyal to the country and why?

    • Anita,

      BF, I personally know dozens of people in Michigan who are out of work right now who would gladly pick cotton all day if they had to just to pay the bills and to be productive.

      Strange that they don’t ACTUALLY go and get those jobs, given there are tens of thousands of poor Mexicans who are doing the work!

      The fact – they mouth the statement, but their actions speak – they are only saying that, they have no intention of doing it. It’s all show and no go.

      I’m curious what in your mind constitutes being an American?

      I don’t give a rat’s butt about lines on a map.

      • Calm down BF..it’s nighttime..you’re supposed to be peaceful at night…

        I understand what you said and it sounds good on paper but that’s just not the way it is here. Most businesses won’t hire off the streets its all thru agencies and its tossup weather you get a call or not. Many of the people I spoke of have given much time and effort to get employment. It’s tough around here. I realize there is always a way, like move out of state, just try to walk in their shoes.

        I didn’t say anything about lines on a map, which would be America. I said American. Care to try again?

        • Anita,

          ..peaceful at night…

          Ha! You certainly do not know the night….

          I understand what you said and it sounds good on paper but that’s just not the way it is here.

          Do you believe I care about how “things are ’round here”???

          Most businesses won’t hire off the streets its all thru agencies and its tossup weather you get a call or not.

          …so what?…

          Are you saying Mexicans have some sort of advantage????? Seriously????

          If they get the jobs, then so can those wimpy white folk in Michigan get the jobs — if they actually WANT to.

          …but they do not… they want THEIR job to knock on the front door and they will wait until doomsday for that knock.

          Many of the people I spoke of have given much time and effort to get employment. It’s tough around here.

          It’s always tough.

          But they want “their” job – at their price. They do not understand they have been wildly overpaid for decades, and only now are coming to face the real value of their effort.

          They are unwilling to face it – so they will sit it out, and complain about it.

          I realize there is always a way, like move out of state, just try to walk in their shoes.

          I have – in worse shoes – many times over.

          I said American. Care to try again?

          What is “American” to you?

          To me, it is a person who hold freedom paramount. Interesting how many Americans are so willing to throw that freedom and the freedom of others away so easily and under such a vile guise of racist “immigration”

      • @ Anita……remember that BF is consistent……he is an anarchist. His statement that ” I don’t give a rat’s butt about lines on a map ” is indicative of an anarchist point of view. I happen to think that his thinking on a lot of issues are out of touch and he thinks some of mine are as well…but I recognize that. The only place we seem to agree is economics and on some points of freedoms…..but I will respect lines on a map. You will not see BF disregard the lines on the map when he travels….he will get a passport and abide by the laws…he may not like it but he will do it and Mexico is no different. Do not let him get you down….just understand his position.

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Canadians must…..

      (1) Enjoy hockey
      (2) Enjoy beer

      Or have citizenship revoked by an inconsequential royal commission.

  22. @ BF…..are you serious about your racist comments? Seems like you are. You are sounding like the left side of things….everything is racist? I did not pick up on that until this evening.

    Question, does it make Mexico racist when they enforce their laws on whites? You would have to be consistent.

    • D13,

      But we are not talking about what Mexico does or does not.

      Does it matter what China does?

      Does what China does make an impact on your opinion of how you should or should not act upon your fellow man? I doubt it.

      So don’t try red-herring the topic.

      • No dodging BF 🙂

      • Sounds like a double standard to me….I must be missing something.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        If lines drawn on maps are truly irrelevant, and all men should be free, then yes, it does matter what Mexico does and what China does.

        However, since I am not in Mexico or in China, it does not directly affect ME unless I choose to go to one of those places. On a philosophical level though, it does matter.

        Obviously, my own influence is extremely localized and your own influence is extremely localized. However, that doesn’t mean I cannot have the realization that what Mexico does or what China does violate the principles I espouse.

        However, you CANNOT use the fact that “Mexico does it, and does it even worse” to justify doing it here. That would be just like a little kid saying, “well Tommy did such-and-so, so what I did wasn’t REALLY bad!” That sort of argument isn’t valid.

        The other thing that you have to realize though is that in a world where I don’t think you can find very many (if any) examples of countries with free and open borders, there are consequences should one country unilaterally decide to have free and open borders, and most likely not all of the consequences would be pleasant.

        It would be nice to be able to simply erase all the lines on all the maps simultaneously, but unless the whole world becomes simultaneously free, I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

  23. Yo BF: You state “Do ya think it will help your case against me?

    Do you want a list of the hardships these people suffer? I know that won’t make a dime’s difference to you.

    The fact is it is a moral issue

    D13 asserts: No….it will not help my case against you. You do not believe in laws and fairness.

    I do not care about the hardships of the people all over the world…..Mexico included.

    I do not share the one for all and all for one belief….that is a Charlie world that I do not agree with. It is not a moral issue with me and it should not be with you in order to remain consistent, I think. You have always stated that it is not your issue unless it pertains to you and your family. I think you have used the terms that forcing any morality on others is wrong…..have you not?

    • D13,

      It is not a moral issue with me and it should not be with you in order to remain consistent, I think.

      No, sir. It is a serious moral issue – the difference between good and evil.

      The application of violence on non-violent men is ALWAYS evil – no matter who, for what, or when.

      By justifying for your case, you justify it against you – and as I pointed out, throughout all cultures in all history, such application and justification has been turned upon the users to their own destruction.

      You have always stated that it is not your issue unless it pertains to you and your family. I think you have used the terms that forcing any morality on others is wrong…..have you not?

      It is a case of evil – violence on non-violent men, clear and simple.

      Evil must always be confronted – especially evil cloaked in some sort of law, or systemic belief within a society.

      • Good and evil, eh? I fully understand your violence upon non violent men…..but it appears to me to be the which came first….chicken or the egg.
        In your opinion, if I am correct, is that all law is violent. And that all law breakers are non violent because the law is violent….it appears to me that lines on a map are violent but the people who ignore the lines are non violent because the lines create violence. I think I have you correct.

        • D13,

          Good and evil, eh? I fully understand your violence upon non violent men…..but it appears to me to be the which came first….chicken or the egg.

          Pretty easy.

          Initiation of violence is the start – that is what “initiation” means.

          Those that “start” the violence are the problem.

          In your opinion, if I am correct, is that all law is violent.

          Totally correct

          And that all law breakers are non violent because the law is violent

          No.

          Laws AGAINST violence are moral, such as the laws against assault, theft and killing. These laws PROHIBIT the initiation of violence. People who steal, beat and kill INITIATE violence and are “law breakers”.

          Laws which INITIATE violence are evil. Such “false” law is, in effect, break natural law.

          • So a law against murder, let’s say, is moral and therefore a non violent law. BUT a law against ( picking something out of thin air here ) running a red light is a violent law if a policeman stops to issue you a ticket? Because stopping to issue a ticket is a violent act. If that is the case, then the recipient has a right to use violence to stop violence…..do I understand your position correctly.

            If so, then, and I believe we have hashed this before but don’t want to peruse the archives…..If I have a ranch in South Texas that is on the border and I have fenced my property because I wish to keep my cattle on my property, under your definition am I entitled to my privacy and the expectation that anyone who trespasses on my property without my permission….has just inflicted violence upon me by trespass? I do not want them there, they are in my space, they are uninvited, they climbed or cut my fence, drank my water, uninvited, from a cattle trough, littered on my property, pissed on my trees, crapped behind my boulders, started fires with my wood,…then, by your definition, I have a moral obligation to leave them alone since they have not perpetrated personal harm to me? Are you saying that since they are simply “looking for work” or trying to “better themselves”….that natural law prevails here and I do not have a right to use whatever means I wish to stop this from happening? Are you saying that trespass does not constitute violence upon the non violent or is my posting of no trespass a violent action.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              D13,

              The right to property is well established. The right to not have someone on your property that you do not wish to be there is also well established. Pissing on your trees and taking a crap on your land is polluting your land, which is a violent act. Drinking water from your trough without your permission is stealing. The proper thing to do is determine the appropriate level of response to the actions of the trespasser.

              If you shoot first and ask questions later, that might be a bit of an over-reaction.

              If you ask the trespasser to clean up after himself and immediately leave your property once he is done, then it becomes a matter of whether or not the trespasser complies with your request or not, and if he does not, how you choose to escalate your response. You would also have to decide whether it was worth it to you to request compensation for the water used or not, but you certainly could.

              Running a red light is a bit more tricky. Is the stop light there because of some arbitrary government decision, or did the community agree that the stop light should be there because it is a busy intersection, and stop lights are a standard way of helping to deal with traffic flow? When you ran the red light, did you stop, look both ways, and determine that there was no on-coming traffic, or did you simply willfully run it regardless of the potential of other people driving on the other street?

              Is the act of being “forced” to stop your car at an intersection and wait for a green light whether you want to or not an act of initiation of violence upon the non-violent… that is an interesting question 🙂

              • Ok….that answers a lot of questions…….moral of the story for D13….do not piss on my tree. You will not like my response.

                Red lights…..interesting. The way I see it explained..is any law is a bad law that initiates violence and violence is described as almost anything…..not retained to physical applications. A policeman stopping you for running a red light is violence in your and BF’s eyes. But here is where I see the issue digressing…..

                So, Natural Law, as I understand it from those of you who like that….says…..violence is permissible to stop violence. So, under that theory, if I stop at a red light,look both ways, and there is no danger to society or myself, and drive through the red light…..I am exercising my free will and choice. BUT, since there is a civil law on the books that says I cannot run the red light for any reason and I get stopped by the local gestapo, and that is a violent act…then according to your principles, I can react accordingly, of my free will, to counter act that violence. Uh huh.

  24. I will have to pick it up manana…..buenas noches.

  25. We may be hitting the highest poverty level in a very long time … and all those new jobs in Texas may be minimum wage, but think of how much better we can all feel about it! Our politicians, both sides of the aisle, have lifetime benefits and a pension … see how well big business treats their employees!

    Capitalism at its very best …

    • Charlie,

      Unless everyone is making a million, you think its the fault of the free market.

      This thinking is the same thinking that a Ferrari should be priced the same as a Civic.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Flag,

        If people would put more time into preparing for bad times instead of pointing fingers in evry direction imaginable, they may suffer less in the future.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I am preparing today. I am picking baking beans. These beans were obtained with capitalism and work. First year I had a few beans, saved those and replanted the next year, and on and on. Now I have plenty of beans to subsist on forever. As I said, this is capitalism. My beans reinvested in myself. But I suppose I will have to share them with Charlie if he asks for them, especially since I think he is bigger than me…… back to pickin.

    • Charlie……you need to define poverty. For example,under our definition of poverty……then China has the highest level followed by Cuba followed by Russia, followed by Mogadishu followed by most of the African Continent followed by North Korea,,,,,,,the list is pretty endless…..

      But you rail against capitalist but you do not call out your buddy Castro, who lives like a King in the backs of peasants, you do not call out the Chinese heirarchy who lives on the backs of peasants, you do not call out the leaders of your beloved communist countries that drive around in Limos and eat at the finest restaurants and fly in their private jets while the rest of their people live with single strand light bulbs.

      And, if you wish not to use the American poverty line, where do you want to draw it? Income? Basic needs? You rail against the man who makes 500K an hour but you say nothing about your idol Castro who is socking away millions……

      Since I have probably been more places than you, I will stack our poverty level and poor people up against your communist world and our poorest are much better off.I know….I have seen it. And before you ask, yes, I have been to China and seen the sights beyond the square and I have been to Cuba and I have been to every single Central American country and every single South American country. I have been to Iran. I have NOT been to N Korea, I have been to Russia and the Balkans and three Central African countries and most of North Africa. I have been to Lebanon and Israel and Syria and Egypt. I know how the rest of the world lives.

      • Ibid and Ditto

      • Cololnel, good moring from Pluto!

        capitalism is the system by which the wealthy feast off those they keep below them. You’re pointing to people (i.e., Castro) and attacking the system by which his people have benefited tremendously as opposed to what they lived under prior to Casta (Batista/capitalism).

        And comparing the poor of differnet countries to our poor is kind of absurd, sir. The fact you’ve been to all those places irrelevant. I mean, I’m pretty sure I can eat more than you but does that have anytihng to do with the price of eggs?

        I call out all classes of people who live on the back of peasants … bada-boom, bada-bing, capitalism especially.

        On another note: Did you get to eat any sausage and peppers during the San Genaro feast this year? It was the only good thing about living in Little Italy I can remember, when the feast was over and all the crowds of tourits went back to Long Island.

        • Good morning, kind sir…..and if you are the Canoli King….you certainly eat more than I…..and I must confess that I do not know what the San Genaro Feast is…..but sounds good whatever it is……now……………………………………….

          Pluto Charlie states: “You’re pointing to people (i.e., Castro) and attacking the system by which his people have benefited tremendously as opposed to what they lived under prior to Casta (Batista/capitalism).”
          D13, the unknowing, wrinkles brow and muses: ” Interesting analogy…..so taking someone who makes one cent and now they make two cents and everybody makes two cents except the biggies in control (aka the same as capitalists)…the fact that they increased by one penny but remains in poverty is still ok.

          Pluto Charlie, taking a huge gulp of thin contaminated Plutonian air, states: ” And comparing the poor of differnet countries to our poor is kind of absurd, sir”
          D13, wearing air respirator so no Plutonian air escapes through keyboard, wonders: ” Why would I not compare them? You are comparing capitalists with Cuba, et al…..why can I not compare our poor under the capitalist system to those under the Communist system? ”

          Charlie, while reeling under the influence of bad air, states: “I call out all classes of people who live on the back of peasants … bada-boom, bada-bing, capitalism especially.”
          D13, sipping his iced cold Dr Pepper, and not drinking Buck’s coffee, is confused: ” You call out classes of people who live on the backs of peasants…….fair enough……what class is Castro, whom you seem to like is the only reason I am using it, who lives on the backs of peasants?” (Replaces bada boom bada bing with…..ummm……hmmmm…….rama lama dingdong!

          • Pluto has summoned me back this fine morning, Colonel. The canolli king says: They (Cubans) were raised a penny but gifted national health care and education (that exceeds our education system–100% literacy rate there). Batista allowed foreign companies to use his people like chattel (why the revolution in the first place).

            Here we have record profits and now 18% poverty level … and Sarah Palin sleeping with future NBA Stars (what a porno that’ll make!).

            Go Bills!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Another attempt by Charlie to mis-define capitalism… shocked, shocked I am!

      • What’s to define? I go to the corner and buy a cup of coffee (which was grown through exploitation of field workers while a fat cat reaps the profits). That wonderful system now has us at 18% poverty level “balanced” against record coroprate profits.

        But this “Isn’t capitalism” you cry.

        It’s the government’s fault people are exploited for their labor, you cry.

        It’s the government’s fault corporations earn record profits while a country sinks to third world status.

        And then you admit the government is controlled by business, yet you villify unions.

        I’d scratch my head but BF already owns that one. I’d drink a gallon of Dr. Pepper but the Colonel owns that one. I’m left with my canolli. Leave the political party and take the canolli.

  26. Bottom Line says:

    “…but it appears to me to be the which came first….chicken or the egg. ”

    Colonel,

    How did we get here? How/where did the universe start? What was here before that, and how did it start? Where/how/why did it all begin?

    However you define it, God = First cause, …the origin/creator of the universe, the alpha/omega/beginning/end.

    The universe is as it is, in perfectly balanced chaotic order. And just as the order of the universe says that light does X, and gravity does Y, it also says living beings do Z.

    Part of Z is natural instinctual inalienable rights and free will of the individual.

    The universe, it’s natural order, individual rights and free will, Earth and it’s land masses, …were all here LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG before men starting drawing “imaginary [coercion] lines” all over maps.

    All [civil]laws are predicated upon coercion and violence, (Obey the law, or else face the [artificially created by govt.] consequences, respective of your resistance, up to and including deadly violence against you.), …even against nonviolent people harming no one.

    Coercion, violence against the nonviolent, theft, kidnapping, etc…are all a violation of natural inalienable rights of the individual as the order of the universe dictates.

    Thus [artificial]civil law is in DIRECT conflict with [absolute]natural law.

    (Chicken eggs come from chickens, btw, …and a more appropriate analogy would be the comparison of a real chicken and the idea of smacking it around with a rubber one)

    • Good morning, sir…….and how are you on our record setting 106 degree day? Damn, we need rain really bad!!!!!!!!!..

      I understand where you are coming from…..and BF. I question BF a little because I find his application of economics quite interesting, and for the most part, right on target…..that seems to fly in the face of Natural Law, however….so when I try to research, and i have quite extensively, the definition and application of “Natural Law” to, say, Civil Law….of course there is going to be contradictions. But, just as those that will interpret Natural Law to fit all situations, the adverse side will interpret Civil Law in the same manner. Just exactly what is violent is really a broad brush…….Natural Law can make anything violent by its definition…..

      You may see the setting of fences on property as a violation of Natural Law……I do not. Setting a fence is the same as drawing an imaginary line and calling it a border. I doubt very seriously you would accept an immigrant coming onto your front lawn and, exercising his free will, by pee on your plants….but according to you and Natural Law……that is not a violent act. But if you go out and physically remove the person or cause him to other wise vacate your property and stop peeing on your bushes, then you have created a violence…..under your definition.

      Now, if you argue that he has perpetrated a violent act by doing so, you have acquiesced, have you not, to an imaginary boundary (ie your property). So, if you devise a sign (law) that says no peeing…is that a violent act?

      • Bottom Line says:

        ” Good morning, sir…….and how are you on our record setting 106 degree day? Damn, we need rain really bad!!!!!!!!!..”

        Forgive me for my obvious lack of pleasantries, Colonel. Good morning to you too, …good sir. I’m steadfast at hanging in there as always. Today I play hookey from work because (A) – My body hurts because I actually [physics]”work” instead of goofing off at SUFA all day while pushing buttons and selling knowledgeable answers for a living (B) – The only way my boss is going to get caught up with my pay is if I sit for at least a few days (C) – because of govt intervention and imposed extreme liability and cost, I won’t touch a front porch covered in lead paint for anything less than the completely reasonable, yet ridiculously outrageous, fee of $2500/hr. labor.

        Natural law says that we have the right to protect that which we are responsible for(selves,family/loved ones, property,etc.), so there are direct consequences to violating someone. With civil law, the consequences(if any), are indirect and arbitrated/argued in a court first, to determine if you are subject to “justice”. What if Nichole Simpson or Suzanna Hupp were packing a gun?

        If you get that supply follows demand that originates from the want/need of an individual, that freedom is an essential to the marketplace, that regs and taxes are a disruption and subsequent detriment, …then you understand applying the same reasoning to the conflictual nature of natural law/civil law, because it is the same thing.

        Economics, free individuals, gravity, light, time, etc.. all work the same way – let it do it’s thing – force it otherwise and you’ll only create conflict – eventually, inevitably, the universe will have it’s way and order will restore.

        Fences around your property are different than state borders as your property is an extension of you, the individual, and is therefore subject to your natural inalienable right to protect it. Whereas a state border defines which types and what specific coercions you’re subject to, and/or which types of rulers you are slave to.

        If you do not want people pissing on your property, build a fence, put up a “no pissing” sign, go tell them to stop and/or leave and/or maybe even offer them the use of your toilet – if they get uncooperative, do what you must. But you do not have the right to steal their $, and put them in a dungeon for a few years, …only the right to protect that which you are responsible for.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Natural Law can make anything violent by its definition”

        No, Natural Law does not MAKE anything at all violent by its definition. Natural Law merely defines what is violent and what is not.

        For example: is the EXISTENCE of a stop-light at a busy intersection an initiation of violence against the non-violent?

        Is deciding that it is safe to run the light even though it is red an initiation of violence against the non-violent?

        Is being stopped for (perfectly safely) running the red light and issued a ticket initiation of violence against the non-violent?

        Is running the red light without regard to traffic conditions, resulting in property damage and personal injury an initation of violence against the non-violent?

        • Honestly Peter-is believing in freedom really mean I have to throw common sense out the window-Do you really want to get rid of traffic signs and the laws enforcing them? Does it make any sense at all-to allow cars going 40 mph and up to just decide for themselves whether or not they are going to follow these safety measures? How fast they want to drive? without having some avenue to at least attempt to stop them before they kill someone?

          • Bottom Line says:

            Hi V,

            Do you stop at a stop sign because it is the law, or because you know that it is stupid to pull into moving traffic? If it is a familiar intersection(no surprise speed bumps or the like) with a wide open view in all directions, and there isn’t a car for miles, no cops for miles, or no other reason to stop but cuz the law says to do X at sign Y, …do you still stop? If so – Why? Because you believe the law knows what’s best for your particular driving experience, fuel economy, wear and tear on your breaks, etc…?

            Why are there speed bumps? Does traffic law enforcement not work or something?

            Billions of people all over the world, every day, all manage to organize and cooperate for mutual gain to navigate traffic with a relatively low rate of incident…all in spite of the traffic enforcement policing commuters.

            When people follow the traffic laws, it is because they are trying to be orderly, organized, and safe for mutual gain – not because it is law. When people disobey traffic laws, it is because they feel it is safe to do so – very few people deliberately cause an accident.

            What do we need traffic “laws” for? – Why not traffic “rules” instead?

          • V.H.

            Yet….

            There are cities in Holland that have removed all traffic lights and signs….. with dramatic results … a significant drop in accidents.

            Why?

            Because people – believing a blinking light was smarter than the human – trusted the lights and got smashed up when others missed them.

            Now, there is no blinking light to trust – and everyone is on guard – traffic jams have essentially disappeared and accidents almost never occur.

            Self Organizing Behavior

            • Do you have any facts and figures? Data-I need data 🙂 Because where I live-a red light goes out people seem lost-4-way stop guys -not that hard. And most of the people I see are trying to beat the light-their not overly worried about being careful. And most people will push the envelope on careful-but give them a ticket or a DUI-they think twice before doing it again. No laws won’t stop the truly nuts but when tickets and the risk of going to jail come into play-the majority will curb the desire to push the envelope.

              But give me the data, and if it proves me wrong-so be it. But it will take alot to convince me !

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            BL and BF already stole my thunder, so I am not going to write an essay like I was originally going to 🙂

            I will simply add – The Autobahn is extremely safe.

            Also, if people in a community choose to REGULATE traffic with stop signs and traffic lights, that’s fine. However, stop signs and traffic lights generally do more to CAUSE traffic jams, accidents, and unsafe conditions than they do to prevent them, so the community shouldn’t be so convinced that the main reason to do this is “safety”.

            What PREVENTS accidents is good decision making behind the wheel. For example, if it is 3:00 AM and I am approaching an intersection where the light is green going my way, do I merrily proceed through the intersection since I have the “right of way”, or do I observe my surroundings and see the drunk guy racing up toward his (red) light at 90mph and realize that if I want to live, I had better stop?

            Legally, I would be perfectly “in the right” for proceeding through the intersection, but that wouldn’t matter much.

            I am sure you envision a world where if there were no stop signs and no stop lights, every intersection that was even remotely busy would be in complete chaos all of the time. The weird thing is, that is distinctly NOT what happens when you remove the stop lights and the stop signs. I know this goes against everything that all of us have been trained to believe, but it’s actually true.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Why, in your estimation, do stop signs and traffic lights equate with common sense?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            By the way, to answer my own questions,

            No, the mere existence of a stop light at an intersection is not necessarily an initiation of violence against the non-violent.

            Also, stopping at a red light, seeing no on-coming traffic, and proceeding through the red light without incident would not be “violent”

            Being pulled over and issued a ticket for doing the above WOULD be

            And of course the last one would be as well.

    • Shit, BL……first I find out that there is no Santa Claus…..then I find out the Easter Bunny is dead….THEN…I see where New York elected a Republican for the first time in 90 years…….THEN you tell me chicken eggs come from chickens….next you will probably tell me that we have secretly been visited by aliens and that we are a culture under study……………………………………………..SIGH!!!!

      • Don’t go there, Charlie.

      • A sign of hope…..

      • Bottom Line says:

        Specifically, what type of egg are we talking about here?

        Chickens lay eggs – eggs come from chickens – therefore, by order of logic, the chicken MUST come first. DNA is exchanged, the egg is fertilized and layed as a means of replicating DNA.

        Chickens lay chicken eggs. Lizards don’t lay chicken eggs.

        A mutated lizard egg will be a mutated lizard, which will replicate it’s mutated DNA and create another mutated lizard, and eventually it may become a chicken.

        But it still has to become a chicken before it can lay a chicken egg.

        So the question becomes: At what exact point does a mutated lizard qualify as a chicken?

        When the first chicken hatches from a mutated lizard egg? …or …the first thing that hatches as a qualifying “chicken” egg?

        But how can it be a chicken from a mutated lizard egg? And what exactly qualifies it as a chicken?

        Sigh—–

        Santa and the Easter Bunny are much easier.

        • @ BL…………………………………………………D13 taking loooooong swig of Buck’s coffee…….takes aim………BOOM ! (D13 silently thinks to self….take that mutated lizards egg and shove it, bucko).

          Runs to Buck for defense strategy……. I did not do it…..It was the man behind the curtain…..it was the coffee,,,,the coffee made me do it and since it was your coffee…YOU made me do it. YOU made me initiate violence upon the non violent (although BL’s diatribe could be seen as initiating a response)…..so…you now have to defend me for free.

          Buck says; ” Who are you?”

          • Bottom Line says:

            When he asks “who are you” – just tell him that it doesn’t matter because we are all connected through a collective responsibility, and that he is therefore obligated to spend his time, knowledge, and resources to save your asses(note the plural of ass. Not calling you asses, just saying that your ass IS his ass, and his is yours,…according to his idealism).

      • Bottom Line says:

        ” …next you will probably tell me that we have secretly been visited by aliens and that we are a culture under study…”

        More likely, we’re a hybrid OF them and earthly primates…and of course a culture understudy as well, ….”made in their image and likeness”. with ready made rules/”commandments” on how to get along….all according to our prescribed nature.

        What would a hybrid of an ape and a “gray” look like anyway? How smart or how strong would it be? How would it behave socially? How would it develop technologically? Would it be bare or hairy?

        In spite of all the similarities, why are we so different that the other species from Earth?

  27. D13,

    So a law against murder, let’s say, is moral and therefore a non violent law.

    Not correct.

    Remember:
    (1) ALL LAW IS VIOLENCE

    (2) The only justified use of violence is a RESPONSE to an INITIATION of violence

    (3) The ONLY justified law is law AGAINST the INITIATION of VIOLENCE.

    Now, start again.

  28. Any thoughts from our lefties or redskis? Can you still stand by your man?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277090/obama-s-quiver-empty-victor-davis-hanson

    Charlie, I know he’s not your man but you say he will win.

    • Anita

      I don’t think he is out of arrows. In fact he might remove one or two from his foot and then use them on us.

      As I said months ago, his re-election will depend on unemployment trends next year and most importantly, how bad the Republican candidates perform.

      So far Romney has disappointed me significantly, looking like more of the same old same old. Perry is acting and looking like, well………..A TEXAN. We’ll see if it lasts or he grows to become a “national” candidate.

      Bachman has stumbled, and for good I am afraid.

      The rest? Blech………. Including my favorite, Herman Cain.

      I only wish there were one as bright and quick witted as Newt who WASN’T Newt.

      But if the unemployment does not change or economic news not improve then it won’t matter. America is for the most part tired of Mr. O’s act.

      • JAC, I remember you telling us to not count Reid out before the last election. I thought you were crazy at the time. But as we see you were right. Please don’t tell me this is de ja vu all over again with Obama. 👿

        • Anita

          I hope not.

          Right now I would say Mr. O’s chances are much worse than Reid’s were. But a full year is a very, very long time in politics.

          Perry has a lot of stuff in his background being played by the Dems. If he jumps to a big lead or gets the R nomination you will see the MSM start climbing all over this stuff. One risk for him will be his linkage to the Tea Party.

          The Dems are going to continue vilifying the Tea Party, because there is nobody to defend it. And then they will try to tie every Republican to the Tea Party.

          The most interesting thing in the New York race yesterday was that the loser tried this strategy but it didn’t work. At least for him.

          Mr. Obama STILL has his grass roots organization in place. They have been doing other things but they deliberately kept the structure and people involved in order to recall them for this next election. That combined with literally millions of dollars is going to be a tough challenge for the Republican.

          But personally, I would give Mr. O the President’s chair in return for a “veto proof Congress”, made up of the Tea Party crowd of course. 🙂 🙂

  29. Re: SS Ponzi scheme. Not to stir the pot or anything, but here is a comment by an economist you may have heard of, just for kicks.

    “Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).”

    Paul Krugman
    Originally published in the December 1996/ January 1997 issue of Boston Review

    http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html

    • Pot stirrer. 🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      In the article, Krugman calls it a Ponzi game, not a Ponzi SCHEME. As Mathius was arguing the other day, there may be elements of a Ponzi-type structure, but you cannot call SS a Ponzi Scheme. No matter how you view SS, it lacks the ‘scheme’ aspect.

      Yay for semantics! 🙂

      • Buck

        It is kinda like the living document theory. I can call it what ever I want ……….. if it suits my purpose.

      • Oh, no, they are not defending Perry here already are they?

        And Sarah went and got herself all jammed up again … the little minx was playing footsy with future NBA stars … she went and go girled her way through 6 colleges (I know, because she was so smart no one college could handle her brain power) and the NCAA (because no one Alaskan man could handle her.

        Please, these people are characatures of human beings. As incompetent and now likely dirty (the missing half billion loan we’re all paying to a green company that donated $100K to Obama’s campaign) as this knucklehead in the white house is, the lineup of bozos about to run against him is downright frightening … but I’ll tell you what is more frightening (and I mean it) … that in (Sarah) “this great land of ours” just 34% (last poll I saw) see a third party as viable … sorry, but that makes us one of the dumbest countries in the world. Out and out dumb.

        And now that Ron Paul has stepped all over himself with his lady in the coma hypothetical, you can remove that form of Libertarian move off the charts for me … which leaves Nader, the socialists and the communists … or absolute anarchy because in this regard BF is right (having these political numbskulls protect their jobs at our expense has to be worse than having one big free for all). At least in the free for all we stand a chance.

        Have a good day you crazies on the right … and left.

  30. Peter,

    If lines drawn on maps are truly irrelevant,

    They are irrelevant to me – but much more relevant to others

    I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

    I do not control the minds of others, just my own, and that is all the extent of “it’s gonna happen” that is necessary

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      I am in complete agreement with you. My main point was that the consequences related to the lines being drawn on maps don’t disappear simply because the lines are irrelevant to you… as you said earlier in your Robert Heinlein paraphrase 🙂

  31. D13,

    A policeman stopping you for running a red light is violence in your and BF’s eyes.

    Do you believe a blinking light is smarter than you, D13?

    • Not at all….so what is your point….enlighten this dumb old Colonel….is the policeman initiating violence?

      • D13,

        Who was harmed by you going thru a red light?

        • No one……..( BF playing mind game )…..therefore, if it floats it must be a duck !

          Post script: BF playing teacher is saying, so, young patewan, if you are harming no one, you are not violent. Since ALL LAW is violent…the policeman then created violence upon the non violent (me). Therefore violence has been initiated and therefore I am justified to exercising what I feel is necessary to thwart the violent act.

          Visiting hours are variable…please check in at desk…bring tin cup so I can rattle the bars.

          • D13,

            No one

            Then apply First Principle, and you get your answer.

            BF playing teacher is saying, so, young patewan, if you are harming no one, you are not violent.

            Yep.

            Since ALL LAW is violent…the policeman then created violence upon the non violent (me). Therefore violence has been initiated and therefore I am justified to exercising what I feel is necessary to thwart the violent act.

            Yep.

            Visiting hours are variable…please check in at desk…bring tin cup so I can rattle the bars.

            Yep, that is the probable outcome – but that does not make the application of violence by law right – it is evil nonetheless.

            • See? and you thought all us Colonel’s were dumb.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                To reach the rank of Colonel, you must know when to follow regulations even if they are “stupid”, when to break regulations even though there might be consequences, and when to make sh*@ up as you go along, even though it isn’t “by the book”.

                In reality, this isn’t all that different than a free man operating in a “not-so-free” society.

                8)

              • Heh heh….book? To coin a phrase from a movie……you do not get to Colonel without knowing how to side step a few land mines. I did not play very well with others…remember, I was one of those dreaded “enlisted” men turned officer. My strong suit was combat logistics and tactics…(yes, BF, I am an excellent poker player) ……but I was not very conventional. When I was a young Captain and a company commander, I drove everyone nutso. I was nicknamed Captain Frag……meaning…I never followed an operational order…I was constantly issuing frag (fragmentation) orders off the ops order……so….yes, I probably pushed the envelope a time or two….. heh heh.

  32. Diversion on NY seat. Hilarious! Read BF’s, or wait should clarify I guess, Barney Frank’s quote on the bottom of the page.

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=94327

  33. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Down here BF,

    “First, I said the majority of people in jail are there due to non-violent acts – including most of those in jail for drug possession and distribution.

    The facts support my view.

    Members of one organization kill members of a different organization because organization #2 was encroaching on organization #1′s “established territory”. That is violent in my book.

    That may be, but that is NOT the majority of crimes of the people in jail.”

    Well BF, in my city. the police won’t even GO INTO the neighborhoods where the drug gangs with semi-automatic weapons on open display are selling crack on the street corner. The police will GLADLY go to the neighborhoods where kids and young adults are known to hang out and get high. The NATURAL end result of this is that the majority of people who end up in jail are the ones charged with “possession” which is indeed a non-violent crime. The jail populations are skewed by the unwillingness of the local police to endanger themselves by going into certain areas of the city. I don’t know how it is in other localities, but here, the cops would rather arrest a non-violent person hanging out and getting high, as opposed to taking the risk of arresting someone with a known history of violence working in an organization with a known history of violence.

    That, to me, is a large part of the problem. Initiating violence on the non-violent (arresting someone hanging out with their friends and smoking a joint) is a lot SAFER than arresting someone with known violent behavior.

    As to the answer to my “trick question”, yes, agreed.

  34. @BF……. He states:

    Anita,

    Nothing. Canadians are human too.

    D13 blinks: You sure?

  35. This fits in with #33- and why does he want to hurt charitable giving?? Why does he feel money controlled by the government is better? And why is this coming back up-when even his own party said NO the last time he brought it up?

    FYI –

    Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama’s response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President’s proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.

    Background:

    US Poverty Rate Swells To Nearly 1 In 6. The ranks of America’s poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in more than two decades. The Census Bureau’s annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of a re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year. The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. (The Associated Press, 9/13/11)

    Ways & Means Ranking Member Sander Levin Has Opposed The President’s Effort To Raise Taxes. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), who is the ranking member on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in June in defense of many of the same tax deductions Obama is now targeting. “In the case of the charitable deduction, one has to keep in mind that the recipients of the contributions include universities, hospitals, churches and soup kitchens that provide critical services to working families,” Levin said. (Roll Call, 9/14/11)

    Majority Leader Cantor: It Doesn’t Make Sense To Impose Taxes On Charitable Contributions When The Charities Are The Ones Out There Helping People. We have also found out through looking at his tax proposals, or at least the reports, that his tax proposals are going to impose taxes on charitable contributions and in fact impact at least 40 percent of tax deductible charitable contributions. I don’t think there are many Americans right now who think that’s a good idea. The question is why would we want to put an impediment in the way of the charities accessing funding when the charities are the ones out there helping the people in need right now? It doesn’t make sense. (Remarks At The American Action Forum, 9/13/11)

    Flashback:

    House Ways And Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY): “I Would Never Want To Adversely Affect Anything That Is Charitable Or Good.” “President Barack Obama’s call to raise taxes on high earners and greenhouse gas polluters met fierce opposition Tuesday from congressional Republicans and also a few Democrats. ‘I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good,’ Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama’s call to limit high-income taxpayers’ itemized deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest.” (The Associated Press, 3/3/09)

    Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV): It’s “A Nonstarter.” “Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) called the proposal ‘a nonstarter,’ telling Geithner: ‘I’d like to think that people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up their heartstrings.’ Outside the hearing, Berkley said the proposed tax increase was ‘the number one issue’ on the minds of her constituents over the weekend. Reminded that the provision is intended to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage, Obama’s top domestic priority, she said: ‘We can find another way.'” (The Washington Post, 3/4/09)

    Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT): “I’m Wondering About The Viability Of That Provision.” “Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate’s top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that ‘has nothing to do with health care.’ He added: ‘I’m wondering about the viability of that provision.'” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/5/09)

    Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ): “I Don’t Want To Prejudge Anything, But It Is Certainly One That I Am Having Difficulties With.” (The Associated Press, 3/5/09)

    Whip Cantor: The President’s Plan Could Cost Charities Billions. “It just defies logic as to why we would want to put up a disincentive for people to give to charities, especially when so many people are in a desperate state in our economy,” Cantor told CNSNews.com after a press conference on Wednesday. “We need charities now—we need them operating at full throttle so I am full-force opposed to what he is trying to do … Cantor said the plan could cost charities billions of dollars. “That doesn’t make sense,” he said (CNS News, 3/26/09)

    http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/09/president-obamas-tax-on-soup-kitchens.html

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      This one is a headscratcher – why you would create a disincentive to donate/charity defies logic. Even as a “sorta lefty” – I can appreciate the economic pickle we’re in – allowing more organic methods of economic support is something I have always been a fan of.

      • Because instead of relying on private charity it makes people rely on government. Come on Ray. You should see the pattern by now.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        It comes down to mindset. back when Clinton & Gore ran, I believe that the public disclosure of their tax returns showed almost zero in cash by the Clintons only some old underwear and clothing donated with a $ figure attached. Al and Tipper were in for about $ 400 on a multi-million dollar income. The Republicans were far more generous. Somebody in “National Review” I think basically said it was a clear example of the liberal vs. conservative mindset. With Liberals assuming the government should do it and conservatives seeing charity as an individual responsibility. Makes sense to me. While I always take the deduction, it is certainly not why I give. After all, what does it really save me?

  36. Bottom Line says:

    Hey G,

    Remember this…

  37. V.H.

    No Traffic Lights

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

    Controlled Chaos
    European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

    By Matthias Schulz

    Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try — with good results.

    • No laws won’t stop the truly nuts but when tickets and the risk of going to jail come into play-the majority will curb the desire to push the envelope.

      Actually that is not true either.

      Many experiments on “no limit highways” has shown that people – the vast majority of people – drive within 5mph of each other and vary this on the conditions. In nearly every case, that speed was 15 to 20 mph higher than what the “posted” limit would have been, however. Further, over the test time, accidents were lower (though that was not part of the experiment, but merely a note and might not be statistically relevant).

      The researchers surmised that people drive as fast as they are comfortable with, and on top of that, most people are generally comfortable at traveling the same speed as everyone else on the road. The combination of these two factors leveled out the group to the chosen speed.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        People tend to prefer to travel in “herds”, so once a driver establishes a comfortable pace, the rest of traffic tends to follow along at that same pace. There are, of course, exceptions, but the majority will settle in at the comfortable speed and cruise merrily along.

    • V.H.

      Here is a summary of the results of the Montana experience with no speed limits.

      http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

      The study does not reveal, however, that there were some real problems with the law. Some of which caused people to push for MORE traffic lights on US Highways in heavily populated rural areas.

      You see, it is almost impossible to enter onto a two lane highway when everyone is going over 75 mph and the intersections and sight distances were designed for 55 or 60. Now granted this is an engineering problem, but the fact remains that human behavior did not adjust to reduce the hazard or in fact the number of accidents from this particular problem.

      I had a few close calls during the time on the interstate highways. Seems that some think “reasonable and prudent” is 100 mph because they own some hot car. Well when you are passing somebody who is traveling at 65 and your going 75 or 80, that guy way off in your rear view mirror going 100 can close on you faster than you can determine in a mirror.

      Re city streets, we had an intersection near my house with many bad accidents. They put in a 4 way stop and the number decreased but was not eliminated. Seems that those who drive through without looking with no signs still run the signs. Then they put in a roundabout. Accidents virtually disappeared. But I see this as just a very fancy traffic control device. Maybe no tickets unless you cause a wreck, but still a mechanism designed to create safe situations.

      I noticed in BF’s cited study that they not only used roundabouts but also cobble streets. Obviously this slows traffic. But this would obviously NOT work in our northern climates. It also begs the question that if we humans will self organize why the engineers know they have to use tricks like cobblestone, roundabouts and curvilinear roads to get us to slow down and watch out.

      Personally, I would like to see “traffic tickets” eliminated unless someone has caused an accident. Then the penalty can be severe for “unsafe” driving. Someone caught driving in an “unsafe manner” could be sent back to driving school instead of paying a speeding ticket. I think there are many occasions where traffic signs do help us navigate a hazardous situation in an orderly and safer manner. But the law uses them as a revenue source, instead of focusing on their purpose and the “outcome”.

      • JAC,

        The European streets were more than cobble stone streets – however….

        …. the introduction of such a “no traffic sign” community would need to be done carefully, as JAC pointed out, there are a lot of assumptions drivers make.

        They tend to expect a sign at an intersection, and when there is none, they assume they have the right of way — though such an assumption is wrong on so many counts — but human drivers do make assumptions.

        The point is: most situations create a self-organizing structure and has no need of a “central” planning to make it work.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Roundabouts may be a “traffic control device”, but they fill the bill as a non-violent one. The city of Carmel, Indiana has replaced a very large number of 4-way intersections which previously had traffic lights with roundabouts. Since we are in the US, you drive around them counter-clockwise and simply make a right turn to get wherever you are going. For example, if you were going to make a right turn, you travel 90 degrees around the circle, and turn right. If you were going “straight” you travel 180 degrees of the circle and turn right. There is no longer any stop light to “run”. Consequently, the city has reduced its “revenue” from issuing traffic citations, but it has also seen a DRAMATIC drop in accidents and traffic snarls.

          Why dismiss a non-violent solution merely because “it is still a traffic control device”????

          If it gets you where you are going faster, reduces accidents, and eliminates your chances of getting a ticket for running a red light, is that bad?

  38. Bottom Line says:

    I remember my first of many visits to Italy(Naples)…

    My shipmates and I got a cab ride from the pier to the naval air station to stock up on supplies. I about shit my pants when we blindly and expediently exited a narrow alleyway directly into a busy intersection where cars passed both in front and in rear of us as we transited through. I looked back to watch everyone else do the same thing without incident.

    WHOA!

    What a learning experience travel is.

  39. Ooooh boy..a sign of things to come?

    Trump Just Accepted Gold Instead Of A Dollar Deposit On One Of His Properties

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-to-take-real-estate-deposit-in-gold-bars-2011-9#ixzz1Xz4yYgWY

  40. Good Grief-they want to pay doctors $12-$12 dollars for an office visit and they want the medicare patient to pay $5 dollars of that-and they think this is gonna work. If California isn’t a prime example of the craziness of the liberal policies-what is it? And just what amount of CARING is this type of policy showing -none-zero-zilch -this crap does nothing but hurt absolutely everyone involved. They don’t have to worry about the republicans destroying medicare -Obamacare and liberal economics is going to do that all by its self.

    California could pose problem for Obama’s healthcare reform

    California, a model for healthcare reform, is seeking to impose some of the toughest limits on government-subsidized coverage. If approved, the limits could herald deep Medicaid cuts nationwide.
    Drew Altman

    Drew Altman, president of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, says that the outcome of California’s implementation of President Obama’s healthcare law may have ramifications for other states. (Laura Morton / For the Los Angeles Times)

    By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times

    September 15, 2011
    Reporting from Washington — For more than a year, as conservative states have battled President Obama’s sweeping healthcare law, California was supposed to be a model that showed the law’s promise.

    But the state is emerging as one of the biggest headaches for the White House in its bid to help states bring millions of Americans into the healthcare system starting in 2014.

    Though still outpacing much of the nation, cash-strapped California is cutting its healthcare safety net more aggressively than almost any other state, despite billions of dollars in special aid from Washington.

    And state leaders are pressing the Obama administration for permission to place some of the toughest limits in the nation on government-subsidized healthcare, including a cap on how often people with Medicaid — the healthcare program for the poorest Americans — can go to the doctor.

    A decision on some of California’s requests is expected this month. If approved, the limits could open the door to deep cutbacks nationwide.

    “There are states that are bellwethers. California is one of them,” said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program. If the federal government approves California’s requests, other states are almost certain to seek similar treatment, setting off a “race to the bottom,” she said.

    The stakes are unusually high for the Obama administration. “Health reform is badly in need of success stories, and early success in California could add decisive momentum,” said Drew Altman, president of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, a leading health policy center. “But if California bogs down, or if there is an implementation failure, it would be a huge negative for the whole implementation effort nationally.”

    Less than a year ago, California officials were setting out to lead the country toward healthcare reform.

    In October, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger broke with national Republicans to support the healthcare overhaul and made California the first state to create an insurance exchange after the national law was enacted. Beginning in 2014, these exchanges will serve as Internet-based marketplaces in which people who do not get health benefits at work can buy coverage.

    A month later, the Obama administration approved a $10-billion plan to help California get a jump start on expanding coverage to its poorest residents, another key part of the new law.

    The state continues to move ahead. A well-respected expert is taking the helm of California’s insurance exchange, and the state is expanding the number of low-income Californians eligible for health coverage.

    “Health reform is the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a leading advocacy group.

    By contrast, GOP leaders in Texas, Florida, Kansas and other conservative states have recently put the brakes on expanding health coverage.

    But as a result of a deep budget crisis, California’s 2012 spending plan slashes $2 billion from Medi-Cal, as Medicaid is called in the state, over the next two years. That could affect more than 8.5 million people.

    California already spends less per beneficiary than any state. It is now seeking waivers from the federal government to impose copays of $5 for office visits and prescriptions, $50 for emergency room visits and $100 for hospital stays. Few other states come close to charging Medicaid recipients that much.

    Cost sharing in Medicaid is tightly restricted under federal law because it can discourage people from seeking needed care. A family of three at the federal poverty line makes just $356 a week.

    The state plans to limit Medicaid beneficiaries to seven doctor visits a year, with exceptions for essential care. No state has imposed such stringent limits.

    California, which already pays Medi-Cal providers less than all but two states, also is pushing to cut payments to doctors, hospitals and others who serve Medi-Cal patients by 10%. That would drop reimbursement for a standard physician visit to less than $12.

    “This isn’t the way we’d want to run a Medicaid program,” said Toby Douglas, California’s Medi-Cal director. “If it wasn’t for the state fiscal crisis, we … would not be going forward with these proposals. We would be focusing solely on healthcare reform.”

    Medical providers and patient advocates are growing increasingly concerned, however, that the cuts will undermine the goals of the new law.

    Many doctors have already closed their doors to Medicaid patients. Other providers are following suit. In June, Sharp Coronado Hospital in San Diego County stopped taking new patients at its facility providing long-term life support.

    “I’m afraid no one is going to take these people,” said Chief Executive Marcia Hall.

    In Washington, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, who have been in intense discussions with California officials for months, desperately want to avert a healthcare crisis in the state.

    In a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, the administration is backing California’s bid to throw out a lawsuit by state medical providers challenging its Medi-Cal cuts.

    At the same time, many administration officials are worried that granting California permission to further slash Medicaid could prompt other states to follow suit.

    “We want to honor the flexibility that the states need and want,” said Dr. Donald Berwick, who heads the federal Medicaid and Medicare programs. “But beneficiaries are also having a tough time, and we want make sure their interests and access are being protected.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-healthcare-20110915,0,6769778.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation+%28L.A.+Times+-+National+News%29

%d bloggers like this: