Open Mic

Just A Citizensays:

Gman, LOI or BF

Could one of you post a new thread so we can speed up the discussions and perhaps start some new ones???

I haven’t got the access yet and it appears USW is booked up.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 8)

    • Mornin BF. Did you even go to sleep last night? 8)

      • Mathius™ says:

        BF does not sleep. He only enters power-save mode.

        • Mathius, Anita

          I do not like going to sleep, nor do I like getting up after I do go to sleep.

          I am sort of a person of momentum – once I get moving, I do not want to stop. Once I stop, I do not want to get moving.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m the same way. I can stay up all night easily – I have to force myself to go to bed. But once asleep, I don’t wake up easily.

            Also, flag, I’m posting a video below – I think you’ll enjoy it.

          • This goes along with BFs values of not wanting to be a ‘jerk’

  2. October 3, 2011
    Celebrate the Death of ‘An Enemy of the State’ — or Be Considered One Yourself
    Posted by William Grigg on October 3, 2011 10:05 AM

    “For the second time this year, Americans can celebrate the elimination of another enemy of the state, ” proclaims columnist Mark Paredes of Utah’s Deseret News, who — like any other collectivist drone — appears to be a stranger in the house of irony. He also appears to believe that the words “can” and “must” are synonymous in this context, since he denigrates Rep. Ron Paul for refusing to join in the celebration of this summary execution, which according to Paredes has “come from all quarters.”

    “President Obama has elected to continue the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad if there is strong evidence of their involvement in terrorist activities,” recites Paredes in a creditable impression of a Stalin-era media apparatchik. “There is believed to be an official, secret list of those citizens who can be targeted. The elimination of a man who methodically planned to kill hundreds of his fellow Americans is exhibit A for the wisdom of this policy. To be sure, a great deal of care needs to be taken in identifying those on the list. However, American citizenship shouldn’t protect someone living abroad from suffering the immediate consequences of plotting mass murders on American soil.”

    This argument is as perfectly circular as a freshly minted Hula-Hoop: There is an official secret list of American citizens who are subject to summary execution, based on secret evidence — and the execution of somebody whose name is on that list validates the wisdom of that policy. Ron Paul’s objections, sniffs Paredes, mark him as “irrelevant” at best, and a fellow “enemy of the state” at worst.

    Paredes is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (common referred to as the “Mormons”), which owns and operates the Deseret News. If he possessed so much as a molecule of historical insight, he would recognize that Ron Paul’s insistence on defending due process even when it applies to demonized “terrorist” enemies of the state puts him solidly in the company of Alexander Doniphan, who has been revered by generations of Mormons for acting in defense of that principle at a time when that church and its leaders were subject to an “extermination order” issued by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs.

    In the late 1830s, a low-grade civil war erupted in Missouri between Mormons and non-Mormons. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of that church, was arrested by the Missouri state militia and accused of organizing a covert paramilitary terrorist band called the “Danites.”

    Smith and two associates were subjected to a drumhead military trial under Maj. Gen Gen. Lucas, and sentenced to be shot at dawn. Lucas issued a written order to Colonel Alexander Doniphan commanding him to carry out the execution: “Sir: You will take Joseph Smith and the other prisoners into the public square at Far West, and shoot them at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.” Alexander Doniphan, to his eternal credit, refused the order and more or less gave Lucas anatomically explicit instructions regarding its proper disposal. “It is cold-blooded murder,” Doniphan wrote to Lucas. “I will not obey your order. My brigade shall march for Liberty [Missouri] tomorrow morning, at 8 o’clock; and if you execute these men, I will hold you responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God!”

    Under Paredes’s standard, Alexander Doniphan should have clicked his heels and proceeded with the execution.

    JAC’s theory is that the Morons were at war, and thus the duty of Doniphan was to obey orders and execute these men.

    • I guess by Parades “insight” I join Ron Paul as an “enemy of the state.”

    • BF

      A pretty pitiful attempt on your part to draw a comparison between the two situations.

      Seems you are having trouble with your reading comprehension once again.

      Still waiting for your explanation of why war requires STATES.

      Are you trying to claim that the Comanche war against other tribes was really NOT war but just a “criminal activity”?

      • Actually, JAC, you have to explain where your line is drawn – as I’ve drawn mine already.

        Please explain when something is a crime and something is not a crime but a war.

        • BF

          You have not explained anything. All you have done is state your opinion as if it were truth.

          You started this and I asked the questions which you have yet to answer clearly. So it is your turn to answer the questions.

          You claim War only exists between States. When I pointed out that there are many examples of humans waging war without the existence of a State, you claim they were kingdoms or some other such thing that makes them a State.

          Yet you, yourself, have used those same groups, Indians for example, as examples of a Stateless society.

          I am sorry but it is your arguments that are creating the confusion here. So please explain yourself.

          • JAC,

            First, it is you who raised “war”, not I.

            The execution of a man, with no presentation of evidence, no trial, no judge or no jury – by writ of the President is the issue.

          • JAC,

            I already posted regarding war and its participants – participants being “those that claim a monopoly on violence within a geographical area”. That more than satisfies your Apaches.

  3. 😐

  4. Mathius™ says:

    The son of a good friend of mine went to the Occupy Wall Street protest to see it first hand – not necessarily to protest himself, but just to see it without the media lens. It seems bits of this wound up all over the internet and (if I heard right) on the Glen Beck Show as well. I’ve met this kid and don’t remember being very impressed by him, but apparently he spent the entire summer reading up on Austrian economics.. go figure..

    He certainly didn’t get everything right, but he sure seems to have a decent grasp on the broad strokes – far better than a lot of other people there. I’d be very interested in people here’s opinions of the below:

    • Mathius

      Did your friend’s son film this??

      Curious what you think he did not get right.

      Initial reaction: The dumb founded look on the spectators was PRICELESS. Notice the only time they became vocal was when he mentioned stopping the wars or the “military industrial complex”.

      On a broader note, I think this is going to become very, very, messy. The left wing media and Union leaders have decided they are going to throw in with this “movement”. I couldn’t help but notice in the first days that the red t-shirts bearing the American Socialist Party logo were very abundant and seemed to be the “leadership”. Now Soros is calling this a “good thing”.

      The Dem party will soon start trying to capture this and focus “anger” at the Republicans. I saw some of the first shots last night fired by Ed Shultz and Mr. Papatonio, from Ring of Fire.

      Did you know that our economic collapse and corrupt govt was ALL YOUR fault? You damn “Wall Street” types are to blame.

      I would like to hear what your friend’s son thought of the whole thing. As well as you. I assume you are seeing this up front and personal.

      • Mathius™ says:

        My friend’s son didn’t film it – he was the one doing the talking (shouting). He sounds just like his old man.

        I’ll weigh in a little later after I get some more feedback and have a chance to watch it again.

        As for seeing it up close and personal, no.. I’m not located on Wall Street – I work in Connecticut. I wouldn’t want to have to take a train and two subways to work every morning.

    • I liked it as 90% of what he said I have heard at the Tea Party rallies I have attended.

    • He is a potty mouth! He’s pretty sharp. I think he’s off on the military complex war thing, but then again, it’s pretty hard for me to explain our wars to myself. But on the Fed, Freddie/Fannie, big business buying big government, pretty spot on!

      I do not care for the Wall Street protest in itself. There have been immoral actions done by some there, but why is it bad when they do so, but OK when the government does the same? Freddie/Fannie have been found to have violated loan agreements, evicting without due process. Goldman Sachs did manipulate the oil market, but was given special exemptions by the government which allowed them to do so legally…..

  5. Bottom Line,

    Yet you consistently make comments invalidating any Americans being victim as well.

    A victim of …. what?

    How does a man earning a living create a victim on another?
    What violence did such a man, earning a living, do to create the victim?

    I’m not sure whether you do so because you’re just trying to push buttons, or whether you actually believe it.

    Many people cry “I am a victim!” but it is merely sour grapes.

    There is a biased in your arguments, and you need to fully recognize that Americans are getting screwed in the deal too.

    Sure, lots of people are screwed – but it is important to know who is doing what to who….
    I can say, though, a man merely earning to feed his family is not the “who”….

    “Illegal humans” create a surplus in the labor market, thus decreasing demand, therefore price,

    True …. but no more than a new car company producing cars creates pressure to lower prices on other cars.

    However, that is not the whole case. Ferraris still sell at $250,000, no matter who produces cars Tata produces that sells for $500.

    Labor is value.

    In essence, the complaint really describes that -due to artificial barriers to entry certain labor was able to demand artificially higher prices.

    It is demonstrated that with people bypassing these barriers, it causes a drop in these prices.

    It is not the man bypassing the barrier that is the problem, it is the artificial barriers, creating artificial shortages, creating artificial price increases – which, to those who do not understand all of this believe the wage they are earning is due to their value, and create some expectations that his value is truth.

    The fact, however, it is an illusion – and it is shattering when that illusion collapses. Suffering occurs – but the blame must be on the fault of the lies, not the fault of the man who bypasses the barriers.

    I have become poorer because now I work for less.

    Be aware as well that the drop in employment and work is more due to the recession. The recession clears the illusion of a boom, causing unemployment, which floods the market with excess labor and it takes time for the excess inventory of labor to clear.

    • Bottom Line says:

      “A victim of …. what?

      How does a man earning a living create a victim on another?
      What violence did such a man, earning a living, do to create the victim?”

      What do you mean ” A victim of …. what?”? The state and it’s imaginary lines, that’s what. The state victimizes everyone, citizen and “illegal human” alike. I thought that was a given when I posted earlier. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

      ” Many people cry “I am a victim!” but it is merely sour grapes ”

      Are you suggesting that all your pointing out of all the ways the state victimizes people is “merely sour grapes”? …because that’s what I’m talking about, and I don’t think it’s just sour grapes. It makes too much sense to merely be sour grapes. And besides, …you’re the one that pointed it out to me in the first place.

      “Sure, lots of people are screwed – but it is important to know who is doing what to who….
      I can say, though, a man merely earning to feed his family is not the “who”….”

      Yeah, no shit. Why do I feel like I am arguing against a straw-man?

      …to clarify…

      The state creates the environment for disaster with it’s imaginary lines and forced edicts. Everyone falls “victim”.

      By forcefully dictating half of my(John Q. Citizen) check, it artificially raises the value of labor, just like it does all commodities.

      But illegals are not subject to these same demands because they are black market labor and they can afford to sell at a lower price.How much would a Ferrari cost if there were no demands from the state?

      “Illegal humans” are subject to a different victimization because the state doesn’t like where they live. So, they are hunted, beaten/tazed/shot and/or thrown in dungeons.

      ” The fact, however, it is an illusion – and it is shattering when that illusion collapses. Suffering occurs – but the blame must be on the fault of the lies, not the fault of the man who bypasses the barriers. ”

      Who’s blaming “illegals”. I work under the table every chance I get. Flag, before we go much further… Please reread my earlier post.

      The whole point I was making is that the state fux everyone, not just the illegals. Quit trying to invalidate people’s arguments when they see how they are getting jacked too. It is not envy or whatever BS you called it.

      And it’s not just those Americans demanding their enslavement through voting who are getting it. Anarchist house painters that don’t vote or advocate imaginary lines are getting fuct too.

  6. T-Ray (and others in the immigration discussion),

    I changed my mind after further thought and decided to respond to your posting. For your consideration:

    The reforms will not work unless we can take the pressure off the border.

    I don’t believe we can take the pressure off the border unless, or until, we minimize the economic/prosperity incentive for coming to the US in the first place (though recent economic trends have seemed to help some). To accomplish this we would need have an improvement in the economy of Mexico to a level that evens the playing field between the two economies. Do you honestly see some realistic way to get that done? I sure don’t.

    This is why we need to liberalize the legal path for entry while at the same time make it more painful if illegal entry occurs, hence the 90d retention. Just throwing the illegals back over the border so they can make another try the next night is ineffective.

    So, bad that illegals gain financially off the US system – but good that we pay to detain every illegal for a 90 day period? Then the illegal is thrown back over the border and then they “can make another try the next night”? But, let me run a moment with the 90 day retention idea. Instead of a dead end retention that gains anyone (the illegal or the USA) anything of value, why not take that 90 day period and investigate the illegal immigrant’s background to see if they would qualify to remain? If so, at the end of the 90 days issue them a temporary ID and let them loose to begin participating in the system. If not, you can deport them and hope we catch them on their next try.

    If current illegals knew there was a system in place to gain quick legal access to the country then why risk an “illegal” crossing that will gain them nothing? Simply hit the border and apply through the system (or even pre-apply through offices throughout Mexico for instance and have all their clearances waiting on them when they get to the entry point). Charge a nominal fee even. I’d bet it would still be more attractive than paying some smuggler thousands to be brought across.

    You could apply the same thinking to those already here, saving us the costs of finding, detaining and deporting them. Many have children who are (whether one likes it or not) US citizens by birth. The 14th Amendment, regardless of it’s original intention, is settled in law that citizenship is granted by birth. Any change to that amendment would only affect future children born here anyway, since Article I, Section 9 prohibits ex post facto laws. These children can not be deported and – unless the State wishes to take over the full costs of raising them – require a parent be present in the country (so if both parents are illegal, who gets to stay and who goes “home?”).

    It seems to me that it would be reasonable to act in this manner, thus reducing the amount of illegal crossings and in effect aiding in “securing” the border.

    The drug running issue is completely separate and should be dealt with severely by law enforcement.

    Yes, agreed. This is a completely separate issue.

    Would sealing the border be cheaper than all the costs of providing healthcare, school, and other benefits to the illegals? I know that CA spends alot of money on this as do other states.

    The last estimate I read said that building a border fence now stands at $10 million per mile. If we consider the normal course of business occurring then that 10 mil/per mile is low since the cost never seems to remain static. We can see that aspect in the following statement in an article at GlobalSecurity.org.

    Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million — about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million — $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain.

    (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm)

    California is a mess. But then California doesn’t help itself any when they are sending a bill to Governor Brown prohibiting the use of the E-Verify system by public and private employers (that Brown reported intends to sign into law).

    Trying to get the illegals out of the shadow workforce and having them put in as all workers do is the goal. We can’t just complain about what they cost us when it is the laws we enact that makes this happen.

    I do not think that the amnesty program will be acceptable without the security first. If we offer amnesty first or even simultaneously, then all we will do is increase the current to the electromagnet. The attractive force will get stronger and the inflow will increase. This is what happened with the last amnesty. The border was supposed to be closed then too but never was.

    It is time I believe that we need to realize honestly that “amnesty” and border security go hand-in-hand and need to be a cooperative effort to gain positive reform.

    Again look for the win-win solution.

    I believe I have.

    The solution should benefit the country as a whole not one party or the other. We all know what the game is, trolling for voters.

    Agreed.

    After following your link and reading it, I do not know how good or reliable the criminal record system is in Mexico or other latin countries.

    Let me clarify. I meant the use of US records, not foreign country records (unless we find some way of validating the truth and accuracy of those records).

    I also do not think it would be wise to just open the gates and let the world flood in. It takes time for these new residents to assimulate and understand our culture.

    Prior to 1965 there were no limits placed on the number of Western Hemisphere nationals who could enter the USA. It was workable to that point, why not now? What changed? The US Border Patrol has only existed for 80ish years, prior to that we cared not who crossed our southern borders.

    I don’t claim to have a perfect plan, but I do believe it is one that opens the doors to the opportunity to get off the right or left political stumbling blocks to working on true reform. Until we get away from pre-qualifiers to reform we won’t get meaningful reform IMHO.

    • Plainly, we are not far apart in our thinking. When I say liberalization, I mean that we significantly increase the quotas several fold to allow more in legally. This also requires the manpower to do the necessary background checks. I want all coming in to come through the front door although I know that all is impossible. An easier legal entry process will take the pressure off the lilegal entry process which is what I meant. The 90d retention is for those who continue to break the law and enter illegally. Again they are coming for work so if apprehended, deny them what they come for. We do not have to lock them up in expensive prisons. They are not criminals. Barracks style camps would suffice. Yes, while in detention do the background checks, educate them on the proper entry method, but send them home with a stern warning that another illegal entry will result in more lost wages and time. They would not be barred from applying for legal entry.

      We agree on amnesty and border security. Politically one can not happen without the other. My approach was to set milestones that the administration must meet before moving to the amnesty phase. Otherwise amnesty will occur and the security will be ignored like that last time we “fixed” the problem. Under those condition, the illegal inflow will only increase.

      • T-Ray,

        Okay, so start with easing those entry conditions while working on some portion of the border security aspect and save rehabilitating those already illegally in country (amnesty) when your suggested levels are met? Heck, seeing those who enter under the new entry requirements may persuade some of those illegals here to quietly go home and come back through the next day legally? That would be an added benefit to the easier entry strategy.

        The problem with quotas is the lack of flexibility. Should the need arise for greater numbers of immigrants to handle expanded economic needs Congress wouldn’t be able to react fast enough to keep people from coming for that economic opportunity. This just starts a cycle of increased illegal immigration yet again, dragging us right back to square one. Plus, what if Congress suddenly decreases the total, who gets sent back? That would cause many to go underground and become part of the new group of resident illegal immigrants it would seem to me.

        I’m still not sold that a 90 day detention with deportation only is going to be effective in the long term. If many are then denied from ever getting legal entry for a subsequent attempt to enter illegally also seems it would drag us back – to some degree – to square one again.

        • All of this was just a suggested to start the discussion. Everything is of course negotiable and Congress being what it is will blow with the political wind. Some compromise needs to be struck to move towards a solution as the status quo is not working. I tried to use the carrot and stick method. Basically the immigrants can get what they want, access to jobs and legal residence, but they must abide by the rules and have some patience. I know our government is slow in processing paper. I would hope that admission can be granted in less than 90d from application.

          As for border security, maybe we should hire the new immigrants to build the fence. 🙂

          The comment below about sound walls is quite telling. I doubt we are pay $10M/mi for them. Hell any dumb farmer can put up a fence. The problem with government projects is the “prevailing wage” rule and other ridicuous rules inserted by the unions into the contracts. It makes it nearly impossible for any non-unionized contractor to bid on government jobs. Dad looked at a a couple of state jobs back in the sixties and came to the conclusion he would need to charge triple what the job would normally cost. These contracts call for paying “prevailing wage” 1 yr before and 6 mos after the contract. I am sure it has only gotten worse since then.

          • All of this was just a suggested to start the discussion.

            I’ve seen more discussion, good discussion, in these two threads than the politicians have managed in years. I seriously tend to believe that none of them want this issue solved, it’s better to have as an issue to keep their voter bases polarized to their party.

            As for border security, maybe we should hire the new immigrants to build the fence. 🙂

            Works for me, but then the unions will want what they believe is their share of the pie before letting them.

            As for the sound wall comment: Great, now we have to build a road too!

  7. Plainly,

    I don’t believe we can take the pressure off the border unless, or until, we minimize the economic/prosperity incentive for coming to the US in the first place (though recent economic trends have seemed to help some). To accomplish this we would need have an improvement in the economy of Mexico to a level that evens the playing field between the two economies. Do you honestly see some realistic way to get that done? I sure don’t.

    I do, and its easy.

    Do not interfere with the movement of labor

    The market works, so let it work.

    When a market is flooded with, say, Apples, the local economy for apples is low – the price is very low as the overabundance of supply drives the price down.

    This low price attracts other buys from afar, who begin buying the excess.

    This eliminates the excess, which raises the prices locally and afar.

    …and so on.

    Labor is no different.

    If you want Mexico to improve its economics, it must clear its excess inventories of whatever economic goods it produces in abundance – which it can export to areas where such price of this product is attractive. When the excess is cleared, the prices will rise both in Mexico and abroad for this good.

    This works both ways for America too.

    Americans get richer by importing cheap goods – you are able to spend the saved money to buy other things, or save the difference, or whatever.

    Paying less for something makes you richer

    • Do not interfere with the movement of labor

      BF, I can agree with that. But, the premise of my writing is that the national authority (and thus a majority of the citizenry) has determined that there are to be rules and such governing non-citizens entering/remaining in the US. I am attempting to work towards a solution based within that frame of reference.

      If you go to my blog article from march you will find my true thinking on immigration (provided here for quick reference):

      First of all let’s consider the principle of freedom. Freedom infers that each person has the right to take actions as they choose that are not, in any way, harmful or violent to another individual. Carry that thought a step farther it would also not be harmful or violent towards society as a whole.

      Using that thought of freedom then one could ask “why control immigration?” If the basic truth of freedom is that we each follow the path of our choosing, without harming others, then there is no need for any immigration control. To control immigration is to impose a restriction of freedom upon individuals. Yet, our national society believes in controlling those who enter the nation for the sake of the security of the nation, regardless of the loss of freedom to individuals.

      • Plainly,

        BF, I can agree with that. But, the premise of my writing is that the national authority (and thus a majority of the citizenry) has determined that there are to be rules and such governing non-citizens entering/remaining in the US. I am attempting to work towards a solution based within that frame of reference.

        Then you are demanding a solution that cannot -ever- be found.

        You want to use violence to solve a non-violent problem, while believing that the consequences of this use will not raise the amount of violence in society!

        But that is obviously a totally bizarre!

        You will infect society with a massive increase of violence to accomplish your goal, and this violence will and must fall upon you too.

        As you sit bleeding and bruised, beaten to an inch of your life by the force you have unleashed, I am sure you’ll wonder what happened……

        Yet, our national society believes in controlling those who enter the nation for the sake of the security of the nation, regardless of the loss of freedom to individuals.

        This is true.
        But what is also true is that the consequences of such action destroys the security of the nation, inflicts extreme violence on the citizens and non-citizens alike.

        There does not exist a way to avoid the consequences violence while demanding the use violence on non-violent people – society will be severely damaged.

        Thus, your task is pointless and futile – as many here advocate for MORE violence on “illegal” immigrants, they will suffer terribly by the very consequences they unleash.

        These same people will gnash their teeth, whine, bitch, complain … and never understand all of their suffering is due to their own hand.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          Unfortunately you cannot simply deregulate border control (or whatever you wish to call it) without deregulating everything else as well.

          Let’s say we allow “labor” i.e. people to enter this country whenever and wherever they want. We can allow them to leave any time they want, but we cannot unilaterally allow them to leave to ANYWHERE they want to go, because other countries have laws which would prevent this.

          As such, the influx during times when labor was scarce here (like much of the period of 1985-2000) would far outweigh the outflow when labor was over-abundant here (like NOW for example).

          As such, you have an over-abundance of unemployment here, because labor became over-supplied, and it isn’t as easy to shed the excess as it was to obtain it.

          Now, one of the other reasons why we have a labor-glut at the moment is that industries which actually PRODUCE items of value have been damn near exterminated here, so another means of attempting to deal with the labor glut would be to do away with the regulations which caused productive activity to largely cease here.

          I also blame Unions for this. I remember in the late 1970s and early 1980s seeing those “Look For The Union Label” commercials. Yeah, it sounded great, buy American, support America. Problem was, at that time, American Union-made products were inferior in quality and excessive in price compared to foreign competition. In almost all cases shortly after that time, Union-controlled companies at LEAST attempted to focus on quality to make their products more appealing, but they were VERY reluctant to make their labor costs competitive. That, combined with lots of government regulations, is what caused things like steel mills to say, “it is cheaper for us to abandon this mill and relocate to China than it is to keep this place running”.

          If you know anything about shutting down, and ESPECIALLY powering up steel mills, you KNOW that that particular choice only made economic sense if the costs of labor and regulation were insanely lower elsewhere.

          I guess overall though, my main point is this:

          In my opinion, you cannot simply remove 1 distortion from the system and paint a rosy picture of the outcome. That wouldn’t be consistent. Without the removal of all distortions, you are as likely to end up with complete disaster as you are to end up with anything resembling success.

          I think that that is why your approach (most of the time) is to educate and point out the contradictions and inconsistencies. In my opinion, unless the contradictions and inconsistencies can be removed nearly simultaneously (at least on an historic scale) then the outcome is likely to be horrific rather than good.

          I am not sure if I made my point very well or if all of that was just rambling… I am sure you folks will let me know though 🙂

          • Peter

            I think it was spot on.

            Furthermore, even if we stopped all the distortions in OUR country the policies of other countries would cause distortions that affect us.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I think that eventually (and eventually may be a long time from now) we are either going to end up with “one-world-government” or we will be one world that lacks government. I would strongly prefer the latter, but the road from here to there is long and fraught with many troll-ridden bridges.

              • Peter

                I think to a large extent One World Govt already exists. It was created via the “financial institutions”.

                Notice how the world’s governments are now jumping to the tune of the bankers. I think that some very powerful people figured they could maintain some semblance of “order” if they integrated and coordinated the financial systems.

                I don’t think they create wars for profit as they may have in the olden days, by betting on both sides. I think they felt they would become richer if the world was “stable” and thus “relatively” peaceful.

                I do not see a world without government………EVER. It is nice to dream about but I think it is just that, a dream.

                But quite frankly, I am not convinced it is truly a “nice dream”. We may come to call it something else but it will resemble some type of govt in its functionality and implementation.

              • The collapse of the Euro is the end of the dreams of the conspirators who have worked since 1917 to create a one world government.

                The Euro dissolving will cause the EuroMarket to fragment, which will end the “Common Market of Europe”.

                No, States are dissolving and de-evolving into smaller and smaller entities.

                As communication becomes more broad, easier and cheaper, there becomes little necessity or capability to retain centralized control

          • The Mariel boatlift was a mass exodus of Cubans who departed from Cuba’s Mariel Harbor for the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980.

            The event was precipitated by a sharp downturn in the Cuban economy which led to internal tensions on the island and a bid by up to 10,000 Cubans to gain asylum in the Peruvian embassy.

            The Cuban government subsequently announced that anyone who wanted to leave could do so, and an exodus by boat started shortly afterward. The exodus was organized by Cuban-Americans with the agreement of Cuban president Fidel Castro. The exodus started to have negative political implications for U.S. president Jimmy Carter when it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities. The Mariel boatlift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments involved in October 1980. By that point, as many as 125,000 Cubans had made the journey to Florida.

            A fairly modern example of why completely open immigration cannot work. What would stop China or Mexico from deporting all their prison population to the USA? Why operate a prison system when it’s cheaper to ship the problem to another country to pay for?

  8. Thus, your task is pointless and futile

    Probably, but some days I feel like tilting at windmills.

    • Plainly,

      But instead, what is necessary is to be unyielding to those that demand more of the same violence.

      Instead, repeating, explaining, re-explaining, simplifying the explanation to why these solutions are bad, will only make things even worse, and the real solution – elimination of the immigration laws – is the answer.

      The “lack of labor laws” between California and Oregon makes both California and Oregon richer. Why so many people believe this would not be true between California and Baja is bizarre, though commonly held.

      • But instead, what is necessary is to be unyielding to those that demand more of the same violence.

        Instead, repeating, explaining, re-explaining, simplifying the explanation to why these solutions are bad, will only make things even worse, and the real solution – elimination of the immigration laws – is the answer.

        Okay, I won’t argue your position other than to say that steps in that direction gain some ground when leaps are not going to happen.

        The “lack of labor laws” between California and Oregon makes both California and Oregon richer. Why so many people believe this would not be true between California and Baja is bizarre, though commonly held.

        I have no real answer here. Fear? Suspicion? Xenophobia? The nation would need to examine its collective and individual conscience for the truth of its beliefs.

        I was once of the mind of many of the main stream group on immigration, but after years of watching the shadow laborers in California I have changed my beliefs.

  9. Plainly,

    Okay, I won’t argue your position other than to say that steps in that direction gain some ground when leaps are not going to happen.

    It will take a long time -perhaps generations- to repair the thinking, and never unless the People take back control of the education of their kids.

    I have no real answer here. Fear? Suspicion? Xenophobia?

    All possible answers, yes.

    As Will Rogers quipped, though, “A man who travels the world soon loses is prejudices of others”

    I have strong hope that things like the internet will break this barrier.

    However, this barrier must be broken, because as long as it stands, America gets poor.
    The world is shifting to these emerging economies – Mexico, China, India …. and soon the reverse application of labor will apply.

    One must hope they are as gracious as America was 100 years ago, and not as ungracious as America is becoming.

  10. Mathius™ says:

    I’ll just throw this one out there.. win for liberty? Or are we enshrining the right to abuse our children?

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8376107

    San Fran is a strange place.

    I just love open mic days 🙂

  11. Peter, JAC,

    I fear both of you misapplied economic reasoning to “one way” immigration.

    Labor is just another economic good, like any other – and obeys ALL the laws of economics. It does NOT have a unique set of economic laws that only apply to it.

    So, to remove the emotion, let’s dialogue about apples.

    There is local production of apples.
    There is remote production of apples.
    There exists a barrier to entry for apples, protecting local producers from competition.

    What is happening, locally?
    The citizens are paying a premium for apples – that is, wasting money – the citizens are poorer as they have less money to buy other things then apples. Yes, local apple growers are very happy, but no one else is.

    Removing the barrier:
    Citizens are very happy – they can buy apples cheap – they retain more of their wealth to save or spend on other things then apples. Yes, local apple growers complain but they still retain a market advantage since the remote apples must travel. All they have lost is the illicit premium they took by force.

    The remote growers grow richer – they have a market for their apples that was denied.
    The local citizens grow richer – they have a supply of apples at less cost.

    This occurs even if the remote “people” erect barriers to apples!

    It is those people who are surrounded by the barriers of entry that suffer economic loss NOT THE IMPORTERS

    This is the fundamental epiphany of Adam Smith in his book “Wealth of Nations” – that it is the barriers erected by the people that impoverishes those people …it does not save them or enrich them – it punishes them.

    Now, as this is true for apples … it is true for labor.

    • Opps, mistype:
      It is those people who are surrounded by the barriers of entry that suffer economic loss not the EXPORTER people!

    • BF

      They can not be wasting money for apples since the value of apples is based on a free market.

      • JAC

        It is not a free market, because you have erected a barrier to competition – it is a mercantilism marketplace where only the apple growers benefit at the direct cost to everyone else.

        • BF

          I am sorry but according to my good Pirate friend, Black Flag, the market for apples is a free market. Nobody is making the local worker purchase the apple for the price requested. That was his/her choice.

        • BF

          P.S.: You forgot that all the suppliers, labor, etc that work for the apple grower ALSO benefit.

          • JAC,

            Not true at all.

            They are poorer.

            They buy apples at the premium, but their inputs into the production of apples does NOT cost more to the apple grower.

            There is no barrier to -say- fertilizer.
            The apple grower is not confined to buy fertilizer from the local supplier.
            He can buy it from a remote supplier.

            The fertilizer supplier is under competition of the free market, and his quality and price must reflect this – the apple grower gets the “best” deal.

            But the apple grower has price protection on his sale – unlike the fertilizer supplier.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I don’t disagree with your analogy of apples and labor; however, there is a fundamental difference.

      When an apple is consumed, that particular apple is gone, no longer able to be consumed. The “economic lifetime” of a single apple is mere weeks from the time it is picked to the time it is either consumed or wasted. Sure, more apples are around to replace it, but economically speaking, an individual apple has a short lifetime and is a 1-shot deal. Also, even though there are many varieties of apples, they all taste at least somewhat similar, and all occupy the same niche in the food chain.

      However; you cannot classify individual labor quite the same way as individual apples, you wouldn’t be comparing apples to apples.

      Labor is a far too generic term. We are capable of labor from a very early age, but generally at a very early age, the labor we are capable of is necessarily pretty unskilled and limited. As we age, we tend to specialize. We all find niches to which our labor is best suited. Some of us remain apples (general laborers not requiring a great deal of specific or rigorous skills) while others of us become much more skilled and specialized, although in a pinch, the skilled and specialized can still do what the apples do.

      Also, an individual apple is gone either through consumption or waste in less than a month (or perhaps it gets made into sauce, cider, or something else that requires apples); whereas an individual person could potentially have 50, 60, or even 70 years of labor which he could contribute to the economy.

      There is almost never any shortage of work that the apples can do, but sometimes there are more apples than there are labor for them, and sometimes, due to technological or other changes, sets of specialized workers might get thrown back in with the apples, competing for those types of jobs as well.

      In my mind, I liken our current situation to having WAY TOO MANY apples, and no good way of currently ridding ourselves of the excess of apples.

      The cost of labor, under the current scenario SHOULD FALL, or, the excess labor SHOULD go elsewhere where it is needed. Both of these things will happen to a certain degree (and are already happening) BUT there are problems.

      We have regulated a minimum cost for labor here. It can be avoided in certain cases, but in many cases people are forced to pay at least that mandated minimum cost. We have regulated who can come into this country, but our enforcement of that regulation has been irregular at best. This means that labor has been able to enter our country fairly easily, especially in times of relative labor shortages here. Other countries regulate who can enter their country, usually far more effectively than we do. Now that we have a labor glut, it is harder for the excess labor (whether here “legally” or “illegally”) to go somewhere else.
      This is especially true for the “apples”. Other countries might be actively recruiting “skilled labor”, but most countries, like us, have a current excess of apples, and don’t really want any more of them. Therefore, the barriers to apple movement are pretty strong currently.
      We have regulations which caused certain types of jobs to go “elsewhere” because the cost of labor and cost of doing business was cheaper “elsewhere”, but “elsewhere” already had laborers who could perform those jobs, so the laborers here simply became more apples.

      I see more problems with the apple to labor analogy, but that’s enough to start with.

      • While the apples/labor arguments are all well and good, it misses one key part of the problem. The illegals do not contribute to society in the form of taxes etc. in equal share, Not only do they not contribute equally as defined by our rules, they demand and take from the system that they are not supporting. This is the nub of the problem, not so much the labor aspects.

        • T-ray

          The illegals do not contribute to society in the form of taxes etc. in equal share,

          Government spending does not improve society, it impoverishes it.

          The “illegals” -who may keep these funds- use these funds to better society in reality infinitely better than any government.

          It is there income and spending that does the work.

          • If you suck on the teat, feed the cow else she will dry up. If you don’t you are just a leach. I have already stated I do not suck on the teat, but I am impoverished by those who do legal or illegal. Until those here illegally shoulder their fare share or the cow is slaughtered so no one gets any, I will maintain my position.

            • T-Ray

              If you suck on the teat, feed the cow else she will dry up.

              Firstly, the level of which they are “sucking” is miniscule compared to “legal” sucking. To blame a fraction of percentage for any problem is not plausible.

              Second, the economic benefits of their presence is vastly more larger than any economic determent their minor “sucking” causes.

              I will maintain my position.

              What tends to baffle me:
              – your argument, that the presence of illegals harms you economically.
              – your solution, eliminate the illegals.

              But,
              – the presence of illegals actually enriches you to a very significant degree, indeed, you would be seriously far poorer if they were to “disappear”.
              – your solution will devastate your economic prosperity.

              You demand your solution, which will move you precisely opposite your stated argument.

              • T-Ray,

                You epitomize the typical mindset – you see your situation as difficult, but instead of working on your situation, you demand broad public policy to fix your situation – a solution whose consequences are so negatively massive, you will inflict far worse harm upon your personal situation.

                But emotion clouds the understanding – and short term thinking tends to win emotional arguments.

            • T-Ray,

              Your position in this dialogue recalls for me this saying:

              A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.” ~ Harry Browne

  12. Peter,

    As often is the case, you begin your reply by ignoring the a basic and immutable premise of all economic law, and that it applies to all economic goods, in the same way and the same manner.

    There is not one set of economic laws for apples, and a different one for money and a different one for oranges and a different one for labor and a different one for cars…. etc.

    When an apple is consumed, that particular apple is gone, no longer able to be consumed.

    This “characteristic of consumption” you see for apples exists for labor.

    In labor, it is time.

    You trade your time for money.

    Once you spend a minute “doing this”, that minute is gone -forever. It cannot be reused. It is consumed, just like eating an apple.

    If you trade your time for no money, you cannot -in a future- go back and reuse that time to make money. Further, if you trade you time for money, you cannot use that time to do “something else” you wanted to do.

    Time is what you trade for labor.
    Skill is the quality or value of that time.

    However; you cannot classify individual labor quite the same way as individual apples, you wouldn’t be comparing apples to apples.

    But we are.
    We are comparing an economic good with an economic good.

    Remember this as an immutable law
    There is only one set of economic law, and it applies to all economic goods – no exceptions and no differences

    In my mind, I liken our current situation to having WAY TOO MANY apples, and no good way of currently ridding ourselves of the excess of apples.

    Change your perception.

    We do not have an excess of “apples” – indeed, every year, an extra 3 million “apples” (workers) are needed by the US economy then the year before.

    If it wasn’t for immigration, the US would be in desperate economic times due to massive shortages of almost everything.

    The current economy is suffering an miss-allocation of apples, not an excess on total.

    We have “too much” over here doing worthless stuff, and not enough “over there” doing valuable stuff.

    The cost of labor, under the current scenario SHOULD FALL, or, the excess labor SHOULD go elsewhere where it is needed. Both of these things will happen to a certain degree (and are already happening) BUT there are problems.

    Again, review your perception.

    The cost of labor in some areas WILL FALL, but the cost of labor in other areas is RISING

    Right now – today – you can get a job flipping hamburgers in N. Dakota for $15/hr.

    • Argg, another mistype:

      Time is what you CONSUME for labor, and trade for money.

    • new CNN article is saying about what is going on in the state….

      Believe it or not, a place exists where companies are hiring like crazy, and you can make $15 an hour serving tacos, $25 an hour waiting tables and $80,000 a year driving trucks.

      According to CNBC, there are “help wanted” signs all over the place in little towns such as Williston….

      Unemployment is a national problem in the U.S., but you wouldn’t know that if you travel through North Dakota.

      The state’s unemployment rate hovers around 3 percent, and “Help Wanted” signs litter the landscape of cities such as Williston in the same way “For Sale” signs populate the streets of Las Vegas.

      “It’s a zoo,” said Terry Ayers, who drove into town from Spokane, Wash., slept in his truck, and found a job within hours of arrival, tripling his salary. “It’s crazy what’s going on out here.”

      According to CNN, there are a significant number of families that have already changed their lives by heading out to North Dakota….

      McMullen now works as a nanny in exchange for housing. Her husband, who worked on behavior management programs for a school system in North Carolina where he took home about $1,600 a month, found a job working in the oilfields where he makes that same amount of money in one week — adding up to an annual salary of about $77,000.

      “We want to be debt-free, so we came here to play catch-up,” said McMullen. “But when I came here, I thought I was on Mars. It’s just so crazy that the rest of the country has no jobs, and here’s this one place that doesn’t have enough people to fill all the jobs.”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Of course you can get a job flipping burgers there for $15 an hour. The oil and shale gas boom there is going to make the “gold rush” look tame.

        • Peter,

          Yep – but that’s the point.

          Most people would rather be poor and warm then rich and freezing.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Never been to North Dakota myself, but Western South Dakota (Badlands/Black Hills) is my idea of heaven on earth. Just a bit ago, there was an entire TOWN out that way that was for sale… I was very tempted 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I have several family members still in NoDak – the oil fields are a booming – my cousin and her husband both left jobs to work in the fields. Mucho dinero to be made.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “We have “too much” over here doing worthless stuff, and not enough “over there” doing valuable stuff.”

      You do hear of businesses which require highly skilled labor being unable to fill positions due to a lack of qualified applicants, but I also get the impression that even if you properly retrained all of the apples, you would still have a labor glut. I don’t think the numbers properly balance. If we had a free market, I think the numbers would balance, but since neither we nor anyone else has a free market, I believe that we currently have a labor excess worldwide.

      It seems to be that due to the systematic mis-allocation of both resources and labor for an extended period of time by nearly every country on the earth, there is actually a current excess of labor. If resources had been properly allocated, then the labor force would likely be just barely adequate to meet the demand for labor. However; since resources have been badly mis-allocated, the demand for labor has been depressed. I see a few select places and professions with a labor shortage, but I see the vast majority of the globe in a severe, self-induced depression and completely lacking in the willpower to the nature take its course, which has led to not only a mis-allocation of labor, but an excess due to the mis-allocation of resources.

      I hope that I am wrong about this, because and EXCESS of labor almost always leads to something really ugly.

      • Peter,

        you would still have a labor glut. I don’t think the numbers properly balance. If we had a free market, I think the numbers would balance, but since neither we nor anyone else has a free market, I believe that we currently have a labor excess worldwide.

        I do not believe this at all.

        However, you go first – do you have any data to support your contention?

        I do have to support mine – I’ve posted before the TED videos of “My Data set must change your Mindset”

        Appearances are very decieving at times – especially around “labor” – as it envokes deep emotions, because -unlike apples- it is about people.

        It seems to be that due to the systematic mis-allocation of both resources and labor for an extended period of time by nearly every country on the earth, there is actually a current excess of labor.

        It is merely mis-allocated.

        But, because they are people, people have a natural resistance to move or change – people like the status quo.

        So they will tend to sit tight and starve instead of move to a new location and earn. They like their past lives, they probably liked what their old job provided and were comfortable. They do not want to change and they “want their old life back”.

        It takes a very long time for many and never for some to realize that the “old life” is gone forever.

        So they are stuck in the mud of where they are….

  13. Buck, Charlie & Matt,

    Just to make your heads explode!
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65115.html#ixzz1ZpoiN2w4

  14. We will never understand the Middle East. NATO invaded Libya for “humanitarian” reasons
    (snark). If NATO invades Syria to stop them from slaughtering thousands, they will attack Israel?

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4131259,00.html

  15. LOI

    A fairly modern example of why completely open immigration cannot work. What would stop China or Mexico from deporting all their prison population to the USA? Why operate a prison system when it’s cheaper to ship the problem to another country to pay for?

    It also must be why open borders between Oregon and California simply cannot work.

    All those criminals and crazies from California going to Oregon to commit crimes will fill Oregon jails. Much cheaper for California too.

  16. LOI,

    Add to that, we know having the Fed print excessive amounts of money is manipulation, which we accuse China of, in a pot/kettle pissing contest. By making the dollar less expensive, it makes US goods cheaper for foreign buyers. So unfair that they would do the same thing to us

    This is a real threat – it is a trade war and a race to the bottom to see who can devalue their currency faster.

    Keynesian economics at its finest – where exports are considered “more valuable” then selling to your own citizens.

  17. LOI,
    Re: Israel and Syria

    Because you are American, you are probably blind to how the world see America.

    The rest of the world sees the US and Israel as an extension of each other. The actions of one carries the consent of the other, thus, attack by one is an attack by the other.

    • LOI,

      One merely needs to view the photo of Palin in the link you provided to demonstrate precisely my point re: Syria.

    • I think this is your bias speaking again. If France and the Uk push NATO to act in Syria, what would that have to do with Israel? I know, stupid question and the answer doesn’t matter because the answer is the Muslim population of nearly all those countries hate the Jews. Syria would attack Israel just like Iraq did in the first gulf war, hoping to bring other countries into the conflict if Israel defends itself.

      Palin=Christians=Syria is justified in attacking Israel? You need to re-check your math. Palin may be a vocal Christian, but most Christians do not wish to start another holy war. Most Christians and Jews ask to be allowed to live in peace. A few Muslims will only allow us that peace if we are dead or slaves. Sadly, some of them have the power to spur conflict. Add to that, Turkey and Egypt may be parties to the war that Iran has been fueling.

      • LOI,

        I am not biased.

        I am aware. Comes with living most of my life in foreign countries.

        Neither France nor Germany nor UK has any power whatsoever to “push” NATO to do anything. NATO is a US driven alliance. There is no “equality” at all behind closed doors.

        re: Palin.
        Notice her necklace.

        My point: America and Israel are one and the same in the eyes of the World outside of America – the symbolism of such unity is everywhere, and the world sees it.

        But you missed it because you are in it.

        • Unless you are a computer, as a human, you have inherit bias. Some of us work hard to see past it and on the whole, I think you do very well. On Israel and the US, I think you have entrenched yourself. I can agree with you on many things, including some of the evil that has been done by the US and Israel. But that does not excuse the evil done by others.
          The world wants to blame the US and Israel for slavery and it’s entire history and have us pay. The fact slavery existed before we were a nation and Arab traders were the primary source is not discussed. The Palestinians demand statehood, but refuse to recognize Israel or make peace. They also refuse to allow the return of Palestinians living in other countries.

          To a simple minded person like myself, it comes down to who wants peace vs who want war.
          A small faction of one culture is actively embracing violence.

          http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/moroccan_muslim_apostate_to_christianity_survives_stabbing_and_gets_us_asylum.html

          • LOI,

            Unless you are a computer, as a human, you have inherit bias.

            Mathius will confirm if I am human or computer.

            However, if anything, I would be biased in favor of Western view points as that is my upbringing and thus, default state.

            It has taken work, learning and knowledge to balance viewpoints beyond that default.

            Few are willing to do that work.

            Some of us work hard to see past it and on the whole, I think you do very well. On Israel and the US, I think you have entrenched yourself.

            I have asked of you and others to explain why you and others hold such an affinity to this nation.

            It is not an ally.
            It is in a foreign continent.
            It has nothing noteworthy about it.

            The people are no different than others elsewhere – they love their children, and work for a living.

            Yet, you adore them beyond reason – so much, you are willing to devastate. your nation, your family and send your children to die for them

            But that does not excuse the evil done by others.

            I do not excuse.
            I explain.

            The Palestinians demand statehood

            Probably a mistake

            , but refuse to recognize Israel

            They will not recognize those that steal their land. To do so would make permanent the theft.

            or make peace.

            The “Hegemony” theory demonstrates who needs to make peace.

            They also refuse to allow the return of Palestinians living in other countries.

            Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth – and you wonder about such policies.

            Few want to return to the “largest prison camp on Earth”

            To a simple minded person like myself, it comes down to who wants peace vs who want war.

            Strangely, you tend to the “who’s” backwards.

            A small faction of one culture is actively embracing violence.

            Of one culture????

            You are truly blinded by the Star.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Mathius will confirm if I am human or computer. All I can say with any certainty is that you passed the Turing Test. I lack sufficient evidence to determine if you are, in fact, human or computer.

            • Iran state media put out a stunning report Saturday claiming that imprisoned Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is facing the death sentence for rape and extortion, not for apostasy and refusing to renounce his religion, as his lawyer, human rights groups and Western news media have reported.

              “His crime is not, as some claim, converting others to Christianity,” the deputy governor of the Gilan province, Gholomali Rezvani, told Fars, the semi-official state news agency.

              “He is guilty of security-related crimes.”

              The Fars comments were part of a larger Iranian media push to counter reports that Nadarkhani was facing execution for refusing to recant his Christian faith.

              “We’re trying to determine if this is the state-controlled media throwing it out there,” said Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

              “There’s been no mention of any other charges than apostasy in trial documents.”

              In a ruling from the Iranian Supreme Court, translated into English by the ACLJ, Nadarkhani was sentenced to execution by hanging for, “turning his back on Islam” and “converting Muslims to Christianity.”

              The ruling also alleges that he also participated in Christian worship by holding home church services and baptizing himself and others, effectively breaking Islamic Law.

              FoxNews.com obtained a copy of the ruling and there is not a single mention of rape or extortion allegations.

              Fox News reported earlier this week that Nadarkhani, 32, who ran a group of house churches in Iran, was facing execution after being convicted last November of apostasy.

              Nadarkhani appealed his conviction all the way to the Iranian Supreme Court, and his appeals trial began last Sunday in Gilan province.

              It was then that the married father of two young children refused to renounce his religion, according to his lawyer and rights groups monitoring the trial.

              Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/01/state-media-reports-iranian-pastor-facing-execution-for-rape-not-religion/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZvaoUwQp

              • Mathius™ says:

                Iran does this kind of thing all the time. When they want to execute someone for, say, being homosexual, they always accuse them of rape or pedophilia, hold a mock trial, and execute them for that instead.

                It’s just a cover for things they’re embarrassed of doing in the world-media.

                Remember when Edmond Dantes at Chateau d’If, he proclaims his innocence to the jailer and receives a reply to the effect of “of course you are, but Chateau d’If is where is they put the prisoners they’re ashamed of.”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “American Center for Law and Justice”

                I like the name of that organization. The name makes it very plain that “Law” and “Justice” are two completely different things 🙂

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “They will not recognize those that steal their land.”

              BF,

              Again define property, define various historically accepted practices which define who actually currently owns a given piece of property, and then tell us who “legally” currently “owns” Israel and why.

              • Peter,

                Again define property, define various historically accepted practices which define who actually currently owns a given piece of property, and then tell us who “legally” currently “owns” Israel and why.

                As I’ve posted before, there are three core principles regarding land ownership recognized over the last 5,000 years.

                We need not try to discover something else, when these have provided a solid answer for quite a long time.

                The doctrine has been these three principles:
                (1) Right by Conquer
                (2) Right by Law
                (3) Terra Nova

                Last, first:
                Terra Nova
                Land which no law applies is Terra Nova, and can be claimed by declaration.

                Right by Conquest (or Force of Arms)
                This has been declared invalid, illegal and a war crime to claim territory by force of arms since 1948 Nuremberg.

                Thus,
                Right by Law – via property rights and ownership transfer

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Thanks BF,

                I know I could have gone back and looked for it, but it was easier to pester you for it again 🙂

                So, by the definitions you just gave, Israel which was “created” by the UN in 1947 would predate 1948 Nuremburg, so even if it was Right By Conquest land, it would still be legal.

                However, since the modern country of Israel was “created out of thin air” on lands which were occupied by others at that time (well, at least SOME of the land was occupied by others at the time), you might call the creation of Israel “Right by Fiat” which is not a recognized means of property ownership and should therefore be rejected as invalid.

                Any lands “acquired” by Israel after Nuremburg 1948 cannot “belong” to Israel, because Nuremburg 1948 determined that Right by Conquest was no longer a legitimate means of acquiring land (though it had been up until that point).

                So either 1) Israel has no right to exist at all, or 2) Israel has no supportable claim to lands beyond its original 1947 borders.

                It seems to me you would agree with assertion #1 above given what you have said.

                If you do agree with the first argument, how would you proceed?

              • Peter,

                by the definitions you just gave, Israel which was “created” by the UN in 1947 would predate 1948 Nuremburg, so even if it was Right By Conquest land, it would still be legal.

                No.

                The Nuremburg Principles, as they are known, extend post hoc to Sept. 1, 1939 – the invasion of Poland by German – which makes sense if you are using that attack as the basis of a crime against humanity as it was charged against Germany.

                Any lands “acquired” by Israel after Nuremburg 1948 cannot “belong” to Israel, because Nuremburg 1948 determined that Right by Conquest was no longer a legitimate means of acquiring land (though it had been up until that point).

                I would say that the region nations and Palestinians would be satisfied with that today, if it was offered.

                So either 1) Israel has no right to exist at all, or 2) Israel has no supportable claim to lands beyond its original 1947 borders.

                That is my position.

                It seems to me you would agree with assertion #1 above given what you have said.

                Technically, yes.
                Realistically, #2 is what the Palestinians and their advocates are demanding.

                If you do agree with the first argument, how would you proceed?

                I would put it aside as “Fait accompli”, and work hard on #2

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        France and the Brits will not act in Syria, There is negligible oil there. Those guys are still playing by the Versailles playbook.

  18. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Item one, the practicality of the boarder fence can be easily demonstrated by looking at the number of miles of “noise barriers” constructed in the US over the past twenty years. Some of these gargantuan structures are fully 20feet high and made of concrete posts and concrete panels. If we could spend the kind on money necessary to build these totally useless structures, a border fence would be a snap. If we actually build a highway on the north side, Then it is not a fence anymore but a noise barrier.

    Item two, I was in NYC today on Central Park South. Having not been there for quite some time I was astounded by the number of pedicabs in the area. I have seen them before in other parts of the city but never in such profusion. They are driven by young men, some immigrants, some native speakers. When it rains, they just sit around and don’t make money.

    When I was a callow youth, I remember seeing filmstrips of exotic places like Bangkok, Hong Kong, New Delhi and postwar Japan where these pedicabs abounded. I remember learning about them and how they were the only way for the poor to make money to feed themselves and their families. Does anyone out there see where I am headed with this?

    This is the brave new future of America! This is where your children will eventually wind up when the last decent job is sent overseas and the last union member dies. The foreign tourist taking advantage of the valueless dollar will be driven around by the impoverished great grandson of someone who fought in the Second World War to save the friggen world. We have met the enemy and he is us.

    Now that Andy Rooney is retiring I am feeling like I should become more curmudgeonly. Does anyone want to try to explain to me why Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Germans and Western Europeans of all stripes come to the United States to purchase things that are imported here but sell at a lower price than they pay for them at home? What exactly makes that happen assuming that they will have to pay some type of duty on it when they get home? Looks like we are somehow or other being screwed again.

    Great article this month in “American Legion Magazine” on the potential wealth of rare earth minerals that are being found in Afghanistan. A bit of research indicates that rights to them are apparently being snapped up by the Chinese who seem to currently have the market cornered on producible rare earths and are using them politically. As usual, we are too proud, decent and honorable to even touch the stuff we have secured for others. Sort of like making sure that the Frogs and Brits had first dibs on oil in Iraq and now Libya.

    Spent Saturday night at a party on Long Island where I had a fascinating conversation with a Brazilian who teaches English, speaks it wonderfully and understands nuance. That folks is the place to put your money! They are developing the hell out of their resources and are NOT, repeat NOT allowing the Chinese in to make deals. Standard Chinese practice is they will cut you a great deal but you have to give them technology, buy from them exclusively or, like the Mafia of old, allow them to buy in. They made a big move in Brazil to gobble up millions of acres of rainforest up the Amazon and the Brazilian government said NO THANKS! It seems that the Brazilians have learned that if they allow them in, they are as ravenous as a horde of locusts and leave you with the same result. Now Brazil has not exactly been on top of protecting those forests but I guess they can imagine worse. The Brazilians are also seeking investment dollars to forge ahead with a highway through the Amazon and then through Peru or Ecuador to the Pacific the Chinese apparently offered to fund it but were turned down. Too many strings attached.

    • SK

      . Does anyone want to try to explain to me why Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Germans and Western Europeans of all stripes come to the United States to purchase things that are imported here but sell at a lower price than they pay for them at home? What exactly makes that happen assuming that they will have to pay some type of duty on it when they get home? Looks like we are somehow or other being screwed again.

      So let me get this straight.

      You are complaining that you get to buy goods at a discount better than the people who actually make the goods….

      ….some days, I simply shake me head in wonderment how Americans ever got rich….

      To explain to you:
      It is because the Chinese, Germans and European people are SUBSIDIZING YOU because their politicians are economic morons.

      But only in America do the people who get to buy goods at a massive discount complain they are getting ripped off…..

      …..utterly bizarre…

  19. SK,

    This is the brave new future of America! This is where your children will eventually wind up when the last decent job is sent overseas and the last union member dies

    It is great future! But you are a Luddite – and understand little of economics – you see your tool pushing job ….that is, monkey work go over to countries were monkey work is a good job because they cannot do high technology jobs or innovate

    You want your son to be neck deep in grease fixing cars.

    You do not want your son to be working on a computer designing the future of cars.

    This is what you are praying for.

    I cannot understand how fathers wish to curse their sons.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      As a former auto mechanic, I think you are going to offend many hard working Americans with that example. Besides, I would hate like hell to have to have my car repaired in China.

      “Monkey work”. Flag, can u fix your own car? Can u work an assembly line and keep up without quitting after one week? You come across like some kind of snob. You are smarter than most of us and good with your computer and must have some great skills, but you are not better than others. I would love u to live where I live and do the “monkey work” that I do. I would love to see if you could hack it and adapt or simply fade away.

      Do not worry, I am not really offended. I just think you are a snob 🙂 Time to boil down massive amounts of apple cider/jelly over a roaring wood fire. Great stuff on sourdough pancakes or bread. Can also be fermented with the correct amount of additional water after being preserved! You should be able to see the smoke plume from google earth 🙂

      • Puritan,

        As a former auto mechanic, I think you are going to offend many hard working Americans with that example. Besides, I would hate like hell to have to have my car repaired in China.

        It is not meant to offend but to shake.

        Why do you believe Chinese mechanics are better/worse than American?

        “Monkey work”. Flag, can u fix your own car?

        Yes, but I do not want to

        It is economically better for me to do what I do and buy what I need, then to do everything myself….division of labor is what makes us wealthy.

        Can u work an assembly line and keep up without quitting after one week?

        A Chinese worker in the middle of China can do it, and do it cheap then you can.

        This is a very good thing.

        Otherwise you will have to take a serious cut in your lifestyle to compete with this man.

        Instead, you are so lucky to live in a part of the world where you can do something more valuable and maintain your prosperity.

        You come across like some kind of snob.

        No.
        I am direct and do not beat around a bush, nor do I suffer foolish thinking very much.

        You are smarter than most of us and good with your computer and must have some great skills, but you are not better than others.

        Better is a subjective value, hence, irrelevant in this discussion.

        I would love u to live where I live and do the “monkey work” that I do. I would love to see if you could hack it and adapt or simply fade away.

        Your problem is not me.
        Your problem is you.
        You cannot compete at the price you demand with a fellow in India or China.

        Puritan, this means precisely 1 of 2 things for you:
        (1) You must cut your price, hence your lifestyle, to compete with China
        (2) Do something different then the man in China that is more valuable then what he can do.

        If you are competing at a basis level of digging ditches or turning screws or any of the typical, repetitive manufacturing jobs, you will lose.

        So tell me, why do you believe you rate a 350% more pay rate then that fellow doing the same job?

        • BF

          Please explain something to me-you are comparing what a people are paid, under a dictator-people who have no way to use the principals of a free market(freedom) to combat the way they are treated-with a country based on the idea of freedom-if I don’t like the pay-I can go elsewhere-or use other options to force better treatment-the Chinese don’t have this option. So how is it to our advantage to base what we should be paid with what the chinese are paid.

          • Just to make sure my question is clear-it seems that you are backing the economic and moral values of a communistic system and dissing the values of freedom which promote fairness within the system.

            • V.H.

              Just to make sure my question is clear-it seems that you are backing the economic and moral values of a communistic system and dissing the values of freedom which promote fairness within the system.

              No, I am explaining economics.

              If you price yourself higher than your competitor, you will suffer a drop in sales.

              You have simply choices.

              (1) Lower your price.
              Consequence: you will lower your standard of living

              (2) Do something more valuable
              Consequence: you will not be doing what you are used to doing now.

              • In any society-there is a mixture of ability -and we need a variety in jobs and pay to keep everyone employed. I do not see where we have the ability to always just do something more valuable.

              • V.H.

                In any society-there is a mixture of ability

                True.

                -and we need a variety in jobs

                No.
                There is no “need”.

                “Variety” is a consequence of human action.
                People want different things.

                and pay to keep everyone employed

                Very, very very dangerous economic demand.

                You want to employ people who produce negative value by your demand “everyone employed”

                Such a demand will devastate an economy.

                . I do not see where we have the ability to always just do something more valuable.

                It is called “Innovation”

                Review history, V.H.

                50 years ago, most people were employed by farming.
                Today, less than 3% of people are employed by farming.

                You want to hold the economy to maintain the same number of “farmers” as there was 50 years ago.

                Such a hold will destroy your prosperity.

              • I’m not saying things must remain stagnant-Just that we have a need of a variety of work to employ people at different levels and to do the work that we need done-like clerks at a store-people to pick up the garbage, fix cars, electricians, etc.-Freedom allows the wages to rise over time-so it still seems to me, that if we base our wages on the actions of non-freedom countries -we are losing the whole advantage of being free.

              • V.H.

                I’m not saying things must remain stagnant-Just that we have a need of a variety of work to employ people at different levels and to do the work that we need done-like clerks at a store-people to pick up the garbage, fix cars, electricians, etc.-

                If there is a demand for it, it will exist.

                Freedom allows the wages to rise over time

                NO!

                You are still stuck in Keynesian crackpot theories.

                Think about it.

                Your job is to turn a screw 14 times to the left.
                After 10 years, your job is to turn a screw 14 times to the left. You ask your boss for a raise.

                What reason are you going to give him to ask for a raise?

                -so it still seems to me, that if we base our wages on the actions of non-freedom countries -we are losing the whole advantage of being free.

                “We” are not basing any wage on other actions.

                You are in competition with others.

                If they sell their product less than you do, what do you think will happen?

              • Then why are people flipping burgers-in a boom economy getting 15 dollars an hour? Suddenly free markets aren’t the reason, for the poor being less poor here than in other countries????

              • V.H.

                Then why are people flipping burgers-in a boom economy getting 15 dollars an hour? Suddenly free markets aren’t the reason, for the poor being less poor here than in other countries????

                The same reason there are $15/hr burger flippers in N. Dakato but not in Vegas is the same reason there are $.50/hr factory workers in Beijing, but only $1 a day workers in Qinghai

          • You seem to base all your arguments with the underlying premise-of IF the whole world was Free-we should do this-but the whole world isn’t FREE.

            • V.H.

              You seem to base all your arguments with the underlying premise-of IF the whole world was Free-we should do this-but the whole world isn’t FREE.

              No,
              I base my arguments regarding economics on economic theory

              • I understand-you are basing your argument on economics-I’m just missing where the principals of freedom come in-when you are comparing the free(sorta) and the not free.

              • V.H.

                I’m just missing where the principals of freedom come in-when you are comparing the free(sorta) and the not free.

                Economics is the science of human action.
                Human act purposely (but not necessarily reasoned or rational).
                Humans act to satisfy their needs and desires
                Humans need freedom to satisfy their own desires, since no two people hold exactly the same desires.
                The more freedom a human has, the broader they are able to work to satisfy their desires.
                The broader the effort, the greater the prosperity.
                The more free people are, the more the ability to improve prosperity.

              • I still don’t feel that you have answered my question-You are saying that we should allow a non free country to determine how much freedom we have. At least that’s the way I see it-Because you are either wrong or I am missing some crucial point in your arguments. Because China or whoever, through denying their people freedom can keep their prices low-but as free people we can through market forces prosper. You are using economics to say our freedom should be over- ridden by their non freedom advantages

          • V.H.

            lease explain something to me-you are comparing what a people are paid, under a dictator-people who have no way to use the principals of a free market(freedom) to combat the way they are treated

            V.H.

            You err in your understanding of China. It many ways, it is far more “free market” then the US.

            The Chinese are getting wealthier than you are. They will cross a tipping point, where their prosperity will demand political equality – locally and globally.

            But I do not watch the Chinese – their understanding of rule of law is badly distorted and will take generations to work out.

            I watch India, who is well on tract to be the richest nation on Earth before 2100.

            if I don’t like the pay-I can go elsewhere-or use other options to force better treatment-the Chinese don’t have this option.

            Oh, they sure do.

            They do not live in chains on their feet, V.H.

            They are mobile – but not to the degree that you are. The average Chinese fellow owns a bike, not a car.

            But soon, he will own a car.

            So how is it to our advantage to base what we should be paid with what the chinese are paid.

            Because you are in competition with them

            Go right head and price yourself 500% higher than the Chinese … and see how much you sell of your goods….

            • Maybe someone else will pick up this part of the conversation-I don’t know enough about China to discuss this in any detail. But it seems to me that they are free only if you dismiss being jailed or shot for trying to use those freedoms.

              • V.H.

                But it seems to me that they are free only if you dismiss being jailed or shot for trying to use those freedoms

                I laugh.

                You say this while living in a country that jails more people than anyone else in the world.

              • You go ahead and laugh 🙂 but the last time I looked we were a lot freer than the Chinese. Whether we will stay that way is questionable. Does Tiananmen Square ring any bells.

              • V.H.

                Does Tiananmen Square ring any bells.

                The last time I went to a Chinese airport, they did not stuff their fingers down people’s ass and fondle their breasts and testicles like they do in America.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Not enough jobs out there designing cars, my # 3 son is however designing HVAC systems. Problem is that there used to be many, many manufacturing jobs and there are many fewer high tech jobs. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

      This country cannot survive in its present form with jobs like pedicab driver, maid and towel boy while at the same time encouraging hordes of unskilled immigrants to come here to undercut wages even lower so that you can have better deals on lawn care.

      Never claimed to be an economist, but after putting most motorcycle companies out of business with their cheap bikes, I wonder where those cheap Japanese bikes went? Dumping I believe is an old economic tradition.

      • SK,

        Dumping I believe is an old economic tradition.

        “Dumping” is selling products at “fire sale” or “blowout” prices so to get rid of inventory.

        In other words, a hot deal and bargain

        But only in the befuddled, Keynesian infected American mind is a “fantastic bargain” considered “a really bad thing”

        If Ferrari “dumped” their cars into the US for $5,000 a pop, you would be the one standing in line yelling
        Curse you evil Ferrari Italians selling your cars so cheap! Leave these shores until you sell your cars at a higher price!!!

        I tell ya, the economic education of the average American is beyond dismal.

      • SK

        Not enough jobs out there designing cars, my # 3 son is however designing HVAC systems. Problem is that there used to be many, many manufacturing jobs and there are many fewer high tech jobs. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

        No, you do not know that.
        No, we all do not know that.

        And no, I know that is not true.

        In 1870, 58 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.
        In 1950 the farm population of 23 million stood at slightly more than 15 percent of the total population.
        By 2004, of the 145 million employed workers in the US, 834000 of them held jobs as agricultural workers.
        As of 2008, approximately 2-3 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.

        But in your media-warped mind, this is impossible.
        The population got larger, and YET! Fewer and fewer people worked in on the farms!

        Where did these people go!??!?

        So what if farm jobs are “disappearing”!

        That means that the value the average American creates is greater than the value in creates in plowing a field or driving a tractor

        They went into building machines.

        So what if manufacturing jobs are disappearing??

        That means that the value the average American creates is greater than the value in creates in turning a bolt or hammering a nail

        There are 3 million new jobs created in the US every year over and above the jobs that were already there.

        The population is increasing – yet, the traditional unemployment has remained STATIC.

        This is impossible to you, I can only surmise.

  20. It’s been interesting reading the several debates everyone is having with Black Flag. Has anyone noticed his standard operating procedure?

    Someone presents an idea on how to solve a problem. Others may offer their ideas. But Black Flag unilaterally declares any solution, other than anarchy, to be impossible and a waste of time. He ridicules you for even thinking that any solution is possible, except for encouraging western civilization to fail.

    He stops the debate on the proposed solution and declares his solution is the only one. He forces everyone to defend – not their idea – but the very fact that they had that idea in the first place.

    If you want to have a civil debate on a topic, you’ll have to learn to ignore Black Flag – including his personal attacks.

    PS – I enthusiastically await my resounding THRASHING from the resident curmudgeon!!

    • Todd,

      Someone presents an idea on how to solve a problem. Others may offer their ideas. But Black Flag unilaterally declares any solution, other than anarchy, to be impossible and a waste of time.

      I have presented volumes of reasoning, argument, facts, data and history to back up my position.

      You have presented NOTHING to back up yours.

      I win.

      He ridicules you for even thinking that any solution is possible, except for encouraging western civilization to fail.

      You have not studied Public Choice doctrine – heck, I doubt you even know what it is other than what I have posted.

      You have not studied Austrian Economics, nor do you understand the Business Cycle – the best you may muster (if you paid attention at all) is some Keynesian mumble that I doubt you could possible repeat coherently, let alone understand. (That is a trick question – no one can coherently explain Keynesian economics…not even Keynes).

      Further, I am not encouraging anything – unless you believe I am the most powerful man on Earth.

      I can look up at you just before you are about to jump off a tall cliff, and announce to you that should you undertake such a jump it will end badly. To you, you think such a statement is an encouragement for you to jump – but, alas, no – it is statement of knowledge of cause and effect. To you, you do not believe me – and rather “trust” in fairy dust from Tinker Bell so that you can fly like Peter Pan. You think I am ridiculing you for telling you that Peter Pan is a fairy tale.

      When every man, woman and child in the Western world has been indentured by their governments to a tune of an average of $400,000 each – I can say with absolute certainty that such a debt will never be paid. This is called a DEFAULT.

      Since a default is inevitable, I look past that consequence, and turn it into an “effect”, and see what further consequences will result. From that understanding I make statements of warnings, guidance and suggestions.

      Believe in your fairy tales and ignore me at you own peril, Todd

      He stops the debate on the proposed solution and declares his solution is the only one. He forces everyone to defend – not their idea – but the very fact that they had that idea in the first place.

      You want people to waste time which will do nothing at all – believing that if running in quick sand will solve problems.

      You cannot spend the same minute of your life doing two different things. The time wasted doing worthless tasks takes away from the time to do worthwhile tasks.

      You believe you are doing worthwhile tasks – I ask for your historical references to demonstrate such success.

      You offer nothing – it does not exist.

      Yet, you think me strange in suggesting superior alternatives.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Todd,

      Good day Sir! I have been attacked and challenged many time here, and that includes by you. I don’t mind, I call it learning. I will credit Flag, he has not changed in the 3 years that I have read his posts. Consistant is an understatement. What I do question with you, and many on the left (I guess thats where you stand), While your post is about how someone ridicules others, your post is just to ridicule the poster. Interesting how contradictions work.

      While Flag can be tough to debate, maybe refuting what he says, rather how he says it would work better. But as usual, the liberal mindset can’t handle that. It’s just not within the grasp of the liberal mind.

    • Todd-what do you think of the ideas that are being presented?

      As far as the other-we all have the option to respond or not-to be distracted or not-everyone is allowed to give their opinion -but he could be a lot nicer when he does so. Which is something he has heard numerous times 🙂

    • Todd

      Come on, focus on the positive. I know you had a good chuckle yesterday when I pointed out the free market in apples. 🙂

      You missed the bigger tactic. Creating narrow side boards through definitions.

      • JAC

        You missed the bigger tactic. Creating narrow side boards through definitions

        Tactic?? Nah.

        Necessity as most people hold foggy and hairy definitions of concepts that they throw around, and eventually getting all tangled in them.

    • Black Flag,
      Just as I predicted!! You certainly never disappoint!!

    • V.H.,
      Of course I think it’s a complete waste of time because nothing ever changes.*

      * I had to say that to avoid another THRASHING. I think there’s some good ideas, but a lot of details that need to be worked out. Which of course will never happen because the discussion gets cut-off…for certain “other” reasons. 😉

      • Todd,

        Since you never provide any substance to your argument, you will always get a thrashing.

        You can’t beat something with nothing, son.

        • Black Flag,
          If you’re so concerned about wasted time and doing worthless tasks when you could be doing worthwhile tasks, why do you spend so much time posting here? Do you seriously think you’re making a difference and this is a worthwhile task?

          • Yes

            • Please provide your historical references to demonstrate this is a worthwhile task.

              • Todd

                Anselm
                Aquinas
                Aristotle
                Descartes
                Hegel
                Hobbes
                Hume
                Kant
                Kierkegaard
                Locke
                Machiavelli
                Marx
                Nietzsche
                Ockham
                Plato
                Plotinus
                Rousseau
                Russell
                Sartre
                Schopenhauer
                Socrates
                Spinoza
                St. Augustine
                Thales
                Wittgenstein

                Any other doltish questions?

              • Wow,
                You certainly place yourself in good company.

                So why is it that your opinions are so valuable and worthwhile, while those of others here are not?

              • Todd,

                Of your opinion on what color to paint a house – yep, yours is as much valid as mine or anyone else. The color is subjective – and really matters not one wit in the scheme of things – other than esthetics to what color that may be.

                But your opinion on Public Policy, which you will advocate using violence to enforce – nope, sorry, your mere subjective opinion on what you like or not is completely insufficient.

                You need to provide much, much more argument and reason from a point of principle.

                What you want to do is do the former -which is easy as it is merely a “because I want it” basic argument- to be applied to the latter – which otherwise would be very hard work to provide your reasoning, and actually risk finding out you hold an immoral principle or hold contradictions (or, indeed, you may actually find you have a Rightful position…)

                In other words, you are merely lazy.

              • Black Flag,
                Your mere subjective opinion is also just that. It is only better in your mind – because it’s your opinion.

                You demand that we provide much, much more argument and reason from a point of principle, and yet you do not allow the conversation that might lead to that to continue. Instead, at the first opportunity you declare the entire conversation null, void, and worthless, and force those involved in the conversation to defend themselves, instead of allowing them – or hell, even guiding them – thru the process of flushing out the details of the topic. And maybe – just maybe – if you allowed that process to continue – we’ll find we have an immoral principle…or a contradiction…or a valid solution.

                But we’ll never know, because you do not allow that process to continue.

                And that is why you’ll never be in the company of the Great Thinkers you listed. You do not have the ability to teach.

              • Todd,

                Your mere subjective opinion is also just that. It is only better in your mind – because it’s your opinion.

                No.
                I provide reasoning from a principle – which is something you have not done ever.

                You pull it out of a hat, and paint it a different color depending on the time of day.

                You demand that we provide much, much more argument and reason from a point of principle,

                I insist, first, a disclosure of the principle.
                This seems impossible for most people.

                A few have done this, however, and of them, I insist in the respect of reasoning and logic – that is, no contradictions.

                Then I let the process go forth.

                and yet you do not allow the conversation that might lead to that to continue.

                True.
                I do not let idiocy compound upon idiocy.

                But we’ll never know, because you do not allow that process to continue.

                So what I hear you are saying is:
                You want to spew idiocy multiplied by crackpot theories, and demand I respect such a conclusion derived by such as equal to mine.

                Ah…
                No.

                And that is why you’ll never be in the company of the Great Thinkers you listed. You do not have the ability to teach.

                I am not here to teach YOU.

                I am here to teach those that ready to learn.

                You are not ready.

              • Black Flag,

                Then I let the process go forth.

                And I’ve asked before – who died and made you God?

                What right do you have to decide which conversations are allowed to go forth?

                You want to spew idiocy multiplied by crackpot theories, and demand I respect such a conclusion derived by such as equal to mine.

                Well, that’s what you expect of your crackpot 9/11 theories.

                I am here to teach those that ready to learn.

                It seems as more time passes, fewer and fewer people here are ready to learn – at least from you.

              • Todd,

                And I’ve asked before – who died and made you God?

                How did I know your response would be more idiocy.

                What right do you have to decide which conversations are allowed to go forth?

                I couldn’t give a flying fart about your irrational idiocy. You can post to your mindless drivel to your heart’s content.

                But if you want to make reasoned dialogue you have to use reason – which you avoid like a plague.

                You want to spew idiocy multiplied by crackpot theories, and demand I respect such a conclusion derived by such as equal to mine

                Well, that’s what you expect of your crackpot 9/11 theories..

                Right.
                You advocate the abortion of the laws of Physics, and I’m the crackpot.

                I am here to teach those that ready to learn.

                It seems as more time passes, fewer and fewer people here are ready to learn – at least from you.

                You know nothing to postulate this, one way or another.

                And as I said, I really am not doing this for YOU, though you are useful to highlight how crackpot theorists multiple idiocy.

              • Black Flag,
                My original comment wasn’t about who’s right and who’s wrong. It was about the way you present you arguments, and the way you disagree with others.

                I think you need to read a few chapters of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.

              • Todd,

                Black Flag,
                My original comment wasn’t about who’s right and who’s wrong. It was about the way you present you arguments, and the way you disagree with others.

                I think you need to read a few chapters of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.

                I know -deep down- you’re a fine guy … misguided and full of rote paradigms of lies and contradictions … but most of that isn’t really your fault.

                I appreciate you want to help the messenger.

                But please understand this.

                I am not here to fill my ego of being “right” – I already am full of myself in that regard …all by myself.. so I don’t need it from you or anyone else. My ego is so big, that it fills it self with self-ego multiplied. Sometimes, I think I am going to explode with the recursive ego filling of my own ego.

                In other words, don’t worry about that – I’ve got that covered.

                Seriously, though:

                I am not in need of friends.

                I am not here to influence anyone one way or another.

                I am not here to coddle your sensibilities or be “sensitive” to your emotional needs.

                People need to think for themselves, and not let people “they like” or “authorities” do the thinking for them.

                Today, right now, history is turning – a sharp turn as severe as the Dark Ages or the Renaissance.

                Yes, you are actually living in an era that 1,000 years from now, kids will be asked to write essays about as one of the top 4 turning points of humanity.

                I do not have the time, the wit, the patience to be …well… patient. Time is short, the need is great.

                Those that are ready, will hear.
                Those that are not ready, are hopeless and pointless and deaf -and I don’t have time to educate them.

                Choose which group you’re with.

              • Black Flag,

                I do not have the time, the wit, the patience to be …well… patient. Time is short, the need is great.

                Those that are ready, will hear.
                Those that are not ready, are hopeless and pointless and deaf -and I don’t have time to educate them.

                This was my point a few posts ago. You point out to others that there is not time to waste on proposed solutions, but you keep “wasting” time here telling everyone that – over and over. And it’s not sinking in for the majority here, where you have a somewhat sympathetic audience. Maybe you need a different approach to getting your message across.

                I am not in need of friends.

                I am not here to influence anyone one way or another.

                I am not here to coddle your sensibilities or be “sensitive” to your emotional needs.

                You do need friends. Not “friends” as in “let’s exchange birthday cards”, but “friends” that understand and agree with your philosophy. You’re going to need a lot of people ready to rebuild society according to your philosophy after the crash, otherwise it will be rebuilt just like it is today – or maybe worse.

                I’m pretty sure you’re trying to influence people to understand and agree with your philosophy. If not, why do you care if they waste time trying something impossible, instead of preparing for the future?

                And you do need to “coddle our sensibilities and be “sensitive” to our emotional needs.” Not so you don’t hurt our feelings, but so we’ll listen to your message. Right now, every discussion is a fight right from the start. Instead of hearing your message, we fight to protect our message.

                People need to think for themselves, and not let people “they like” or “authorities” do the thinking for them.

                But you don’t let them do this. You don’t ask probing questions, or guide them thru their proposals so they can see why it will not work. You simply declare their proposals wrong.

                You claim you don’t have time to ask probing questions or guide them thru their proposals, but you spend a huge amount of time “fighting”, with what results? Maybe you don’t have time to fight…

                I was serious about reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Or even just browse thru this website for an overview:

                http://ecclesia.org/truth/friends.html

                I’m pretty sure what your reaction will be to this – what a bunch of “left-wing feel good PC crap.” Am I right??? 🙂 But if you’re trying to win people over to your philosophy (or anything else), it works. The old adage “you catch more bees with honey than vinegar”.

                I know -deep down- you’re a fine guy

                A few posts ago you didn’t seem to feel this way!!! 😉 😉

                But see, even that little line softened me up. And I was having so much fun trading barbs with you!!! 😉

              • Todd

                This was my point a few posts ago. You point out to others that there is not time to waste on proposed solutions, but you keep “wasting” time here telling everyone that – over and over.

                I am not “wasting” time telling the truth.
                You are wasting time when you tell lies or mis-truths.

                And it’s not sinking in for the majority here, where you have a somewhat sympathetic audience. Maybe you need a different approach to getting your message across.

                Maybe, but I’m not interested in a different way right now.

                You do need friends. Not “friends” as in “let’s exchange birthday cards”, but “friends” that understand and agree with your philosophy.

                Nope, don’t need them either.

                Reality has a way of smarting up people.

                You’re going to need a lot of people ready to rebuild society according to your philosophy after the crash, otherwise it will be rebuilt just like it is today – or maybe worse.

                Nope, just need a few seeds of ideas.

                I’m pretty sure you’re trying to influence people to understand and agree with your philosophy.

                That’s like saying I’m trying to influence you in to agreeing and believing in Gravity.

                The best I can do is explain the Laws of Nature and the consequences of those applications of the laws.

                You either accept that is “works” or you don’t.

                If don’t, you pay the price for your error – not me.

                If not, why do you care if they waste time trying something impossible, instead of preparing for the future?

                The more that ready-up, the better.

                And you do need to “coddle our sensibilities and be “sensitive” to our emotional needs.” Not so you don’t hurt our feelings, but so we’ll listen to your message.

                Part of the process, Todd, is the ability to listen to harsh lessons.

                Mine are only verbal.

                If you do not heed mine, the next ones will be real, physical harsh lessons

                You simply declare their proposals wrong

                I always have -amply- explained why such proposals are wrong – I do not “arbitrarily” do this.

                I always give my reasons, often in detail, to why – even so much to give detailed guest posts on SUFA.

                If you do not read my replies or posts, that is your fault.

                If you do not understand them but do not ask questions, that is your fault too.

                But you cannot say I do not “simply” declare their proposals “wrong”.

                You claim you don’t have time to ask probing questions or guide them thru their proposals, but you spend a huge amount of time “fighting”, with what results?

                It is in the fight that they will discover the light of their own positions.

                Understand this of the process, Todd, about my points and arguments:

                (1) You should have “figured this out for yourself” along time. I did. It’s out there, waiting for you.
                The truth does not dissipate or evaporate – but you have to get it for yourself.

                (2) You did not do this, or else you would be doing and saying what I am saying.

                (3) You will not work to figure out your own contradictions without motivation – or else you would have resolved them a long time go, like I did for myself.

                (4) You need to be “kicked” good and hard for you to do that work.

                (5) and unless I kick you hard, make you emotional that you need to defend your position, you won’t.

                (6) and the moment you try to defend your position, and find your position a total contradicted mess, then and only then you will possibly be ready to change your mind – if you’re honest to yourself – or slink back to your old position but from now on, you’ll know you are living a lie.

                But the process requires you to get all red in the face mad at me … enough you are willing to stand up for your own beliefs and test them honestly.

                Unless you are red faced mad, you are just too busy/lazy/uninterested in doing anything.

                I know -deep down- you’re a fine guy

                A few posts ago you didn’t seem to feel this way!!! 😉 😉

                Yes, Todd, I ALWAYS feel that way.

                You are a fine fellow.

                You work hard at your job, and provide value to others.

                As far as I know, you don’t go out and hurt people.

                From what you have written, I think you would go out of your way to help people.

                You are a credit to society, and society would be poorer without you.

                You may have some “muddled” and contradicted ideas – but, with all of that, you do good regardless.

                I’d rather have one like you then a thousand Warren Buffet’s.

        • Mathius™ says:

          You can’t beat something with nothing, son. I don’t know… I’ve made a man fold his queens-full to my 2-7 off.

    • JAC,
      Oh, but I am focused on the positive. I was POSITIVE I’d get a good THRASHING – and I did! He’s so predicable it actually is funny! 🙂 🙂

      The entire Apples discussion brought back fond memories!

      The side boards are another one of his tactics to control and change the discussions.

  21. Ray Hawkins says:

    Anyone disappointed Chris Christie is not running?

    • Never fear..Sarah is ready to pick up the slack. Running for cover!

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Anita – isn’t it getting too late for Palin? (time needed for setting up organization)

        • It will be too late on October 31 (deadline for getting on the ballot in Florida). That is the official date. I think she would be too late already if it weren’t for the fact that the GOP candidates are so weak that people are looking for “something else”

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Not disappointed at all.

    • Ray

      NOPE!!

      Re Palin: She has been building an organization and collecting money for three years.

      However, I hope she DOES NOT run.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @JAC – you hope she does NOT run? Me = confused.

        Anyone catch the Ailes comment?

        “I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings”

        • Ray

          I think if you review my previous remarks regarding Palin you will find that I have defended her against irrational attacks, personal and issue related, but have never supported her for President. Although she might have made a good VP, I didn’t support McCain so she lost out on that account.

          She is NOT electable and would create a major distraction from the three guys who are now floating to the top of the Rep slate (Romney, Perry, and Cain). She can have a bigger impact if she stays out of the race, as a candidate, and focuses on building support for the “smaller govt” agenda.

          I saw the Ailes comment as well. Pretty much sums up the view of ALL media executives, I think.

          For the record, I am one of those strange men who never understood the “hot” claims.

    • Ray,
      I am. I thought he would stir up the GOP debates – again!

      And now Sarah Palin has announced she won’t run. There goes all the fun!!

  22. Observations based on Puritan/SK

    The Asian world will get richer.
    As the world of technology is changing society, and not by merely automation.

    Patents are becoming irrelevant. This is a very good thing.
    Open Source is becoming the norm. This is a very good thing because it avoids patents.

    Asia is able to benefit from the bursts of innovation out of the West for very low cost by avoiding patents – either by using Open Source or wholly ignoring Western patents.

    Additionally, Asia is being to understand the fundamentals of the division of labor.

    The richer Asia gets, the richer you get

    The West’s productivity has stalled
    In 1950, the epitome of the worker was an American. His global reputation was that he worked harder, longer, and better than anyone else.

    In 2011, this is not the reputation of an American worker, but of an Asian worker.

    American workers are noted for their wage demands, demands of benefits, safety nets, and a race to retire.

    What happened?

    Answer: the welfare state.

    The main historical difference between the Western culture and others was in their time perspective

    I often call this my “Banana theory”, that became apparent to me while working in Caribbean and Latin America.

    We “Westerners” would go in with a work ethic of dawn to dusk hard push work – to be faced with another work ethic of “I have money today, so I do not need to go to work today”.

    Our culture comes from the frozen north – were if you did not plow the field, sow the grain, tend the field, harvest the grain and save the grain, you were dead by spring … killed by the winter. This had profound effects on culture – teaching work ethic, saving and a long time preference in one’s outlook.

    If, however, your culture had no such demands – you walked into a forest and picked a banana if you were hungry – you are unlikely to develop social norms around work ethic and saving. In fact, you create opposite ones, where picking more bananas then you could eat was punishable because it wasted them. This creates a short time preference in one’s outlook

    In the modern world, the culture of work and saving dominates over one that punishes work and saving.

    However, since 1950, our culture – infected by socialistic mindsets – has grown to punish work and saving and reward not working and not saving. American are turning into a “Banana culture”

    The West was future-oriented in a way other cultures including Asia was not.
    Asians believed in cyclical history.
    Westerners believe in linear history.
    In the 17th century, the idea of progress began to take hold in the thinking of Westerners — not just linear history, but progressive.
    This motivated people to save, plan for the future, and build up an inheritance.
    This is what made the West turn from a backwater of barbarians in the 14th Century, to global conquerors by the 18th.

    This has been damaged by the Socialist mindset, but probably not permanently.

    Law of Economics has a way of correcting these things.

  23. Joy Behar once again showed how totally ignorant of history she is.

    When she absurdly told GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain on Tuesday’s “The View,” “The Republican Party hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country,” co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck smartly replied, “Should we begin with Lincoln?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    ELISABETH HASSELBECK, CO-HOST: You said that if you do run against Obama, you probably get about a third of the African-American vote. But the other two thirds you said to Wolf Blitzer are brainwashed into voting for Obama again. You received backlash as well. Do you stand by that statement?

    HERMAN CAIN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I absolutely do, and here’s why. I’m glad that you pointed that out, and I said this in my statement. The good news is a lot of black Americans are thinking for themselves. Now, there are some that are so brainwashed that they won’t even consider a conservative idea.

    HASSELBECK: What do you do about that?

    CAIN: Well, you save the savable, and if they’re not, they don’t even want to hear about my idea about my 999 plan. I tried to give that to some people and they didn’t want it because they saw me as a Republican, they saw me as a conservative. I call that being brainwashed, not being open-minded to another idea.

    JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST: Well it hasn’t exactly, the Republican Party hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country.

    CAIN: I never said that.

    BEHAR: Well I’m saying that.

    HASSELBECK: Should we begin with Lincoln?

    BEHAR: I’m sorry?

    HASSELBECK: I just think that there is, like, that’s not necessarily true.

    Of course it’s not true.

    What ignoramuses in the media like Behar refuse to accept or acknowledge is that blacks in this country following the ratification of the 15th amendment in 1870 largely supported Republican candidates because of Lincoln. This was the case until the 1960s.

    Furthermore, if it wasn’t for Republicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed.

    Farbeit for someone like Behar to know this.

    For more on the commonplace misnomers concerning politics and race in this country, please see Bob Parks’ “The Democrat Race Lie.”

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/04/hasselbeck-smacks-down-behars-claim-gop-hasnt-been-black-friendly-sho#ixzz1ZutBh8tf

    • I take no one replying to this as being how little they care about ‘the view’. unfortunately how many people out there not on this board believe everything these people, and other ‘hosts’ say?

  24. I am sitting here paying my bills, which usually puts me in a fowl mood, and listening to Glenn Beck. He managed to make me laugh so I thought I would share.

    Beck claims to have had an epiphany yesterday while driving home. As he passed the many institutions built by super rich people it dawned on him that Mr. Obama and the Progressives have far to narrow a view on redistribution.

    You see the problem is not that the rich are hoarding their money but that the State of New York is hoarding Rich People.

    The Govt needs to focus on “redistributing” Rich People to the other States so that they too can benefit from their benevolence. Who is New York to think that they should have a Carnegie Hall while Montana must do without?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “puts me in a fowl mood”

      Does that mean that you have the same mood as a chicken?

      Sorry, I couldn’t resist 🙂

    • What the hell are you laughing at? 🙂 This is exactly what I’ve been saying was going on. He’s a snake! I knew it! Bring Sharia right into NYC under the guise of peace. And his good buddy Obama is paving the entryway with gold!

    • And so now we have this guy laying it out exactly how they are going to take over Turkey as a launchpad for a caliphate over Israel and us! We are doomed.Now what are we gonna due about this?

      You got some splainin to do JAC!

      • And in the meantime I’m supposed to be pissed that we took out Awlaki? Gimme a break!

        • T-Ray,
          It is trivial as it is bizarre.

          However, I love their unstated conclusion.

          Their whole premise is “how much taxes these guys consume”

          So these people would have no problem with the illegals, if there was no tax!

          So, let’s all get on board and eliminate taxes and free the people!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Anita,

          Yes, you should be pissed that “we” “took out” al-Awlaki.

          1. He had valid dual US-Yemeni citizenship.

          2. Even if it could easily be proven that he was a “terrorist”, he was assassinated rather than being captured and tried for his actual crimes.

          3. He was characterized as an “enemy combatant” which is used as a justification for killing him, but was there any “combat” going on where he was killed?

          What you are basically saying is that you think it is ok for the US government to kill off US citizens abroad provided that the US government brands them as “enemies of the State”.

          I guess a lot of what Joe Stalin did was ok then if that is the definition we want to use.

          I don’t often agree with much I read over at HuffPo, but this article is actually decent on the subject:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/anwar-al-awlaki-killed_b_996902.html

          • I find myself going back and forth in my mind on this issue-One of my thoughts is this man was a traitor to this country at a time of war(declared or not). He certainly has the right of free speech-but it is somewhat sad that he choose to support an ideology that really doesn’t support this right. But through his words he was telling people to kill American citizens-to me this does make him a traitor-if he wanted to do this-than he should have denounced his citizenship. Your thoughts???

            • I agree. What is the differnce in nationality. If its ok to kill an aphgan fighting against us during war then its ok to kill an American fighting against us too.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/cnn-roland-martin-threaten-family-m-doing-kill-184116128.html

              Here’s an interesting take on the situation from a guy who works at CNN.

              First of all, I agree that if you or your family are threatened, you have a right to defend yourself and your family, up to and including the use of deadly force if necessary.

              However, this guy’s argument is dangerous. What proof did he have that either he or his family were directly threatened by al-Awlaki?

              What Anita and V.H. seem to be saying is that al-Awlaki was threatening to kill citizens of the United States, so all US Citizens had the right to kill him in self-defense, so having an unmanned drone take him out for us is ok.

              In my mind there is a VERY short path from that argument to the following argument:

              Any time any US Citizen anywhere threatens to kill another US Citizen, it is perfectly appropriate for the US to send out a drone and kill the guy making threats.

              That logically follows, yes?

              Then, it is a VERY short path from that argument to the following argument:

              The US government defends all US Citizens from all threats foreign and domestic. Any US citizen who acts in any way threatening to the US government is therefore a domestic threat and the US government can send out a drone and kill such a person.

              Trust me, you don’t want the argument to get that far.

              Don’t get me completely wrong, al-Awlaki was a self-admitted traitor to the United States even though he held dual-citizenship, and he was self-admittedly proud of his treason. However; the US tradition does not allow for traitors to be shot on sight. They are generally tried, convicted, and then executed.

              As far as the “war” argument goes, we are currently “at war” in Afghanistan, Iraq, and you could probably add Libya. Al-Awlaki happened to be in Yemen when the drone killed him. I don’t think we are “at war” in Yemen, unless you accept the argument that it is a “war on terror” which means that technically we are at war at every single point on the globe simultaneously.

              Sorry, I gotta agree with Ron Paul on this one rather than agreeing with the guy who works for CNN.

              • You can formulate an unending list of WHAT IFs. I imagine he could have been captured but WHAT IF several of our guys went down for the cause. WHAT IF left unchecked, another Ft Hood incident happens. It’s a no win situation. I think you just need to make a stand on a case by case basis. This one, I’m ok with.

              • Peter-I have to go-so I’m only gonna make one point-I think these are different debates-do we have a right to kill a traitor during wartime without a trial. Do we have the right to go into Yemen to do it-is another.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Anita,

                I am not stating “what ifs”. I am stating the arguments which logically follow from your argument which lead directly to Stalin and Mao.

                “What if several of our guys had gone down for the cause in capturing him?” Well, I wouldn’t have liked it, but isn’t that part of their job?

                “What if, left unchecked (that means al-Awlaki had not been assassinated, I assume) and another Ft. Hood happens?” Another Fort Hood is eventually going to happen regardless of the fact (or perhaps because of the fact) that we assassinated al-Awlaki, so I don’t get the point there.

                The thing is, if it is ok for the US to send a drone into Yemen and kill an “enemy of the State” when we are not even at war with Yemen, WHY IS IT NOT OK for a drone to go down “main street USA” and kill anyone who the State claims is an enemy of the State? That is why I have to agree with Ron Paul on this one.

              • It’s very hard not to agree with you. But can you name someone who is on a hit list who is not involved in the war on terror? Not saying there is or isnt one, just that I don’t know. We speak in general about FEMA camps and such but in reality I think its a big leap from picking off Awlaki to picking off a “regular” citizen, say you for instance. Which is why I prefer to tackle things on a case by case basis.

              • Anita,

                I think you just need to make a stand on a case by case basis. This one, I’m ok with.

                Then, my dear, you have just advocated yourself away from Rule of Law to Rule by Arbitrary Decree.

                God help America …. when the People begin to tear away the core principles of civilization and advocate a return to barbarism… civilization cannot stand.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Anita,

                It does not matter if there are CURRENTLY US Citizens residing in the US who is not involved in the war on terror who DOES appear on an “ok to be executed” list.

                The fact that the CIA DOES INDEED HAVE an “ok to be executed” list is what should terrify you, regardless of WHY it is supposedly “ok” to execute the people on that list.

                If the government can come up with ONE justification why people may be executed summarily, then the government can come up with ANY justification why people may be executed summarily. Provided the people can either be convinced of the reason, or the people are so under government control that the government feels no need to justify the reason, then that reason becomes “legitimate use of force” in the eyes of the government, even though you and I know that there is nothing legitimate about it.

                I can understand why you think you are being “pragmatic” when you say that on a case-by-case basis summary execution of certain people without due process is ok. You don’t want “our boys” to lose their lives unnecessarily, and you want the government to do what it can to prevent another attack on US soil.

                However; remember when it comes to Statists, PRAGMATISM can almost ALWAYS be used as the excuse to do away with the rule of law completely. Totalitarian governments do not rule by excessive law. They rule by arbitrary and capricious law and EXCESSIVE FORCE.

                When you allow government to justify ONE instance of excessive force, you are laying down the paving stones for the government to justify ALL instances of excessive force.

                Now, you could argue that al-Awlaki was a violent man, so the US Government was only using “violence against the violent” and not “violence against the non-violent”. However; in my opinion, the bar had better be set almost infinitely high in order to justify “execution by unmanned drone”

              • I think I just got put on the barbarian list :). Scoot over V.

              • Anita,
                I’ll scoot over too! Welcome to the “Club”! 😉

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Don’t worry, I still get on the barbarian list from time to time. Sometimes old habits and old attitudes are VERY hard to break 🙂

              • I personally would have loved to have gotten him alive, water-boarded the hell out of him, then sent him to Ft. Hood for them to, you know, do what they want with him.

              • My name is Kathy and I am a Barbarian!

              • Peter is correct.

                Anita, Kathy, V.H. advocate summary execution without due process.

                There is a reason why this was so evil, it was made to be an explicit paragraph in the Constitution.

                Consider, that even with such due process, grave miscarriage of justice are common, you cannot imagine the horror as a consequences of arbitrary justice and star chambers.

                You cheer now.

                Your children will cry in terror later.

              • 😆

              • OK, so even the Judge agrees and I really like him, so I guess I change my view.

                http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1198379522001/the-plain-truth-about-executive-assassination/

              • Kathy

                OK, so even the Judge agrees and I really like him, so I guess I change my view.

                OH
                My
                GOD

                I cry.

                Dear Kathy,

                So as long as you “like” somebody, you will take their argument and hold it your as your own.

                You do not take their argument and digest it.. taste it…test it.
                You do not think for yourself and measure what he says on its own merit – not on the merit of your like of him but on the merit of his argument

                You measure the messenger to be equal the message.

                😦

                …and then people wonder why the country is going to hell.

                As long as people “like” the messenger, he can tells lies, and its all good.

              • You know, you are a hoot. As I’m typing my posts, I’m thinking, “this one will get BF’s gander” and sure enough….here you are!!!!

                Don’t cry for me though, I’m actually pretty sane and actually do agree with the Judge on this point re Awlaki, not because of I like him, but because I agree with his reasoning.

                Using “like” was faster and I knew it was weak and you’d respond.

                1 for Kathy!!!!

              • Black Flag,

                OK, so even the Judge agrees and I really like him, so I guess I change my view.

                I guess Kathy doesn’t really like you! 😉

                Sorry, I just couldn’t resist! 🙂

              • I did agree with BF on this point, and my waterboarding post was just what I WISH was the OK thing to do. Plus I knew I’d get lectured. Must be feeling a little anti- today.

              • Kathy..I can’t handle it! I’m cracking up here!. ROFL!!! Damned if you do damned if you don’t!
                😆

      • Anita

        Why do I have some splainin to do??

        Elaborate please. 🙂

        • Because you tried to portryay Rauf as the calm voice of reason when clearly he has ulterior motives. Sharia law in the name of social justice. With our PC courts, I can see that happening. I’m not down with that.

          • what? portray!

          • Anita

            I think you misunderstood the point of my arguments at the time.

            I was trying to point out that Rauf was being condemned for making statements that had a lot of validity. Namely that the US policy in the middle east was a source of anger among the Muslim population. That is a TRUE statement that we should listen to and then consider.

            He was also offering suggestions about how to reduce tensions between the two cultures that were valid and should be equally considered. But that is not an outright endorsement of the fellow.

            At the time I think I claimed I was not sure about his motives. Maybe I didn’t make that clear but I thought I provided some links raising questions about his connections and background. His funding sources for the supposed WTC Mosque continues to be a black mark against him, in my opinion.

            As for Rauf in a general sense, I see him much the same as the Christians leaders of old who felt it their duty to “spread” their religion around the world. So in that respect how can we say the “Muslims” are any different than the Christians. Thus I am not afraid of Rauf as I recognize he is trying to “spread” his faith among the “heathens”.

            I also have another opinion the more I research the fellow. I am not sure he is an “operative” for the movement, nor a benign “calm voice of reason”. It appears at times that he is an opportunist that has figured out how to make himself appear important as a potential “moderating voice” and thus can secure fame and fortune for himself. He seems to be attracting funding from the American left and the Middle East activists. He is invited to address groups and provide consultation to Govt officials. This further supports his speaking demand.

            The difference, and source of the major conflict, is the conflict in the religious tenants themselves and the cultural norms that have grown around each religion. Sharia law in particular.

            I don’t see Islam by itself as a threat to the USA. I know to many Muslims who live under our laws and practice their religion and seem quite “assimilated” otherwise. They DO NOT support Sharia Law. I see the threat from the historical tribal kingdoms in the middle east that have adopted the use of Islam as their “excuse” and/or “mission” to rationalize expansion and domination. Remember my comments about the Persian empire? It is the use of Islam by the radical conservatives in the middle east that can become a threat to us.

            I recall making a very clear statement on SUFA that I AGREE that there is a serious movement in the Muslim world to re-establish the last Caliphate, and then expand it globally (Muslim Brotherhood). The real question is WHO is going to lead the charge. Iran (Persian Empire) or Turkey (Ottoman Empire)? Or perhaps someone yet to claim the mantle, like Egypt post Brotherhood take over.

            I hope this helps clear up any confusion that I may have created. Please ask more questions if you are not sure what I am thinking. But let me offer one more thing just in case.

            While I believe there is a movement to expand either Turk, Persian or Arab domination in the region via Islam, and that such movements pose a threat to Israel, I do not believe that we should be expending the lives of our citizens or our treasure to further the ambitions of either side. They have been making war against each other for thousands of years. THEY are the only ones that can resolve their disputes.

            I do believe we have a role to play. That of “true objective third party” if asked to “facilitate” negotiations and to lead an effort to CUT OFF the flow of military weapons to the region from other major countries outside the region (Russia, China, Korea, France and the USA).

            Again, I hope this helps.

            P.S., My Bwahahahaha was aimed at Black Flag because the articles dispute his claim that Iran is just a sheep that wants to be left alone.

            • That’s a fine explanation, JAC. This is our third go’round on this guy. You pretty much cleared the confusion on round two. I just figured you were trying to fire me up with the link and the laugh! But looks like I pass the baton to BF……

              • Anita

                Nope. I thought you would feel “vindicated” and appreciate my poke at the Pirate. My bad for not making my target(s) more clear.

                You listening Mathius? This includes you. Bwahahahahahaha

                Bigger question to you my dear. In a country whose core values include freedom, liberty and justice, how do we “protect” ourselves from changes supported by the cultural beliefs of our own Citizens?

                Is such a “protection” even an appropriate goal for the USA or should that be left to local “norms” and action?

                Figured I might as well force you to stretch your brain today. After all, it is a school day and you can’t let your kids have all the fun.

                🙂 🙂

            • JAC
              hahahahaha back at ya!

              To believe a nation that hold no serious capacity to project is power beyond its border as a threat to an entire region or the world is crackpot.

              *sigh*

              When there is a violent force:
              -who is wholly capable of projecting its power beyond its borders
              – is wholly engaged in doing just that
              – where that engagement created and maintains a series of despots on its payroll
              – actively funds these despot’s efforts to suppress and oppress their peoples
              – where these despots, so to maintain their iron grip on power, kill and jail any and all who oppose or may oppose them.
              – where such oppression utterly eliminates all the moderates
              – where such oppression mutes the timid.

              All you have left are the extremists. Nothing is left.

              Being the only alternative to this dichotomy of such project of power, it is of no mystery to why the extremists membership roll-call grows – they are the only source of opposition to the oppressive status quo.

              Escalation against these extremists actually also escalates attacks on the People, which is -quite literally- the best recruiting strategy possible for the extremists.

              The only way to make the extremists irrelevant is by withdrawing the project of power and allowing the despots to fall.

              People are not extremists – except when there is no alternative.

              No project of power can create the alternatives – all this creates is despots.

              Only the retraction of the project of power can create local alternatives to the extremists.

              But that would mean US troops have to come home, and the military industrial complex would suffer a massive recession.

              Both are wholly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

              Therefore, expect an continuation in the expansion of extremism

              • BF

                You fail on your first point so the entire house falls.

                “To believe a nation that hold no serious capacity to project is power beyond its border as a threat to an entire region or the world is crackpot.”

                I was talking about Iran, not Lithuania or Luxembourg.

                If you are claiming that Iran has NO capacity to project power beyond its borders, while arguing the advantages of the 4th generation warrior, you will have ZERO credibility in the remainder of the discussion.

              • JAC

                “To believe a nation that hold no serious capacity to project is power beyond its border as a threat to an entire region or the world is crackpot.”

                I was talking about Iran, not Lithuania or Luxembourg.

                So am I.
                They have no real navy, nor air force, nor military capacity to seriously project power outside of the borders.

                It is no credible threat to any one, except maybe itself.
                ————–

                The USSR had millions of troops, hundreds of thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of aircraft, thousands of ICBM’s, nuclear submarines, huge navy.

                And the US found it unnecessary to provoke the Soviets to war.

                But you are terrified of Iran.

                If you are claiming that Iran has NO capacity to project power beyond its borders

                ,

                No, if you read what I said
                “hold no serious capacity to project [it’s] power ”

                …which relegates it to merely a minor player.

              • JAC,

                I find it bizarre you are threatened by a country, whose annual military spending amounts to merely 4 days of expenditures of the US military.

            • JAC,

              They have been making war against each other for thousands of years.

              Ah… no…. they have not.

              Iran has not invaded another country for over 300 years.
              The Ottoman Empire maintained peace and order over their empire and in 1820, ceased to enter conflicts on its own and began to forge alliances with European countries such as France, the Netherlands, Britain, and Russia.

              The Byzantine Empire ruled for a 1,000 years of peace and prosperity.

              It is this kind of historical fable-ism you present infects the mind set that this region is nothing but war, which is purposeful in hiding the region’s recent history of the struggles and conflict ….Neo-Colonialism by Western Powers

              But, we “white people” can’t be the problem, right?

    • “This is one of the paradoxes of the democratic movement — that it loves a crowd and fears the individuals who compose it — that the religion of humanity should have no faith in human beings.” ~ Walter Lippmann

  25. In the early days of tractors the salesmen would visit a farmer and try to convince him to buy this new fangled belching contraption. Change is always hard and farmers are conservative people who have a loathing for salesmen and their promises. One of the effective sales points that they could make was that you did not have to feed the tractor, muck its stall, exercise it or brush it when it was not working, nor would it kick you, bite you or run when you called it.

  26. An era icon passes.

    Steve Jobs is dead.

    • agreed, when again will such a master of planned obsolescence come again?

    • Mathius™ says:

      He was the closest thing I ever had to an idol.

      There aren’t many people who can change the world the way he did. What a loss.

      “You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’” – George Bernard Shaw*

      *no, not Kennedy – he was quoting Shaw.

      • Much to admire about him, truly a loss for all. Very few make the world a better place.

        • LOI,

          I do not agree – if this was true (which by corollary, your statement would also say “most work to make the world a worse place”), civilization would be impossible.

          Vastly most – 99% or more – work to make it a better place.
          Of that, only a few are idolized.

          But the real miracle is not people like Jobs.

          It is people like Anita, or USWep or JAC or LOI or you who purposely effort, unknown, unrecognized and modestly rewarded for the incredible works and effort you perform.

          Still going and doing your work -without the glory and the overwhelming treasure to motivate you – is the real miracle and blessing of the world.

          The greatest men in history, the true founders of civilization are unknown.

      • Mathius,

        Job’s saying was ““I want to put a dent in the universe.”

        In that, he did indeed

        • Mathius™ says:

          I remember growing up in the 80-90’s. I had my LCII (20 mhz). Couldn’t really do much with it, but I remember taking it apart and putting it back together (then getting my father to pay for the repair shop to put it together again correctly).

          I remember using ResEdit to hack open the operating system, and changing the startup logo, experiment, and tease just a little more speed out of it.

          I’ve seen hundreds of Sad Mac’s in my time. I’ve seen the flying toasters.

          I’m not a computer engineer or a programmer, but my life revolves around computers anyway – I doubt I’d be the same person today if I never had that little gray box with the rainbow apple on it.

          Yes, he put a dent in the universe.

  27. Reading about the Fast/Furious cover-up, began to wonder about the reporter generating the most news. She seems to be a very interesting person.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/broadcasts/main524782.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    • Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard reported on Wednesday afternoon that he had attempted to interview CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson about her dogged coverage of the ongoing “Fast and Furious” controversy, but was told that she was “unavailable.” Attkisson has been the sole journalist on the Big Three networks regularly covering the story, particular during the past several weeks.

      Hemingway described in his blog entry that he called CBS News to interview the correspondent, but was “told by CBS News senior vice president of communications Sonya McNair that Attkisson would be unavailable for interviews all week. When I asked why Attkisson would be unavailable, McNair would not say.” On Tuesday, the reporter revealed on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that Obama administration officials had “screamed and cussed” at her over her coverage of the story.

      The conservative writer further noted that he had “heard from a producer at another media outlet that has previously booked Attkisson that they tried to book her since she made news with the Laura Ingraham interview yesterday. They were also told that she would be unavailable.” Hemingway later called back McNair at CBS and left a message to ask “whether Attkisson’s unavailability has anything to do with reporting that the White House and Justice Department were angry at her,” but as of mid-afternoon on Wednesday, hadn’t heard back from the network executive.

      Earlier in the day, at the top of the 8 am Eastern hour of The Early Show, the CBS reporter filed her latest report on the cross-border gun-walking issue, which featured an extensive interview of a gun dealer who had been asked to be a “confidential informant” by the ATF, but ended up assisting in smuggling around 450 guns to Mexican criminals.

      Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgATTKISSON: Gun enthusiast and licensed dealer Mike Detty was working a Tucson, Arizona gun show in early 2006, when a young Hispanic man bought a half dozen semi-automatic rifles. He paid $1,600 cash.

      MIKE DETTY, GUN DEALER, TUCSON, AZ: But then he asked if I had more. And I told him that later in the month, I would have another 20 from my supplier. And he said, I’ll take them all.

      ATTKISSON: Detty suspected the buyer was trafficking for a drug cartel. Tucson is just an hour from the Mexican border, and a popular shopping center for smugglers. Detty notified ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. To his surprised, ATF told him to go ahead with the big sale, and sent an undercover agent to watch. Then, a local ATF manager made an unusual and dangerous proposition. He asked Detty to be a confidential informant.

      DETTY: He said, Mike, I think we’ve got a real chance at taking out a powerful cartel. Can you help us? I made that commitment, and I really thought I was doing something good.

      ATTKISSON: Detty even signed this informant contract. As he understood it, he’d sell to suspected traffickers. Agents would track the weapons, expose the cartel’s inner workings, then interdict the guns before they could ever get loose on the street- or so Detty thought….

      DETTY (on-camera): They would have a small video recording- audio recording device, and sometimes, it was hidden in a box of Kleenex.

      ATTKISSON (voice-over): One of the biggest cases was code-named ‘Operation Wide Receiver.’

      ATTKISSON (on-camera): Do you know about how many about many guns we’re talking about?

      DETTY: It’s right around 450.

      ATTKISSON (voice-over): Things didn’t work out like Detty thought. Detty says he realized ATF was letting guns walk. He hadn’t help take down any cartels. He had helped ATF arm them.

      ATTKISSON (on-camera): When you look back and think, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, that all of those guns were going on the street, what do you think about?

      DETTY: It really makes me sick.

      ATTKISSON: What’s important to know is when all of this happened. It was under the Bush administration, three years before the better-known operation under the Obama administration, ‘Fast and Furious.’ That case allegedly let thousands of weapons fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. It’s now the subject of two investigations.

      ATTKISSON (voice-over): The ‘Fast and Furious’ tactic of letting guns walk was only exposed after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered last December, and at least two assault rifles from ‘Fast and Furious’ were found at the scene. As for its predecessor, ‘Wide Receiver,’ after more than three years, prosecutors finally quietly rounded up seven suspects last fall. No cartel leaders, just buyers, who critics say should never have been allowed to put even one weapon on the street, let alone operate for years….

      ATTKISSON (on-camera): Since ‘Wide Receiver’ started under the Bush administration, we reached out to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but we weren’t able to speak with him. Meanwhile, Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Eric Holder told the truth when he testified earlier this year to Congress about when he first knew about ‘Fast and Furious.’

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/10/05/cbs-attkisson-unavailable-further-interviews-fast-furious#ixzz1a0SuARdp

  28. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    Anybody else find it completely hysterical that the Oprah Winfrey television network is supposedly seeking a government bailout since it is losing so much money?

    • What????

      • Everything regarding the irrational support of “illegal” immigration policies on SUFA is explained in this blurb:

        With unemployment in his state at 8.5 percent and visa requirements for seasonal workers becoming more frustrating, Colorado farmer John Harold decided to hire fewer migrant farm workers for his harvest this summer and supplement his smaller-than-usual team with locals.

        How did it go? The New York Times reports:

        Six hours was enough, between the 6 a.m. start time and noon lunch break, for the first wave of local workers to quit. Some simply never came back and gave no reason. Twenty-five of them said specifically, according to farm records, that the work was too hard. On the Harold farm, pickers walk the rows alongside a huge harvest vehicle called a mule train, plucking ears of corn and handing them up to workers on the mule who box them and lift the crates, each weighing 45 to 50 pounds.

        Other farmers in the area that the Times talked to reported similar experiences. And it’s not like the local workers they were hiring were a bunch of hipster weaklings. According to area farmers, most of the local hires were Hispanics who probably had a history of doing farm work while they were new immigrants until finding better work in construction or landscaping.

        The H-2A seasonal foreign worker visa program administered by Citizenship and Immigration Services raised minimum wage by $2.50 per hour this year, to $10.50, which Harold said affected his hiring decisions. And the program has stiff requirements before farmers can even opt into it. Potential employers have to “demonstrate that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work” and show that hiring temporary foreign workers won’t adversely affect U.S. workers in similar positions. A Colorado State professor quoted by the Times said that “the only way to offer proof [that there aren’t enough U.S. workers to do farm work] is to literally have a field left unharvested.”

        Or maybe having dozens of locals walk off the job will satisfy the feds.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          That type of work is not so much ‘hard work’ as it is boring or mind numbing. Those workers would probably not walk off if they had no alternative such as food stamps.

          If/when things get bad enough, there may come a day when Americans in mass, will be asking to do that kind of work, for food and a place to sleep. Kinda like volunteer slavery.
          I do that kind of work for myself only because I want to be prepared to be self sufficient if/when things all go to hell. This work is very satisfying when doing it for yourself and reaping the whole harvest.

          If those people walking off the job would force themselves to stick it out for a few days they might get to enjoy it, or at least not be so depressed doing it. Also as with any work, no matter how simple, there is a learning curve. The first few hours often sucks.

          • Puritan

            That type of work is not so much ‘hard work’ as it is boring or mind numbing. Those workers would probably not walk off if they had no alternative such as food stamps.

            I agree, with two points.

            (1) As I’ve pointed out as a fallacy, the claim “the illegals are taking jobs of Americans away” is not a truth. The point I’ve made: Americans do not want the jobs.

            (2) Because of government action, the ability to clear the inventory of labor has been halted. One day, the government will no give food stamps, and all these people will still need to find work suddenly – but, unlike now, they will all need jobs at once – now that government has dammed up the river of the unemployed to accumulate behind a wall of welfare, when that welfare ends, the flood will be devastating to the land.

        • Perfect example of why we need to address many other issues and policies/laws BEFORE even considering opening the borders.

          What do you want to bet that the local labor went home because their “unemployment checks” and other “welfare benefits” were equal to what they would make picking corn.

          Also note the Govt imposed wage rate for labor. This is the TRUE source of the delay in “proving” that there is insufficient labor to justify a work visa.

          By the way, I have found many claims like these from farmers to be less than totally honest in the presumed “reasons” or “outcomes”. In one case I know of the workers that said it was too hard included some women who had held “secretarial” jobs most of their lives. They were in no condition to handle the work.

          • I guess I would like to pull a Buck here and ask a bunch of probing questions. First I’ll note that the article did not interview any of the workers.

            1) What was the pace of the mule? Was it set for experienced pickers or did the operator slow down to accommodate the inexperienced?

            2) Were they instructed properly on pacing themselves? Inexperienced labor especially young macho types will come out of the chute fast and burn out in a couple of hours. I have seen this with my own two sons while building our barn. It took a few weeks before they learned that a steady pace was better than spurts.

            3) Were they given the proper equipment such as gloves? I know from experience that one can develop severe blisters in the first week of heavy manual labor. We once started contruction of a corncrib immediately after the end of school. So I had several days of digging foundation followed by forming, pouring cement and troweling cement all by hand. Within the first week I had blisters on top of blisters on top of blisters. By the end of the second week I was set for the summer.

            4) 6 am to noon is a long stretch. Were they given sufficient breaks and did they have enough food with them to refuel in the middle of that period? Calories are burned fast in the field. Without a healthy protein rich breakfast, they would be starving tby 9:30.

            5) Did the owner/foreman suggest stretching excercises before starting or restarting work. This work puts a lot of strain on the back. Cold muscles will bind up.

            6) Did the workers trade off jobs periodically to change the muscles being strained?

            7) What was the temperature and humidity? If extremely hot and humid, were salt tablets or electrolyte drinks available to prevent cramping? For those riding the machines, did they have umbrellas?

            8) Did the owner provide music or any other method of morale boosting? Joking, occassional race challenges, story telling all can take the mind off the boring job. If however they were being constantly challenged to work faster or derided about the slow pace or other failures, then it is not surprising they left at noon.

    • So far I can’t find anything that shows it’s true, but it is an interesting rumor.

  29. Even our Federal Judges in Alabama toe the line on illegal aliens.

    http://news.yahoo.com/judge-refuses-block-alabama-immigration-law-211127881.html

    • I can’t agree with this being characterized as “toeing the line” . The court system should enforce our laws-they don’t get to decide to stop a law just because they don’t like it-it’s Congress that needs to fix this problem-Not the courts.

      • V.H.

        The court system should enforce our laws-they don’t get to decide to stop a law just because they don’t like it-it’s Congress that needs to fix this problem-Not the courts.

        This is a very dangerous opinion you hold here.

        First, the Constitution was organized to ensure that the Constitution and law would be held in balance – that is, each branch of the government is charged with maintaining it.

        There is no segmentation of protection in the Constitution, there is only segmentation of authority.

        Secondly, and most importantly, it is vital to maintain the understanding that the courts (by that I assume you mean the “Justice system”) is the final arbitrator of law – specifically, jury nullification.

        This is all that stands between you and centralized tyranny – the common law dictate that the jury of your peers solely and irrevocably establishes which laws apply or not.

        • I was not precise enough in my statement and you interpreted it wayyyy to broadly-this was not a jury of my peers-it was a Judge-and judges should not interpret whether laws passed are legal based on their personal opinions but on their legal opinions.

      • V.H.

        I don’t understand your statement either. The judge did not stop the law from being implemented.

        However, it is within the “legal domain” to issue a stay or not issue a stay based on the judge’s view of whether it is “clear that the appellants will prevail in their appeal”.

        The judge did issue a Stay on “making attendance a Crime”. This is a legal issue. Enforcing an existing law via new laws is different than Criminalizing a non-criminal behavior, like attending school. The Crime is being illegal.

        Maybe I missed something but I didn’t see the judge imposing views about “personal opinions” so to speak.

        • I wasn’t accusing the judge of doing so-I was objecting to defining her ruling-as Toeing the line.

  30. Here is an unusual story from Montgomery Alabama about a 61 year old college football player. When my son Sean played college football for a team in Kentucky we actually played Faulkner University twice but that was before this guy showed up.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/alan-moore-oldest-college-football-_n_996803.html

  31. Am I the only one on this site who has NEVER purchased, owned, or used an Apple product?

    • My first computer was an iMac. I ended up with my mom’s Mac which I let the kids use. No other other Apple products in the house though.

    • I’ve won TWO ipods over the years; never purchased anything Apple for me. My kids have lots of apple gadgets.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Am owner of a Mac Book Pro, iPad, iPhone (work) and iPhone (wife/home).

      I enjoy keeping 6 year old Chinese kids gainfully employed.

      😉

    • No, but I respect what he has done even though I use a PC, not a Mac

  32. So let’s have a little fun with some predictions.

    1. It looks like BO’s desired Operation Chaos is gaining momentum, ie OWS. What is their main objective? What will come of it?

    2. Fast & Furious – the “we knew nothing” administration would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. Does Holder stay?

    3. Solyndra, Lightsquared and the host of other green companies now(?) being looked into. Does Obama survive?

    4. Who will be the Dem candidate for President in 2012?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      1. Occupy Wall Street will cause the mega-banks and mega-corps to pour money into Mitt Romney’s campaign. Romney will be elected President, and will be almost as bad as Obama.

      2. It will take so long to get any “real” investigation off the ground, that by the time anything happens, the election will happen, and Holder will have to go anyway. No one will be prosecuted.

      3. Solyndra, Lightsquared, et. al. will be “looked into” and it will be concluded that Obama rushed the approval process through the DOE. It will help to suppress Obama in the polls, and Romney will be elected president. Romney will be almost as bad as Obama (oh wait, I already said that). No one will be prosecuted.

      4. The Dem Candidate for President in 2012 will be Obama. There will be rumors flying of ways to replace him with Hilary up and until the moment he gets the nomination. No matter what happens with #1, #2, and #3, Barry suffers from enough hubris that he will seek re-election no matter what. He won’t win, but he will be replaced by someone who is almost as bad (oh wait, I said that already).

      • The Dem Candidate for President in 2012 will be Obama. No doubt here.

        Barring some major circumstance or event, he will not be elected.

        Whoever is elected will do nothing different than what Obama has done, as Obama hasn’t done anything different than what Bush did and so on.

        In the end, nothing will change and all of this discussion about it is pointless.

        • You’re no fun. Does your wife tell you that sometimes too?

          • Kathy,

            Hmm… no, she laughs at me all the time … even when I am not trying to make a joke 🙂

            But she does listen most of the time.
            Then she tells me to shut up – with a kiss.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              If your wife is gonna tell you to shut up, at least she does it pleasantly and convincingly 🙂

  33. It is OFFICIAL, from the mouth of POTUS

    “We do not have some inherent right to a certain amount of profit”.

    This is a Fascist Progressive, this is a Fascist Progressive exposing himself.

    Any Questions?????????????

    • Yes. Do our residents lefties STILL endorse him?

    • JAC,
      You disagree with that statement? So do you feel companies do have some inherent right to a certain amount of profit? And if it is a right, what happens if some companies don’t reach a certain amount of profit ?

      What do you think about this comment:

      Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan has said his bank’s new $5 fee debit card fee is justified because the bank “has a right to make a profit.”

      Is that a right?

      • Todd,

        JAC,
        You disagree with that statement? So do you feel companies do have some inherent right to a certain amount of profit?

        Good shot, Todd.

        Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan has said his bank’s new $5 fee debit card fee is justified because the bank “has a right to make a profit.”

        Is that a right?

        No.
        He has a right to profit from his effort without interference of anyone else.
        He has a right to take a loss from it too…..

        But his right -the right to act in a manner for his own benefit.

      • Todd

        “Is that a right” YES!

        I am assuming that the use of the term is intended as a “negative” right in the sense that we often discuss “rights” here at SUFA. As in the right to “make” or in other words, “pursue” and achieve “if possible”. More clarification:

        They have a right to define the amount of profit they want and to “pursue” that profit.

        They have a right to make a profit “if they can” (without initiating force upon others).

        They have a right to retain “profits” once acquired.

        As a “negative” right (from negative freedom and negative Liberty) nothing happens if the company does not achieve the “expected” profit, except perhaps a new CEO is hired. The right is tied to the company’s (officers, shareholders, employees) ability to act according to its own goals. Not the acquisition of the goal itself. Thus there is no conflict with the rights of others.

        Now if we apply the POTUS’ concept of “positive rights” then Govt or someone else would have to intervene to “guarantee” the expected profit is obtained. Thus imposing upon the rights of others.

        Yes, I disagree with the statement made by POTUS because I know what he is saying, and I think you do as well. Otherwise he would have explained his answer. He has stated he is a “positive rights” guy.

        So in this vain, let me take literary license with the quote to say what I believe he was saying.

        ““We do not have some inherent right to PURSUE (or EXPECT) a certain amount of profit”.

        • JAC,
          Oh come on, you can’t be serious????

          You don’t get to interpret Obama’s words, define what you think he meant, and then pass it off as his actual comments.

          If you get to do that with those on the Left, then I get to do it with those on the Right (actually, that might be kinda fun!).

          Obama’s statement was correct.

          Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan’s statement was wrong.

          So who’s the Socialist and who’s the Capitalist??? 😉

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Todd,

            I will surprise you and at least sort of agree with you here.

            We have a right to profit from our labor, or take a loss from our labor if we make bad decisions.

            We do NOT have a right to a “certain amount” of profit.

            However, our profit (or loss) should be determined by the free market without government interference, which is the part that Obama APPEARS from his ACTIONS to not agree with.

            Take, for example, “Green Energy” companies. It has been well characterized that each kilowatt-hour of energy from wind and solar costs MUCH more than each kilowatt-hour from coal; however, the government is trying to mandate that a certain percentage of our energy come from wind and solar. Since they have been demonstrated to cost between 5-10 times more per kilowatt-hour than coal-produced energy, how is the difference made up?

            Government subsidies (paid for by taxes)
            Higher energy bills (a stealth-tax because your energy bills would be lower without the GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT of “green energy”)

            The combination of government subsidies and higher energy bills is approved by the government, because the government wants the utility companies to maintain a similar level of profitability compared to what they had prior to the “green energy” REQUIREMENT foisted on them by the government.

            Hmm… so I guess in the case of power utilities, Obama seems to believe that they DO actually have a right to a “certain amount” of profit.

            Amazing how government contradicts itself!

            8)

            • However, our profit (or loss) should be determined by the free market without government interference, which is the part that Obama APPEARS from his ACTIONS to not agree with.

              Ok Peter, you tell me, under which Presidents did we have a free market without government interference?

              I know you guys like to think that the Federal Government started in 2009, but it did exist before then…

              The other important word in your comment is APPEARS. This would be your opinion, and not a fact. You can argue your opinion all you want (that’s fine!!), but you can’t change Obama’s word to fit what you think he meant.

          • You need to think about the context of the statement. Obama has been hammering away at raising taxes on the rich, right? So I think it is totally reasonable to interpret his statement, “We do not have some inherent right to a certain amount of profit,” as companies making above X dollars do not have a right to the money they make.

            I think this is what JAC was getting at.

            If Obama actually meant those words verbatim, you are right.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              JB,

              Well, we know from Obama’s upbringing, education, and history that he probably MEANT
              that some people make too much money, and they have no right to do so, so we need to tax the @$#! out of them.

              However, I have to go off of what he said, which I have only seen in print. I do not have a referent as to what he said before or after, or HOW he said it, so I was basing what I said on the sentence itself, not my inference as to the context or the tone, because I do not know the context or tone in which the statement was delivered. However, given the background information that we have on the man himself, you and JAC are LIKELY to be right.

            • JB,
              Same thing as Peter – You can argue your opinion all you want (that’s fine!!), but you can’t change Obama’s word to fit what you think he meant.

          • Todd

            I wasn’t really trying to “interpret” Obama’s words in the manner it appears you are indicating. I was trying to address the “context” in which both statements were made yesterday. They were part of a back and forth between the bank exec, a few reporters and Mr. Obama. The debate was in response to the proposed Debit Card fees. So in building my response I looked at the context as well as Mr. Obama’s own statements about his view on liberty and rights. He is on record as a believer in “positive rights and liberties”.

            I was also using the statements to show the difference between positive and negative and how they can change the meaning of the same statement. Part of that “teaching instead of preaching” you mentioned.

            I think I was being pretty clear in explaining how I constructed my conclusions. It is not as though I was just assigning meaning to somebody’s statements out of thin air. I would have no problem if you did the same with a “conservative”. If your assumptions and explanations were sound then your conclusion stands.

            I may be wrong but it appears you think I was just trying to make Obama into the socialist while defending the banker. That was not my intent, and I hope I explained that sufficiently.

            So lets address something else I had included and then deleted. If we take each statement in and of themselves then Mr. Obama is correct and the Banker is wrong, IF and only IF we are comparing to “RIGHTS” in the context we use most often here at SUFA. Namely negative Rights and Human Rights. Those RIGHTS mentioned by the Dec. of Independence, but which have never been completely listed or described.

            IF we use the concept of “positive rights”, which are those used by the left, then the Bankers statement is true and Mr. Obama’s statement is false.

            But I think you would agree that neither of these conclusions captures the real meaning behind the statements of either man.

            Confusion is further expanded when one starts using “political rights” as opposed to “human rights”. Political rights are those rights of govt and those of people in relation to their govt. Some philosophers believe that ALL rights are really Political Rights.

            So my deleted point was that these statements, including the questions asked by the press yesterday, are indicative of the fact that most people do not have a solid understanding about what rights are, the philosophies that support them or when something is actually a right vs. a privilege, or something else. This in turn allows leaders, political and otherwise, to flip back and forth between concepts in ways that confuse our understanding of what they truly are.

            And since you asked me that as well, I will answer directly.

            Both the Banker and Mr. Obama are FASCISTS. This conclusion is made from the broader body of their work and words, and not the specific statements about rights. Those statements would not allow you to distinguish between a socialist and a capitalist.

            Now does this add to the discussion or have I just upset you even more?

            • JAC,

              1. Your original statement was pretty straight forward: This is a Fascist Progressive.

              2. I knew what your reasons were, but just had to “PUSH” you a little!

              3. Good explanation!

              4. Not upset at all – I thought this was very funny!

      • Todd,

        PS:
        And the CEO of BoA is an idiot.

        So, his customers have a right to give him the middle finger, and move their accounts to a bank which values them.

        Then that CEO of BoA will experience the right to take a loss….

  34. My city candidates for mayor have used the trick of running as a team, mayor/council together. Seems that would make sense for a presidential campaign as well. Then we could vet the whole administration at the same time leaving fewer surprises after the fact, Yes?

    • Anita

      It would be far to cumbersome.

      BUT………..the media needs to spend more time on the STAFF surrounding the candidates as they are usually the ones who creep into the White House via the backdoor.

      We should also demand answers to questions about who or what type of person they are seeking for various Cabinet positions.

      It was my review of those around Obama that caused me to see through the fog much faster than most.

  35. BF

    Black Flag® says:
    October 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    JAC,

    I find it bizarre you are threatened by a country, whose annual military spending amounts to merely 4 days of expenditures of the US military.

    Once again you project conclusion upon others with no foundation.

    I am NOT THREATENED nor am I AFRAID of Iran’s “military”.

    This does not change the reality of their ambitions nor their ability to carry out their goals via “4th generation” means.

    Iran poses a threat to others in the region, including Israel. Iran (govt) wants to sit atop the Caliphate. Turkey also wants to sit atop the Caliphate. Troubled times lie ahead.

    Iran also poses a threat to the USA, via the same 4th generation methods.

    • JAC

      This does not change the reality of their ambitions

      Of course it does!

      I repeat, they cannot seriously project power beyond their borders – which means they cannot have ambitions greater than that projection!

      They are not stupid.

      nor their ability to carry out their goals via “4th generation” means.

      You misapply 4th Generation warfare.

      This is not exportable (or, more exactly, I have seen no argument or dialogue that says it is exportable). 4th Generation warfare is, for now, indigenous and independent of external support – though such support may aid it.

      Iran poses a threat to others in the region, including Israel.

      Utter nonsense.
      Iran sits on the border of Russia – you think Russia is in any mood to allow such threat?
      Yet, they sit unconcerned.

      Israel as nuclear weapons. They ARE the threat to the region, but you make them the victim.

      Iran (govt) wants to sit atop the Caliphate. Turkey also wants to sit atop the Caliphate. Troubled times lie ahead.

      Trouble ahead, for sure, as the despots – supported by Western money and guns find that support disappearing. More of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria unrest.

      But a Caliphate… yeah, right up there with the Pope calling for a new Crusade….

      Iran also poses a threat to the USA, via the same 4th generation methods.

      As long as US interferes where they do not belong in the region, US is under threat for asymmetrical response.

      But you do not see the Chechens bombing New York. They bomb Russia, who is in their country.
      You do not see the Tibetan Nationalists burning down LA. They burn down Chinese buildings, who are in their country.
      You do not see the Pakistani Buddhists machine gunning Dallas. They machine gun Indians, who are in their country.

      If you do not want Middle Eastern “Muslims” attacking Americans, guess what the answer to that would be….

  36. Has anyone been paying attention to these so called revolutionaries and this wall street shut down movement? These kids are not old enough to spell economics much less understand it. This protest has no idea what it is for….the interviews are hysterical.

    • D13,

      My first thought -often- in reading your posts is…

      … there is a reason he made Colonel, he is no one’s dummy….

      Yep, they are protesting … but they haven’t a clue for what, why or how.

      But that is telling … they are disturbed, uncomfortable, threatened.

      They are -right now- having a hard time knowing where that threat is coming from – but they feel it coming.

      Who is cleaning these people’s rose colored glasses so they can see clearly?

      The Main Stream Media.

      The sacrificial lamb – “Wall Street” … well, not really … the lamb presented is really “Capitalism and the Free Market system”

      The “Wall Street” magnates are laughing – yep, go burn a few cop cars in the street and attack Free Market systems ’cause we have the solution right here… called “Regulation and More Mercantilism”!

      Your future is in “good” hands…. ahhahahahahahahahaah

      • Well, BF…..I think that I am no dummy…..but wait, I forgot….I am just a retired old Colonel who knows nothing…sorry. Forgot my place. They have no idea what or why. When asked, the protestors simply respond with platitudes and talking points dispersed by the MSM. They hate wall street but do not know why? Most do not know what Wall Street is much less its function. They hate banking but do not know its function or why they hate it. They do not see a correlation between the union bailouts that have not repaid one dime. They hate rich people out of class envy. They want higher taxes and redistribution of wealth with no consequence but when asked how….they have no answers. It is all platitude and hyperbole….and Atlas shrugs yet again.

  37. Kathy,

    You know, you are a hoot. As I’m typing my posts, I’m thinking, “this one will get BF’s gander” and sure enough….here you are!!!!

    Don’t cry for me though, I’m actually pretty sane and actually do agree with the Judge on this point re Awlaki, not because of I like him, but because I agree with his reasoning.

    Using “like” was faster and I knew it was weak and you’d respond.

    1 for Kathy!!!!

    In the movie “Armageddon”, one of the characters was sitting on a nuclear bomb, like a horse, whooping it up like a cowboy.

    The military officer in charge of the weapon looked at that character and said in a stoic voice.

    “Please
    Get
    Off
    The
    Nuclear
    Weapon”

    Do not play around the Black Flag nuclear weapons, Kathy….. 😉

  38. From American Thinker. With all the talk about reducing the deficit and the need for revenue, shouldn’t they do what has worked> Doesn’t money talk?

    October 7, 2011
    The Bush Tax Cuts: Threat or Menace?
    Randall Hoven

    In what year did the federal government of the United States collect the most tax revenue in its history? Would you guess it occurred before, or after, the Bush tax cuts (final round effective in 2003)?

    The answer is 2007. The most revenue over collected in our history was $2,568 billion, and that happened in Fiscal Year 2007 – four years after Bush’s final round of tax cuts.

    Some of you might be thinking that that does not take inflation into account. OK, in what year did the federal government collect the most tax revenue in history, as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) 2005 dollars?

    The answer, again, is FY2007.

    Now some of you might be thinking that adjusting for inflation is still not enough, since the whole economy grows just about every year. How much revenue was collected in FY2007 as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product?

    The answer is 18.5%. True, that is not the most in history. It is only more than the 1960-2000 average and the 1970-2000 average. The most revenue ever collected, as a fraction of GDP, was 20.9%. That occurred in 1944, the peak of World War II.

    FY2007 was the last year under a budget written by a Congress in which both houses were Republican controlled. How have things been since?

    From FY2007 to FY2011, federal revenues were down $394 B in current dollars, down $510 B in 2005 constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, and down 4.1% as a percentage of GDP.

    Bush did not cut taxes between FY2007 and FY2011. Bush’s “cuts” actually raised more revenue than ever in history.

    Then what happened to the revenue? One answer is that the rich got poorer. From 2007 to 2009, the number of million-dollar earners dropped 40%. The income of those earners dropped 48%. And the federal personal income taxes paid by them dropped 43%. (Before you start thinking all incomes dropped, the total income drop from returns with under $200,000 in income was only 1.5%.)

    To be clear, the drop in federal revenue after 2007 had nothing to do with the Bush “tax cuts” and everything to do with the destruction of wealth that coincidentally occurred after Democrats took over both houses of Congress.

    Not to mention, our deficit problem is mostly due to spending, not revenue. Compared to 2007, revenues in 2011 are down $394 B, but spending is up $1,091 B. That’s why the deficit in 2011 is more than ten times bigger than the one in 2007 ($1,645 B vs. $161 B).

    Republicans need to speak up and defend the Bush tax rates. The real problems are government spending and the destruction of wealth and wealth-creating opportunities, most of which happened after the country turned domestic policy over to the Democrats.

  39. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    My thoughts on the OWS protests:

    The OWS protests are proof positive that the government/elite strategy is working almost to perfection.

    1. Get the educational system, the media, the corporations and the government to systematically mis-define our current economic system as “free-market capitalism”

    What this does is convince the vast majority of the population that the mangled bizarre economic “system” which we currently have is IN FACT free-market capitalism when IN REALITY it bears almost no resemblance to it whatsoever. Take Charlie for example. Charlie continues to INSIST that free-market capitalism is the root of all of our problems, because Charlie has been convinced through education, media, and government that the system we have in this country IS free-market capitalism. Many, MANY others (the vast majority) have been similarly duped.

    2. Intentionally cause massive economic disruptions designed to take money from the “middle class” and the “poor” and enrich the government and the elite.

    This, of course, gets blamed on “free-market capitalism” as was intended

    3. When people in the Tea Party (or anyone else for that matter) champion free-market capitalism (using the true definition) brand them as right-wing lunatics who are insane for defending THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

    Of course, the champions of free-market capitalism are NOT defending the current system, they are defending true free-market capitalism. However; since the vast majority have been duped into believing that the current system IS free-market capitalism, branding people as “right-wing lunatics” in this manner is pulled off easily.

    4. Accept the people’s demands to “fix” the system by applying yet another window-dressing of “regulations”, almost all of which are written by lobbyists working for the mega-banks and mega-corporations, thus insuring that the government/elite maintain their positions and control.

    This move is a classic, and it happens all the time. In most cases, it mollifies the majority of the populace, at least until the next big systemic distortion rears its ugly head. At that time, the massive systemic distortion is again blamed on “free-market capitalism”.

    There are several ways out of this dilemma and none of them are particularly pretty. The least likely and hardest to achieve is actual free-market capitalism, which would give everyone the maximum opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits, and give everyone maximum freedom. The most likely is violence against the current system, which will only strengthen the current system or see to it that the system is replaced by one which is even worse.

    I am all for people protesting. The problem is that they should know what they are actually protesting FOR and know what they are actually protesting AGAINST. OWS has no idea what it is protesting for or against, and as a result it can be used by the government/elite to further their own control. I would bet that most OWS protesters (mistakenly) believe that the government and the elite are in an adversarial relationship, when in reality they are the same people with the same goals.

    I also suspect that the government/elite will ENCOURAGE the OWS protesters to continue to protest, and to become increasingly violent, and that there will be massive and violent protests hitting a crescendo almost exactly a year from now. All of you “right-wing lunatics” who believe that the government and elite are trying to manufacture a situation which would lead to the imposition of martial law and the suspension of elections are probably seeing the beginnings of this plan in action right now. Several Unions have now joined these protests, which is a good indicator of where this is probably going.

    • Great post Peter!

      Go back and read some of the early postings at SUFA – (what? a whole 2-3 years ago?) and this is exactly how things were predicted.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I have been around for at least 2 years now, maybe a bit longer 🙂

        It is still worthwhile to go through those archives though… lots of good stuff!

    • For the fourth time in about six months, Obama presents a deficit reduction plan. He does this after setting the world record in deficit spending over the last three years. But, just as his other three proposals, this new plan is tossed out as well. Republicans and Democrats in Congress are unable to pass his massive increase in taxes. The President knew that before hand. He’s just playing political theater. Only his job, his reelection is important to him. He offers insane schemes, and then when Congress doesn’t agree, he travels the land with all the luster of a President to blame the Republicans for the stalling economy, not the Democrat Senators who don’t follow him either. Obama insults the Republicans and paints them as obstructionists, who throw grandmother off the cliff, who close schools, who stop scientific research, etc.

      This strategy is supposed to win back his left base, and must win back the Independents. At least, that’s what Obama’s advisors hope for. The fact is Obama risks an attack coming from his left flank, so he needs to throw them some raw meat.

    • A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.

      TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.

      One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

      Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

      Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”

      TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.

      “Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/#ixzz1a74vaUQ9

      • Occupy Wall Street might not just be for smelly hippies any more. Major unions and some high-priced Hollywood stars and starlets are throwing their support to the protest. But that’s not enough.

        During the live video feed of the protest Thursday afternoon, a woman who identified herself as “Beth Bogart,” stopped by the media table and expressed concern they would get “overwhelmed.” She offered her aid as a former “journalist” and experienced media expert to deal with the media inquiries. Could it be the same Beth Bogart who worked for decades handling lefty PR at Fenton Communications?

        “You don’t want to piss off a reporter for NBC,” this Beth Bogart warned a dreadlocked host of the live Occupy Wall Street video feed.

        While the camera never panned to show her face, a Beth Bogart is quite well-known in the liberal media community. According to the website for Bogart & Bogart, she is very experienced. “Journalist, ghostwriter and producer of social-change media strategies since the mid-1970’s (first job: The Washington Post’s editorial pages). Accredited Capitol Hill reporter, published in The Washington Post, Ad Age, Legal Times, In These Times, Washingtonian Magazine.”

        The bio goes on to describe her as a former owner of the lefty public relations shop Fenton Communications. “Fenton Communications co-owner for 20 years, waging media campaigns to expose the dangers of nuclear war, curtail U.S. military intervention in Central America, end apartheid in South Africa, reveal environmental hazards from pesticides to over-fishing, and energize MoveOn.org campaigns.”

        The Washington Post describes David Fenton as “the ‘Where’s Waldo?’ character of the political left.” And no wonder. Fenton is the communications company for every major loony left operation from climate change to Moveon.org.

        If Beth Bogart is also aiding the so-called grassroots movement of Occupy Wall Street, then it’s just the latest example that the professional, hardcore left is taking over where the amateurs began.

        But I’d bet Bogart didn’t expect the whole exchange to be broadcast on the Internet. The whole world isn’t watching, despite the Occupiers claims, but a few of us are.

        Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-st-getting-big-name-lefty-media-help#ixzz1a7EOtRqF

  40. And now we have New Jersey, New York, and even California considering laws to make the “unemployed” a protected class against discrimination…..

    Now, would someone, anyone, please explain to me how one would discriminate against the unemployed?

    • There will be a lawyer standing by to find the way.

      • Exactly-what are the unintended or maybe intended consequences of creating another group who is supposedly being discriminated against?

        1. More court cases
        2. It will probably create actual discrimination against those who are unemployed based on trying not to be sued -so you will try to figure out ways -not to interview anyone who has been unemployed for awhile. don’t want to give them a reason to sue you.
        3. People who have jobs but want to advance to a better one-will be discriminated against in favor of someone who has been unemployed-based on fear of being sued instead of ability. If the employed move to a new job-his job just left an opening.

        And does this really have anything to do with being unfair-does it not have a lot more to do with there just isn’t enough jobs to go around? And when or if this changes the problem will go away but the BS will remain?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      When a prospective employer looks at a resume, one of the things which he looks at very carefully is your recent work-history. There have been plenty of anecdotal reports that employers favor hiring of people that have a recent work-history as compared to hiring people whose resume says, “unemployed for the past 2 years”. It is intuitive to believe that an employer would prefer someone who has a recent work history over someone who has “done nothing” over the past 2 years.

      Of course, the long-term unemployed are claiming that this is “discrimination”. Well, technically I suppose it is. The employer looks at a resume and discriminates between the guy with a recent work history which can be evaluated, and the guy whose work history can only be evaluated from 2 years ago, and determines through such discrimination that he would rather hire the guy with recent experience than the guy whose experiences are now two years out of date. With technology, a hell of a lot changes in two years. It might take more training and more expense to get one guy “up to speed” compared to the other.

      The question is, should such discrimination be illegal, or does such discrimination make perfect sense given how quickly business change and adapt these days?

      We all discriminate all of the time. It is a natural and necessary process, although it does not always lead us to sound conclusions. When our discrimination is based upon facts and sound logic, it makes good sense. When we discriminate due to illogical prejudice or bias, it generally doesn’t make sense.

      So, the question (in my mind) is should “the unemployed” be “protected as a class” because they are being systematically discriminated against due to prejudice or bias, or are they being discriminated against based on sound business decisions?

      Either way, you could make the claim that it is “not fair”, but as mom and dad used to say, “Life isn’t fair, to expect or demand otherwise is futile”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I dunno Colonel — lot of reports out there of companies refusing to hire someone who is currently unemployed…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Buck, see above.

        Are these companies REFUSING to hire someone who is unemployed, or are they making a sound business decision in evaluating that the person with recent work history is going to take less training and less time to adapt than the person who has been out of the workforce for two or three years?

        If they are making a sound business decision, should it be illegal for them to use recent work history as a means of determining who the better candidate is for their position?

        Yeah, it would be great if the people who had been unemployed for the longest period of time got “first shot” at jobs that were available, but from a business perspective, if it ends up taking more time and more money to train that person than it does to train the person with recent work history, then hiring the guy with the recent work-history makes more sense to the business.

        In favor of such laws, you can make two arguments:

        1. The difference in time and money spent training one guy compared to the other guy is ultimately going to be “insignificant” and so recent work history should not be a primary factor in evaluation, provided that the guy who has been unemployed for two or three years does have the necessary background for the job.

        Show me that, and then I would agree that discriminating against the guy who has been unemployed for two to three years is not based solely on sound business decisions.

        2. It isn’t fair that the guy out of work isn’t getting the job, after all, it isn’t HIS fault that there weren’t any jobs for him for so long, so even though he might take more time and money to be brought up to speed, he should still be given preference over the guy that is just trying to change from one job which he already has into this new job.

        Tell me that, and I would say it sounds wonderful and fluffy, but it doesn’t actually make sense.

      • Buck

        Are you back? If so can you please take back the lawyer stick so I don’t have to defend the fuzzy meaning of laws. I felt so out of place explaining why it was LEGAL to kill Al Awaki and the other US Citizen with him.

        Hope your vacation is going well.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC,

          I am pretty sure that according to the fifth amendment and the Ford doctrine of 1976, such assassinations are in fact not legal, but I don’t really want to open that can of worms again 🙂

          • Peter,

            I agree with you, but here’s another take on it anyway.

          • The United States Constitution is the law of the land. Our nation’s founding charter was intended to reflect our British common law heritage, the lessons of Greek democracy, and the principles of the Roman Republic. It contains historic civil liberties protections that date back to the Magna Carta.

            The founders were keen on making sure the federal government’s powers were limited and few, and given their recent experience with King George III, they made a particular point to balance and restrain the power of the executive branch. Unlike in other countries and certainly unlike in 18th-century England, in America even the head of state would not be above the law.

            At the time, many observers saw our Constitution as the crowning achievement of the West. It was the grand culmination of philosophies on governance that spanned centuries. It wasn’t simply a statement of law; it was an affirmation of proper civilization.

            President Obama has never seemed too bothered by constitutional restraint. To be fair, neither have most of his modern predecessors, who steadily expanded executive power far beyond its constitutional bounds. Liberals viewed President George W. Bush as one the worst enemies of civil liberties, because he supported legislation such as the Patriot Act, policies such as indefinite detention, and legal redefinitions of torture. Yet despite promising “change,” Obama has maintained most of Bush’s anti-civil liberties policies, even expanding them in some cases.

            Now, Obama has lowered the bar even further. When American-born al Qaida collaborator Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen last week, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.” There is little question that al-Awlaki was as bad as most reports indicated. He was inspiring radical jihadists to take up arms against the United States. There is also little question that the war against radical Islamists is a war unlike any other in our country’s history.

            The problem with killing al-Awlaki is the precedent it sets. If President Obama’s overall domestic and foreign policies weren’t already bad enough, he has now taken the United States to a new civilizational low by undermining the most basic purpose and precept of American law: the protection of citizens’ rights through due process.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/assassinating-the-constitution/#ixzz1a7VNsWbC

      • Hey, I know………..

        Businesses could sue consumers for discriminating against them by refusing to patronize their business!

        It would be as ridiculous as the “discrimination” against the unemployed. 🙄

      • Buck….you are back……

        Correct me if I am wrong…..you are unemployed or you would not be looking for a job. 20 people apply for the same job….and you pick someone off a resume’ and an interview that you like. Just where is the discrimination on the other 19? They are all out of work.

        I will tell you this…as a prospective employer, I am going to hire someone with a recent job history preferable to one that has been unemployed for two years….where is the discrimination?

        • d13

          Colonel. I saw an interview with the guy/group pushing this legislation last night.

          They are pushing to allow these folks to apply for any job. That is to get into the screening and final selection process as opposed to being excluded from submitting an application.

          That in itself would not create a class or grounds for “discrimination” if the person/persons were not hired.

          However, I have heard of others who are in fact trying to create a “new legal class”.

          John Stossel had his staff check out vacancies for this discrimination, in the NY area.

          Out of some 5000 job announcements only 110 actually said “unemployed need not apply”.

          His point, it is not a real problem and the claims of discrimination are being over blown to rile folks up and get another BS law passed.

          • Agreed…but I have a question…..why would a company not hire the unemployed? Who are they going to hire?

            I guess they could always try to hire their competition, but that is done offering a better set of conditions….unemployed need not apply????? Interesting…..”veelllyyy innnnteresssting”

  41. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I have seen several posts here where someone says to BF, or me, or someone else, “You don’t get to define (insert whatever term you like here)”

    I throw the BS flag belatedly.

    We ALL get to define (whatever). We are even free to define (whatever) differently from anyone else if we so choose.

    However, there are intense consequences to definitions, as I tried to point out in my above post.

    If my definition of (whatever) is an accurate reflection of reality, then I classify it as a “good” definition. If my definition of (whatever) is a horrible reflection of reality, then I either reject it and seek a better definition, or I cling to my horrible definition in spite of reality.

    Clinging to a horrible definition in spite of reality is insane, and it leads to insane consequences.

    For example, prior to our current system, there was a well-accepted definition of “free-market capitalism” which seemed to be a good reflection of reality. Now, we have allowed our current mish-mash of a system to be defined as free-market capitalism (even though it does not at all fit with the previous well-accepted definition).

    Now we have a few choices:

    1. Accept the “new” definition of free-market capitalism, and call what was previously known as “free-market capitalism” by a new and different name.

    2. Educate people as to the original definition of free-market capitalism and show them how our current system bears almost no resemblance to it whatsoever.

    3. Accept the “new” definition of free-market capitalism, and retain the term “free-market capitalism” to define the system as generally was accepted in the past. This leads to hopeless confusion.

    If we choose #1, we admit that words have simply arbitrary meaning, which leads to all sorts of problems.

    If we choose #2, we assert that words have specific meanings, and that things should be defined in a way that reflects reality.

    If we choose #3, we accept total confusion and essentially give up our ability to make informed actions and decisions. The only way to make a good decision is almost entirely by accident.

    When you see a post by BF, he is pretty much always going with choice #2. He either gives you his definition, or tries to elicit your definition, and then tries to show where his definition best fits reality, or where your definition does NOT.

    In order to “beat” BF, you have to actually convince him that YOUR definition is a more accurate reflection of reality than his is. This is usually damn tough, because BF is nearly always consistent in his definitions, and most of the rest of us are not.

    However; that does not mean that BF is infallible or that all of his definitions are correct. There may even be times where even BF is not consistent, and is in contradiction with his own definitions somewhere (although you are gonna have to dig pretty deep to find that).

    So, to those of you who wish to prove BF wrong about something, I would strongly suggest that you either logically prove that your definition of something is superior to his, or find instances where his current argument is inconsistent with previous arguments he has made.

    BF is not dumb, I am not dumb, JAC is not dumb, USW is not dumb… as a matter of fact, EVERYONE I have run across at this site exhibits a great deal of intelligence. I strongly suspect if you could show BF where his definition of something is not as good as yours in a logical manner, he may not like it, but he would probably accept your definition. If you can point out an actual inconsistency in his argument somewhere, he might be human and deny it, but I suspect that he would accept it and attempt to rectify the inconsistency.

    This is what he (and I, and others) are trying to do here. We are trying to have OTHERS realize where there definitions are flawed and their arguments are inconsistent, and we are hoping that rather than the knee-jerk reaction of denial and clinging to definitions, we gradually get people to properly define terms and eliminate inconsistencies and contradictions.

    To put it bluntly, you cannot “fix” a nonsensical system using nonsensical definitions and contradictions. The attempt to do so is futile, and only leads to further perversions.

    P.S. I hadn’t intended to make that so much about you, BF, but you are often sited as being the most consistent person here in your arguments, even when people are disagreeing with you, so I picked on you 🙂

    • Peter,

      Great post.

      …PS, you can “pick on” me anytime.
      That’s my job here – to be a target – because to hit me, you have to learn to shoot straight – and straight shooting is the goal I’d love to see from everyone.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Yes, you must shoot straight. If you are consistent, you are a stationary target. If you are inconsistent, you are a moving target.

        Funny how in this case the stationary targets are so much harder to hit than the moving targets!

        8)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Woops, cited, not sited…. damn English with all of its homonyms!

      LOL

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Peter – I have to disagree with aspects of your post – many months ago there was discussion regarding philosophy. I offered a definition of relativism that I felt fair and reflective of reality / reality as I could reasonably observe it and report on it. BF’s response was to simply kill the line of discussion by telling me I could not define relativism as different from name-some-dead-guy-from-300-years-ago. Sort of a shitty way to have a dialogue with someone and not entirely consistent with your offering above. What you often get to are nuances in some, but not all, cases where we simply cannot agree on what shade of blue the sky is. Perception is reality and perception is inherently volatile.

      Cheers.

      • Ray

        I don’t recall your discussion or definition of “relativism”. Care to repeat it? I am curious.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        I did say that BF was not infallible in my post. He is, after all, human.

        If he asserts that “whatshisname from 300 years ago” gave the correct definition of a term, all you can do is attempt to refute that claim logically, and show where your definition is superior.

        You may feel like you did that and that BF merely insisted on his definition and slammed the door on further discussion. BF may feel that you did not meet the standard of convincing him that your definition was indeed superior. I don’t know, I would have to go back and review the conversation to form an opinion one way or the other.

        As to perception being volatile… it IS, but maybe not for the reasons you claim it to be.

        Where you are, it might be mostly sunny, with some fair-weather cumulus which occasionally partially obscure or totally obscure the sun, and the sky might appear to you to be a certain shade of blue. Where I am, it is currently completely clear and there is not a cloud in the sky. I am likely perceiving the sky as a lighter shade of blue than you do currently.

        That doesn’t make my perception wrong, or your perception wrong, provided we are using significantly similar definitions for our shades of blue. If we are using significantly different definitions for our shades of blue, then it is unlikely we are going to be able to have a sensible conversation about our perceptions. This is precisely why it is important to use definitions which are in line with the underlying reality behind our perceptions. The use of definitions which do not reflect the underlying reality on one of our parts would make further discussion meaningless. The use of definitions which do not reflect the underlying reality on BOTH of our parts, would lead to great discussions, but conclusions which could only bear upon reality by complete accident, and this would be highly unlikely to occur, but we could write some great fantasy literature or have a go at solipsism and it might be great fun.

        Where the real problem comes in is when one of us says, “perception is volatile because the universe is inherently chaotic, and so reality itself is volatile”, and the other one of us says, “perception is volatile, but the universe is orderly and follows natural laws which can be understood by human beings, so reality is not volatile, it follows a set of rules which can be discovered and understood”.

        If you believe the premise that the universe is inherently chaotic and therefore reality itself is volatile, then your definitions can only reflect reality as you perceive it to be AT THIS MOMENT. If your perception changes, then philosophically you will believe that reality has changed, and therefore you must change your definitions.

        If you believe the premise that the universe is inherently orderly and follows natural laws, then your definitions (if they are good ones) are as accurate a reflection as possible of the reality which underlies your perceptions. If your perceptions change, then either your original perception was not a good representation of reality (in which case you will recognize the need to change your definition), or something has happened with is impairing your ability to perceive things in alignment with the way that they are. Perhaps you have accepted as fact a faulty definition, or perhaps a mental or physical condition has caused a problem with your perception, in which case your original definition is still good, though you may doubt it due to present circumstances.

        What I find most intriguing is that the kind of people who believe that the universe is inherently chaotic and reality itself is therefore volatile are the very same people who somehow expect the universe to be “fair”. That always makes me inwardly giggle, until I think about the consequences of the actions of such people who believe that a chaotic universe MUST be “fair” and then my inward giggles usually change to something more horrific….

      • Ray,

        Do you have a link for me to review that thread?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I’ll have to dig for it gents – the point at the time was more to germane to how I apply a particular base to how I see things. I did also read Peter’s post as stating the obvious that a commonality of how something is viewed and acted upon requires an agreed-to definition.

    • Peter

      I disagree in this respect. Definitions are usually not the “contradiction” but can create contradictions later.

      Definitions are words and words have various meaning. So a concept should include some explanation of the definition to understand it. What often happens in BF’s arguments is he flatly rejects any other definition with the claim “prove it otherwise”.

      But you see for many definitions there is NO PROOF, only the definition selected by itself.

      Some definitions can be debated. But not all.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        A definition can always be debated. If the definition is a reasonable approximation of the underlying reality, then we SHOULD (but will not necessarily) agree that it is a “good” definition. If someone comes along with a definition which BETTER reflects the underlying reality, we SHOULD agree that it is a better definition.

        However, a definition IS IN AND OF ITSELF and explanation of reality. To include some explanation of the definition would be to “explain the explanation” as it were, and then you can go off into the land of “reductio ad absurdum” from there all you want.

        Sure, you should be able to explain why you believe that the definition you are using is superior to one used by someone else (hence the “prove otherwise” that you get from BF)

        Think back to geometry class and think of geometric proofs (everyone who ever had geometry just went “UNNNGGGGHHHH!” very loudly).

        They always consisted of “given X, prove Y”. If you were to argue that X was not a “given”, you might have gotten brownie points for being “interesting” provided that your geometry teacher had a sense of humor, but you wouldn’t get any actual points on your homework.

        The “given” in a geometric proof is the “definition”. The postulates are the rules of the universe. The theorems are that which we seek to prove. If you demand an explanation of the given (the definition) then you assert that either reality is chaotic or the definition is incorrect and must be replaced by a new one.

        Your geometry teacher isn’t going to simply “take your word for it” and change the “given” just to suit you, you are going to have to come up with a logical reason why the “given” is incorrect.

        So I guess you should think of BF as a geometry teacher with a somewhat good sense of humor given my analogy………

  42. TODD

    “Ok Peter, you tell me, under which Presidents did we have a free market without government interference?”

    MY god man, have you no memory at all!!!!

    ALL OF THEM

    Went to the farmers market this morning and bought a bag of apples (free market) and then a cup of coffee (free market).

    Snorth, phphttt, oh crap, I just spit coffee all over my self and now I can’t stop laughing. Ouch, my sides hurt and the water squirting from my eyes is getting on the keyboard.

    Bwahahahahahahaha

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      When the doctor came to your house, and accepted the old rooster and a few eggs as payment since you were short on cash, that was one instance of a free market.

      NO SYSTEM INVOLVING ANY GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME HAS HAD A COMPLETELY FREE MARKET, BECAUSE A FREE MARKET WOULD CONTRADICT AN ENTITY WHICH CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO INITIATE VIOLENCE UPON THE NON-VIOLENT.

      JAC is correct, you can experience free market interactions in your own personal experiences virtually any time, and virtually any place. However, to answer Todd’s question, there has never been a free market under any President of the United States, nor under any other ruler of any government which fits the definition of government which I have given above.

      There have been some places and some times where an economy runs pretty darn close to “free-market capitalism”, but that is always in spite of government, not because of it.

      • Peter

        Disagree. We have established that the Native American tribes were in fact States, and thus Govts according to the same definition. At least per BF.

        So while they were States/Govts in the same sense, they had a completely FREE MARKET economy.

        I might add that so did my Viking ancestors, before the chiefs started using Christianity to create “Kingdoms” and thus the need for “taxes”.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC,

          I was going back to several years ago when BF defined government as “the sole entity which claims the right to initiate violence upon the non-violent”.

          I am not sure if the Native American Tribes would fit this definition or not, you probably know more about that area of history than I do.

          I do have a question though: Did the Native American Tribes have a free-market economy within their own tribe only, or was it between neighboring tribes as well? The main reason I ask this is that if they had any restrictions on trading between differing tribes, then it wasn’t a free market.

          As I said, that is VERY far from my area of expertise, so i don’t know the answer to either of my questions (although the first one wasn’t phrased in the form of a question, so i lose my Jeopardy points on that one)

          • Peter

            My knowledge of Indians is primarily regarding Western Tribes, including the Plains Indians.

            Family Clans were the primary organizing institutions. Based on my understanding there were NO barriers or control of trade by family, clan or tribe other than normal cultural or safety constraints.

            For example, an attempt to trade with the Black Feet would almost certainly get you killed. Unless of course your party outnumbered theirs. But otherwise, there was NO interference or attempt to control trade from a “centralized authority”.

            Individuals could trade with whom ever they wanted. If they became overly friendly with an “enemy” they could expect to be shunned but again no “govt authority” was involved. Of course if the trade with the enemy was viewed as a WIN then they were celebrated.

            We must also remember that stealing from OTHERS was accepted practice among many peoples but NOT within the family, clan, tribe. Thus the Crow and Cheyenne developed a great tradition of stealing horses from each other and family members were celebrated for the success of their “raids”.

            We know, from archeological evidence, that individuals and groups traded across great areas. Obsidian from Yellowstone found in Mexico, for example. And Mexican artifacts and techniques found in eastern North America. Horses were traded by the Navajo to northern tribes and so on. This was in fact the basis of the Warrior Horse culture of the Plains Indians. It was the result of FREE TRADE with the Navajo and then the Apache and Comanche, Kiowa, etc.

            Some of my reading of more ancient European cultures show the same type of free trade and movement. Like my Scandinavian ancestors. Here again family clans form the structure of some type of govt but individuals were free to move and trade with others outside the group.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Thanks JAC, that helps some. Do you think the “governments” of these tribes did fit the definition of government given in my post? Did they claim the right to initiate violence upon the non-violent?

              I have no idea whether the did or not, and obviously you have studied this far more than I have. So far, it seems to me that they had structure and rules for organizing their society, but I am not sure that the structure and rules fit into the definition of government as I gave it in my post. Maybe it did, but I don’t know enough Native American history to know that, so please enlighten me 🙂

              • Peter

                In my opinion the western and plains tribes were NOT governments or Nation States as we have defined them here in our discussions.

                When a tribe went to war or raided other tribes it was not a decision made by a central authority, but one made by the group for group reasons. A tribal member could choose to NOT participate. But obviously that person would not be viewed in good light among his family, clan and friends. Sometimes this “war” was defense, sometimes offense. Sometimes to gain territory and sometimes to gain property and women.

                The only time property was confiscated, to my knowledge, was when a member violated the rights or honor of another member. Such as stealing, killing, teepee sneaking, etc. In this case the Council would determine there was in fact a violation of the “Code” and the member would be told to forfeit property or his/her time to compensate the victim. But they were free to NOT follow the dictate and LEAVE the clan, tribe.

                I think the biggest lesson in all this is the power that “membership” and “acceptance” in the family group had on maintaining civilized behavior within the group. All of which was aimed at perpetuating the groups existence. I find it to be a great example of how a VDLG structure might work in our modern society.

                One other key point, if you haven’t captured it from this. These tribes were Matriarchal and not Patriarchal in their institutions and structure. Clan membership was dependent on the wife’s family connections, not the husband’s. It was the mother, grandmother and sisters who were responsible for passing the cultural norms and behaviors to their children. It wasn’t until this job was complete that the men took the male children under their wing to teach them the trade of “providing” for the family.

                I have done some reading on eastern tribes that indicates a difference. But I did not have access to actual descendants of these tribes in my youth so I don’t know how their tribal decision making happened. It appears they might have been based more on centralized decision makers but then if that authority did not have the ability to “punish” violators then I don’t think they fit the definition of Govt either.

    • JAC,
      Oh man, I was HOPING someone would catch that!!!

      Luckily it’s late and almost everyone is gone from the office – I almost fell out of my chair laughing!!

  43. GAME for SUFA

    Rule: Pick an Ayn Rand story. Any story of your choice.

    Goal: Name the Ayn Rand character that most fits this ASSHOLE:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2

    • I can’t read Ayn Rand. I’ve tried but it is way too dry for me. One of Krugman’s solutions to OWS is debt relief. Do you realize how mad I’ll be if anyone gets this debt relief? What kind of fair would that be to me? I scraped and saved and did without for years, lived waaay within my means. Now the answer is to reward personal irresponsibility with debt relief and where does that leave me..SOL. If that’s the way it’s going to be then I”ll be waiting on my shoreline for my fair share..I know..it will be a long wait. 👿

      • Anita,

        Try “Anthem.” It’s not dry at all (and very short compared to the other books). I literally could not put it down. Read it in one sitting (~2 hours).

        It’s worth it!

      • Anita

        The other night I was watching some CSpan coverage of a conference on the Housing Market and what is needed to FIX IT.

        Aside from all the “We need a national housing policy” and “govt help” crap from the supposed “Capitalist” housing industry folks there were several who offered two things.

        1. Forgive ALL the college debts.
        2. Forgive ALL the mortgage debt………but only for those in forclosure. Not the rest of us.

        So how long do you think it would take for the rest of us to figure out we needed to go into foreclosure.

        The whole thing made me so mad I couldn’t get to sleep until about 1 in the morning. These were industry, academic and GOVT leaders discussing and developing “solutions” for inclusion in an ADMINISTRATION proposal to Congress.

        Not one of these ass-clowns recognized that they were rewarding bad behavior and bad luck while screwing the rest of us. Not one of them recognized that the answer to “affordable” housing for our kids is to let the price of homes come back to reality instead of artificially propping them up.

        One guy almost got me excited when he stated that “home ownership” was a ridiculous goal for Govt. But then he followed up that the Govt goal should be “adequate shelter”.

        Can’t wait until I get my “Adequate” wall tent or FEMA trailer.

        Got to stop. I am getting mad again just writing this. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          What’s needed to fix the housing supply is to reduce it to the point where real value can again be attached to it. All those flood prone areas ought to be bought out and demolished. The actual value of the homes is a joke. They are worthless. Assuming government wants to do something a wee bit smart, they can condemn those homes, if the folks don’t want to move, that’s fine with me but no more federal flood insurance or disaster aid. You are dumb enough to stay then take the consequences. All these folks should be offered a fair exchange in the form of a foreclosed home. The old houses should be knocked down and re-zoned to prevent anything but open space. If removing these homes from the market still does not reawaken the market then we, God help us, we ought to just start demolishing all the foreclosed property that can’t be immediately sold until the supply equals the demand.

          The kids ought to all default on the college debts. Now, that was a Ponzi game. Like housing closing costs that skyrocketed after the Feds started “guaranteeing” mortgages that didn’t need to be guaranteed (like mine), college costs went through the roof with the availability of Federal grants and loans. I was told by the financial aid officer of the college I attended when I went there with my son looking for help 17 years ago that tuition started where loans and grants left off. Not the case in my time. The government’s answer? More loans that CAN never be paid back. Hey Buck!!!, What are employment prospects for new attorneys with $ 200,000 worth of student loans?

  44. RE OWS. Can someone answer me these questions simply so I know what I’m arguing with my crowd about.

    This is how it’s supposed to work
    This is how it ended up working
    This is what their protesting about
    This is their solution
    This is what the solution should be
    This is what we’re going to be stuck with

  45. Don’t you love capitalism? Wall Street protesters being trucked in and “paid” for their time but being against capitalism. Wall Street protestors being bused in carrying signs in English and they cannot speak English and they are hired…capitalism and freedom at its finest.

    Then the Wall Street protestors yelling about the bailouts that have been repaid while the bailouts to the unions have not been repaid but that is ok.

    Wall Street protestors being praised by Nancy Pelosi while saying that the Tea Party is astroturf and racists and terrorists.

    Ahhhhhhh…the hypocrisy of it all. The Wall Street protestors using words as “nigger” “kyke” “chink” “cracker” and are not racists at all according to Reid. He says this protest is different than the Tea Party which he says is still terrorism…..he forgot to mention the death threats that are coming out of this and the e mails threatening to follow people home and throwing gasoline bombs through the rich picture windows…..and no one on the left, including here at SUFA that thinks that is wrong….just exercising their rights?

    So….here is what I think although it will not happen because the Tea Party will not do it…..but the Tea Party should organize, as our veterans group did in Dallas, and go into the mob and argue their point. Does not take long to break up a crowd that way. Gives the police an excuse to disband it in the interest of public safety. Wonder why the Tea Party had to apply for permits and the Wall Street Protestors do not? Interesting.

    • I read an article D-One line stuck in my head-one of the obvious differences between the Tea Party protestors and almost all the left protests- is that the Tea party participants have the ability to police themselves.

  46. @ Buck…..you live in New York, right? I have a very good friend that has had enough and is moving from New York simply because of the tax situation there. According to him, if you make $200,000 that is considered rich and there is a surtax on that (state) and it goes up at $500,000 and up again the higher the income. According to him, he will save 23% in combined taxes by moving his company from New York to Texas…not to mention 212 jobs lost. I have not looked up the tax code in New York but is there really a surtax on the affluent up there?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Unfortunately I am now living in NJ….sigh….(amazing what we do for the women we love)

      New York does have additional tax rates though, and not to mention there is a NYC tax. So, yes, your friend will save money by moving from NY to Texas. However, on the down side (assuming you mean he is living in NYC and not upstate), he will be moving from NY to Texas.

  47. Hope at last-Maybe the reason is that this age group are the ones who have actually been living what the progressives have been pushing-and they are starting to see the negative effect it has had in their lives and the lives of their peers.

    Gallup: Sharp increase in supporting gov’t promotion of traditional values among younger voters
    Share3
    posted at 2:05 pm on October 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
    printer-friendly

    While social conservatives gather in Washington DC for the Values Voters Summit, a new Gallup poll shows that they may be gaining traction among younger voters. Overall, voters are narrowly split on whether government should promote traditional values at 48/46, down from a high of 59/39 in 2002 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. However, when it comes to voters between 18 and 34 years of age, the trend is dramatically different:

    Americans’ once-prevailing view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society has weakened in the past decade. Today 48% hold that view, while nearly as many, 46%, say government should not favor any particular set of values. …

    The recent decline in support for government advancement of traditional values in society comes primarily from Republicans. While Republicans remain more supportive of this policy position than are independents and Democrats, their support has dropped by more than 10 percentage points since 2008, from 71% to 59%. By contrast, Democrats’ support for it has held steady at about 40%, while independents’ has been more variable.

    But look at this chart demonstrating trend lines by age:

    Gallup can’t quite figure out how to explain this:

    The reason for these shifts in views by age is unclear. They neither track with changes in respondents’ overall political ideology — the percentages of each group labeling themselves “conservative” have held fairly steady over the same period — nor do they parallel approval of the president. Presidential job approval rose sharply in 2009 among all groups when President Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush, and that might have been responsible for the increased support for government action with respect to traditional values the same year. However, approval of Obama has since declined among young adults as well as among older age groups, while young adults’ support for government’s promoting of traditional values has continued to rise.

    CNS News wonders why no one seems to have picked up on this counterintuitive finding:

    While a Lexis-Nexis search indicates that U.S. newspapers and wire services included in that database published 291 stories yesterday and today citing the vaguely defined, left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement, not one of them mentioned a Gallup poll quietly released yesterday that documented a trend Gallup itself cannot explain: a “recent surge” in the percentage of young adults who say government should “promote traditional values.”

    Why “counterintuitive”? Young voters tend towards libertarianism or progressivism, or at least they have in the past. Both of those philosophies reject government sponsorship of social values, and the latter rejects many of those values entirely. These voters generally are enthusiastic Democratic Party voters, and Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism is especially attractive to younger non-progressives.

    So why the sudden dramatic change over the last three years? Perhaps the failure of Obama and the Democrats have younger voters — who face the most difficult job market in 30 years — questioning the entire progressive agenda and moving back towards traditional values as a result. We’ll see what this means in practical terms when it comes to elections in November 2012, certainly.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/07/gallup-sharp-increase-in-govt-promotion-of-traditional-values-among-younger-voters/

    • Time for a Carlsberg Beer!

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Interesting. The US and the rest of the world went through “The roaring twenties”. Remember, “Prohibition and bathtub gin, speakeasies where you walk right in.”

      Well, Oct of ’29 changed all that. The young folks who grew up in that depression seemed to reject the values that busted the country. They went on to fight the 2nd World War and win it, then they rolled up their sleeves, joined corporate America cooperated and built the powerhouse that they handed over to the baby boomers. The Boomers seemed to be a throwback to the roaring twenties and now we are seeing how that’s working out. Perhaps the new young folks are onto something by emulating their grand parents. Maybe time for the pendulum to start swinging back?

  48. Buck the Wala says:

    Colonel, down here (on the unemployment thread). Sorry, computer is being finicky and would not let me post above:

    Yup, I am back (since Wednesday). And extremely busy playing catch up at work so please forgive the lack of response today. I should be better next week!

    On this issue though, don’t assume I agree with these proposed laws — I do not support making the unemployed a protected class. However, that does not mean that there is no discrimination at work here as there are many examples of businesses that are refusing to even consider an applicant if currently unemployed. What to do about the matter is another question that I do not pretend to have the answer to. Could I support a law aimed at rectifying this practice? Sure, but I really don’t know how it would read to get my support, but suffice to say it would have to be very carefully worded so as not to create a new protected class for some other purpose. I’ll have to give it some more thought!

  49. Continuing on the assassination of an American citizen:

    Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America’s belief in what the Supreme Court described as those “moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society…”

    http://lewrockwell.com/bauman/bauman-b13.1.html

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      You know, I never saw the resolution introduced to condemn Jesse Sr. for the use of the word Hymietown to describe NY City. How about we have Jr. do that too and then demand who Jesse Sr. was talking to on how many occasions when he used that pejorative.

      Fair is after all…..fair.

  50. Yesterday, dozens of California medical marijuana dispensaries got letters like this one from Obama’s Department of Justice that warned they must shut down “even if such activities are permitted under state law.”

    This afternoon, four DOJ attorneys held a press conference and said this:

    “We are making these announcements together today so that the message is absolutely clear — that commercial marijuana operations are illegal under federal law, and that we will enforce federal law.”

    That’s a shame. I don’t doubt that many customers of pot dispensaries have no medical need. But who cares? Our drug laws do more harm than good.

    Don’t campaign promises mean anything? On the campaign trail, President Obama promised: “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this [medical marijuana.]”

    Then, once he was in office, a spokesman confirmed that: “The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.”

    Never mind, I guess. It’s one of a long list of Obama’s broken promises.

  51. The pot situation in CA is getting increasingly dangerous. I do not know if the national press has been following the situation. We have large grows going in the national forests. These are frequently guarded by one or two armed men. Not long ago, in the hills above me, a father and son were out hunting. They accidently stumbled on a grow and were killed. Most of these forest plot growers are Latinos. The oriental gangs have taken to buying up foreclosed homes, many in the suburban Sacramento area, and converting them to grow houses. They wire around the electric meters so the power companies’ new digital meters cannot detect the increased usage. Many municipalities are trying to control the number and location of medicinal pot shops via zoning ordinances. Most legit shops comply but many in the large cities are ignoring the new rules and opening up wherever they please. A new trend is now occuring. The pot shops and back yard gardens are becoming targets for the criminal elements. Why buy pot from the black market when you can smash into a store or jumb a fence and just take it for free. I heard one recent local story about a neighbor to a backyard garden that was fed up with the constant smell of the plants. He had to keep his windows closed on that side of the house. Local governments are now considering laws that private gardens must be fenced and out of sight. I have now heard dicussions of having the state take over the business of growing and distributing medicinal pot. It would be run similar to PA’s state liquor store business.

  52. Bank Protesters Arrested After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check…Dang! Good try.

    Anybody see the ODonnell/Cain interview? ODonnell tried to tell Cain he wasn’t a “good” black. Cain held his ground well.

    • Anita

      I saw the ODonnell/Cain interview.

      It was repugnant. Not only the attempt to ridicule his civil rights “participation” but a blatant attempt to portray him as deliberately avoiding military service.

      I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle the SOB.

      • What was he thinking going on O’Donnell’s show in the first place. And I suspect there are a lot of African-Americans who didn’t participate in the actual marches but still supported the cause in other ways-who will also feel attacked by O’Donnell’s judgemental words-what’s that old saying “walk a mile in my shoes”.

  53. Wasn’t much up for company when I was in labor.

    New York City Performance Artist to Give Birth in Gallery Before Audience

    Published October 08, 2011

    Marini Kotak is planning to give birth in an art gallergy for all to see.

    A pregnant New York City performance artist is planing to have her baby in an art gallery in front of an audience as part of a piece examining childbirth, The New York Post reports.

    Called “The Birth of Baby X,” the performance will feature artist Marni Kotak turning a Brooklyn gallery into her “birthing room” where she will spend each day until the baby comes.

    “I hope that people will see that human life itself is the most profound work of art, and that therefore giving birth, the greatest expression of life, is the highest form of art,” Kotak said.

    Kotak is due sometime in the next five weeks but visitors are warned that the baby may be born at any moment.

    “I have decided to do this because I want to show people that, as in my previous performances, real life is the best performance art,” she said.

    Kotak said that she is mentally prepared to give birth with the art world looking on.

    “I wouldn’t say that I am scared to do this, because I have a good support team: my midwife, doula and wonderful husband,” she said. “Of course, I am a bit nervous about the whole process of giving birth and having a child, and like every mother, I am hoping that everything goes smoothly.

    “But I am no more worried than I would be if I were having the baby at home or in a hospital.”

    This isn’t the first shocking performance from Kotak, whose résumé includes “staged re-enactments of her own birth, attending her grandfather’s funeral and losing her virginity in a blue Plymouth,” according to the gallery.

    Until the actual delivery occurs, visitors can watch other works by Kotak related to her pregnancy, including videos in which she films the audience at a summer festival and projects their faces onto her belly.

    “With ‘The Birth of Baby X,’ ” the gallery said on its Web site, “Kotak continues to present her life experiences as works of art, works in which she strives to avoid the spectacle often involved in performance art to reach what is real.”

    The baby will be the first for Kotak.

    When the bundle of joy comes, she will be as surprised as anyone.

    “We still aren’t sure of the baby’s gender, and my due date is a bit uncertain,” she said.

    What’s next for Kotak? A work called “Raising Baby X,” of course, in which she will presumably turn crying fits, poopy diapers and sleepless nights into art.

    “She [will] re-contextualize the everyday act of raising a child into a work of performance art,” the gallery said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/08/new-york-city-performance-artist-to-give-birth-in-gallery-before-audience/?intcmp=obnetwork

  54. I would have scared the crap out of an audience when I had my son! He wanted out NOW and wasn’t having it any other way. He arrived within an hour of me getting to the hospital..trust me it wasn’t pretty! Then he still fixed me and cried for 5 months..ugh! Flashback! 🙂

    • You Hussy 🙂 I was in labor for 24 hrs. for the first one and 12 for the second-and I assure you no one would have wanted to watch. 🙂 A miracle it is-but entertainment it ain’t.

  55. Wow, Opinions!!!

    October 9, 2011
    The American Revolution of 2012
    By Fay Voshell

    An inchoate, seemingly rudderless administration coupled with a sinking economy and civil unrest is a recipe for an anarchical response. Weakness, vacillation, and erosion of institutional authority are an invitation to anarchical thuggery, which looks like welcome strength when compared to feebleness and arbitrariness.

    It should be no surprise, then, that the Occupy Wall Street uprisings are happening. After all, such mob uprisings have historical precedent. Anarchy followed by tyranny occurs whenever weakness and a power vacuum, perceived or real, exists.

    Examples from history abound, but two cases may be particularly pertinent.

    In eighteenth-century France, Louis XVI was heir to an absolute monarchy. This privileged construct actually worked when strong, even ruthless heads of state such as Louis XIV utilized the institution to the fullest in order to ensure their own and their country’s advantage. However, the inherent advantages and strengths of the institution proved to be of no advantage in the hands of a man who could not make up his mind about much of anything other than what game he was to hunt on a given day. Louis XVI’s feeble and ultimately doomed attempts to deal with France’s deep unrest were not enough. Weakness followed by anarchy and chaos ensured the tyranny of the mob. The monarchy fell.

    In early twentieth century Russia, the weak Kerensky Provisional Government, which followed the abdication of the essentially hapless Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, was doomed when it refused to enact land reform and kept Russia in World War I. The tepid and ineffectual response to the two chief reasons for Russian civil unrest caused the demise the Kerensky administration. The anarchy that plagued the Kerensky government ushered in the Bolsheviks, with the attendant deleterious consequences with which students of history are only too familiar. The house of Romanov disappeared overnight.

    In present-day America, the stage has been set for civil unrest by an administration whose determined pursuit of change — based on the radical ideological principles of the left and the concomitant application of wrongheaded “solutions” to a faltering economy — has left the core institutions of our country weak and reeling.

    The fact of the matter is that leftist goals, economic and governmental, are as inherently incompatible with the founding documents and institutions of our Republic as Maximilien Robespierre’s goals for France were with the monarchy. The institutions of our country are simply not designed to foster and achieve the radical makeover the Obama administration has in mind. This is, of course, why the powers that be have worked overtime to achieve their leftist goals by supra-governmental means, including the radicalization of agencies like the EPA, entities neither answerable to nor established by the Constitution or subject to the electorate. This is also why Wall Street, the epitome of free-market capitalism, has been targeted by the left — Wall Street’s capitalist principles are also inherently incompatible with schemes bent on distribution of wealth.

    The result of the incompatibility of these two entities — on the one side, free and constitutionally established governmental and economic institutions, and on the other, the means and goals of the current radical administration and its allies — is civil unrest to a degree scarcely seen since the Civil War.

    Thus we have the Wall Street protestors, who have now been joined by the too-often thuggish labor unions, organizations which have historically have often been wedded to violence as a means of achieving what cannot be gained by bargaining or legislative and judicial process. Comforting murmurs of support from President Obama, who says he understands the frustrations of the marchers, and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s blessing — “God bless Wall Street protestors”– are green-light indicators that the Democratic leadership is callously and recklessly encouraging the mobs taking over the streets of our largest cities.

    While many of the Occupy Wall Street protestors seem to have no idea as to why they are rioting in the streets, others who are more calculating may have more nefarious goals in mind than merely poking fingers in the eyes of greedy, corrupt capitalists.

    First, the labor unions have rightly figured that the protests represent an opportunity to gain increased visibility and influence through violence. The lessons of Wisconsin have not been lost on union leaders. In that state, unions faced an intractable governor and a Republican legislature. This time, however, they have an inchoate, non-elected, supra-institutional mass they can mold to their own ends — and union bosses know how to assume leadership of a mob, much as the Bolsheviks and revolutionists of 1789 did. There is every possibility that the unions will assimilate the protestors’ energy to achieve their own ends — retaining and extending their power and privileges, all the while stalling needed reforms.

    Second, there is the distinct possibility that the current protests are a dress rehearsal for creating chaos before and during the elections of 2012. If the current protests achieve even a few goals, it is fair to predict the tactics will be repeated this coming election cycle.

    It is conceivable that a combination of anarchists, labor unions, and left-leaning media could unite and utilize the unrest and chaos to derail the 2012 elections themselves, giving the administration the opportunity to suspend elections because of a national emergency. The nightmare that would ensue is almost unimaginable, as the tactics already utilized by the administration could become even more fully utilized. The erosion of the rule of law and constitutional institutions would be assured.

    Thus the slippery slope to dictatorship begins.

    Lest some cynically dismiss such a scenario as impossible in America — “It Can’t Happen Here” — it is well to keep in mind that a similar scenario has transpired before in democracies such as the oft-mentioned Weimar Republic. To be clear, the phenomenon is not limited to monarchical eighteenth-century France and tsarist early twentieth-century Russia.

    The fact of the matter is that the radical division of America is now on display for all to see. Will the institutions of our country prevail? Will this constitutional Republic stand, and will the people effectuate through peaceful means the reforms our country desperately needs — or will this administration continue to commit itself to achieving its leftist goals through supra-constitutional entities as it allies itself with a labor movement joined with anarchical protestors?

    This is the hour for the Tea Party and other organizations to rise up in mass protests of their own. All who are wedded to constitutional principles and ideals must take an even stronger stand, opposing with all their might those who seek to hijack our government by violent and extra-constitutional means.

    The fate of our country may lie in the balance.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/the_american_revolution_of_2012.html

    • Eerie, Last week for my own amusement I wrote an outline for a short story that is amazingly similar to this. It starts with a crisis that leads to suspension of elections and things spiral downward from there. I even titled it “Could it Happen Here?” If they start to form a civilian defense force “as strong as the military” we will know what is coming or maybe here already. All hail Caesar Barack.

      • You should let us read it when you are done 🙂

        I support the right to protest-it is a fundamental to our system-but I think it is dangerous to bring a bunch of people together under the banner of just-excuse my language-Bitch-we may well agree on the points made-but it is the solutions desired that should determine whether we want to support or not support a movement. Without making clear the desired remedies-you are just promoting anger and can have people supporting things they would be totally against.

        • I’ll give you a teaser.

          It’s August 2012. President Obama’s reelection is most uncertain. He continues to lambast the just say no Republicans in Boehner’s House but the reality is they have passed bill after bill to fix the fiscal mess only to see them die in Democrat Reid’s Senate. The public is not buying it. Drastic action is needed. A crisis is required.
          On September 18th, the Cubs are 2 games in front of the hated Mets and within a half game of clinching the division. This could be miracle day. Please God do not let 1969 repeat itself. A single engine plane dips low over Wrigley Field. The engine is sputtering….

  56. BF-mentioned this idea of Constitutional balance between the 3 branches of government the other day -As it relates to the courts-seems like an interesting topic of discussion.

    October 8, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    The Root-and-Branch Candidate
    Gingrich doesn’t want to beat just Obama, but statism, too.

    The question is simple but profound: Will the 2012 presidential-election campaign be about big ideas? Ideas like whether the American people are still masters of their own destiny or instead have resigned themselves to a rule of lawyers advertising itself as “the rule of law”?

    To push these fundamentals to the fore is the rationale of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy. If ever there were a big-ideas guy, it’s the former House speaker. Ideas seem to churn out of him faster than the Treasury churns out greenbacks for “green energy.” But do we want to think about them? Newt believes we do — perhaps not so much that we want to but that we have to think about them, if we are to remain an America that is worth preserving. He is also a historian uniquely sensitive to a unique historical moment.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    The Obama years have pushed the accelerator on what had been a long, inching slide into the progressive abyss. For three-quarters of a century, statism was a Fabian project. It was reminiscent of what Jefferson, explaining his fear of the federal judiciary’s gradual imperialism, described as “working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one.”

    Bucking this trend, President Obama has leapt way ahead to the endgame: a blizzard of unaccountable czars, nationalized sectors, suffocating regulations, and redistributed trillions. The result is economic stasis, massive unemployment, crony socialism, and the hovering prospect of punishing taxes, crippled productivity, mounting social unrest, and a loss of liberty so dramatic one actually notices that it is happening. Americans have now seen the future, and, in growing numbers, they are horrified by it.

    In addition, after three years of watching congressional Democrats slavishly toe the line — watching spectacles such as majority leader Harry Reid’s decision to blow up time-honored Senate parliamentary rules just to avoid taking a vote that would embarrass the president — Americans are also grasping that what makes Obama and his Occupy Wall Street base “radical” is mainly their impatience. They want — right now — the end of history that the progressive establishment has heretofore been content to crawl toward, inch by cautious inch.

    One of the few virtues of Obama’s pedal-to-the-metal approach is that it forced Democrats to choose sides. They’ve chosen him over a public that repeatedly shows it does not want what he’s redistributing. In the 2010 elections, that choice proved catastrophic for Democrats, but the rout hasn’t mattered. They’re still with him, because they accept his premises even if they’re not crazy about his pace. That illustrates that the trajectory we’ve been on since the 1930s leads inexorably to where the Obama Left wants to go. There is a reason why Bill Buckley yelled, “Stop!” — not “Slow down!” — as he stood athwart history.

    So here is the dilemma: We have a moment in time in which it is possible to demonstrate, starkly, that statism does not work, and therefore that it ought to be removed root and branch. That argues not only for dumping Obama but also for rolling back the tide of which Obama is merely the most destructive wave. On the other hand, Obama is uniquely destructive. Therefore, the GOP Beltway Bible instructs, our priority is to come up with a safe candidate — one who is smooth enough to fade into the woodwork and make the election solely about the president. This is no time to scare people, the pros tell us. Let’s not get independents fretting about some conservative counterrevolution.

    Newt Gingrich has a wealth of GOP establishment ties, but he is not the GOP establishment guy. He knows how to play the game, but he has always had his own very strong ideas about how it ought to be played — and he has been the smartest guy in the room enough times to realize counterrevolutions are not impossible, even if the conventional wisdom says so. Yes, ideas do pour out of him prolifically, and — law of averages being what it is — every now and then they are clunkers. But while such dalliances on health care and climate change make conservatives wince, we also should realize that, most of the time, nobody does it better. Certainly no American politician says the things that need to be said more convincingly.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Newt will never be the safe candidate. But he could be the root-and-branch candidate. And the branch he is currently targeting for deracination is the federal judiciary. In his “21st Century Contract with America,” a bold action item is: “Bringing the courts back under the Constitution and the rule of law.”

    And bold it is. For more than a half-century, it has been monotonously proclaimed that the judges are the last word on what the law is, and, therefore, that not only the litigants in the case but the whole of society must yield to their decisions. It has become easy to forget — or to have never known — that it was not always this way. As Gingrich argues in a position paper he rolled out with a speech on Friday, there is nothing in the Constitution that stands for this proposition. It is a promotion the Warren court gave itself in 1958, in a gambit Stanford Law School dean Larry Kramer aptly described as “not reporting a fact so much as trying to manufacture one.”

    In his famous Marbury v. Madison opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that it was the task of judges to say what the law is. This was not, however, the declaration of “the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution” — the lavish gloss the Warren court put on it in Cooper v. Aaron. Indeed, Jefferson was far from alone in concluding that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” was “a very dangerous doctrine” that “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Lincoln, too, perceived the peril to popular sovereignty: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court,” he pointed out, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    The framers believed neither that the courts were supreme nor that the political branches accountable to voters were somehow relieved of the obligation to consider the constitutionality of government action. They thought the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch because its only asset was judgment — it had no capacity to enforce its own rulings, and it was beholden to Congress, which could place severe limits on its jurisdiction and disestablish any lower courts it had chosen to create. Because the three branches were taken to be coequals, it was thought obvious that two joining together could undo the excesses of one.

    It was thus never meant to be the case, Gingrich contends, that outrageous Supreme Court rulings could be reversed only by amending the Constitution. He makes a stark case that the very notion is absurd. The arduous amendment process requires the approval of supermajorities of Congress and the states. Yet a Supreme Court ruling that cannot be overcome because of these daunting democratic hurdles can be reversed, in the bat of an eye, by a later Supreme Court ruling — by the vote of a single, politically unaccountable justice in a 5–4 decision.

    If he were elected president, Gingrich promises, he would pursue a series of concrete steps to reestablish the original balance of constitutional power — the balance designed to ensure that Americans decided important affairs of state democratically rather than having decisions imposed on them by unelected lawyers. In passing laws, the political branches would make use of Congress’s constitutional authority to deny courts jurisdiction to hear categories of cases, something about which progressives will no doubt shriek . . . at least until someone catalogues the provisions to avoid judicial review that are written into the Obamacare statute.

    Following the example of President Jefferson and the early 19th century Congress, Gingrich foresees the political branches’ eliminating courts that consistently attempt to rewrite the laws and impose their personal predilections. In particularly egregious cases, judges could be impeached for ignoring the Constitution and failing to heed the legitimate prerogatives of the political branches. Congress could use its power of the purse to defund enforcement of lawless rulings, and the political branches could ignore them — as they did in the Civil War era with respect to aspects of the notorious Dred Scott decision. We could go back to the Lincoln formulation, which conceded the binding nature of judicial rulings on private litigants in a particular case but denied that these rulings operated as precedents binding on the American people and their elected representatives.

    It is an interesting, provocative argument — one that makes you think things do not have to be the way they are if we have the will to make them the way they were intended to be. That is to say, it is Gingrich at his best. His best is a force to be reckoned with. Here’s hoping that the safe candidates will be asked to reckon with his big ideas.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279554/root-and-branch-candidate-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

%d bloggers like this: