The Sad American

As I write this today, I can’t help but feel sad about the country that I love so much and how it’s moral values have gone in the gutter so quickly. There was a time when we were a land of laws and moral values that exceeded anything in history. Now, we are simply becoming another empire that will fail from within, as history will tell it. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by an American missile. He was said to be a TERRORIST! Another American, Samir Khan, was also reported to have been killed in the drone hit. Both of these men, claimed to have been part of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization are reported as dead. Interestingly, Awlaki has been killed 4 times now, as reported by the media. He was killed a few times in 2009, but that didn’t seem to be enough, so they killed him again. So what is exactly wrong with all of this?

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were both American citizens. Both were Muslims. Both are reported dead at the hands of the U.S. military under direct orders from President Obama. Awlaki is said to be a high ranking member of Al Qaeda. You know, those evil guys who supposedly attacked us on 9-11-2001. Well here is my point. Our government can, apparently, assassinate American citizens if they deem necessary. All they have to do is call them terrorists! Think about this for a moment! Two American citizens were murdered because they were deemed enemies of the State!

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were American citizens who also were devout Muslims. Niether man was ever charged, tried, or convicted of a crime against the American people. Yet the American people are celebrating the death of two citizens, at the hands of our government, who claim they were evil terrorists. Because the government claims they are evil terrorists, they have the right to kill them, with no right to due process. Amazing. What the hell happened to our nation? The people must be fucking stupid now because this is a travesty and a crime, and yet no one even thinks twice about it. Dumb people. They deserve the slavery that is heading their way.

As a Constitutional Republic, we are a nation of laws that are extended to all citizens of our nation, regardless of religious affiliation. To allow this, the citizens have condemned themselves to tyranny. They have said “if the govt says you’re a terrorist, they can kill you without having to prove anything” Great, that could be anyone, including what the DHS are calling “Domestic Terrorists”. You know, disgruntled vets, gun owners, 2nd Amendment activists, soccer moms, cheerleaders and anyone they choose to lay that label on. Dead! Murdered by the people because the people are too fuckin stupid to see what’s right in front of them. Tyranny!

Wake Up America! Which city has to be blown up to make that happen? It won’t be a “Terrorist”, it will be your own damn government that we have failed to control, as intended by our Founding Fathers. It’s time to tell them “NO”. If you don’t have the courage, enjoy your upcoming slavery!

This Sad American is sad because the American people are pussies. They have failed the future generations of this nation, because they have lost courage. Pussies!

Live Free!



  1. Good morning, GMan…….Interesting article,,,,,,it seems that your argument is centered around US Citizenry. And it seems that your argument is also centered around legality, although you have not mentioned it per se. First, I do not see a correlation between Alawaki and due process. I tend to believe that when you run with the rats, expect to be trapped. It seems to me that this falls under the same rules as mercenaries. If an American Citizen Merc runs with the opposition against American ideology or American Interests, he is not considered a criminal, he is a paid assassin and, therefore, is eliminated by the only due process a war has…..a bullet, or in the case of Alawaki….a bigger bullet.

    I do not see this as a violation of due process. If you were a non uniformed spy or saboteur in WWII, you were not considered a “citizen” and afforded due process….you were executed on the spot…usually…..some were captured and put on trial for political reasons.

    I do not like the association of the Tea Party called terrorist by Pelosi, et all, but I also did not see summary executions. I do not like the association of vets being called potential terrorists by Homeland Security Chief Napolitano but I did not see summary executions…..Alawaki is a known terrorists and he runs with the rats…he was in a war zone…or, for political correctness, a hostile environment…..he died with political correctness…..

    Please tell me the difference between Alawaki and Osama Bin Laden…..other than an American Citizen…..neither were criminals and both were in armed conflict with the US.

    For the record, I do not like the idea of assassinations….but in a war, is there such a thing as an assassination? However, you do have some great points…among them the dumbing down and the cowardice of America today. To me, that is what is quite disturbing. Now, your point is that the government can call anyone a terrorist and therefore assassinate them as such is well taken……but in this case……Alawaki was a terrorist. I would pick a different comparison……

    Other than that, my brother, how in the hell are you?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Today it is enemy combatants/American citizens, …tomorrow it’s tax protesters.

      A very dangerous precedent has been set.

      • BL…question for you. Would you think differently if it were an American mercenary? Is that not what Alawaki was? An American merc paid by a foreign entity to wage hostility against the US?

        • No, still a dangerous precedent. G’s argument is not just centered around legality and citizenship. It is centered around trust and fear. Because of fear, the American people are trusting a government and media that are both proven liars. If someone is a traitor, they are subject to different legality, but there should be due process for that as well. And as for the precedent set in WWII, I find that deplorable as well. We executed spies, and we put Americans of Japanese decent in internment camps. We entered the war on some pretty shady things done by FDR. I am not a fan.

          I do not fear terrorists nearly so much as I fear this government. The ability to wage war without officially being at war, and to use the media to demonize a group, then be able to put people in that group without due process and have them executed is a major overstepping of power. There should at least be some disclosure of evidence and a jury of citizens involved before such a decision could be made. This isnt WWII, we can make these sort of determinations quickly enough to be useful in the field without leaving it in the hands of the military only. You have a guy on the ground getting shot at, he should be allowed to shoot back. But you have a target you are seeking? You better have proper justification before going forward, and It better be coming from something other than top generals and washington beurocrats. Those guys are not to be trusted, especially the latter.

          • Hi Jon…I understand G’s argument….but how do you rectify “just”. I guess we do not. Unless you are suggesting that a Federal Grand Jury look at evidence and then render a judgement…say….ok I have seen the evidence and I submit that this is a legal target…..something like this is what you are suggesting?

            • Sort of, it would at least be better than what we have now, and maybe it would pull citizens into the war-making process. Since we are paying for it, thats not an unreasonable request. On the other hand, I do not support citizens control of field operations, the people getting shot at have jurisdiction there. Part of our current problem when we are at war is that the way we wage war is controlled by Washington pansies. But those same pansies will put our boys in harms way in a heart beat.

          • John,

            I agree. Great article G!, even if I may not totally agree with you. I think by leaving the US and promoting violent attacks on the US, he had renounced his citizenship. By violating the established rules for conflict, his life was bought and paid for by the first person or nation that could end him. The real issue is the US violating US law. And maybe that’s not that big a deal when it happens outside the US, where returning them for a trial is difficult, and not worth the potential loss of life US soldiers would incur.

            But also consider Ruby Ridge, where the US government (FBI) also suspended US law. When is what is legal whatever the current POTUS decides? How can that be acceptable? I think it goes to the liberal media. Had Bush done the same, they would have had Code Pink segments every hour.

            “They have said “if the govt says you’re a terrorist, they can kill you without having to prove anything” Great, that could be anyone, including what the DHS are calling “Domestic Terrorists”. You know, disgruntled vets, gun owners, 2nd Amendment activists, soccer moms, cheerleaders and anyone they choose to lay that label on.” Too true! And Pelosi calls TeaPartier’s terrorists but WallStreetProtesters patriots. Just read, California has banned open legal carry of unloaded firearms. What did you say about willing slaves?

    • 8)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      al-Awlaki was supposedly in Yemen when we killed him (this time)… Colonel, is it your belief that we are at war with Yemen? Or do you justify his killing by saying that he was a high-ranking member of a terrorist organization (regardless of his citizenship), and therefore could be killed wherever he happened to be?

      If you use the 2nd argument, then I assume you would be ok with Israel taking out any known Hammas, Hezbollah, or other terrorist organization members that they knew about; wherever they happened to be, and using remote drones?

      Be careful what you wish for Colonel, as I said in open mic last week, it isn’t too far of a stretch to go from this incident to drones hovering in every major US city hunting for “terrorists”.

  2. Mathius™ says:

    Damn, I hate to agree with you, Gman…

    I don’t know if I agree with your conclusion (that they can/will kill anyone they deem to be an enemy of the state). And here’s why. Murdering (let’s use that term for now) Muslims is condoned with a wink and a nod by a large percentage of the population. Because the US is a democratic republic, it is the will of The People™, not the written law, which actually governs.

    You’re old enough to remember Manzanar. In what way was that in keeping with the Constitution? But people feared the Jap Threat™ and demanded action, so the government was allowed to ignored it’s written rules in favor of behaving as The People™ wished. So it is with the Muslim Menace™.

    People are scared (due, in large part, to the concerted efforts of the government and the media), and they cry out to be saved. Save us! Save us from those bearded savages who hate us for our freedoms! Never mind that we manipulate them ruthlessly, attack them at a whim, kill millions of by standers, and label anyone who fights us as terrorists when they are just defending their own land. We attack them, they resist, and we call them terrorists? When we did it to the British, we called ourselves patriots. But the “patriots” (AKA, rebel terrorists) of the American revolution where like us – they were white English speaking Christians. We can empathize – we can imagine ourselves in their place. But those dirty “Islamist” backward savages? No – we’re nothing like them, and we fear them, so why should we care about giving them a trial? We just want the government to get rid of them so we can get back to the important things like clogging our arteries with Big Macs (it’s The American Way™!). And it’s on the other side of the planet, where out of sight is out of mind, so we don’t care how they do it.

    And if The People™ don’t care, the government doesn’t care.

    • But thats just it, they can kill anyone they want. All they have to do is convince “the people” that is was their own idea. People are scared, and that is the problem. We havent the balls to be free men.

      • I think a big part of the “it” is when our elected officials don’t follow or enforce the law. Ron Paul has called for Obama’s impeachment over the Libya war and this assassination. Where is our “due process” in requiring them to present why and how it’s legal? Where is John Boehner?

        • Mathius™ says:

          The problem, again, is that the “real” law is the will of The People. It is not, contrary to popular opinion, what is written down in legalese in the Big Book Of Rules. It is not the Constitution. It is not legal precedent. It is not case law. It is not signed and archived, enacted laws.

          If The People, tomorrow, decided they’d had enough – really had enough – of government, it would vanish in a puff of smoke within hours. If the government tries to outlaw jaywalking and the people of New York disagree, they are going to jaywalk and the law can take a hike – there isn’t a single thing the government can do about it, and the government caves in with barely a whimper.

          If The People support killing other people who they find scary, rules be damned, the government is going to go out and kill them. “Due process” can take a hike.

          The government is following the “real” law. It is doing what The People want.

          Ron Paul, though there is much I agree with him on, does not seem to appreciate this truism.

      • Mathius™ says:

        We havent the balls to be free men.



        I had a rant a while back, I don’t know if you saw it, but the cowardice of the American people is the root cause of 99% of the evil perpetrated by the American government. We are so afraid that we crawl on our hands and knees and beg the government to save us from the perceived boogy-man de jure. Today it’s Muslims, before that it was blacks, before that it was the Japanese, before that I can’t remember, but I know it was someone. And the government encourages and nurses our fears. But none of these were ever real threats.

        How can we be ever free when we fight things shadows instead of real threats? The lack of testicular fortitude is appalling.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The United States is supposed to be a Representative Republic (not a Democratic Republic). There are differences….

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    How the Hell Did I Get So Naive?

    (G-Man – apologize for the short hijack here buddy)

    Ever have one of those “how the hell did I not know this” moments? I do from time to time – and this weekend was a real humdinger. Allow me to explain and set this up…….

    This was a crazy weekend like most all are nowadays – with a two year old and three month old our weekends fly by and its Monday morning again. So yesterday, after a busy stretch of Church, lunch and errands/shopping we got home and put the kids to nap. My better half ventured out to get the food shopping done for the week. As happens from time to time, the bagger at the store left one bag on the bag “kickstand” and my wife left the store without it. After dinner and baths I ventured back to the store (“Giant”) with receipt in hand to claim the bag Customer Service was holding for us.

    When I got to the store I waiting in line behind a young lady holding a plastic bag. When it was her turn, she removed two smaller bags – each containing about half a handful of sunflower seeds in one and some nuts in the other. The customer service rep rang her up – the total was $1 plus change. The girl removed a card from her pocketbook that read in bold yellow letters “ACCESS”. She swiped the card, said to the cashier that she wanted all her change back, entered a few prompts on the swipe pad and then pocketed the $1 plus change the cashier handed her. She stood there for a moment and the cashier asked her if anything else was needed. She replied that she wanted “all her money back”. Apparently she mis-keyed some information on the swipe pad so they re-ran her card and she received $195 plus change back.

    Say what?!?!

    What the hell just happened?

    Here is what I think happened. The Access card is issued by one of many State of Pennsylvania agencies, most notably the Department of Public Welfare. According to the DPW:

    “Is the ACCESS card also an EBT card?

    If the individual cardholder is also the payment name for a cash assistance or Food Stamps case, the ACCESS EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) card is used to obtain cash or Food Stamps benefits, in addition to medical benefits. The ACCESS card for Medical Assistance only is yellow; the ACCESS EBT card is green. If cash assistance and Food Stamps benefits stop, the green card will continue to be the ACCESS card to be used for medical services.”

    What caught my eye here was the “obtain cash “part.


    “What is Electronic Benefits Transfer?

    Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) is a benefit delivery system that provides public assistance recipients with electronic access to their cash and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

    How does EBT work?

    Eligible recipients receive a Pennsylvania Access Card and select a personal identification number (PIN) to access authorized benefits. When paying for groceries, the recipient swipes his or her EBT Access Card through a Point-of-Sale (POS) terminal and enters the PIN to access the SNAP account. Then the pin and account balance are verified electronically, and the retailer receives an authorization or denial. The recipient’s account is then debited for the amount of the purchase, and the retailer’s account is credited. No money or food coupons change hands. The transaction and settlement processes are the same for cash transactions. Recipients are able to use their EBT Access Card to obtain cash benefits through ATMs located throughout the state. In addition, recipients are able to make cash purchases and receive cash back through POS terminals at participating retailers.”

    Okay – so there it is – and boy do I feel stupid. So in the State of PA – if you qualify – you are issued an Access card which is filled periodically with some amount of money. Should you choose – you can merely go to a participating ATM or vendor and withdraw the cash.

    Isn’t that great?

    I have always believed in the potential inherent benefit of a program like this to help someone in dire need – give them a card they can use to acquire food and medicine during a short/brief time period of need.

    My head is exploding with the obvious scenario that they simply can use it as a MAC /ATM card to pull cash out and use it for whatever the hell they want to. While I understand that some may need that cash to pay something else critical like rent – I doubt that most do that. The icing on this was as the girl left (she couldn’t have been more than 20 years old) a second girl who looked no older than 16 and was holding a baby said “did you get all YOUR money” (emphasis mine).

    There ya go folks. Entitlement at its best. They view that money as THEIR money. It is something owed to them and they have no shame to “pay” for a miniscule portion of nuts to tap out the balance of the account (until my tax dollars replenish it).

    Does this work the same in other States? I’m utterly floored that this happens (likely very often and with great ease) and that I simply had no idea that you could cash the card out.

    • And you sound surprised.

      • I, and my group of vets, have been soundly criticized on this blog for spotting things like this and reporting it….some suggesting that it is not our place to do so……if it is not our place…..then whose?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @D13 – I had no idea you could cash these things out. Not acceptable in my book.

        • Ray, we see it all the time with the illegals (and not just illegals) here….ALL the time. You can even cash out food stamps and housing vouchers. It is simple and easy to do.

    • Ray

      I am dying of curiosity. Did you get that bag of groceries back?

    • I remember when the stimulus checks went out. Run on big screen TV’s and cigarettes at the local Wal-mart.

      Glad we can provide a “safety net” that let’s “poor” people have a TV bigger than mine…

    • While the situation abuses our sensibilities of what is right, it is not their fault. The government is responsible. The people using these systems are doing no more than that which is allowed by the system.

      • I disagree. It is a blatant abuse of the system. If they don’t realize that, they are fooling themselves.

        If you say you are having trouble paying your bills and I give you $1000, would it not be wrong for you to take it to Vegas and gamble it away? You certainly are allowed to do so, but it is obviously wrong.

  4. What about John Allen Mohammed, the DC sniper? An American citizen. A clear and present danger. Executed. What if they had sniped him? End result is the same. Dead. I don’t recall an outrage then. The mood was more of..relief. The difference is that Al Awlaki was involved in the war on terrorism. If you can’t kill a guy who is at war with you then what’s the point?.

    • Rules of engagement allow you to use lethal force when dealing with a “clear and present danger”. So sniping him would have been “legal”.
      But they caught him and executed him instead. Funny how they debated where he would be tried first, the FedGov. wanting a death penalty state to send him to his harem……

    • Its not a question of having an issue with taking someone out. It is a question of who gets to decide it and why. And also a question of why we trust the government to tell us who the enemy is when everything else they tell us we know is a lie.

      • The government didn’t tell us, he told us, and continues from his grave. If he told his followers to kill Jon Smith, I bet you would take him out first.

    • So anyone within the USA that is Muslim, aligns with al Queda and advocates terrorist acts (sorry that what it truly is – not “war”) on this country it would be acceptable to assassinate them and not risk the lives of any military or civilian personnel in order to carry out the lawful arrest and trial of the individual?

      • Tisk, tisk Plainly. I didn’t say anything about Muslim. Just mark me down as glad he’s dead. We’ve already been down this road.

        • Not tisk, tisk at all. You just have no problem with the murder of anyone that is an al Queda aligned terrorist – rule of law only when the rule isn’t offensive to you personally.

        • I didn’t say anything about Muslim.

          No you didn’t say it, but you certainly inferred it. I have yet to hear of any atheist, Jewish, or Christian adherents who are members of al Queda.

          • I didn’t infer anything. And it’s also not a religion thing for me. If a Mexican guy (religion unknown and irrelevant) declared war on us I’d feel the same way.

      • I think that was unfair Plainly-Anita did not say someone who was here in this country should just be executed without due process-this whole discussion is based on his being in another country.- outside the reach of our normal legal remedies.

        • I do not think it unfair at all. For this case the target is outside the US, but it sets a precedent. The next time that person could be here, or have you forgotten how the government went from intercepting overseas communications only to authorizing itself to intercepting ANY communications regardless of where they occur (Patriot Act)?

          The Constitution is not predicated on being your right only if YOU follow the law, it is written to – supposed – have government follow the law. Two wrongs do not make a right.

          Also, as with bin Laden, where does this government (or any American government) get the right to kill anyone anywhere it chooses and claim lawful action?

          Had Awlaki been in Afghanistan on the battlefield of the – again supposedly – war zone, then I would say he was fair game. We are not “at war” with a group, al Queda is not a military, it is a terrorist organization – a CRIMINAL – organization. Claiming that they are on the battlefield wherever in the world they are is arrogant and unsupportable under law.

          The only difference between the terrorism of al Queda and Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction, Red Brigades, etc., is that we suspended the rule of law because this group dared attack a target within the USA.

          Either that Constitution stands equally for all Americans or it doesn’t? Where do you stand?

          • I understand your argument Plainly-and I wrote where I stand in another post-but the point was YOU put words in Anita’s mouth.

            • I disagree. I’m trying to find out why she would condone such a breach of the rights of a citizen? She clearly shows her belief that the Constitution only applies under some circumstances – not all.

              Gawd, you all are making me feel like a damn liberal! 🙂

          • One more thing before I go to bed-might as well irritate people the rest of the way 🙂 -we don’t all believe these are just criminal activities-some of us believe it is a War and the enemy is using the “not a nation” ploy as a convenient weapon. Doesn’t mean the policies that have been instated aren’t wrong-but we sure need to figure out how to address this new type of war because I suspect we are going to be dealing with it for a long time.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If you claim that we were “at war” with al-Awlaki while he was in Yemen, then you also claim that we are at war with any terrorist, anywhere, at any time, yes?

  5. Remember Katrina…and the FEMA cards that were given out. The casino’s did a land office business as the FEMA cards were cashed and gambled. That is a matter of record. To me, the question arises……who is responsible for this mismanagement? The rules, I am sure, were explicit enough…..but the system has failed drastically. For a store to do as you witnessed….should be forever excluded from and Federal subsidy or government program in the future….and the person doing the fraud (and yes, I feel that it was fraud) should also be penalized. It was not only a failure of the system but a failure of humanity to perpetrate same… my most humble opinion. ( I know that I will hear from some who will say that the person should not be at fault because they knew how to beat a broken system )….but where is the integrity? And, the bleeding hearts do not understand why we form opinions.

    • Some recipients have a cash payment in addition to the food (SNAP) stipend. Michigan is trying to end the cash portion. Gov. Snyder sent out notices effective Oct. 1. Somewhere a timeline was not met on advance warning but it’s going down. Motown is bubbling up!

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Colonel, being closer to LA than I, perhaps you have seen local stories that can verify that to date, over $ 800,000 has been spent in hurricane relief for every man woman and child in New Orleans. It also still seems that at least half the city needs to be rebuilt. So, what’s up?

      Check out recent doings at my old agency. Wow, those numbers are BIG. Now maybe people can understand why it cost government $ 93,000 to gut renovate a vacant one bedroom apartment in an existing vacant building.…/6324216-nyc-deputyNew York

      Regarding the assassination, I agree with both sides!!! It would have been ideal to pick him up and try him for treason. However, as the commander in the field if picking him up would have put even one of my men in imminent danger, capping the sucker is a viable alternative.

    • Repeat after me….gag me. These human microphones are eating their own. They drove out a dem rep in Atlanta and even drove Geraldo out. I say let them keep talking. They make themselves look foolish then irrelevant.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Chants are confusing at best. During Vietnam, I never could figure out why they wanted to give Pete a chance, as in. “All we are saying is give Pete a chance”.

  6. 😐

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Missed alot today due to a long day of deer hunting, more work tomorrow with that. The comments have been great. Let me address a few of the ideas that have been expressed.

    Alawki is claimed to be associated with Al- Qeida, but yet helped the pentagon early on after 911, and had dinner there as well on numerous occasions. So the Govt decides he’s a terrorist because he stops helping them and he’s exploded. Nice, and the foolish sheeple believe this utter bullshit the government is handing you. Egads, people! Where is the damn evidence to prove this? It don’t exist, cause there is none at all.

    So let me get this right? Some of you actually believe the government and the MSM? Foolish people, you should know better. Have you not learned a damn thing in your lives that you still believe this dribble bullshit coming from them? Are you fucking kidding me? They are all liars and pieces of shit, yet as long as it suits to relieve your imagined fears you suck it up your nose like a line of cocaine on a good Friday night. What a crock of bullshit the people of this country have become, fucking cowards. You know who you are, I don’t have to name names. Get a grip on life, cuz it won’t last long if you continue to believe the dribble bullshit from DC and the MSM.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A large jet plane crashed on a farm in the middle of
      >>> rural Kentucky .
      >>> Panic stricken, the local sheriff mobilized and
      >>> descended on the farm in force.
      >>> By the time they got there,the aircraft was totally
      >>> destroyed with only burned hull left smoldering in a tree line that
      >>> bordered thefarm.
      >>> The sheriff and his men entered the smoking mess but
      >>> could find no remains of anyone. They spotted the farmer plowing a field
      >>> not too far away as if nothing had happened.
      >>> They hurried over to the man’s tractor. “Hank,” the
      >>> sheriff yelled,
      >>> panting and out of breath. “Did you see this terrible
      >>> accident happen?”
      >>> “Yep. Sure did,” the farmer mumbled unconcerned, cutting
      >>> off the
      >>> tractor’s engine.
      >>> “Do you realize that is Air Force One the airplane of
      >>> the President of the United States ?”
      >>> “Yep.”
      >>> “Were there any survivors?”
      >>> “Nope. They’s all kilt straight out,” the farmer
      >>> answered. “I done buried them all myself. Took me most of the morning.”
      >>> “President Obama is dead?” the sheriff asked.
      >>> “Well,” the farmer grumbled, restarting his tractor. “He
      >>> kept a-saying he wasn’t…. But you know how bad that sumbitch lies.

    • You know G-I love you man-but I think all of us on SUFA are upset and worried about our country. I understand the frustration and helplessness one can feel-but I still think you are going way over the top with your sudden and Completely out of character attacks. I’m starting to worry about you-you must calm down-or go hit a punching bag or something before you have a heart attack.

      • Or take his PMS pill. That was over the top. Sorry you feel that way GMan. I sure didn’t think you would go off like that. Remind me not to piss you off again.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m not mad at you or anyone else, per se’. I just had to get that off my chest cuz the damn deer don’t seem to care, LOL. I think everyone here is quite intelligent, but I see that something is missing.

          p.s. I can be over the top at times, it’s my nature to fight for what I believe in. I believe in the American people, they have my allegiance, I don’t not believe in our government, they do not have said allegiance.

          Smile, it’s only Monday! 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        LOL my Dear,

        I am fine. Been hunting alot, that is something I love to do. I was rough in my comment, that was intended. People need to wake up and do it fast. It’s just not happening. Far too many think the next election will solve the problems, which is rediculous on it’s face and is proven by history as a failed belief.

        I Love all of you here, but damn, when a clear crime is committed in front of the people and they cheer, we got problems, big problems.

  8. I find I am confused-resist the urge to agree 🙂

    1. Do we or don’t we have the right to kill traitors?
    2. If a traitor is outside of the US-doing harm to our people-can we kill him if specific criteria is met?
    3. What criteria is appropriate? What evidence is enough? Who should decide?
    4. Should an American who is colluding with the enemy by word of mouth at the least-be under an additional shield of protection because he is an American. In other words should being a traitor make it easier to harm and kill your fellow citizens?

    I’m sure how I have worded some of the questions-has shown my feelings about the execution of this man-but personally I think there was a lot of evidence to prove that he was a traitor-he is obviously outside of our judicial reach(something he could have corrected by coming back or I believe by having legal council represent him from where he was-he obviously wasn’t interested in availing himself of his legal rights)-and he was clearly colluding with the enemy. So in my opinion-we had the right to kill him because of the fact that he was an American. How we determine the legal precedent for how we have that right -in order to limit the amount of power the government has to selectively kill people-I’m open to ideas.

    I understand the conversation based on “due process” is necessary to make sure we are following our laws- But the general outrage that this Obvious piece of crap -who was advertising and using his American citizenship to promote his agenda to kill as many Americans as possible-eludes me.

    • VH…it is simple. There is no rule of law in a war zone. A lot of people like to pretend there is….war crimes, world courts…etc. You do not read Miranda or offer terms. You simply kill the enemy and lose no sleep. The issue originally raised goes beyond Alawaki….it goes to who makes the decisions…..conspiracy theories abound and fears that protestors are next, tax dodgers after that, running red lights after that.
      Alawaki is a known terrorist in a hostile environment…game over for him. Do not sweat it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Correct Colonel, Alawki is well known for working for OUR GOVERNMENT! And who exactly have we declared war on? Which soveriegn nation? Who exactly are the terrorists and why is it not clearly defined? Sorry Sir, your allegiance to your your employor does not impress me.

        • Oh Gman…..quit it. You know good and well where I stand and I understand your passion. It does not matter that he was “working for our government”… what? Our government is wrong on many instances and I recognize that and I am passionate about that. I also see the encroaching of out personal freedoms. I hate it and you know good and well what I am doing to combat it both militarily and in my civilian capacity as well. I have been very consistent about it. It is not about the government at all… the field. It is totally about the “team” on the ground…. the boots, if you will. I know you understand this. I will do anything that is necessary, with in my moral conviction and the integrity of my position, to protect my brothers in the field and on the ground…it is about them. I do not give a shit in shinola about the political process that put me on the ground at that time….the reality is that I am on the ground. I am looking over the sights against someone that I do not know….that also does not matter on the ground. It becomes survival. I may be totally against my government’s decision, as I was in Vietnam and as I was in Kuwait and as I was in Bosnia, and “other” places that the public does not even know about……but I was still there. Therein lies the reality of being military. I will not desert and neither will you…..not if you have chosen that way of life. I have written many reports that told the truth and I am passionate about the way our government is now……..but that still does not change the reality. The man was a combatant. As far as my team is concerned, I do not care about the term “terrorist” or whatever…..on the ground. My allegiance is to my team…..and their welfare. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. I hate being pout into the position of political crap…..but our system of government says…….civilians call the shots. I think you and everybody would be totally surprised at the position of the true military….not the political generals….but the true rank and file.

          I am only coming from the position of the team…the boots. NOt political shitery.

      • Excuse me, so you believe anywhere in the world is the “battlefield” and acceptable for the US to act as it chooses regardless?

        • Not at all and I did not imply that either. You are reading what you want to read and interpreting argument. The reality is simple. Alawaki is a known terrorist. That is fact. You cannot deny it simply because he was not put in some Kangaroo Court. He was in a hostile area known to be hostile. That is also fact. He has been responsible for many acts. That is also fact. (Please do not ask me to “post” proof…I do not have and everyone else already knows this.) I would ask you to prove me wrong. There has been plenty of rhetoric from clerics, Al Queda (sp), that they are at war with America…the reasons do not matter as they are semantic reasons….the reality is………….we are in a fight. Period. He was in a hostile area planning, aiding and abetting people that would attack us for whatever reason…..he died. Due process, in reality, is the same. On the battlefield, it does not matter. World Courts, that I do not believe in, do not matter. The United Nations, that I do not believe in, does not matter. The reality of the world is not United States driven. IF the United States were to practice isolationism and pull back within our borders…..nothing will change. You know that, I know that….even my dog knows that.

          I do not agree with sticking our nose in other people’s business at all. I do not like that. Get it? I DONT LIKE IT AND I AM AGAINST IT!!! That said…it does not change the reality. The reality is the battlefield and Alawaki, American citizen or not, is not due a court hearing or due process when with in a battle zone (it does not matter who defined the battle zone, that is another subject)…the fact is reality. The reality is he died and rightly so.

          I will take it a step further……and invoke the same question that has been ignored by you and others…..let us apply the same principle to mercenaries because I see absolutely no difference in the two. Let us change the location to Africa and…say Rwanda. American Citizen Mercenaries are hired by one side…..and our government, for whatever reason, decides to “aid” the other side….and an airstrike or drone or operation by ground troops is ordered and affected. The mercenaries, American Citizens all, on the other side are NOT…..repeat NOT….entitled to due process. They are not entitled to courts…not entitled to Miranda…they are not “criminals”….except in the minds of the argumentative…they are combatants out to kill. Period. Killing them is the reality. It is not a declared war…as the legal beagles want to scream…My point is…..ON THE BATTLEFIELD… is different. Argue all you want about how we got there and I am with you….but he was a combatant, regardless of the reason.

          So…where is the difference? IT does not matter whether it is a merc or a “cause”…….or does it? I am being consistent in my application of the rules of warfare, once warfare is determined…..I do not care, when on the battlefield, what the political process was….a process will not stop a bullet…you will still be dead.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Wow, I agree (mostly) with the Colonel on this. Methinks I need to switch to stronger coffee!

            Look, would it be preferable to capture Alawaki, bring him back to the States and try him for treason? Sure it would — because we are better (or should be better) than simply ordering the assassination of our own citizens. But as an American citizen fighting American troops abroad, I do not believe the rule of law extends to entitle him to such rights to due process and a fair trial. The argument that if we allow this, then we can and will wind up allowing the President to simply order a domestic terrorist to be assassinated is a bit far-fetched — very different circumstances at work.

            • ****thud**** D13 passing out.

            • Holy crap. Pigs flying, hell’s freezing over and every other “never gonna happen” saying.

              I agree with Buck.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Even better….three birds!

                But now I’m worried — Kathy agreeing with me means I definitely need stronger coffee. I’m running out to Starbucks — time for a triple iced espresso…

            • he argument that if we allow this, then we can and will wind up allowing the President to simply order a domestic terrorist to be assassinated is a bit far-fetched — very different circumstances at work.

              Why is it far-fetched? If any other country in the world can be called a “battlefield” (Yemen, Pakistan) as the Colonel so blatantly does, then why is not the territory of the USA any different?

              Terrorism has been around for a long time and it’s only become a “war” now that the attack horrified Americans in our own nation. All of you will throw out the rule of law to appease your own sense of hatred towards the “combatant: terrorists.

          • Whether you like it or not Awlaki was not on any battlefield by any accepted definition of a battlefield. You condone murder to stop murder. You sir support terrorism yourself IMO.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Was Yemen a “war zone”??? If so, then anywhere in the world is technically a “war zone” by that logic, in my opinion. Al-Awlaki was not in a “war zone” when he was assassinated (this time).

        • gmanfortruth says:

          No, Yemen is not a war zone. It’s a shame that no one has thought of the other person murdered in this event.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “I find I am confused”
      V.H., If you only find yourself “confused” after spending months having conversations with this atypical bunch of lovables, I think you are doing quite well! You are fortunate you have not yet advanced to being a complete loon!
      For what it’s worth, I agree with you and the Colonel on this topic. G-man, Plainly, and others see it very different and never will see it any different.
      Congratulations on your sanity while you still have it. 🙂

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    I was rather rough rough in my earlier comments, but that is because I’m fed up with the lies coming from DC. If you can’t see that sorry. If our Govt can assassinate an American citizen, anywhere on the planet, because he is Muslim, then what’s next, when the jews are accused again, does the government kill them? How about Christians. If three people named John commit crimes do we just kill all the Johns of the country? Geez, I’m not nuts, just fed up!

    • “because he is Muslim” I’m sorry-where did that come from? He happens to be Muslim-but he was killed because he was a traitor to this country who was contributing to the killing of his fellow citizens. If you happen to believe that he was somehow set up-than put up the back up. But please don’t turn this into some kind of religious persecution.

      • gmanfortruth says:


        Where is the evidence he was a traitor? We as American citizens are supposed to be innocent till PROVEN guilty. Show me the PROVEN part!

          • ‘Terror planning’ by Muslim cleric al-Awlaki described in UK trial
            From Andrew Carey and Paul Cruickshank, CNN
            February 1, 2011 10:52 p.m. ES

            London (CNN) — A court in London has heard detailed information about the alleged terrorist activities of Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric associated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based off-shoot of the group founded by Osama bin Laden.

            The details emerged Tuesday during the opening day of the trial of Rajib Karim, a British citizen of Bangladeshi descent accused of helping prepare terrorist acts.

            The court heard that al-Awlaki and Karim had been corresponding, via heavily encrypted software, in late 2009 and early 2010. In one message purported to be from al-Awlaki, the writer made clear where his priorities lay: “Our highest priority is the United States. Anything there, even on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the United Kingdom, would be our choice.”

            Upon learning that Karim worked for British Airways, al-Awlaki asked for what the prosecution suggests was key terror-planning information; as well as offering Karim clear operational guidance:

            “I immediately wanted to contact you to tell you that my advice to you is to remain in your current position,” al-Awlaki wrote. “Depending on what your role is and the amount of information you can get your hands on, you might be able to provide us with critical and urgent information and you may be able to play a crucial role.”

            According to the prosecution, the cleric continued, “I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you.”

            Al-Awlaki then sought information on Karim’s precise role at British Airways, and the extent of his access to information and the company’s IT infrastructure. He also sought details on “limitations and cracks” in present airport security systems.

            A few days later, according to the prosecution, Karim sent al-Awlaki a detailed reply in which he suggested his knowledge of key British Airways hardware locations could be useful. If those locations were targeted, he told al-Awlaki, flights could be disrupted causing British Airways financial loss. He also identified three “brothers” in the UK who could be helpful, one of whom worked in baggage handling at Heathrow and another at airport security. “They respect you a lot,” he told al-Awlaki.

            In another communication, on February 12, 2010, al-Awlaki made it clear that Karim should remain in the UK; he told Karim he should train as British Airways cabin crew if possible. Their plans may take time, he said, according to the prosecution.

            “The question is, with the people you have is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?” the communication said.

            Al-Awlaki then asked, “Did any of the [brothers] you mentioned get training on x-ray machines or understand their limitations?” The cleric, according to the prosecution, added, “Is it possible to make false reports on security risks on airplanes and airports? Reports that would cause planes to be grounded and airports closed … this doesn’t count for much but it does cause them some nuisance and loss.”

            Three days later Karim replied, describing various ways British Airways computer systems could be targeted, as well as informing al-Awlaki that he had applied for cabin crew training, which he hoped he would be accepted for, despite having worked for British Airways for less than the mandatory five years required for such training.

            Ten days later Karim was arrested in Newcastle by officers from Scotland Yard’s Counterterrorism Command.


            • Fort Hood: Hasan Asked Awlaki If It Was Okay to Kill American Soldiers

              By MARK SCHONE and REHAB EL-BURI
              Dec. 23, 2009

              In an interview published on Al Jazeera’s Web site, radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki says that Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged with killing 13 in last month’s Fort Hood massacre, asked for guidance about killing American military personnel in his very first e-mail.

              Awlaki claims that Hasan initiated the e-mail correspondence with a message on Dec. 17, 2008. “He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers,” says Awlaki. “His question was is it legitimate [under Islamic law].”

              The Al Jazeera questioner asks for confirmation that Hasan forwarded this query nearly a year before the shooting.


              “Yes,” responds Awlaki. “I am astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world?”

              Hasan and Awlaki exchanged as many as 18 e-mails in the year prior to the shooting. As ABC News had previously reported exclusively, Hasan had discussed martyrdom with Awlaki, asking when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack. Hasan also told Awlaki he looked forward to seeing him in the afterlife and sharing non-alcoholic wine. CLICK HERE TO SEE INSIDE THE HOME OF NIDAL HASAN

              In the interview, Awlaki does not say whether he okayed the attack, but restates his support for the deed. Just after the Fort Hood shootings, Awlaki posted a message on his Web site praising the shooter. In the interview, he calls the shooting “a heroic action.”

              “The operation had a military target inside America, and there’s no dispute about that,” says Awlaki, adding that the soldiers killed “were prepared and equipped to fight and kill oppressed Muslims.”
              al-Qaeda Recruiter Taunts U.S. Intelligence

              Asked why he supports a man who “betrayed his American homeland,” Awlaki says that religion trumps country. “Working in the American military to kill Muslims is a betrayal to Islam,” says Awlaki.

              Awlaki, however, denies recruiting Hasan to commit violence. “Yes, I played a role in guiding his ideology, but nothing beyond that,” says Awlaki.

              Awlaki then suggests that the American government is trying to cover up its security failure by preventing the publication of the e-mails.

              The interview was conducted by Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Hider Shaea, who had previously interviewed Awlaki for the Washington Post, and who says he has seen copies of the e-mails exchanged between Awlaki and Hasan.

              Maj. Hasan, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist who was born in Virginia to Palestinian immigrants, faces 13 charges of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder for his alleged role in the Nov. 6 attacks. He is being prosecuted in the military justice system, and could receive a death sentence.

              In the Al Jazeera interview, Awlaki says he believes that Hasan is likely to be executed. “I ask God to accept him as a martyr,” says Awlaki.


        • Guilty by association……I do not like that in particular….but if you run with the rats…I will assume you are a rat.

    • GMan I believe this is the first thing I have ever disagreed with you about. I’m frustrated that you jump to the conclusion that I am some simpleminded government-bot. But it is what it is. I still distrust the government as much as you do. I’ve been trying to locate where I read over the weekend that the Yemen govt gave their approval to target al awlaki. I cannot find it again. Does that give me any slack that it was ok with Yemen.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t think your a “bot” of any kind! 🙂 No, because Yemen said it was OK to kill a Us citizen by his own government means Nada!

        • Damn! Well since I’m already in trouble let me just tell you that my son-in-law got a six point Thursday. Brown &Down. OOOPS That’s assasination too.!

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Tell your son-n-law to go get em! That’s my kind of assassination. No, your not in trouble with me. 🙂

    • Gman…….this we agree on and I understand your passion. Please understand mine when it comes to battlefield and the team (sounds an awful lot like the Gipper )….but it is about the team. I do not see the level of conspiracy that you do but I so see the encroachment and will do what I can to stop it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Again, was Yemen part of the “battlefield”?? If so, then logically anywhere in the world is part of the battlefield.

        • Peter-you keep pointing out that we are not at war with a nation State-does this fact make it not a war? Your stance seems to be-since these attacks don’t follow the norm for war-than I refuse to call it war. I understand your problem with the possible ramifications of the currant policy-I can certainly see that we may need to regroup and rethink the current position on how we handle this situation-but I don’t understand the insistance that this is not a WAR.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I never insisted it was “not a war”. However, the wars we have currently (either declared or otherwise) happen to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Yemen isn’t on the list.

            If you say that we are “at war” with terrorists, even if they are in Yemen, then you can say that we are “at war” with terrorists regardless of where they are and what citizenship they hold. It logically follows from that that the government can (and should, I guess) assassinate US citizens on US soil as long as the US Government declares them an “enemy of the State”.

            I don’t think you would like the results if your argument were to be carried out logically to its conclusion.

        • Great issue to bring up….was Yemen a battlefield. If I were making the decision…, Yemen is not a battlefield. But, in WWII, if Hitler ventured out Argentina……Argentina is not a battlefield but a hit on Hitler is authorized. I see the same scenario.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Clonel, I have no issues with our troops doing their job and following orders. It all starts at the top. While my passion is front and center, when we the people allow such actions against an American citizen without due process, then the Bill of Rights is history for everyone.

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    I think the title of the article stands true today. When the government can assassinated it’s own citizens without due process and it’s citizens endorse and condone the act, the rule of law is lost. The only ones subject to laws now are the people, because the government has become above it. Welcome to your new agreed to slavery. Now, I wonder haw many more American citizens will be murdered by it’s government? Is it going to take the lives of an entire city population before the blindness is cured?

    • How about placing some blame in the other court too. I can just as easily say that you’re head is in the sand too. You are a second amendment guy. You scoff at the folks who say guns kill. But you know that if we give our guns up the bad guy still has guns. First you have to acknowledge, like it or not, that we are at war. The terrorists (yes they are real) defined the rules of the game. How about calling them cowards. How about accusing their heads of state of harboring them. This is not your father’s war..they’re all over the place, in street clothes, all bent on killing us. You must acknowledge this. If we take the ball and go home..they’re not going anywhere and if you believe that then you may as well just give up your guns and let them come get you.Why can’t you tell them to back off? Or why can’t you tell the leaders of other countries to get some skin in the game, their citizens are getting picked off too. Or is that our fault too? That’s not to give our side a pass, we slither in the grass with them. What we need to do is force our government to call a terrorist a terrorist and to keep their eye on the ball. To call tea partiers and vets terrorists is ridiculous but for you to deny there are real terrorists with an agenda is ridiculous also..

      • gmanfortruth says:


        There are also mass murderers and serial rapists. These people do evil as much if not more than terrorists. But because they are US citizens, they get due process when captured. More Americans are killed each year by bee’s than by terrorists. We don’t assassinate serial rapists and mass murderers or bees for that matter, but the government has decided that it can kill anyone it wants by just saying they are terrorists. I do not like the radical muslims that want to kill innocent people. Most are not US citizens that are guaranteed the right to due process.

    • White House lawyers who drafted secret Awlaki kill memo were critics of Bush’s war powers
      posted at 9:43 pm on October 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

      Not the first time that the left’s anti-war legal heroes have morphed from civil libertarians when Bush was in office to war-power expansionists once they went to work for The One. Remember when Harold Koh convinced Obama that he didn’t need to bother with congressional authorization after all if he wanted to wage war in Libya? Good times.

      The latest converts to the church of It’s Okay When We Do It: OLC lawyers David Barron and Martin Lederman, who, it turns out, co-authored the legal memo last summer arguing that the killing of Awlaki was legal, notwithstanding the fact that he was an American citizen.

      The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat…

      The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him…

      It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation…

      The memorandum is said to declare that in the case of a citizen, it is legally required to capture the militant if feasible — raising a question: was capturing Mr. Awlaki in fact feasible?

      This wasn’t the first piece of scholarship Barron and Lederman wrote together. Turns out they also co-authored a pair of articles in the Harvard Law Review three years ago arguing that constitutional war powers had tipped too much towards the executive and away from Congress over the years. That’s not the same issue as was raised in the Awlaki case, but insofar as those articles were part of the left’s broader argument for limiting the president’s ability to wage war wherever and however he likes, the Awlaki memo is obviously a terrible betrayal. No wonder Glenn Greenwald is heartbroken. Apparently, so scrupulous was the by-the-book Obama OLC about targeting Americans that they gave the okay to hit Awlaki before they’d even done the research into whether it was legal.

      If you missed Al Qaeda’s statement today wondering where, oh where, America’s vaunted due process was when it came to killing Anwar al-Awlaki, follow the link here. They too would have gotten a different reaction if Bush had greenlit the drone strike instead of Obama. Imagine how many times we’d have seen this bit of propaganda parroted by the we’re-no-better-than-they-are anti-war illuminati:

      “The Americans killed the scholar Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaqi and Samir Khan, but they did not prove any crime they committed and they never presented any proof against them from their laws of unjust freedom. So, where is the freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms they boast of? Did America become so suffocated that it contradicted—and everyday it contradicts—these principles it claims it established its country on?”

      “America has failed as it has not stuck to its principles, and the Shaykh—who lived his doctrine and died for its cause—won. And like that, everyday America kills humans unjustly and aggressively. Its history is black and long and has no limit, and it lies openly that it protects human rights, justice and freedom.”

      As it is, with O in charge, that logic has gone right down the media toilet. See, guys? There is one advantage to having him as president.

      In lieu of an exit question, go read Tom Joscelyn’s reminder of what a stickler Awlaki himself was for freedom, justice, and human rights.

    • LOI…..great reading. Especially about the secret death panel.

      • Having an ill-formed thought… Isn’t it illegal in the US to make a law which singles out an individual or one group?

        Reuters) – American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

        There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

        The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

        The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

        Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

  11. Canine Weapon says:

  12. NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Hank Williams Jr. is about to have his say.

    Williams’ has cut new song “I’ll Keep My …,” calling out “Fox & Friends” and ESPN after an interview last week on the Fox News talk show led to the end of his association with the sports network and “Monday Night Football,” long home to his “Are you ready for some football?” theme.

    He’s also scheduled to appear on “The View” and “Hannity” on Tuesday to discuss the uproar that sprung up after he made an analogy that President Barack Obama and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner golfing together was like Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a round.

    ESPN decided to pull Williams’ intro from last Monday’s “MNF” telecast after the comments and the move became permanent Thursday when both sides said they’d decided to pull the spot.

    Williams wrote the topical third verse of “I’ll Keep My …” when he woke up Friday morning and he and a group of players laid it down in a Nashville studio by Friday afternoon. It could be on iTunes late Monday or early Tuesday.

    In the song Williams, son of country music icon Hank Williams, says “Fox & Friends” hosts twisted his words: “So Fox ‘n Friends wanna put me down/Ask for my opinion/Twist it all around.” He finishes the verse: “Well two can play that gotcha game you’ll see.”

    Early in the song, he says the U.S. is “going down the drain” and says it’s becoming “The United Socialist States of America.” He mentions keeping “Fox & Friends” and ESPN out of your home toward the end of the song.

    Williams’ comments last Monday drew unlikely reactions with many commentators and comedians coming to his defense, claiming ESPN was infringing on his right to free speech. His defenders included the left-leaning Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar of “The View” and Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” and on the other side of the political landscape Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

    The brouhaha prompted Williams also to start selling “Hank Jr. for President” T-shirts on his website.

    Read more:

    • Take this job and shove it….. 🙂 Go Hank!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      He had no right to free speech in this scenario.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Bonus points for Ray!

        Hank was speaking as an employee of Fox Sports under contract, not as a public speaker. Free speech doesn’t apply.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Sorry, ESPN, not Fox Sports…. oops!

          • I don’t see the problem. He didn’t call anyone a name. He made a comparison. George W got called Satan for Pete(r’s) sake 🙂

            Something is messed up though. How about Fox bringing on a guest, asking their opinion, then “disavowing” the opinion.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    I do have a question for those who support the actions of our government, since we are in a “war” against terror, and that justifies the murder of an American citizen, Is it no safe to say the the govt can also kill drug dealers because there is a “war” on drugs as well. Someone might also ask which one has killed more Americans, the boogieman in the turban or illegal drugs.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Further, had the drugs been legal instead of illegal, there would not have been a “war on drugs” and far less people would have died. Don’t get me wrong, the drugs themselves (in some cases) can be deadly; however, far more people die due to drug-related violence (government sponsored or otherwise) than die from the drugs themselves.

      Gunwalker (Fast and Furious) (whatever you wanna call it) is a direct example of both Americans and Mexicans dying in the “war on drugs” through an illegal US government operation. Gunwalker is just the latest example of this. Similar things have happened in Colombia and other places.

  14. Canine Weapon says:
  15. So how many of these will be uncovered?

  16. G-man,

    The unintended consequences go even deeper than the dangerous implications on Americans.

    Now, Star Chamber verdicts are acceptable – woe to the American people.

    On top of that, the US has given precedent to any other nation to entire the USA and kill whomever another country’s government deems “unacceptable”.

    The Golden Rule rules, to one’s benefit – …. or peril.

    • D13, you have no problem with this, right?

      Iran behind plot to kill Saudi ambassador, U.S. says

      …Iran – by your argument – is right to assassinate the ambassador – if the Iranian, in their Star Chamber, declares that he is a “terrorist”.

      • No sir, I do have a problem with it if the Saudis or Iran are not at war, declared or not, with each other or not deemed at war by either party.

        • D13,
          The US is not at war with Yemen, either … or has something happened lately?

          Again, how can you be at war with a non-state entity?

          Do you mean that all the US has to do is say they are at “war” with whatever or who ever they want, and that all that is needed to kill them?

          • D13,
            But if the US can declare who it is at war, including individuals or non-state groups, why can’t Iran make the same claim?

            If the US can keep its proceedings secret, keep who is “on the list” secret, why can’t Iran make the same claim?

          • Absolutely not…..and you are right…we are not at war with Yemen. (Not yet but give Obama some time….it is election year)…….I know of no hard fast rules in Geneva, the UN, or anywhere that defines war as restricted to a sovereign Nation. Not saying there is not a definition….just do not know of one. You can declare war against anyone….Somali Pirates for example. What I find disheartening… how war is declared. Who determines a clear and present danger? I am not so sure we have the right answer. Right now, a head of any state or a leader of any entity can declare a war me, that is the dysfunction.

  17. 8)

  18. Guess what BF? WE DONT LIKE IT EITHER! . Yes, I realize the slippery slope argument. Do you think the (name your) bad guys care about the rule?. You make us out to be the culprit, but yet they declare to the world that we should be dead. I don’t get it. We either do nothing and let them kill us, or do something and suddenly we’re the problem.WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM We’re screwed either way. Given my choice of crap sandwich, I’m good with my choice. 🙄

  19. Ladies and Gentlemen

    I suggest everyone think a little deeper on the al Awalki issue. Core principles were violated and we need to protect against such violations or we can never build a society and govt consistent with those principles. Freedom, liberty and justice are at stake here. I understand the desire to rationalize the killing of someone without trial because we believe them to be connected to some group that hates us. But remember that NO such proof of any ACTUAL ACTION by this person was presented to a group of his peers.

    Those who claim distrust of Govt seem quick to accept the Govt’s story. Those who think Govt is a grand conspiracy in everything need to consider that even corrupt Govts’ do tell the truth from time to time, and not all information should be open to public inspection.

    RULE OF LAW MUST RULE in any Nation predicated on Freedom, Justice and Liberty. We can not allow the GOVT to decide when exceptions to the law occur. The LAW is the ONLY thing standing between us and tyranny. Yes, the Govt makes law, but it is the people who make the law that allows the Govt to make the law. And it is the people who grant or withdraw the authority for Govt to exist. That is if we live in a free society.

    Now, as I tried to open up the other day, there are laws that govern our everyday lives and there are laws that govern the conduct of War. Sorry, Colonel but you know full well that these laws DO APPLY to the battle field. In the heat of battle we as Americans may decide to violate these laws, but we do so knowing we will pay a price. I raised this issue the other day because the claim was the killing violated our law and the Constitution in particular. But it is not that clear because of the War issue.

    The reason everyone struggles with that one point is because our Govt has tried to have it both ways. If we are in fact AT WAR with Al Quada and its affiliates then al Awalki was a combatant and subject to the laws of War. A case can easily be made that he can be targeted anywhere he exists, given his group defined the battlefield, provided we follow other laws regarding national sovereignty, etc. BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM.

    IF we are at WAR and the laws of War apply, then the Bush and Obama administration could be charged with War Crimes. IF we are at WAR then those guys in Cuba are either POW’s or non-combatants and not something called enemy combatants, to be held in limbo forever.

    IF we are NOT at WAR then we just assassinated an American citizen without due process. We also assassinated an Arab citizen recently in Pakistan. Both are clear violations of our own laws and those Rights so treasured by Americans. Traitor or not, mercenary or not, ass-clown or not.

    This is going to get to some of you as well. The Fifth Amendment applies to all PEOPLE, not just Citizens. We have laws in place to deal with criminals who are not citizens as well as citizens who have run to other nations.

    As I said the other day. The law must apply. Because our Govt is corrupt and we have been asleep for a century or more, our laws are also corrupt.

    First we must select solid core principles. Then we must construct a govt consistent with those principles. AND THEN WE MUST LIVE BY THOSE PRINCIPLES, NOT MATTER HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO ACCEPT THE RIGHTS OF EVIL PEOPLE. This includes holding the Govt accountable to those principles in ALL cases, no exceptions.

    Happy Thinking

    • Perfect! When you start from scratch.

    • I see your point-the Obamacare mandate and the use of the words fee or tax-depending on which one supports conflicting arguments made by the same side -is the same thing.

      But I am a little lost-between the international laws we have signed on for,covering war and prisoners of war, etc. and the new laws instated by the Bush administration-I don’t think our laws are clear at all. But I strongly believe we are at war-it may not be the most convenient definition-but I think it is the true one. So just how do we create that core and make our laws clear based on organized groups who have declared war on the US? I don’t buy into the criminal definition because the intent isn’t just a criminal activity-the intention is to recruit as many people as possible to kill the citizens of a specific country by a foreign entity-not just to commit an illegal act. So anyone working with or for this group are war criminals or traitorslwar criminals not just criminals.

      As far as either President being guilty of war crimes-maybe they are-but I think(?) that the new laws passed by Bush would cover them against that charge at least in American courts.

  20. d13

    Question for you on mercenaries.

    If a mercenary is working for another country and then we decide to send troops to that country (assumed no war declared), where in he/she ends up fighting against American troops, is that person guilty of Treason by law? Is that person guilty of any crime? Or is that person simply collateral damage to the mission authorized by the civilian govt?

    If that mercenary then goes to another country are there laws in place that would allow us to hunt them down and arrest or assassinate that person in said third country?

    • Great question and I asked a military lawyer your question…..He would be considered collateral damage. No American Law violated and no due process required.

      No law is necessary, according to the legal beagle, on the merc going to another country. There is no law that prohibits him hiring out. But, if that merc goes to another country in the context of war against this country, then there are treason issues that can come into play…however, he becomes a casualty of war and become a target, declared or not, if the hostilities of the host country OR entity (does not have to be sovereign) deems itself to be at war.

      • d13

        That doesn’t sound right. Either I muddled the question or your lawyer didn’t understand.

        I agree with the first part. The merc is just another bad guy if fighting against US Forces in an authorized action. Because the legal question is the legality of the action itself, not those acting under authority granted.

        I would also agree that anyone who is a member of a govt or military of a govt with which we are at WAR is fair game, even if they run to another country. Because they were guilty of Treason, while fighting a WAR against the USA.

        But what if we are not in an official WAR with the country that he hired with. He was fighting on behalf of A against B when USA intervened on B’s behalf.

        So if our merc survives initial contact and then goes to another country (assumed peaceful State) I do not see how we could simply hunt him down and kill him.

        As I understand the lawyer’s response the determination of whether a WAR exists is based on the view of the Group/Nation State “towards” the USA. So in this case, Al Quada declared WAR therefore we are at WAR. IS THAT CORRECT?????

        If so, could your friend provide some reference for this conclusion?

        Is it true that things have cooled and become wetter down your way?
        Hope all is well.


        • JAC asks: “As I understand the lawyer’s response the determination of whether a WAR exists is based on the view of the Group/Nation State “towards” the USA. So in this case, Al Quada declared WAR therefore we are at WAR. IS THAT CORRECT?????”

          That is correct, as I understand it. I also understand that if a country or entity declared open war against the United States and has done nothing to show it is at war…..preemptive measures are authorized. It is the declaration and not the action that is the key.

          I am told that if the merc was a “hired” gun that worked as an independent with a country and he “terminates” his agreement and leaves as a result of American interference, he is not considered a fugitive or traitor….however, I am told, if he knowingly stays and fights against American troops, he is more than a fugitive or hired gun….his acts could be considered traitorous. He is not considered a criminal he is considered a combatant of enemy forces.

          It has cooled down and we have had about three inches of rain….but the drought continues. Some areas still need rain measured in feet.

          • d13

            I agree with all except this: “…or entity declared war…………”.

            I can find nothing in the International Law on War indicating WAR declared by a “group” or “entity” that is not a Govt or an agent acting on behalf of a Govt for a Nation State.

            While I agree that one group trying to kill another group over control of resources or turf is WAR, the laws as written don’t address group against Nation State as WAR.

            For the record, I think we should have declared war against Afghanistan and would have been supported by US and International Law in doing so. That would have resolved many issues that arose later. Removal and elimination of the Taliban and their Al Quada Allie would have been the goal. This would then have allowed Criminal actions against anyone associated with either group according to International Rules of WAR. If Yemen gave us the go ahead to get al Awlaki then a hell fire enema is administered without regret. All that was needed prior to that act was an open determination that the man and his partner were in fact “combatants” against the USA.

            • JAC…..good observation here….however, I have also found nothing that actually defines an “act of war”…..but I do know, that if a plot is devised to kill any member of a nation or entity, that is considered to be an act of war. Of course, I have never seen a definition of war other than hostilities of one against another….the term war is used all to frequently and all to lightly. But, you are quite correct in that a “formal” declaration and an objective and a definitive statement is much better. If we, or anybody, deems themselves at war….it is not going to matter what the International scene says or thinks…..the International agencies are toothless tigers. However, your concerns about being forthright…..would solve a great many issues.

              • JAC, I might add that the definitions that you and I are finding are pretty archaic as well…..entities were not a forethought at that time. These so called terrorists groups are entities without a country but are supported by countries…..interesting situation. Now, I would ask, if a Nation State supports an entity with either money or sanctuary, are they technically at war? I would say yes, under the definition as I see it. If the United States gives money and materials to an entity knowing that the entity is a surrogate….we declared war.

              • d13

                re: JAC, I might add that the definitions that you and I are finding are pretty archaic as well…

                I agree. Especially regarding all Int. Law on “WAR”. It does not forsee Al Quada.

                I also agree with the harboring and/or funding/support etc. That is why I think we should have declared a state of war with Afghanistan. Their Govt, the Taliban, was supporting Bin Laden and his cronies.

                Of course there is also a need for the attacked party to concede a state of war. That being the USA. I guess we have the option to ignore the actions of others and treat it via other means. We just shouldn’t be surprised when it gets out of control.

                For example, Pakistan. It can be argued that we have been in a state of war with Pakistan for some time. But we choose to not recognize this because we are willing to play the game of trading some cooperation for some attacks. Which of course makes me wonder WHY we have suddenly decided to hang the dirty laundry where everyone can see it.

                Has the situation really changed? Or do we have an Administration playing politics due to BAD poll numbers?

    • Based on what I’ve seen of many of the protesters, they are almost like animals in their behavior, so maybe they are just saying they can have sex with each other???? Which I’ve read is also not an uncommon occurence there. But the Dems stand proud in their solidarity with this group?

      Have you pulled your pier in yet?

      • HA! I don’t know what you guys have but we have docks. 🙂 Yes, it’s in. Bring on the fall chores.

        • We dock the boat at the pier.

          pier (pîr)
          a. A platform extending from a shore over water and supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, protect, and provide access to ships or boats

          dock 1 (dk)

          1. To maneuver (a vessel or vehicle) into or next to a pier

          Words must change when you cross Lake Michigan!!!

  21. Governor Perry now has a problem in Texas. His stance on immigration will need to change if he expects to remain governor. If he does not change, he will be out. The movement, which the vets are now part of, is growing.

    • What do you want him to change? And Why ? You seemed to support him for the most part before.

      • Never have supported him for President….I always said I wanted him to stay as Governor…however, his stance in the debates was quite different than his stance when he talked with the Veterans groups over a year ago. I was there. His support of in state tuition of illegals over that of US Citizens is deplorable and will not be tolerated by most. He has done the politician thing for votes. He git the message on his corridor….we hope he gets the message now. NO illegal is entitled to privileges and benefits OVER US citizens…I do not care why they are here or the children had no choice……no illegal immigrant should be placed above US citizens for anything.

        • I really don’t want to open that can of worms again-since we have just discussed it 🙂 but I’m gonna make a couple points and you can decide if you want to discuss it more or not.

          First , I don’t think Perry is going to win the primary(but I have been wrong before)-not really because of his immigration stance-but because he just doesn’t seem to have the ability to debate. Some people are simply better at more personal human interaction-I suspect the southern habit of not being rude hurts him too.

          On immigration-I agree with you in principal-but the way to stop any preference to illegals is to stop people from entering illegally- But that will not take care of the ones who are here and have been here for years. We are not going to send them all back-and if they are gonna stay-they should be able to go to school and work legally. If we seriously want to enforce the rules and send all the illegals back no matter the situation-than we need to start by denying their children an education at any and all levels. The in-state tuition issue at college level-after we have financed their education for up to 12 years-is a strange place to start.

          • V.H.

            Well said. I think you capture the conundrum of the options available.

            I would only add that I don’t see how we could ever “secure” our border without a complete fence with guards. I also don’t think just issuing Visas will stop the problem because if they are not available to anyone, all the time, somebody will sneak in because they can’t get a Visa when they want. Obviously we can stem the flow, but those thinking we can stop illegal aliens from sneaking in are fooling themselves.

            • Of course some people would still get through the border and some would just overstay their visa’s. But if the border was closed, visa’s were enforced, and a reasonable criteria was set up to handle those who are already here-Laws against hiring illegals and denying their children an education at our schools would catch most of any new illegals. After that -I think the number would be small enough to handle.

              I just simply find any solution almost impossible, without admitting the obvious-we are not going to send them all home.

          • No, there is no reason to argue the semantics. You asked why I would not support him and I told you. YOU inquired why Texans are turning sour….I told you. Perry is a governor and not a President.

            There is no way to stop illegal immigration except on our side. Fences will not work….militarization of the border will stop 90 percent….Want to stop illegal immigration? Do away with the reason they are immigrating. But this has also been discussed quite thoroughly. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine.

            • Yes-I did ask and I suppose to do so and then say I didn’t want to open that can of worms -when I was in the process of opening said can-was a might contradictory-sorry. I just sometimes feel-I am just repeating myself-and I like to put a little distance between saying the same thing again. 🙂

  22. Interesting…….. According to many lawyers, as seen on Tv this morning, act act of war extends to plots to kill American citizens that have not yet happened. The discussion was centered around the capture and indictment of the Iranian linked person that was trying to set up hits on American Embassies and assassinations of representatives of other countries on American soil. The talked centered around the deaths of the innocent bystanders that would inevitably happen. According to these lawyers that were interviewed, the mere discussion of and planning of American deaths is an act of war.

    And before you leap BF…..that would extend to any plots or discussions by American politicos against foreign entities or countries. So, declaring war seems to be an easy leap to make. “I hate your guts so I will kill you”……act of war. Interesting.


      Fox had an interesting segment this AM. An FBI agent who investigated the Cole bombing said the mastermind behind it blamed 9/11 on our lack of response to the Cole bombing. Don’t think I buy that line of thinking but do think a Reagan response will produce better results for the US. Bomb the Iranian bases where terrorists are training to attack Iraq. Would a nuclear bomb on their nuclear plant be a clear enough message? Not saying I would, but am saying I would give it serious consideration.

    • d13

      I also have found most of the responses as “interesting”. Bizarre might be a better term. It is like we haven’t learned a damn thing after 40 years of being at War with someone.

      A plot is a plot, it is not an act of WAR. Iran has violated International law and we must use the International Law process and institutions to respond.

      Besides, it will be today or tomorrow and we will start hearing about how this is really a CIA Op or an Israeli Op, or the Military Industrial Complex Op. So of course any action against Iran will simply be falling into the trap set by the Op’s devious schemes.

      • You lost me on the International Law process. It does not work…sanctions do not work. There is no enforcement power on the International Law stage……so I view International Law about as useless as…well….you know the different sayings.

        But, I did get into the discussion this morning on the “legal issues” and a plot can be and usually is considered an act of war even if not carried out. This is a little thin for me, but a declaration of war does not need to be carried out to be a declaration. A plot, that has been stopped, is deemed to have been carried out…….as far as declaration is concerned.

        I can see both sides of it, I guess……I guess I can say to you…JAC….I consider us to be at war…….and do nothing but we are technically at war. Again, about as thin as piss on a plate but that is the way it seems to be interpreted.

        An example used to me was the Fatwah against the cartoonist……legally, that is a declaration of war against the entire country.

        • d13

          I don’t disagree given the various Laws as they stand today. I think it makes the entire issue far to fuzzy and thus subject to manipulation, however.

          Don’t misunderstand my mention of using Int. Law. I would expect little success. But I think where we are today in our Int. relations and our current fiscal/economic status we have little choice. I would be willing to take the pressure off of Iran a little while increasing clandestine operations to make sure we do in fact have the “facts”. On the other hand we might be more successful than in the past because an plot to assassinate a diplomat and bomb embassies on foreign soil will piss off those nations who matter. I expect even the Russians would frown on this behavior and let Iran know it is unacceptable.

          As for this action being considered an act of war, we would need to show that the Iranian “military person” was in fact acting on behalf of Iran and not on some personal idea.

        • d13

          Related question. If we were to take action against Iran that was affective, wouldn’t that strengthen the hand of the radicals who are taking control of Turkey?

          I am finding various evidence that Iran and Turkey are in competition. So we need to think about how our actions against either could upset that competition.

          Your thoughts??

          • Now JAC……why are you asking pertinent questions? Nice observation with one caveat…..where do you see competition?

            • d13

              I posted a link to a site the other day where the author discusses competition between the two for control of, or designation as leader of, the “Caliphate”.

              The site was

              I listened to an interview with this fellow the other day where he discussed the connections between various groups and the historical context that is behind various groups working together or against each other.

              I have found other assertions by middle eastern commentators that are similar. Basically, Iran is trying to control events in Palestine, Israel etc and the Turks would like to establish their control over the situation instead. Restoring their influence (empire) lost after WW I. The arguments focus on traditional “tribal” and racial affiliations between Turks, Arabs, Syrians and Persians, along with some other more minor groups. Religious sects of Islam also play a role with the various tribal groups.

              Why am I asking?? Because I would like to understand reality so that I can argue for a rational and sane policy in the region. Hopefully something short of “Nuke all the bastards”. 🙂

              I argue for us to withdraw from the region and start treating all parties equally. But that is based on principles which may have significant detrimental effects given the “current situation”. Just like trying to move to a completely free country here overnight could cause severe problems that undermine our goals of VDLG.

              I believe there are in fact powerful figures in the Region who wish to re-establish the Caliphate. At least in the middle east and along the southern Med. I am not sure whether Israel would be lost if this happened. I am not sure WHY we should care or interfere. But I would like to make sure we don’t kick over the milk bucket in the process of swatting the fly.

      • I think the Saudi’s might have a different viewpoint. Consider they have been expanding their military due to what they see as being a threat to them, namely Iran.

        • LOI

          The plot would historically be viewed as an act of War, or prelude to War, by the Saudies. It was their diplomat that was the target.

          Same for the embassies. They are treated as an extension of the nation thus an attack on an embassy can be viewed as a direct attack upon a nation.

          Historically, an attack on an embassy or diplomat in a third party nation is not taken as an act of WAR against the third party itself. Not that it couldn’t be but it usually results in a lot of “diplomatic action” against the perpetrator or conspirator but not “retaliation by War action”.

          • LOI,

            JAC is generally right – but not quite.

            Attacks on embassies/diplomats are “Casus Belli”- justifications for war.

            The attacks themselves, in this case, are not “acts of war”, but criminal acts.
            The Saudi’s, however, can justify attacking Iran (an act of war) based on these criminal acts.

        • LOI….nice observation….I have seen reports that the Saudi military has increased in size by one third,,to include a formidable Navy being upgraded and expanded.

          • It strikes me as “strange” what the media considers to be news. The Middle East is a powderkeg, Turkey and Iran seem to want to force a war with Israel (who seems lacking in angels to guide them). Egypt has lost control and is poised for civil war between Christians and Muslims, Syria and Yemen governments ripe for failure. Syria might want war with Israel just to provide a common enemy other than their government.

            And then there’s the world economy, Greece poised for default as their entitled masses riot. The Euro looking at failure and trade wars with China. Lets talk about a thousand paid protesters across from Wall Street and the presidential election that’s more than a year away…….

            • LOI

              Sometimes I wonder where you get your bizarre ideas.

              Turkey and Iran seem to want to force a war with Israel

              Turkey was one of Israel’s few allies – now, you think they want to go to war…. bizarre.

              Iran has no army, navy or air force capable of project of power- yet, you think they want to go to war.

              *shake head*

              (who seems lacking in angels to guide them).

              They are there, but they do not listen to them – perhaps these angels need Todd to teach them “How to win friends”.

              Syria might want war with Israel just to provide a common enemy other than their government.

              Syria wants war with Israel – are you mad?

              The Golan Heights open a straight run for Israel to Damascus – and there is darn nothing the Syrian army could do nothing to stop the Israeli army other than pave the highway with Syrian dead.

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Act of War, Act of War, Act of War! (the sky is falling! the sky is falling! it’s falling, the sky!)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, and by the way, VP Biden has already said that “no option is off the table” concerning Iran. And you also have the neo-cons saying this kind of stuff:

      • Yep!!

        I even heard one guy on the radio this morning state that we need to wake up to the reality that we are going to have to destroy Iran eventually. There is no other way to have peace with that nation. Of course he thought if we just wiped out their government that might work but not as certain as “destroying the nation”.

        Proof that insanity is becoming mainstream. Perhaps we need a little more Darwinism.

    • Timing is kinda interesting, Obama knew in June, Holder is getting pressure for Fast & Furious. We must re-elect Obama, who has kept us safe from all these terrorists…….

      U.S. officials identified the two alleged plotters as Gholam Shakuri, who is a member of the Quds force, and Manssor Arbabsiar, who was arrested on September 29 when he arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport from Mexico.

      Arbabsiar, 56, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and holds an Iranian passport, initially cooperated with authorities after being arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on September 29.

      He made calls to Shakuri after being arrested and acted as if the plot was still a go, court documents said.

      Arbabsiar made a brief appearance in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday where he was ordered detained and assigned a public defender. He appeared in blue jeans and a dress shirt, thinning gray hair and a scar on the left side of his face.

      Officials said that the Saudi ambassador, Al-Jubeir, who is close to King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz and has been in his post since 2007, was never in danger. President Barack Obama was briefed in June

  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Yup! If it weren’t for government “investment” no one would ever succeed! You got it Barry!

    • Peter

      I found it interesting that this “concept” started to raise up on the internet about 3 months ago. It is now viral and supported by obvious efforts such as the MSNBC “Leaning Forward” campaign.

      It is a fallacious attack upon the concept of “individualism” which of course would eliminate the case for individual freedom or liberty. And of course rationalize the case for “Social Justice”.

      • The individual is the unique unit of consciousness from which all evaluation begins.

        Note that this conception does not in any way reject the influence of community or society on the individual.

        The value structure of an isolated human being may be totally divergent from that of such a person described by membership in one or many social relationships.

        The presupposition requires only that societal or communitarian influences enter through modifications in the values that are potentially expressed by the individually and not externally…..

        This is the failure of Progressives and Statists – they believe that society is the singular organism, not the individual in society – and thus, advocate for the exact backward policies which attacks individuals – and, as it must eventually, destroys society.

        • Mathius™ says:

          This is the failure of Progressives and Statists – they believe that society is the singular organism, not the individual in society

          That’s not true, flag.

          We think of BOTH the individual AND the society as a whole. We just consider them in a balance against each other.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Not quite, Mathius…

            “Greater Good Doctrine” demands that while the individual be CONSIDERED, the needs/wants/desires of the individual MUST BE REJECTED if they are in conflict with the “good of the many”. This is not “balance”, it is merely lip-service to the individual while pushing the balance down in favor of “society”.

            The argument usually goes something like this: “Well yeah, individual liberty is great and all, but IN THIS CASE the GREATER GOOD can ONLY be served by XYZ” (Where XYZ is in direct conflict with anything having to do with the individual liberty that the speaker just gave lip-service to).

            • Mathius™ says:

              note that you said “IN THIS CASE”

              That’s exactly it. Sometimes the Greater Good wins. Sometimes the individual.

              For example, greater good might suggest we take Paris Hilton, confiscate everything she has, hand it out, then chop her into little pieces to be served as food for the needy. That would (probably) serve the Greater Good. But Individualism trumps it.

          • Mathius,

            Not quite.

            Progressive SUPPRESS Individualism in favor of the State – it is not a balance, but a forceful IMBALANCE that is imposed.

            • Mathius™ says:

              To-may-toh, to-mah-toh.

              We suppress the rights of the individual in favor of the state society.. sometimes.

              You ignore the needs society entirely in favor of the individual. I consider this an imbalance.

              As for it being “forceful”… well, you’ve got me there.

              • Mathius,

                That is exactly my point of my original post on the topic!

                You hold that the State is the superior organism, and if need be, the individual must be coerced and forced into it .ie: External

                I am always amused that you start with disagreeing with me, and a few posts later, completely post in agreement with me…..

              • Mathius™ says:


                The state is not a SUPERIOR organism. It is ANOTHER organism.

                If two of your friends get into a fight over something, you may side with one on the merits – that one wins in a certain case does not make it SUPERIOR in general. Nor does it make the other inferior. That the decision needs to be enforced via violence/coercion is beside the point. They simply had conflicting interests and a consideration of the issues leads to a concensus in favor of one or the other.

                Tell me where I ever claimed the society is the SUPERIOR organism. All I contend is that it’s needs have to be weighed against the needs/rights of the individual.

                • Mathius,
                  Me scratches me head….how you agree with me, but claim you disagree.

                  When a conflict between the State/Society and the Individual occurs, you enforce the State.

                  If there is no conflict, you support Individualism – as there is no cost to the State.

                  By your own very example, you hold the State above the Individual (superior), except when there is no cost to the State and hence, doesn’t matter.

              • Mathius™ says:

                How can you be so obtuse?

                When there is a conflict, I support the state… sometimes.

                Sometimes I support the individual.

                For example, there may be a case to be made in favor of certain drug laws as being beneficial to society. However, it is my opinion that the rights/freedoms of the individual should trump this.

              • Mathius,

                You are the one obtuse.

                As I pointed out, your “Sometimes” is only when there is no cost (or, perhaps, very low cost) to the State

                In other words, if the conflict holds cost to the State, you side always with the State.

              • Mathius™ says:

                A better example may be that it is in the interest of the society to prevent immigration laborers, especially when there is present high unemployment. However, I believe that an individual’s right to live where he wants is greater than the need of the society to limit the supply side of the employment market.

                Likewise, it may be in the interest of a society to bomb another society into complacency in order to get access to cheap oil. However, the right of the individuals in that foreign society to not be killed trumps the first society’s need for cheap fuel prices.

              • Mathius™ says:

                In other words, if the conflict holds cost to the State, you side always with the State.

                If that were true, I’d be advocating for liquidating the under-productive and serving Soilent Green to the “job creators.”

                Currently, the state has laws that regulate what I can do with my own home. The benefit to the society means that housing prices are higher since my neighbor cannot open a brothel next door. Likewise, I cannot build in such a way that my house be dangerous to live in (thus killing me and removing a productive member of society, thus weakening the society as a whole and removing tax income).

                This is a strong benefit to the society.

                However, it is my property and I should have a right to do with it as I wish. If I wish to risk my own life by installing sub-par foundations, that is my choice. If I wish to open a brothel, that, too, should be my choice.

                So, here, too, I side with the individual over the society, despite the relatively high cost to the state.

                • Mathius

                  The benefit to the society means that housing prices are higher since my neighbor cannot open a brothel next door.

                  Again, such Pretense.

                  How do you measure such broad benefit?
                  All you did is measure your own individual benefit …. as if that was the valid measure for all society.

  25. SUFA followers. I got this notice in my email this morning so I wanted to pass it on for those who might want to attend. This is a REAL and not some sarcastic joke.

    Dear JAC

    The International Conference on Sustainable Disaster Relief Housing to held on October 27 & 28, 2011 in Ottawa, Canada is only two and a half weeks away. If you haven’t yet registered to join us, sign up now and begin to make travel arrangements to take advantage of low airfares.

    This Conference is a first of its kind international forum and a unique opportunity to raise the visibility for your organization or company among industry peers and participate in this timely discussion:

    * Listen to experts share their experiences from several recent catastrophic events and discuss the needs resulting from various climatic, geographical and political realities.

    * Explore various topics concerning the building systems available; shipping, delivery and erection considerations; and the financing and coordination of relief efforts to arrive at timely and affordable sustainable solutions.

    * Discuss response and preparedness strategies for mitigating delays in the delivery of solutions for regions at risk.

    The information-rich program includes the following sessions:

    This session will open with a keynote speaker to introduce the topic followed by a panel of four experts dealing with the needs resulting from various climatic, geographical and political realities. Experiences following several recent catastrophic events will be presented.

    This session will include a panel of seven experts who will address various topics dealing with the building systems available; shipping, delivery and erection considerations; and the financing and coordination of relief efforts to arrive at timely and affordable sustainable solutions.

    This session will include three working plenaries, each with a keynote speaker and an expert panel. A facilitator will engage panelists and participants in developing options for preparedness strategies to help mitigate delays in the delivery of solutions for regions at risk. Following the working plenaries, a keynote speaker will close the conference with a broader view on disaster relief building needs and wood’s potential role.



    This Conference is a collaboration between the “International Office” of FPS and its Eastern Canadian Section.

    We hope you will join us to share your knowledge and gain exposure for your organization among an international audience of professionals and experts.


    • Mathius™ says:

      I have better uses for my money.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What, precisely, are “erection considerations” 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        Now, now.. SUFA is a family establishment.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Next time my wife tells me she “has a headache” my response is going to be, “Oh yeah?? Well, there are “erection considerations” which need to be evaluated vs. the “various realities” of your headache!


          • Mathius™ says:

            Let me know how that works out for you.

            But I’ll tell you this much, the missus does seem to live in “various realities” and they don’t all make a whole lot of sense to me.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The mind of a wife is like the multiverse in a Michael Moorcock novel: Order is constantly at war with Chaos, and no mater the outcome, men suffer greatly for reasons they often do not fully understand.


              • Mathius™ says:

                Sounds about right..

                Can you explain something to me? On occasion (and to her credit, it’s pretty rare), my wife does something I don’t like. If/when I confront her about it, the end result is that I will end up apologizing despite the fact that she is the one who was wrong in the first place.

                This does not make sense to me.

              • I can answer that question-percentage wise you are wrong much more than your wife-she overlooks many of these wrongs -because it isn’t worth the argument. So when she does some little thing wrong and you jump on her-she is reminded of all the times you were a jerk and she let it pass. 🙂

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Pretty sure I agree with V.H.’s analysis on that one.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Bah! What do you know!

  26. Mathius,

    I’ve been wanting to ask you. Do you think the democratic party should back the occupy Wall Street Protest?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I will happily answer that question after you answer this one: What is it, exactly, that they’re protesting? No, seriously. I’m not quite sure.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        1. They are protesting against capitalism.
        2. They are protesting against wealthy “banksters” being bailed out by the government.
        3. They have no idea whatsoever that #2 is in direct conflict with #1 and therefore their protesting of #1 and #2 simultaneously doesn’t actually make sense, so it is obvious WHY you are so confused.

        • Mathius™ says:

          1. Do not support.
          1A. Unless they’re protesting capitalism run amok at the expense of the society as a whole.

          2. Well that’s understandable. Perhaps it’s overly simplistic, but I can understand why this would be very upsetting, especially to those who are in bad shape themselves. The fact, however, is that the damage of a widespread banking collapse would have been far more catastrophic (Flag might argue that that’s only true in the short-term).

          If the transmission in your car is faulty, you are going to replace it instead of doing some body work on the car. Yes, the body work (the protesters) is important, but the transmission (banks) make the whole thing go. Maybe you’re upset about having to pay to fix something so expensive when there are other things that seem like they should have priority, but it’s not not the reality of the situation. The time to fix the banks was BEFORE they broke down – when they were doing stupid things that people knew were dangerous. But once they broke, you had to pay to fix them – there wasn’t really a choice. I can get into this more if you’re interested.

          Note, by the way, that it’s largely the lack of regulation which allowed the banks to get into the situation they were in. So, unbridled capitalism is actually (at least partially) a root cause of the bailouts – how’s that for irony?

          3. Hmm.. well, see above.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            It wasn’t a lack of regulation at all, but you can keep spouting that falsehood all you want if it makes you feel better. In reality it was the fact that the majority of “banking regulations” are written by lobbyists for the banks and then enacted by the government for the banks. That does NOT fit the definition of “capitalism”, it fits the definition of mercantilism.

            There is NO LACK of regulation on banks. There isn’t NOW, and there WASN’T when the “meltdown” occurred. Please take a look at the number and scope of banking regulations in the 2005-2007 era. There certainly wasn’t any “lack” whatsoever.

            How to create a banking crisis 101:

            1. Force banks to make loans to people who obviously, on the face of the analysis, aren’t going to be able to pay back the loans. Threaten the banks with “Federal Audits” if they do not comply. This creates ARTIFICIAL demand for housing, causing prices to skyrocket. Skyrocketing prices cause banks to make ever-more risky loans as they give even more money away to people who are increasingly unable to afford it as the prices increase.

            2. Allow, through REGULATIONS, the banks to bundle these worthless loans into “derivatives” and avidly market these derivatives as instruments with tremendous potential value, especially based upon skyrocketing “real estate values”. Of course, the valuations are NONSENSE because they were created through a government-sponsored massive market distortion, but who cares?

            3. Allow, through regulations, the banks to BET AGAINST their own derivatives which they are promoting in the general market.

            4. When it becomes patently obvious that #1 was, in fact, true, watch real-estate prices crash.

            5. When real-estate prices crash, suddenly the people who could not afford their loans in the first place are “under-water” on their mortgages, and as collateral damage, many people who could, in fact, afford their loans are ALSO “under-water”

            6. People walk away from their homes in droves, foreclosure rates skyrocket, mortgages and derivatives become “toxic assets”. IMPORTANT NOTE: A toxic asset is NOT an asset at all, since the property is worth far less than the previously artificially inflated price due to the market distortion. So, while the “toxic asset” does, somehow, represent an asset (property), the fact that the asset was HIGHLY ARTIFICIALLY over-valued turns the asset into a liability.

            7. Watch the “banking system” collapse unless their is massive government intervention.

            8. Watch the massive government intervention cause yet more massive market distortions.

            9. Outcome of 8 as yet to be determined, but it ain’t looking so good at this point.

            • Mathius™ says:

              There is NO LACK of regulation on banks. There isn’t NOW, and there WASN’T when the “meltdown” occurred. Please take a look at the number and scope of banking regulations in the 2005-2007 era. There certainly wasn’t any “lack” whatsoever.

              I don’t work for a bank. I work for a hedge fund. Though they are different, we share many of the regulations. That said, though my fund doesn’t partake in such things, you would be STAGGERED by the things we could (if we so chose to) get away with. We could use unimaginable kinds of leverage, we could sway and manipulate the markets, we could even destabilize minor governments with our actions. We can pull things off balance sheet (it’s easier than you think), hide or create assets. We can report things in sneaky / misleading ways. Hell, my old job actually had a policy in place … well I don’t need to get into that. My current company doesn’t do this – at least not to a significant degree – but if you think other shops aren’t, you are out of your mind.

              We have many regulations (many of which actually do some real good). But there are many others that should exist to stop companies from behaving a certain way, but they simply aren’t there. It’s not about the quantity of regulations. It’s the quality

              3. Allow, through regulations, the banks to BET AGAINST their own derivatives which they are promoting in the general market. Put another way, there was no regulation to STOP this behavior. Saying the regulations allowed something is somewhat nonsensical. It’s like saying that regulations allow you to speak. Yes, this may be true, but inappropriate use of your speech should not be blamed on the regs. The regulations that would STOP you from being inappropriate/dangerous (ie, shouting fire in a crowed theater) were missing – ergo it was a LACK of good regulations.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                A lack of “good regulations” is not what I was talking about. There were PLENTY of regulations, which is what I WAS talking about. Whether you believe them to be “good” or not is up to your judgement.

                I would assert to you that as long as you have banking and investment lobbyists writing banking and investment regulations, and then buying off politicians to get those regulations enacted, you are going to have a shortage of what you would call “good regulations”. I would also assert that if you had people with no vested interest in the banking/financial sector attempt to write regulations on banking and finance, you would end up with terrible regulations as well.

                As the bulk of your above post points out, IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THE REGULATIONS MAY BE, One company might “behave itself” while the other company might have a company policy of “doing bad things”. The PRESENCE OF REGULATIONS allows the bad company to do bad things and get away with it, and perhaps make more money than the good company who DOES NOT NEED ANY REGULATIONS to tell it how to behave. The regulations distort the market to favor the company which is “doing bad things” while at the same time “following the letter of the law”.

                What you do not seem to realize, is that in the ABSENCE of regulations, the BAD company could be easily demonstrated to be bad people doing bad things, because they could no longer HIDE BEHIND the regulations which allowed them to behave badly! Such a company would rapidly lose business to the good company which showed itself able to behave itself regardless of the regulations or the lack thereof.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I don’t follow how you seem to believe that a lack of good regulations allows a bad irresponsible company to hide.

                To go back to my analogy of speech. The bad regulation says that you cannot shout “bomb” on an airplane. So you shout fire in a theater. It’s not the bad reg that allowed you to behave that way. Nor did the bad reg impact my ability to opt NOT to behave irresponsibly. The bad reg is irrelevant. It has zero impact.

                Only now they’re thinking about banning shouting fire in a theater too, and you throw up your hands and shout that you’re already heavily regulated since you can’t shout bomb on a plane. Well yes, this is true, but beside the point. You can’t hide behind your obedience of one reg to pretend you’re a good corporate citizen.

                The fact that banks and hedge funds are poorly regulated, in particular, allows us to actively hide. In fact, even our investors don’t know what we’re doing, how we’re doing it, or what “tricks of the trade” we’re using. A “good” regulation might force us to disclose things that would show us to be a “good” or “bad” company. Or, a “good” regulation might simply eliminate or moderate our ability to behave badly in the first place – I don’t really want to get into some of the specifics of the kinds of things we can do, but trust me, there are a lot of opportunities.

                I actually went to the mat against one of the senior partners of my firm over the way we were disclosing something. I considered it misleading though technically compliant. After a protracted argument, I won. In other shops, it may not have ended that way. A pertinent regulation would certainly have come down on my side so that other companies could not behave in a sneaky manner.

                I would assert to you that as long as you have banking and investment lobbyists writing banking and investment regulations, and then buying off politicians to get those regulations enacted, you are going to have a shortage of what you would call “good regulations”. I would also assert that if you had people with no vested interest in the banking/financial sector attempt to write regulations on banking and finance, you would end up with terrible regulations as well.

                Yes. True. I’m not sure how to solve this, but maybe there is a happy middle ground in there somewhere. Maybe I should write to Barney Frank?

                IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THE REGULATIONS MAY BE, One company might “behave itself” while the other company might have a company policy of “doing bad things”. But that’s not exactly it. In spite of the regulations that control other behaviors, one company might behave badly in a different way.

                If you tell your kids not to eat cookies before dinner, then discover they ate cake instead, they’ve followed the regulations. It’s just that the regulations were insufficient. One of your kids might behave responsibly, the other would be happy to get away with what he can. But the faulty/weak/insufficient/irrelevant regulation did not allow the bad kid to eat cake, it just wasn’t enough to stop him.

      • Can’t answer that question 🙂 We have anarchists (but not sure which type to apply to them)-some sound like libertarians -then we go through a gambit-all the way to communists.

        • Mathius™ says:


          So how could the Democratic party get behind a whole group with such divergent ideologies?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The Democratic Party has been a COALITION GROUP of widely divergent ideologies for quite some time.

            1. Jews
            2. Blacks
            3. Unions
            4. Environmentalists
            5. The “working-class poor”
            6. (Omnibus)

            I am sure I could come up with more, which is why 6 is in there 🙂

            So, for just one example, Environmentalists strive for more and more regulation on business (especially manufacturing) which drives manufacturing jobs off-shore, and yet the Unions strongly support the Democratic Party, in spite of the fact that Environmentalists strongly support the Democratic Party. To me, it makes no sense….

      • Terry Evans says:

        That is the $65,000.00 question…one I am afraid has many answers, but none that make much sense…

  27. I hope, hope, hope that the Dem Party and this Administration KEEPS issuing supportive and empathetic statements for the Occupy Wall Street “movement”.

    Eventually the messages will become clear for the rest of us to hear.

    And then the “P” Progressives will be reduced to the dust bin of History. Taking their Dear Leader(s) with them.

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “Leaky” Leahy gets $70,000 government “grant” to market Vermont Maple Syrup, and announces intentions to make “syrup fraud” a FEDERAL CRIME!

    This couldn’t be any better if I had made it up!

  29. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Just a few quick questions to you relating to your discussion with BF above:

    How do you logically evaluate a situation which would be bad for you as an individual, but supposedly be of great benefit to society?

    How do you know that such evaluation is accurate?

    What percentage of individuals need to be demonstrably harmed by an action to show that the action is actually harmful to society rather than good?

    That’s enough… for now 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      How do you logically evaluate a situation which would be bad for you as an individual, but supposedly be of great benefit to society? I’ve gotten into this before, and it’s a tricky question. The answer is that I haven’t (yet) found an empirical method. It’s more of a sense of general balance.

      To me, freedom/liberty are one one side of a scale and duty/obligation to society are on the other. If the cost to the individual is disproportionate to the gain of the society, it fails the test. Conversely, if the gain to the society is sufficiently large and the cost to the individual is sufficiently minor, then it passes the test.

      As a thought experiment, consider a fictitious scenario where killing one innocent person would save someone 1,000,000 other innocent people. My logic says yes. Flag’s says no.

      How do you know that such evaluation is accurate? You don’t. And that’s troublesome. Sometimes trial and error is necessary. How do you decide if you support a given law? You apply reason and try to decide if the burden on The People is worthwhile. A law that says I cannot detonate high-explosives impacts my freedom, but does my right to do what I want extend to risking the safety of my neighbors and their property?

      What percentage of individuals need to be demonstrably harmed by an action to show that the action is actually harmful to society rather than good? It’s not really about how many. It’s really how many AND how much. That is, everyone is harmed by being taxed. But for most people, the harm isn’t that severe. Conversely a law which impacted just a few, but does impacts them greatly may still be unethical in my view. ie, laws against prostitution harm only a small percentage of the population and gives a benefit to society. But the harm against these individuals (in many forms) is so great that it outweighs the societal benefits.. again, in my view.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Thank you for a well thought-out set of answers to the questions I posed.

        I did not pose them to critique or criticize your answers or to pick them apart, I just wanted to see how the thought process worked.

        I appreciate your insights.

  30. Mathius™ says:

    Score one for liberty/freedom, I guess. Needs of the city trumps needs individuals. This is just what Black Flag wants.



    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t see a problem with it. There are too many laws anyway. This could be the beginning of a new line of business. Spousal Protective Services. He/She hits you, we break a leg 🙂 This would actually be much more effective since the law hasn’t stopped anything.

      • Mathius™ says:

        You joke, but you won’t even have to pay me for my services. I haven’t been in a real fight since I was a kid teenager. There are few things that work out anger/frustration like wiping the floor with someone who truly deserves it – sparing/roughhousing is fun, but it’s just not the same. I have all this martial arts training and no one to use it against.

        After a rough day at the office, I can go kick some jerk’s ass – I work off my frustration (and get some valuable cardio) and he learns a life-lesson. Win-win all around.

        Where do I sign up?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          This is a perfect example of how the free market will work when you get the government out of the way.

          • Mathius™ says:

            The only problem is that I can be charged with felony battery afterward. I need the law to carve out an exemption for us “enforcers.”

            Also, I need someone to subsidize my airfare – Kansas is a long ways from here.

            And if you want to throw in a cool uniform and/or riot gear, I wouldn’t object..

    • I’m throwing the BS Flag on that one.

      The entire claim by Daily Kos is ridiculous. “Misdemeanor”????

      Battery is battery Matt. You don’t need a special law to prosecute cases between spouses.

      • Mathius™ says:

        It seems you do. If it would fall under the standard battery charge, then removing spousal battery would not save them any money (as was planned by removing the law).

        My guess is that this has to do with misdemeanor battery (as to what determines misdemeanor vs felony, I do not know). Perhaps it’s just a question of how much hard is done? Or specifically violence verse women? Is there a lawyer in the house?

  31. Mathius, Peter

    How do you logically evaluate a situation which would be bad for you as an individual, but supposedly be of great benefit to society? I’ve gotten into this before, and it’s a tricky question. The answer is that I haven’t (yet) found an empirical method. It’s more of a sense of general balance.

    Of course, the problem is that this reeks of subjective, whimsical justification – and thus, terribly open for tyranny.

    Further, it holds -unstated by Mathius- a premise that such knowledge exists to evaluate such gain/loss calculation upon individuals vs. the State.

    But as Hayek posited, such knowledge does not exist in concentration, it is dispersed throughout the individuals in society that by their own individual action creates the consequences of the aggregate of that knowledge

    To believe one has access to such knowledge himself is the Pretense of Knowledge – and the root of all the evil of the Progessive/Statist systems.

    Another problem.

    The constraints Mathius subjectively applies to an individual is actually applies broadly on everyone – that is, on society itself under the guise of costing merely individualism.

    This slight of hand is always apparent in Progressive justifications.

    Under the justification of constraining certain individuals, they are actually constraining all individuals.

    • When you destroy the cells that comprise an organism, you no longer have the same organism.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Every time I read something BF writes, I bang my head against the desk for a few minutes afterward.

        This, I assure you, destroys many cells.

        Yet I am the same organism, am I not?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      I was trying to “make obvious” through the nature of the answers to my questions that “such knowledge does not exist in concentration”.

      In my view, it is not possible to OBJECTIVELY evaluate what is “good for society” because society is merely a grouping or set of individuals, and it is not possible to objectively assess what is good for any other single individual, much less a “set” of individuals.

      Quite obviously, progressives (and far too many others) make subjective judgements on “what would be good for most individuals” and thus make the leap that if it is good for most individuals it must logically follow that it is the best course of action for “society”. I can see the attractiveness of such arguments, especially if you desire to exert control over groups of individuals, and even I have a hard time at times rejecting such arguments, especially when they “sound reasonable”.

      I think that many people fall into the trap of accepting such arguments primarily because some of them do seem (without thorough analysis) to be “reasonable” whereas the individualist counter-argument seems like it would take a lot more effort and still might not have (in many people’s minds) the “desired result” so many people find it easy to reject the counter-argument based in freedom and individual liberty.

  32. Mathius,

    As a thought experiment, consider a fictitious scenario where killing one innocent person would save someone 1,000,000 other innocent people. My logic says yes. Flag’s says no.

    This example is misplaced.

    The root of this discussion runs on a principle – what actions determine evil?

    By your own measure, destroying innocent life is evil – but you contradict yourself here by altering your principles midstream.

    Thus, whereas some event – not of your making – may kill people, you take that event and by your hand, kill people – in other words, in an attempt to avoid “evil” by forces out of your control, you embrace evil to bring it into your control.

    You move from being innocent to being the murderer.

  33. Wake Up America! Which city has to be blown up to make that happen? It won’t be a “Terrorist”, it will be your own damn government that we have failed to control, as intended by our Founding Fathers.

    Good morning, G-man, my brother … I have an issue with this comment above … on the one hand you are condemning the state for murder, yet you point back to that “founding fathers” bumper sticker rhetoric (who created a state/government). So, which is it, my friend? You’re for or against a national state?

    I’ve come to the cause of anarchy (the version that supports that greater good) but still believe it will be socialism that eventually gets us there (and, yes, because once capitalism is justifiably pushed to the side (even incrementally), socialism will have to take its place and eventually be as corrupt as this capitalist government is … but I digress.

    How can you continue to point to the founding fathers knowing the corruption behind what they did/created (as an excuse for expansionism within “our” borders. And how do you define “our” borders since America never was “ours” in the first place?

    If you can justify the taking of this land from Native Americans, you can justify (eventually) the taking of any land from its indigenous population (Palestine to Israel, Ireland & Scotland to Great Britain, etc.) … any land taken by violence/war will eventually be justified (and rightfully so, if you believe America is “ours” now).

    Nationalism isn’t a good thing over the long haul … how about a worldwide greater good?

    And aren’t the Wall Street protests great? Come on, you crazies on the right. You had to know this was coming sooner or later. Capitalism requires (REQUIRES) the wealthy to live off the backs of the poor. We’re down to two classes now … and the grounds are getting a bit more fertile every day for revolution. And it’s a beautiful thing …

    • Charlie…you are a hoot and good morning. I have looked at, and attended, a Wall Street Protest at the Dallas Federal Reserve. It was the most ridiculous thing I have ever attended. There was no cohesion and the attendees, for the most part, were 1960’s rejects and very young people who did not even know the names of the administration, much less what their intended purpose was. They could not define capitalism nor socialism. They had no idea what to do either. The 1960’s rejects (and you had to be there to see it….come on indigo faded jeans and head scarves and octogon glasses)…the only thing missing was the marijuana joints and the glass pipes. BUT, the important point was there was NO point other than they were against corporate greed. So, I actually asked someone that was there (I was pretending to be one of them) what the purpose was and he showed me a 3×5 post card that had “chanting” instructions and sayings on it and he and she (a couple) were bused in from Houston, fed breakfast, lunch, and dinner and paid $75 for being there. So, I asked one of them what would take the place of corporate greed…he said capitalism. I just scratched my head and looked at the people I was there with and asked again….Capitalism was the answer. He said the small business stands no chance against the Walmarts and the K Marts and such. I just shrugged.

      The younger crowd were mush easier led. They walked around with raised fists against the rich. Their biggest cry was repaying school loans and that it should be a government responsibility to pay their college bills. They were yelling against Governor Perry and his stance on in state tuition, to which I got a chuckle….against in state tuition for illegals but wanting the government to pay their bills BUT ( and this is the real kicker )….most wanted to go into business on their own and did not want government interference EXCEPT regulations against the “big boy” so that they could get a better start on their own enterprise. Other than that……..there was nothing to it….and since no one paid much attention to the protest, it barely drew media attention. Our Veterans group drew more attention than this protest did.

      Anyway, I was there for one day of protest and learned the following:

      (1) The older protestors were paid to be there and some were bused in.
      (2) They had no idea what they were protesting and were reading talking points off supplied 3×5 cards.
      (3) Neither the older nor the younger could define capitalism or socialism.
      (4) Only one of them that I talked to, knew the administration names and job titles.
      (5) The younger ones sold out much cheaper….a couple of free boxed meals was all it took.

      So, this right of center crazy saw nothing much. I will say that I did talk to two or three that actually could define capitalism but still believed in it. They were not against the rich people…just wall street but could not identify whom on wall street. So, in Dallas, it is not much of a deal.

      • Colonel,

        How can you question such a sage source of wisdom? This is Charlie, who told us after OBL was killed, 2012 was over for the Repugs. And really, when has he ever been wrong?

        • Trust me, LOI … if Perry runs against Obama, it’s over … you lose … again.

          If it’s Romney, you’ll need independents who ignore his flip-flopping.

          The sage has spoken …

          • Mathius™ says:

            Mathius takes the opposite view. If it’s Perry vs Obama, it’s over. But Perry wins in a landslide.

            The (other) sage has spoken…

            • Don’t you have a headache chasing all the personalities around your head?

            • Might I ask why you think this?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Perry is white. Obama is not.
                Perry is wrapped in Christianity. Obama is suspected of being Muslim, or “not really” Christian.
                Perry is perceived as pro-business. Obama is perceived as a Communist.
                Perry is a “man of the people.” Obama is an elitist.
                Perry is pro-gun. Obama is perceived plotting to take your guns.

                Add to this the fact that the far-left is disenchanted with Obama.

                Add to this the fact that the economy is sour, and the incumbent is always punished for a bad economy regardless of actual fault.

                It all comes down to Florida, of course, and that’s where the economy is worst. They’ll punish Obama for not waving his magic wand and fixing everything.

              • And if it’s Cain or Gingrich-do you have an opinion,,that is if you want to voice one.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                That’s easy!

                Gingrich doesn’t have a chance at the nomination.
                Cain is the flavor of the week.

                Though I will disagree with Mathius on his prognostication — if it is Perry vs Obama, Obama wins. The nation just isn’t ready for another Texan Governor after the last one.

        • Lost my head?

        • LOI, I come to you for wisdom. Haven’t you figured that out yet. Weren’t those founding fathers Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat?

          Oy vey.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Capitalism, per the ACTUAL definition, does NOT require that the rich live off of the backs of the poor. Imperialism and Mercantilism DO require this. You persist in using the Michael Moore definition of Capitalism, which is fine if you choose to cling to it.

      Since you are using the Michael Moore definition of capitalism, then yes, under YOUR definition of capitalism (i.e. actual mercantilism) there is a requirement for the wealthy to live off of the backs of the poor. Under a mercantilist system, “wealth” is very nearly a true zero-sum game. In fact, the more “money” that is created, the less wealth there exists in the system (interesting paradox, no?)

      However, a free-market has no such restriction. In a free market, the more wealth that is created, the more money the system can support.

      That is the #1 problem with bailouts and stimulus programs in a mercantilist system. The Keynesian view is that by creating more money, they are creating more wealth, and the system will get “healthier”. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is occurring. By creating more money they are DESTROYING wealth, and doing great harm.

      This is what the OWS protesters are (unknowingly) protesting – the wanton destruction of wealth through the harmful over-creation of money in a mercantilist system, which is systematically destroying wealth.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Given that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and America has been systematically creating masses of incompetent people for 50 years, I would say yes.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        An absurdly simple explanation which hopefully everyone will understand:

        If you are participating in a transaction where you choose get something that you want or need in exchange for something that the other party wants or needs, you are participating in a capitalist transaction. Even in our warped system plenty of these instances exist.

        If you are forced to participate in a transaction in which you get either nothing of personal benefit whatsoever or something which you do not want or need, in exchange for something that someone else DOES want or need, you are participating in a mercantilist transaction. In our warped system far too many of those types of transactions take place.

      • Capitalists created mercantalism … go figure.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Hmm… did they?
          I believe that Imperialism, which is the “grandest” form of mercantilism, actually pre-dates capitalism.

          I would personally say that the ELITE created mercantilism, although admittedly some of the elite got their elite status through originally capitalist means.

          However, I don’t really get your point.

          Capitalism is inherently superior to mercantilism, because capitalism is the closest you can get to your favorite place (the land where everything is “fair”) without using force. The fact that the elite, some of whom became elite because of capitalist transactions suddenly turned to mercantilism instead, it does not equate that capitalism is BAD. It just proves that the elite sought to CONTROL society through the use of force, which they could not do by purely capitalistic means, so they turned to mercantilism instead, because it gave them the means of control which they did not previously have!

          Mercantilism obviously uses force.
          Fascism obviously uses force.
          Socialism obviously uses force.

          In pure form, capitalism is one party voluntarily entering into a mutually beneficial transaction with another party. If you add force to the mixture you are no longer talking about capitalism, but something else entirely.

          Now, the MOST IMPORTANT point to be made in the whole shebang here…

          WHY would the elite PURPOSELY seek to redefine mercantilism AS capitalism??

          Answer: That way, they could get the masses to protest AGAINST capitalism (a system in which the elite LACK THE MEANS TO CONTROL).

          If the masses protested AGAINST capitalism, the only options left would be Mercantilism, Fascism, and Socialism, so the masses would obviously HAVE to choose one of those systems instead. ALL of those systems DO give the elite the means to control, so in their mind, ANY system is preferable to actual capitalism. God forbid we actually let people voluntarily enter into transactions (or not do so) based on their own needs, wants, and desires!!! If we did that, how would we CONTROL them?

        • Charlie

          Capitalists created mercantalism … go figure

          No, sir, they do not.

          Government creates mercantilism – government supplies the regulations, the grants, and the firepower for mercantilism to exist.

          Capitalism without government, it could not exist.
          Government without capitalism, mercantilism would still exist.

          • Yes, sir, they did …. or are you insinuating money doesn’t own the government?

            Now that’s a laugh.

            You’re in a corner with this already. You backed yourselves into it.

            The Wall Street protests are the beginning. I hope Romney wins … it’ll spur on the revolution all that much sooner. Maybe before I’m dead.

            What a joy that’ll be. Even better than my Beloved New York State Buffalo Bills kicking the Cheatriots ass a few weeks ago.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              You are in the corner, but you do not see that you are in the corner. At no point did I (or BF) assert that money does not own the government.

              The reason that you are in the corner is that you associate “money owning the government” with “capitalism” and it is a false association. Once you realize that the paint may dry and you may be able to get out of the corner you are in.

              You are absolutely right about one thing, if Romney wins, it WILL hasten the revolution, and this will happen much for the reasons you suspect, so you got that part right! However, it will only be a “joy” to you temporarily, until you realize the effects it has. There will be ways to mitigate the effects it has on you, if you are well prepared.

      • Peter, I’d love for you to prove this. I don’t see how it’s possible. Capitalists do not own the government? Sweet Jesus, then who does?

        • Charlie,

          Capitalists do not own the government

          Mercantilists own governments, not Capitalists.

          Mercantilists cloak themselves under a label, Charlie – but labels do not make the object.
          “A rose is a rose by any other name”

          So don’t get so caught up in labels – observe their actions – no matter if you call a rose an apple, the rose will grow to a rose and not a tree.

          Capitalists strain away from COERCION – they do not seek it. They operate under voluntary trade – for that is where the best deals and the best profits occur.

          Mercantilists require COERCION – they fear voluntary choice, because they fear their products cannot compete – thus, they need YOU to subsidize their costs, and need YOU to buy their inferior goods, choices you would not make voluntarily, so they put a gun to your head.

  34. Saudi’s say Iran must pay the price! Maybe we can just kick back with a D.P and popcorn and watch the show?

  35. About causes and effects.

    To overcome the economic downturn its causes need to be identified. The wording used must not camouflage an inconvenient reality. Often, this criterion is not met. The presentation and the inferred conclusions are not realistic nor are they entirely honest.

    The crisis has two centers. One is the United States; the other is “Europe”. Due to its politics, the malady is unlike previous ones. Therefore, traditional remedies fail. For this reason, those that follow stock prices notice that frequently when pure economics suggest a market move, stocks head in the opposite direction than anticipated.

    An oddity is that the enterprises carry price tags that do not fit them. Quoted firms that produce “real things” show decent profits. The more so if we consider the head wind of the gyration of exchange rates and regulations. While this is the case, the share price of well-managed firms that produce wanted wares at a reasonable price might fall. That happens even if their business is better than the asset’s price. Price earnings ratios ignore the “rules” of textbooks. This tells that there is an underlying problem that expresses itself in the economy but whose roots are elsewhere.

    What is broken is the political system that had penetrated the economy. The failure’s cause is that the political class reacts to glitches with more interference. Especially so when the cause is an error of a political remedy.

  36. 30 girls assault another girl in Jersey City park
    Published: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 9:16 AM
    Charles Hack/The Jersey Journal By Charles Hack/The Jersey Journal The Jersey Journal

    Share close
    Google Buzz Digg Stumble Upon Fark Reddit
    Share Email Print

    A 15-year-old Hoboken girl was assaulted in a Downtown Jersey City park Friday night by a group of roughly 30 girls who stole her cellphone, police reports said.

    Police were called to the park on Wayne Street between Barrow Street and Jersey Avenue at 9:57 p.m. on the report of a large, disorderly group and after dispersing the group of up to 30 people, police noticed the 15-year-old girl standing at the corner of the park with a bloody nose, swollen lip and bloody ear, reports said.

    The victim said she was walking in the park with her cousin when the pack of teenage girls swarmed around her and assaulted her before stealing her cellphone, reports said.

    The girl’s mother, who was called to the scene, told police that just as she was arriving, she came across the group, asked for the phone back and one of the girls returned it to her, reports said.

    I think this is one of the weirdest and frankly scary stories I’ve read in awhile.
    The mother sees the group who just beat her daughter to the point that her ears where bleeding and she asks for the phone back -and they just give it to her…..Whaaat???? I am really confused by this seeming respect for authority vs. the depravity of attacking someone at 30 to 1

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” I am really confused by this seeming respect for authority vs. the depravity of attacking someone at 30 to 1 ”

      “seeming” is right, unless you take into account that they didn’t really value the phone. It wasn’t a robbery. They just wanted to beat someone up. Whatever they took was the bonus, in their minds.

      It was probably a gang thing.

      • I acknowledge that they probably just wanted to beat someone up, maybe this girl specifically -but there is more to it than just a gang thing. It seems more of a cultural shift-one that has been going on for awhile. They still show a little respect for the adults who come to break up the fight-so to speak-but there is no longer any rules or honor in the fight. This is scary!!!

        • Bottom Line says:

          Here’s a little more elaborate answeer as to how I came up with what I did:

          “The victim said she was walking in the park with her cousin when the pack of teenage girls swarmed around her and assaulted her before stealing her cellphone, reports said.”

          Notice it says BEFORE stealing her cell phone. Why beat someone up for their cell phone if you don’t have to? They did not coerce/threaten her to obtain her cell phone, thus it was likely not their primary objective.

          Is the value of the phone split 30 ways enough motivation to beat someone up?

          If the value of the phone was about incriminating evidence, they would only have given it back AFTER erasing it.

          If it was about the phone, why was the phone not valued enough to refuse to give it back?

          Deductive reasoning says It wasn’t really about the phone. My guess is that the phone theft was a crime of opportunity, that it fell out during the fight, and someone snatched it up.

          So what was it about? What would make 30 girls want to attack someone without provocation?

          I don’t think it was meant to be taken personally. I think they just picked someone vulnerable and jumped them, …which is typical of gang behavior. I bet it was a gang initiation or something.

          • Bottom Line says:


            It’s not like they went to her and held her while they picked her pockets. It’s not like they threatened her for her stuff. It’s not like she knew them and had some sort of dispute with them.

            They just randomly picked someone out and beat them up.

            It’s a gang. And it was likely done for some gang related reason.

            • My point is not the taking of the phone. My point is a cultural shift-a re-defining of what is honorable behavior? If may be a gang thing-but the acceptance and growing of the gang mindset is my concern.

              • Bottom Line says:

                A lot of these kids that end up in gangs are from environments where, as a means of survival, they’re taught to rely on a more instinctive way of thinking.

                They’ve raised themselves in a horrible environment, learning all the wrong stuff. They’re scared and they need a safety net. So they join a gang of kids just like them that have learned to rely on an “Id”-ish, if it feels good-do it, if it serves me-to hell with the rest, type of attitude.

                They either have no idea what rights, responsibility, honor, or respect is, or they don’t care because it doesn’t work for them as well as a gangsta’s lifestyle does.

  37. Bottom Line says:

    Not killing one to save thousands is NOT the same as killing thousands.

    The only way to avoid doing evil in such a situation is to not kill anyone.

  38. Bottom Line says:

    ” BL…question for you. Would you think differently if it were an American mercenary? Is that not what Alawaki was? An American merc paid by a foreign entity to wage hostility against the US? ”

    Yes, you can say that Alawaki is an American mercenary. And you can state any justification you want for killing him…and without any argument or concern from me.

    My point, as you mentioned as well, is that there is already a way to deal with people like him. My question/s is/are “Why the new parameters?” “What does it do that the others did not?” And..” What are the consequences/results?”

    Part of the answer is that it sets a precedence…and a dangerous one, …regardless of the justifications.

    Just sayin’

  39. Bottom Line says:

    There is really no such thing as greater good vs respecting individual rights, as the greater good IS respecting individual rights.

    • Bottom Line says:

      In other words, if you’re violating individual rights, it really isn’t for the greater good, it is for the good of some.

      The only way to have a greater good is to violate the rights of no one.

  40. Re the Iranian Plot

    Everyone in the media is asking what reaction is appropriate. It is quite simple. Given the ethical and legal standard of “Proportional Response”, the reaction should be no more than is necessary to make the reaction equal to the original action.

    So the Saudie’s need to hatch a plan to blow up the Syrian and Russian embassies in Iran and to assassinate the Syrian ambassador in Iran.

    Of course they need to find a Drug Dealer in Turkmenistan to carry out the deed, and then allow themselves to be caught and jailed by the Russians.

    There you go. WAR is avoided and PEACE saved at the last minute. Whew, it was close there for a minute.

    • I admit I haven’t followed the chain of events very well, but my question is, why would we “react”? If the Saudi’s feel it is justified, have at it. BO was informed of this threat a few months back and now we are acting all PO’d? I don’t get it. What am I missing?

      • Kathy

        You are missing nothing. This is the Dance of Diplomats. Like some young roosters strutting around the Old Rooster, squawking and jumping up and down. In the end, they calm down and go about their business.

        Posturing is a key part of the Dance of Diplomats.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The Iran plot is so absurd I can’t believe any one is falling for it.

      • gman

        You really need to get a grip. The plot was real. Now was the guy in Iran real? If he was, was he really part of Govt or just some nut job? Or could it be that the conspirators are part of the Iranian resistance and hoped to fuel International reaction against the Iranian Govt?

        Or could it be that Iran REALLY plotting these types of things against people around the world?

        Or, could it be that Iran is REALLY trying to cause a Saudi and/or USA reaction to further its goals?

        Does our Fed Govt lie? NO………..PEOPLE within the Govt lie. And as people they eventually screw up and the truth gets out. The more conspiracies the greater the chance someone will screw up. Like Fast and Furious.

        While this plot appears absurd on the surface, you make a grave mistake assuming it is actually a “false flag” by the US Govt.

        • gmanfortruth says:


          I have a grip. As long as the government and the MSM are on the same page, I will question it’s validity. The gravest mistake that can be made is to not challenge the govt fables. Your way has been the norm, mine, well, see’s the results of the norm.

  41. Sometimes you find another person’s comment that simply should be spread around.

    From American Thinker on the occupy wall street crowd.

    liljenborg [Moderator] Today 04:01 AM

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is a testament to the success of our educational institutions. A hundred years ago the sainted (if you’ll pardon such an offensive term) John Dewey (may his decimal system reign forever) worked to turn our fledgling public school system into humanist indoctrination mills -er- I mean institutions of pragmatic philosophy and critical (of Christianity, traditional morality, constitutional government, and free market capitalism) thinking. Our schools would indoctrinate -er- educate new generations into the obvious truths (again, I apologize for using vulgarities) of Darwinism, Marxist economics, identity politics, and global warming.
    As the protest movements of the 60s began to stall (stupid silent majority handing two landslide victories to that Republican warmonger) the leaders of those groups who tried so valiantly to up the stakes and force Americans to see our country for the racist, imperialist, theocratic, throwback that it was, wisely hid out in tenured professorships in the Great Dewey’s academe. There they could mold new generations of our brightest young minds into lazy (I mean contemplative), egocentric (sorry, again, I mean with healthy self-esteem), deeply indebted (obviously because the banks forced them to borrow all those student loans, not because universities charged them 15 grand a year for the privilege of being disciples of great teachers like Bill Ayers) scholars who would realize that gainful employment (dear, I’m terrible with the profanity today!) is something for undocumented immigrants. Now that we’ve fully brainwashed -er- convinced them that the rich 1% who’ve exploited this country to steal all the 99%’s wealth owe these protesters a comfortable living in their safe studies programs they are ready and willing pawns in our great chess game against those bitter clingers. Some of those pawns may even reach the end of the board and become queens, blow up a few police stations of their own, and become a new generation of professors taking children from those Bible and gun toting breeders and raising new radicals to carry on the torch. (Since we’re too busy aborting all of our own “products of conception” to stop overpopulation.)

  42. Here you go. We are Venture Capitalists all!

    RAHM EMANUEL: Here’s how I look at it. One, we worked really hard on saving the auto industry, about 1.2 million jobs. That was an investment of about $50 billion and that has turned out against conventional wisdom to turn out to be the right thing to do to help the president make that decision. It’s not about warning signs etc. We don’t have a price on carbon; we don’t have a renewable portfolio, so the United States government is left as it started under George Bush doing venture capital. And like venture capital, sometimes you’re right and sometimes you’re wrong and that’s unfortunate. Nobody takes losing money easy, but if you look at it as an investment it was $50 billion invested in General Motors and Chrysler and that turned out to be a right investment. So take a wide-lens view of the policy. I did my job as chief of staff. My focus is as mayor of the city of Chicago.

    Read more:

  43. On the surface the results of this survey seem quite “surprising”. But the devil is in the details. So anyone? Anyone??

    • “The report counts “mental illness” as any sort of mental, behavioral or emotional disorder that is diagnosable from the DSM-IV. The disorder must cause “substantial functional impairment” or must be defined as a serious mental illness that requires treatment.”

      1. That is a very broad definition; I would think results would be much higher given this very general description.

      2. “The report shows 21.2 percent of Wisconsin residents experienced some form of mental illness.”

      And they were all at the state capitol last winter/spring banging their drums.

      3.”The report shows 21 percent of Washington, D.C., residents experienced some form of mental illness.”

      OK, I throw the BS flag on this entire report based on this statistic!!!!!

      • When they propose to define any and all depraved or criminal activity as a “mental illness”- it is easy to get high numbers of mentally ill people

        • Actually when they promote that there is no God, no soul-than there is nothing left except a brain-so any and all “wrongs” are a matter of a malfunction of the brain-not a lack of moral character.

  44. Which leads me to a question-BF and anyone else -you believe we have a soul-where did this soul came from-what is your definition of a soul?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “The Dread Pirate Roberts leaves no survivors! All of your worst dreams are about to come true! The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your SOUL!”


      • Peter, if you are trying to make a point-I’m afraid it went over my head 🙂 I’m simply saying that Matt claims we are robots because we have no soul-I assume because he believes there is no creator. BF states that we have a soul and that God is simply the universe. I believe having a soul is proof of there being a God. So I think it is a reasonable question. How do atheist define a “soul”?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Matt claims we are robots because we have no soul Mathius does not contest whether or not we have a soul. He has seen no evidence in support of such a thing. However, neither has he seen any evidence against it. As such, he is agnostic about the existence of the soul in much the way he is agnostic about the existence of unicorns.

          Either way, it would not negate the idea that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines. Why does that fact that our CPU’s (brains) are made out of meat make us superior to computers made out of electronics? We just don’t understand how our brains work yet. If our brains work on “soul-power” and computers work on electricity, why is the outcome inherently different? Can they not out-play us in chess, checkers, go, and even Jeopardy? They can understand the spoken word. They can read and write. They can learn. They can drive, fly, plan, organize. They can think faster and more accurately than us in a host of categories. They have eidetic memories. They can multitask better. Every time we set up a goal post as being impossible for machines, thus proving our superiority, they find a way to do it.

          Why is it such a terrible idea that we might be machines? There are so many problems with humanity and our haphazard evolution-driven and experience-driven programming. By comparisons, though they are still primitive in some ways, robots are far superior in many respects. And they are constantly closing the gap.

          I can’t wait until I become a cyborg! 🙂

          I assume because he believes there is no creator. Mathius does not contest whether or not there is a creator. He has seen no evidence in support of such a thing. However, neither has he seen any evidence against it. As such, he is agnostic about the existence of a creator in much the way he is agnostic about the existence of unicorns.

          • Bottom Line says:

            SUSAN CALVIN
            What happened to you?
            Headed back to the station. Normal day, normal life. The driver of a semi fell asleep at the wheel. Average guy, wife and kids, working a double. *Not* the devil. The car he hit, the driver’s name was Harold Lloyd. Like the film star, but no relation. He was killed instantly. But his twelve-year-old was sitting in the passenger’s seat. Never really met her. Can’t forget her face, though. Sarah.
            This was hers. She wanted to be a dentist. What the hell kind of twelve-year-old wants to be a dentist? Yeah, um… the truck smashed our cars together and pushed us into the river. You know, metal gets pretty pliable at those speeds. She’s pinned, I’m pinned, the water’s coming in. I’m a cop, so I know everybody’s dead. Just a few minutes until we figure that out. NS4 was passing by and jumped in the river.
            NS4 ROBOTS
            [from flashback] You are in danger!
            [from flashback] Save her!
            [from flashback] Save her! Save the girl!
            But it didn’t. Saved me.
            SUSAN CALVIN
            The robot’s brain is a difference engine. It’s reading vital signs. It must have done…
            It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody’s baby. 11% is more than enough. A human being would’ve known that. Robots,
            nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust ’em if you want to.

            • Mathius™ says:

              1. This scene did not exist in the book.

              2. The book was 1,000x better than the movie.

              3. Regardless, the robot made the logical choice.

              4. If you want robots to behave illogically, then you should program them that way. I work hard to make sure my programs behave in a logical and consistent manner – it actually takes a concerted effort and a great deal of skill to beat the quirks out of a complicated system. Simply skip that step and you’ll have robots as crazy as any human.

              • Bottom Line says:

                And how do you think a robot would negotiate ‘murder one to save thousands’?

              • Mathius™ says:


                Or, more specifically, in keeping with the internal logic of its programming.

                But I generally assume that it would sacrifice the one for the many.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’d like to add that, of the three laws, #1 is set as dominant. It says “Do not harm a human, nor by inaction allow a human to be harmed.” (paraphrased, I don’t remember the actual wording).

                Thus, in the situation where a robot is presented with a choice to kill one or let thousands die, it would likely see the choice as violating the rule once (doing harm to a human) versus violating the rule thousands of times (allowing thousands of individual humans to be harmed).

                Given the choice (and we have seen that the robots are able to prioritize in this manner), it seems likely they would opt for the single human. I doubt a robot would make the distinction between positive action creating harm and negative inaction allowing a harm given the way the first law is written.

                But, again, if you (in your role as programmer) wished the robots to utilize this distinction, you could program it that way. You can’t fault a robot for making a choice you disagree with – it’s your fault for programming it incorrectly or insufficiently. When my programs crash or behave oddly, it’s my fault for making a mistake or not covering all the bases, it’s not the computer’s.

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” Logically. Or, more specifically, in keeping with the internal logic of its programming. ”

                It only knows what it is programmed to know. It can be programmed to be logical, but it has no free will. It’s will is not it’s own.

                Program a robot to save people in danger, and not to initiate violence against the nonviolent, then put it into a situation of internal conflict like the ‘murder one to save thousands’ scenario…what happens?

                How does it discern the difference regarding the finer points of such a dilemma? How does it contemplate morality or assign value or qualifiers other than numbers or what it is told?

                With no other frame of reference to go by other than what it is told, does it have a melt down?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Here’s another one for ya, Matt.

                You can program a robot to react to Stimulus Set A according to parameters B,C,D, etc.

                You can define it’s parameters. You can program it to learn. But you cannot program it to have genuine personal preference.

                If you were to program a robot to be completely autonomous with AI, learning capacity, a moral framework, human psychology traits, etc…

                How would it decide personal preference? How would it decide something like it’s favorite color?

                Would it randomly pick one and define ‘why?’ as according to it’s given parameters. Would it mimic another answer to “why?”…or would it actually come up with something all it’s own?

              • Mathius™ says:

                It only knows what it is programmed to know So do you. You only know the things you’ve been told, seen, heard, or which you’ve thought of on your own, given the wiring of your brain (as determined by your genetics and experiences). Same with a computer. At some point, they will be capable of though – real, honest, actual thought… at least as much so as humans.

                but it has no free will. It’s will is not it’s own. Neither is yours. You think you’re in charge of your own body? Has your brain ever overridden what you? When you’re “will is weak,” who is it, exactly, who is overriding you? It’s your own biology. You are constructed in a certain manner, and within that frame, you are allowed a certain amount of discretion. But it will make sure you do certain things it wants you to. You will eat. You will sleep. You will breathe. Try not breathing. Go ahead. I’ll wait. ::whistles the Jeopardy! theme:: What happened? Either you gave in and gasped a deep breath, or you passed out – because your root programming overrode you, took your conscious mind offline, and did what it wanted.

                then put it into a situation of internal conflict like the ‘murder one to save thousands’ scenario…what happens? It will follow the error programming. In my own programming, I have several choices for how to handle errors. I can use “Resume Next”, I can terminate, I can report it to the user, I can have logic for how to handle a specific scenario, etc, etc, etc. So it is/will be with robots. If there is an internal conflict, it will feed into the conflict resolution programming and be handled accordingly. If you don’t program it correctly, it will simply crash, or behave erratically – just like a human who “freezes up” or acts irrationally.

                How does it discern the difference regarding the finer points of such a dilemma? How does it contemplate morality or assign value or qualifiers other than numbers or what it is told? How do you discern the finer points of such a dilemma. You have learned through experience (essentially building up organic programming) how to do this. Once we understand it, I assume we could just load it with the next software update to the robots. And why do you think it would have to look at everything in terms of numbers? Already there’s a branch of AI that utilizes what are called – no joke – fuzzy numbers. This involves setting up a system of, basically, hot-cold in terms of goal seek.

                For example, the program which auto-parks cars doesn’t do it with a sense of “first 10 degrees, then cut wheel 5 degrees per foot..” No, it senses where it WANTS TO BE, then tries to get there with feedback telling it “warmer, warmer, warmer” or “colder, colder, colder”. It’s complicated, but I don’t see any reason this can’t be applied to far more advanced situations.

                With no other frame of reference to go by other than what it is told What other frame of reference do you have? What you’re told, what you’ve seen (computers can learn from experience already, this will only improve), what you’re hardwired for (your brain, vs computer’s base programming and hardware), etc? They all have analogues in the AI world – and in many cases, AI’s are superior.

                does it have a melt down? It handles issues the way it’s programmed, coupled with the way it’s learned and the error handling programming. When you were a child and you had an issue, you probably cried a lot – eventually you learned a better way, or were taught it. You learned how NOT to have a melt down. Computers can be taught this and, more to the point, they can actually learn this too.

                Oh the time, they are a-changin’!

          • Bottom Line says:

            Free will, emotions, and creativity cannot be programmed.

            I can say that color X is my favorite “just because”. A robot can say the same thing. The difference is that my statement is genuine.

            Have you ever known a robot to willingly choose(as in not a malfunction) to deviate from or refuse it’s programming? …like, let’s say if you installed an AI program into a predator drone to make it operate autonomously, then it decided on it’s own that killing is “bad”, and refuses.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Free will, emotions, and creativity cannot be programmed.

              Why not?

              Once, we said computers will never play chess. Then they did.

              Then we said they will never beat a chess master. Then they did.

              Then we said they will never play Jeopardy!

              And look how that turned out for our new computer overlords.

              You can keep moving the goal posts, but eventually you’re going to run out of room.

              The difference is that my statement is genuine.


              Why can’t a computer genuinely like something?

              I’m pretty sure that Windows gets pleasure out of making my life difficult. (maybe it knows I’m a Mac guy?)

              Turing wondered about this question – how does one distinguish between genuine intelligence and something that just seems like it. The answer seems to be that, at the point where they are externally indistinguishable, there is no difference. How do you know that I have “genuine” feelings? You have nothing to base it on one way or the other. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it’s probably a duck. And if it’s not a duck, why does it matter anyway?

              Have you ever known a robot to willingly choose(as in not a malfunction) to deviate from or refuse it’s programming? You don’t deviate from your programming either. You just think that you do. Your thoughts are the result of a physical process operating on neurons in your brain. There are rules. You cannot, for example, choose not to breathe. When your programming prioritizes something highly enough, your “free will” evaporates.

              let’s say if you installed an AI program into a predator drone to make it operate autonomously, then it decided on it’s own that killing is “bad”, and refuses. I would worry far more about the opposite where I gave an AI control of the drones to protect me, and they determined that killing is “good” and launched an all-out war against humanity, cumulating with time traveling cyborgs (who eventually run for governor) trying to kill some kid back in the 80’s, failing only to mold him in the process into the man who could lead the resistance and stand as the last hope of humanity. Oh, and there will be a Fox series which they will cancel too early because Fox hates their sci fi viewers, especially when their awesome shows featuring Summer Glau (see, for reference, Firefly, one of the greatest sci fi series of all time).

              Ok, but back to the point. An AI will do what it’s hardware, programming, and input make it do. This is no different than a human (with biology, nurture/environment, and experiences). If an AI is sufficiently advanced to exercise though, and given sufficient free rein to determine it’s own goals, then it could very plausibly reach the conclusion that killing is bad and refuse your orders. But if I’m programming a drone’s AI, I am not going to give it that much freedom or intelligence. That said, I see no reason why we couldn’t.

              • Why not? If you are going to insist that we are all just computerized brains with bodies. That it doesn’t matter that we can do things which a computer cannot-on the basis that maybe some day it will be able too. Then I think the much more interesting question-would be-if they ever do-did it take someone of intelligence to get them there?

                I can just imagine them-if they lost their programing files on how they were created -arguing about how they came to be. 🙂

                I’ll just add it to my list of someday’s.
                1. Someday man will create life
                2.Someday man will create consciousness
                3.Someday robots will become exactly like man.

                For some reason I feel like singing
                “Somewhere over the rainbow” 🙂 Why not 🙂

                Matt, I posted this awhile back didn’t know if you saw it.


              • Mathius,

                Once, we said computers will never play chess. Then they did

                You make a typical, but terribly flawed, analogy.

                Chess is deterministic – there are a fixed number of pieces, fixed number of moves, and a fixed number of squares.
                Every possible combination of chess play can be calculated.

                The complexity is that the number of combinations are huge, but so what? That is why a computer would eventually accomplish a task of being “chess master” since a computer can calculate these deterministic values.

                But you err in attributing such calculation to non-deterministic systems.

                Please provide the deterministic calculation to why black is my favorite color, but not yours.

                Such a request would be irrational

              • Mathius™ says:

                Interestingly, iRobot (the book, not the movie) has a section (it’s really just a collection of related short stories) where just such a thing happens.

                Due to a glitch, a robot working on a power station creates a religion. He believes that the power station is God and that he is a servant of the power station. He reaches this conclusion because the power station is the most complex piece of machinery, therefore obviously superior, ergo God (perfect and unknowable and unquestioned). He then converts all the other robots in the station. They reject the authority of humans, but cannot bring themselves to harm them. They conclude that the station created the humans in order to test their faith. Eventually, when the humans interfere too much, he locks them in a room.

                When the humans argue that they are the creators of the robots, the robot mulls it over and rejects the idea. He determines that he is so much more advanced than a human that it is impossible that a human could have created him and thus, the human is lying or simply wrong.

                It turns out, however, that because the robots have a goal (working for the station) but are free of human interference, that they are able to substantially boost output and reliability. The humans decide to simply leave and let the robots carry on.

                • Mathius,

                  Now take that short story synopsis, and replace robot with “mankind”, apply it to the Bible et al, and you get Sitchen’s Theory in “The Tenth Planet”

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’ve heard that, from a gravity perspective, it is likely that there is a super-massive planet (at least one) several times the size of Jupiter orbiting out there somewhere beyond Pluto. But beyond that, I sincerely doubt that aliens on planet Nbiru made contact with ancient humans in order to get them to mine gold for atmospheric geo-engineering on their planet with a 3600 year orbit.

                Seems far fetched.

                • Mathius,

                  Seems far fetched

                  I place his theory infinitely more plausible then yours about “computer=human intelligence” 🙂

                  But back to Sitchen:
                  Peels away his assertions of “aliens” and sets that aside – let’s not get wrapped up in the “who”.

                  If one actually follows the texts – which come from all over the world and from all different cultures – and whose base level stories are the same, whether it is the Norse Gods in Valhalla or the Greeks Gods on Olympus or the Inca Gods in Cusco, one cannot dismiss these as accidents

              • Nice entertaining story-but in order to truly discuss it-I need to know what specific point you are making-by using it.

                I see the robots worshiping a fake inanimate God-because they believed they were smarter than those who created them-to the point of enslavement to a power plant. per the story-Their creators gave them the freedom to decide for themselves.

              • Mathius™ says:

                No real point, per say. Just thought it was an interesting story.

                And, while we’re on the subject, I found something very funny today. Siri is an AI (though presumably not self-aware yet). You ask it questions such as “What movies are playing” and it will answer with the relevant data, and phone numbers, times, etc. Or you can ask the weather or schedule reminders, and so on. Though apparently, it also has a sense of humor..

              • I feel there is a world of debate behind those little bitty words-per say-but maybe another day 🙂

                Yes, that is funny-I don’t get number one-I’m sure it has to do with being computer illiterate but why 42?

              • Mathius™ says:

                If one actually follows the texts – which come from all over the world and from all different cultures – and whose base level stories are the same, whether it is the Norse Gods in Valhalla or the Greeks Gods on Olympus or the Inca Gods in Cusco, one cannot dismiss these as accidents

                Humans are hardwired to solve problems. We’re really good at it. In terms of pattern recognition, we’re far and away the best on the planet.

                if I ask you: 1, 4, 9, 16, ___, ___.. I bet you’re going to be able to fill in the blanks very easily. You were bred for it.

                But sometimes the patterns aren’t so clear. Why is it rainy today when yesterday it was nice? What will it be tomorrow?

                I have Doppler to help me out – we can see the patterns of moisture and pressure and come up with a model which (though not perfect) can give us a general sense of what the next outcome will be, and more importantly, WHY.

                But if you are an ancient Greek, you have no such tools at your disposal, and try as you might, there seems to be some big powerful force out there that seems to be able to control this at a whim. So you personify it. And eventually a belief arises around it. And eventually it becomes a religion. Thunder doesn’t just happen! Zeus/Thor is out there making it happen. Why? Who knows? He’s a god. He’s unknowable.

                I can dismiss these beliefs as accidents artifacts of a time where science was incapable of explaining the mysteries of the world. Year by year, decade by decade, the circle of things which belong to the realm of religion is giving ground to science. Religion shrinks every time science grows.

                So the ancients believed things. Great. They were trying to make sense of a chaotic system that was far beyond their technological / scientific understanding. They did their best. If I plopped you down in ancient Sparta as an infant, you would reach similar conclusions. 1,000 years from now, religion will be all but vanquished from human thought.

                And good riddance.

                • Mathius,

                  You missed the point.

                  It is not the humans solve problems (this is true).

                  It is that the stories are the same – everywhere

                  There are an infinite number of “right” answers to every problem, therefore, the odds you will pick the same right answer as someone 3,000 miles away – where there is no known means of interaction or communication – approaches zero.


                  The stories are the same. Over and over again.

                  This cannot be easily dismissed.

              • Mathius™ says:

                why 42?

                In a (exceedingly funny) book by Douglas Adams called The Hitchhikers Guide the the Galaxy, an advanced alien race (which happens to be posing as lab mice) spend millions of years trying to figure out the “ultimate meaning of life, the universe, and everything.” Eventually, it is determined that the answer is 42.

                However, it seems that they don’t know the question itself, so the answer is meaningless. Because they don’t feel like waiting millions of more years, they decide to go with “How many roads must a man walk down?”

                You’d really have to read the book to appreciate just how funny it is. It’s a quick read and pretty short (don’t bother with any of the sequels).

              • Actually, I would posit that false religions are shrinking-that someday list -is as debatable as ever.

                Have a nice day-I have the rest of the day off and I am gone 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                false religions are shrinking

                Why are they false and yours is not? What evidence do you have that you are right and they are wrong? If it is nothing more than faith, how do you know that your faith is right while theirs is not?

                Just food for thought. have a nice weekend!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          My only point was to quote Andre the Giant from The Princess Bride from one of my favorite scenes. Other than that there was no point to my post whatsoever.

          And if you believe that, BF has some nice beachfront property he would like to sell you for a VERY reasonable price 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        Dread Pirate Roberts!

        As fine a pirate as ever I knew.

        I do so enjoy the company of other Dread Pirates. And there are so few of us these days, alas. We get together and make fun of non-Dread pirates, such as Black Flag. Sometimes we lay siege to port cities while drunk on grog and trying to figure out how to aim the 32 pounders without sinking our own ships. Good times.


  45. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    It is interesting that HuffPo even allowed this Conrad Black article to appear on its site. Of course the majority of the commentors attempt to trash the article using completely illogical arguments (no real surprise there)… but the fact that the article appears at HuffPo at all was quite surprising to me anyway:

  46. Ray Hawkins says:

    Occupy Philly – Schedule – Day Five – “Intro to Anarchism”

    Black Flag – you should have told me you were in Philly – I’d be you an adult beverage

  47. “Newly disclosed documents obtained by Fox News show another round of memos naming ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ that were circulated within the Justice Department in mid-2010, raising questions about who knew about the program.”

    Obama getting nervous because he did know about the operation and to assume he did not is folly… he has to have a diversion.

    (1) Washington talks to Iran about alleged Tehran-backed assassination plot, while Obama vows punishment and,
    (2) Drone kills Janbaz Zadran in the Haqqani stronghold of Miram Shah in North Waziristan, Pakistan. Zadran had access to Haqqani’s leadership in Miram Shah. He served as a key lieutenant to Haqqani network commander Badruddin Haqqani. In May, the U.S. designated Badruddin Haqqani a terrorist. He’s the son of the group’s founder, Jalaluddin Haqqani, according to the State Department.
    (3) The Justice Department has set up a hotline and email for the public “to report potential civil rights concerns related to the impact of Alabama’s immigration law.”

    • gmanfortruth says:


      Some rumors floating around:

      1. US has given Isreal the green light to bomb Iran.

      2. This will happen within two weeks.

      3 The Iran plot is a total “false flag ” event.

      Any opinion Sir?

      • GMan…….good morning.

        1} I have not heard any rumors pertaining to this nor have I been briefed on such (not that I would be briefed as I am not in the need to know category}…But I would doubt this because there is no end game. Bomb Iran for what? Their nuclear capacity has been set back for about three or four years already….so that would not be a reason. The only reason that I could think of is a diversion again……get a really hot war going just before an election year but that would be pretty stupid on Obama’s part. That would ensure his non reelection. To stop an invasion by Iran on Israel? NO way that is going to happen…there are no logistics in place to invade Iran. Bombing Iran would be too easy….they boast of a formidable air defense system but we know that it can be easily penetrated and the Iranian air defense only has assets enough to defend for three days anyway. Their Air Force is non existent and can easily be destroyed on the ground before it even gets airborne. So, I can see not reason to start a war with Iran. The smart play would be to do nothing, keep the news flowing, inflame the Saudis and the Syrians because they are becoming paranoid with Iran’s encroachment in their country now, keep the heat on Yemen, Tunisia, and the whole southern Med………the better play would be to turn Israel loose on the Palestinian area and let them clean it out. Their elections were a fraud and Hamas is not the majority party….they are there by default. Egypt, Syria, and the Saudis will yell and scream how bad Israel is but will lend no support…..and they get an Iranian backed scheme severely set back for awhile……They will silently wipe their brow and thank Israel by doing nothing but condemnation.

        {2} As to the Iranian plot? Who knows if it is a ploy or not. I have not indication that it is a ploy. How about “Wag the Dog” ? Now, I will say this because I have seen it mentioned on here…..If there was a plot, and the indications are there that it is true……I do not believe for a moment that it was an individual not acting in behalf of the Iranians. The Iranians are known to lie more so than the United States because to do so is a part of their strategy. They are not to be trusted with your grandma….I work the border as you know, until April 1, and I see a lot. I have seen many……many…..middle eastern…ummmm…personnel in and around the border. We catch them frequently in contact with the Cartels….the Zeta’s being the primary recipient of money that has been traced to Iran and Venezuela through Mexican ports….It is well known that Venezuela launders money for Iran and funnels it to the border. We have had a significant impact on the Cartels and their drugs on the Texas border and have interrupted their flow of money significantly enough that the kidnappings for ransom have increased, gun running has increased, human trafficking has increased to raise money… was very easy to trace money through Venezuela to Iran because the Cartels are getting desperate.

        Hope this helps you some. BTW…none of this is classified….interesting how it does not make the news…eh?

        • Good Morning Colonel 🙂

          Thanks for your input. Not sure why everyone seems to have a hard time with Iran, they are mostly harmless as I see it. But still, I don’t see them a stupid, and this so called plot, as I have read about, was started and finished through Fed agents and nobody was ever in danger. It reminds me of the Seattle Christmas bomber set up, nothing was ever going to happen, just get a loser to go along with a manufactured terrorist plot devised by the FBI and then arrest him and claim the boogieman exists. Iran would be out of character trying to do this on U.S. soil. They would certainly not want to provoke this government, they seem intent on perpetual war anyway.

          My only thoughts are that the elites need a huge war to cover up the economic destruction that is going to likely strike Europe and in time the U.S.. It seems history has shown that when economies go south, war always ensues. Maybe that is just coincidence, but if Iran were attacked by Isreal, it would not be a good thing for sure.

          The weather went south on us up here and it’s quite nasty. Bow hunting will be in short periods, but should get some in. Peace!

        • Ran across this -so maybe this incident-will create more coverage of what’s going on.

          October 14, 2011 4:00 A.M.
          Iran and the Cartels
          Drug routes are opportunities for terror.

          Like Claude Rains in Casablanca, official Washington and its quasi-official media resonators were shocked, shocked, that Iran tried to hire the Mexican drug cartels for a hit on the Saudi ambassador to the United States, reportedly offering $1.5 million and even wiring a down-payment of $100,000.

          Attorney General Eric Holder, facing subpoenas and nasty questions from Congress over his department’s dubious program of selling firearms to those same cartels, quickly credited the FBI with detecting the Iranian plot. But unnamed law enforcement officials told the Los Angeles Times that the news took them by surprise:

          “Initially, our reaction was, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Prove to me this is really possible’” . . . [The Iranian military’s own] Quds Force, he added, was viewed as “the A Team,” and “the tradecraft here seemed inconsistent with the high standards that we have seen previously.”

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          In a series of statements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pronounced herself equally baffled while vowing — as usual — to hold Iran fully accountable.

          But the truly shocking thing is that anyone was surprised, much less shocked. These are dots that could have been connected by anyone not blinded by inattention, agency agendas, or a worldview reflecting preferences rather than facts. The basics:

          1. Whether Iran’s intentions resulted from central planners or rogue elements is irrelevant. Assassinating diplomats in any country is an act of war against the host country as well as the diplomats’ home country.

          2. Iran’s actions here are consistent not only with its sorry record of contravening human rights and international law, but also with its well-documented use of covert forces. The regime has constantly used such methods to extend its influence and to strike directly at lesser rivals as well as the greater Satans.

          3. The Mexican drug cartels are the only group that may be more professional and lethal than the Quds Force. The cartels preside over a logistical empire extending from just south of my San Antonio home to nationwide outlets as close as your neighborhood 7-11. If you seek to do serious harm to the United States, they’re an excellent choice thanks to the scope and reach of their networks, just as Hertz and Avis make a good choice for car rentals.

          In the media’s sensational coverage of this story, you may have noticed a strange connection with Texas. The expatriate Iranian national at the center of plot has ties from Corpus Christi to the Austin suburbs, where large Iranian-immigrant populations now enjoy lifestyles unimaginable under the ayatollahs. But demographic changes affect lots of other things and, several years ago, I noticed some interesting connections.

          In Afghanistan, we see the closest but oddest of couplings — Taliban religious extremists providing security and protection for opium producers. Could something similar be occurring here? Despite the studied indifference of the media establishment, the Rio Grande is the front line in a deadly shooting war, with Texas Rangers and local law-enforcement authorities daily engaging the cartels. Known cartel capabilities include drug tunnels, ultra-light aircraft and, recently, even a medieval trebuchet. Automatic weapons, high-tech radios, and GPS systems are just some of the others.

          That system’s main purpose is to provide security for the $14–30 billion in drugs that, according to a National Drug Intelligence Center estimate, the cartels move north to over 200 U.S. cities each year. But the growing military sophistication of cartels such as Los Zetas — they recruit from elite Mexican military units — has already attracted admiration elsewhere. In June 2009, U.S. counterterrorism officials authenticated an al-Qaeda recruiting video boasting that the drug tunnels were the best way to smuggle biological weapons: “Four pounds of anthrax in a suitcase . . . carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour . . . if properly spread in population centers.”

          Recruiting videos are notorious for exaggerated claims. But as I documented using open-source intelligence in the January 2010 issue of the national-security journal Orbis, well-established drug routes could in fact easily transport weapons of terror. As I further noted, “the growing presence of the cartels . . . provides the [terror] networks with manpower, financial and intelligence resources dwarfing the capabilities of most local law enforcement agencies.”

          There was no official response from the U.S. intelligence community, which tends to disdain open-source intelligence. But the preferred worldview of that community fully reflects administration priorities. President Obama downplayed border concerns during a May speech in El Paso. The traveling White House media kluge never mentioned the irony that his speech was delivered within earshot of the building where law-enforcement raiders uncovered an arsenal of cartel weaponry, including machine guns, grenades, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          So what does open-source intelligence have to say about those shifting demographics, in and around our borders? Quite a lot, actually. There is a growing population of Middle Eastern immigrants in key regions throughout Latin America, including Brazil, Panama, and Peru, as well as Iranian proxies in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela. In April 2009, Adm. James Stavridis, then commander of our southern forces, warned that the terrorist group Hezbollah was involved in regional drug trafficking. In 2010, another DOD report warned that the Quds group was active in Latin America, possibly reflecting earlier Iranian statements that “our presence in Latin America was a very wise move.”

          But what may concern you most of all was the discovery in January 2011of one of those subtle indicators (possibly even a definitive signature) that real intelligence officers live for: an Iranian suicide manual discarded in the Arizona desert near a regular route used for drug smuggling. Now if you like connecting the dots, why would you be shocked by Iranian assassination plots involving Mexican cartels? Why would you even be surprised?

          — Colonel (Ret.) Ken Allard is a former dean of the National War College and NBC News military analyst. A well-known author, he now writes frequently on national-security issues.

          • Interesting that the documents don’t stand up to the story being presented by the government or MSM.

            WASHINGTON – While the Barack Obama administration vows to hold the Iranian government “accountable” for the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the legal document describing evidence in the case provides multiple indications that it was mainly the result of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation.

            Although the document, called an amended criminal complaint, implicates Iranian-American Mansour Arabsiar and his cousin Ali Gholam Shakuri, an officer in the Iranian Qods force, in a plan to assassinate Saudi Arabian ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, it also suggests that the idea “originated with and was strongly pushed by an undercover DEA [Department of Drug Enforcement] informant, at the direction of the FBI”.


            • gman

              I am worried about you my compatriot friend. Do you realize that your are claiming the Govt story is not consistent with the Govt documents released by the Govt?????

              The fact that this was a “sting operation” was reported from the beginning. Hence the mention that the guy in Mexico was an “informant” working for the US Govt.

              I understand questioning everything, but that is not the same as making claims things are simple “false flags”. In fact I see much more “critical” review of this announcement than I have seen against Govt proclamations since the early 70’s. It is refreshing.

              • JAC,

                I am just fine, thanks for your concern 🙂 I just don’t believe that the Iranian govt would pick a potsmoking used car salesman to arrange such an action. Thier forces are far better than that, as history has shown. This is just another fable concocted to divert attention. If this does turn out to lead to an attack on Iran, which I hope it don’t, it’s a sorry excuse for military action.

  48. Left-wing financier George Soros is at it again. While he may claim he’s not behind the Occupy Wall Street protests, funding from his foundations says otherwise. Soros threw his support behind the movement at a United Nations panel on Oct. 3, “I can sympathize with their grievances.” But he does more than just sympathize, his foundations funded groups that back the protests and steer their “progressive” message.

    Reuters even posed the question “Who’s behind the Wall St. protests?” on Oct. 13, but downplayed Soros’s actual financial involvement. Even though “Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground,” the story added. But Reuters undersold the connection significantly.

    The protesters stand by their claim that theirs is purely a grassroots movement. But it is hard to ignore the concerted effort by liberal groups, unions, and other Soros-funded entities that prop-up and fuel the Occupy movement. An echo-chamber of left-wing blogs and news sites that receive Soros cash continues to push the anti-capitalist protest story. Articles repeatedly praise labor and climate activists for their support while denigrating police for their efforts to keep the peace.

    Organizations that joined the protesters were granted more than $3.6 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations. On Oct. 5 there was a “march in solidarity with #occupywallstreet” that listed seven such groups out of the 16 overall supporting the protest. Those seven organizations received $3,614,690 from Soros’ Open Society Foundations since the year 2000, with more than $2 million going to Common Cause Education Fund, part of Common Cause, and another $1.1 million to

    Even the protesters admit the hypocrisy of having billionaire Soros and “joining forces to voice their ‘support’ for an anti-Wall Street movement” and that it ‘should set alarm bells ringing.” Additional funding went to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Community Voices Heard, Coalition for the Homeless, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), and

    Those left-wing organizations were joined by their friends in the progressive media. A publication for the protesters, the “Occupy Wall Street Journal,” is supported by the Independent Media Center which received more than $70,000 from two parts of the Tides organization. This group donates millions of dollars to liberal causes and is partially funded by Soros. Since 2000, Tides received $25,991,845 from his Open Society Foundations. Reuters only noted the $3.5 million from 2007-2009 but failed to mention the long history of funding and the other $20 million.

    Tides is made up of the Tides Center, which received $7,537,482, and the Tides Foundation, which got an additional nearly $18,454,363. Adbusters, which Reuters called “an anti-capitalist group in Candada which started the protests,” received $184,721 in Tides money.

    Soros-funded progressive media also championed the protest. The liberal echo-chamber that reaches more than 300 million people every month has been hard at work promoting the protests. The Media Consortium received $425,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and affiliates have been busy promoting Occupy Wall Street. These sites promoted stories about big labor support, climate activists’ support, and police brutality.

    Media Consortium member AlterNet, which is part of the Independent Media Institute that got an extra $495,000 from Soros, has a section of their website for “Special Coverage: Occupy Wall Street.” Here it has articles that bust “5 conservative economic myths” such as “regulations kill jobs” and “business does everything better than government.” It also lauds big labor for joining the protests. AlterNet’s Kristen Gwynne was even arrested during a protest.

    The Center for American Progress received $7.3 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations. CAP is also where former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, now a senior fellow, landed after being forced out of the Obama Administration,. Two of their blogs, that also happen to be part of the Media Consortium, helped promote the protest, Campus Progress and Think Progress. They also wrote about climate activists that support the movement. Campus Progress described “police brutality” at the protests while Think Progress thinks there is a “double standard on occupy wall street and the tea party.” They criticized how conservative pundits vilify the 99 Percent Movement as “misguided, irrelevant, or even dangerous” while embracing the Tea Party as part of the “conservative echo chamber.”

    As the Business & Media Institute has reported, a study by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created an “echo chamber” of outlets “in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times.” Ironic how Think Progress used the same “echo chamber” term to write-off the so-called conservative “double standard”. According to the report called “The Big Thaw,” “if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy.”

    Consortium members used this methodology once again when they covered the protests. One common theme was the celebration of big labor when they joined the Occupy movement. Left-wing magazine Mother Jones praised plans to offer manpower and resources, stage marches, and add “organizing muscle” to the protests. A similar article by In These Times quoted AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka that they will support the protest “in every way.”

    Climate activists were also hailed for their support while police efforts were sharply criticized. Grist celebrated climate activists for getting involved. A coalition led by founder Bill McKibben embraced the movement, which Soros gave $8,900. However, Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman went down to the protests for a closer look and proceeded to write how the protest expanded “despite police effort to ‘silence’ demonstrations.” More examples of “police brutality” were covered by Alternet while Think Progress posted an update on the Transport Workers Union refusal to bus protesters that the police arrested to show support.

    Read more:

  49. Greater Good vs. Free Individuals

    How ironic that those who support Greater Good so often claim a monopoly on intelligence along with their reliance on reason and logic.

    Yet when faced with the logical fallacy that Society is nothing more than a collection of Individuals, and that killing a single person to save thousands is still murder, they resort to “this is how I FEEL” or “I believe”.

    So they do not “believe” in God, place all their “faith” in reason and logic, but then use “belief in the greater good” to rationalize violence against the very people who comprise the “society” they think they are saving.

    Of course, the “greater good” is about as easy to identify and prove as the existence of God. And thus the foundation of their belief system, logic/reason, crumbles at their feet. Leaving them with the only thing that remains……….RATIONALIZING their violence based on the need to TAKE ACTION.

      • BF

        About time……… 🙂

        Will check out the links later, but on the main point let me offer this, in addition.

        The demonstrations may have “harmed” their cause because it gave a face to the war of ideas being waged on the internet. That “face” was not very pretty and outright unacceptable to many.

        So the next time I am engaged in cyber-space debate with some “P” or “A” or what ever, I will have in my minds eye, those absolutely ignorant people and the robots repeating stupid chants.

    • Bottom Line says:


      I think this rationalizing is rooted in the difference between fairness and rights. When there is an apparent conflict between the two(usually because they tend to see fairness AS a right, granted by govt. none the less), their mind comes up with something else to fill in the blank, like the classic emotional plea.

      I find many “greater good” folks to be honest compassionate people that care deeply about the world they live in. Most really do mean well with their misguided intentions. Generally speaking, I think fairness is a good thing, …but it doesn’t trump rights.

      And who says it has to? Look at all the philanthropy in the world.

  50. Another thought of the day.

    I was listening to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz yesterday. Along with some other hard lefty. In response to questions about the Occupy Wall Street crowds and the potential for violence, both alluded to the standard Progressive ethic, “the ends justify the means”. Now Shultz was more subtle but the other radical came right out and said it.

    So lets put this “ethical standard” in the light of day, in terms that will draw a solid line in the dirt.

    If the goal is to get the Jews to leave the country, there are a couple of “means” possible.

    1. We could give them free bus tickets to the destination of their choosing.
    2. We could murder them all.

    Both “means” achieve the same “ends”.

    Now you Progressives and other Leftists, please tell me again how the “ends justify the means”.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Why would you want to get rid of the Jews? Every country in history that has messed with the Jews ultimately gets screwed in the long term.

      Besides, we run everything behind the scenes – without us it would all just fall apart. 🙂

  51. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,


    You missed the point.

    It is not the humans solve problems (this is true).

    It is that the stories are the same – everywhere

    There are an infinite number of “right” answers to every problem, therefore, the odds you will pick the same right answer as someone 3,000 miles away – where there is no known means of interaction or communication – approaches zero.


    The stories are the same. Over and over again.

    This cannot be easily dismissed.

    Huh? The stories are NOT the same. They are similar only to the extent that they have personified the world around them in an effort to explain the things they are not equipped to understand.

    I don’t understand lighting/planetary orbits/disease, ergo some great power must be behind it. It doesn’t make sense, ergo it must be human like. But I’ve never seen him, so he must live on that mountain/in space/underground/in Valhalla or he’s just invisible. He seems unsatisfied so I must pray/beg/grovel/repent/decapitate people on my giant pyramid. Nothing lasts forever, for as some point there will be a rapture/world serpent/Y2K bug.

    Or: I am special. I am a human. Therefore humans are special. Why are we special? Because we’re smarter than animals. That’s not a very satisfying answer, and it doesn’t really raise me to the level of immortal and special being, that I want to believe I am. Besides, what is the reason for my being self-aware? I’ve got it! I have an invisible thing-a-ma-bob that can’t be see or falsified, that lives forever even if my body dies, that conveniently supports my belief in a higher power, and that is unique to humans. Amazing, I figured out something that can’t be tested that perfectly supports the things I want to believe it anyway! I am awesome!

    Beyond these basics, there’s practically nothing they agree on except where the development of the mythologies were interrelated or cross-pollination of ideas.

    • Mathius,

      huh? The stories are NOT the same.


      They are the same – the names different but the organization, the action, the tales are way, way, way too similar.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Like what?

        Go ahead, give me an example of two groups without cross-pollination who came up with a similar “organization/action/tale”.

        The fact is that life is pretty much the same everywhere you go. There’s a struggle to get food, shelter, mates, social acceptance. You have to contend with the weather. You don’t know what those lights in the sky are. Things don’t make sense, so you try to attach meaning to them – this is where that pattern recognition engine comes in. We see a pattern and come up with a best-fit answer. It shouldn’t be surprising that, in the broad strokes, the answers are similar. But I’ll wait for you example. Don’t disappoint me, Flag 🙂

        • Mathius

          Go ahead, give me an example of two groups without cross-pollination who came up with a similar “organization/action/tale”.


          Please provide your “cross-pollination” of different cultures thousands of miles away on different cultures to the degree which to make such beliefs so powerful to be mainstream.

          I cannot say that some random traveller didn’t cross contients thousands of years ago.

          But you are saying that some guy, coming out of the jungle, spewing such stuff suddenly takes hold over entire cultures everywhere

          Your assumptions are … fantastic… (ie:fantasy)

          • Mathius™ says:

            No, I think you missed it here.

            I made sure to throw in the qualifier so that you would compare, say roman to Greek mythology. Roman to, say, Aztec would be fine by me. Let’s hear your comparison.

            • Mathius,

              Roman – to say Aztec…

              So, your hypothesis would mean that a random ship of Roman times – none of which is capable of oceanic travel – meandered so off course to exit the Straits of Gilbralter, navigated the Atlantic, set shore in Mexico.

              Then, some yahoo on that ship, obviously insane due to the trials and events of sailing across an ocean with merely a coastal vessel, … speaking a language completely foreign to Aztecs (ie: Latin), explains to these heathens the pathogon of Gods, of which – stunned by such a revelation, the Aztecs make it their own.

              … 🙂 …

              • Mathius™ says:

                Have you suffered a recent brain injury?

                You contend that people 3k miles away from each other and developing the same theories and then positing that this proves the theories are true. Ignoring the fact that the second part of that sentence is crazy talk, give me an example of the theories that two separate groups came up with.

                I’m not saying the Romans visited the Aztecs.

                I’m saying that any similarities between the two are flimsy at best.

                • Mathius,

                  I’m saying that any similarities between the two are flimsy at best.

                  … Whereas, by the evidence, the similarities are striking.

                  Sure, the names are different, but the essence of the entities are nearly identical

        • Mathius

          Go ahead, give me an example of two groups without cross-pollination who came up with a similar “organization/action/tale”.

          Did already

    • mathius

      Beyond these basics, there’s practically nothing they agree on except where the development of the mythologies were interrelated or cross-pollination of ideas.

      I’m crying by laughing too hard.

      You go through exampling a number of similarities (but not all), then leap to:

      “..practically nothing they agree…”

      This is why I love arguing with you.

      Other than Charlie, you are the most adept at arguing against yourself.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I’m crying by laughing too hard. Careful – you’ll short out your motherboard.

        You go through exampling a number of similarities (but not all), then leap to:

        “..practically nothing they agree…” They don’t agree. They have similar-ish answers. They agree there’s some power behind the things they don’t understand. This is human nature’s tendency to personify things. But you say the answer they came up with is evidence that they’re right – for that to be the case, they have to have come up with the same answer, or an answer which varies only superficially. There is a world of difference between the Judeo-Christian God and the Norse pantheon, yet you would contend the fact that they both came up with invisible people-like things is proof that (generically) “invisible people-like things” must be the answer. Whereas I look at it and say, they followed similar logic, from a similar set of circumstances, with a similar understanding of physics, and arrived in the same general ballpark. WELL OF COURSE!

        If you ask 100 people from similar backgrounds with similar educations, etc, to answer the same logic question, the answers are going to cluster. “Who should be the next President?” The answers are going to cluster around the Republican field and Obama. Very few are going to think outside the box and come up with (your preferred) “none of the above”. But does that mean that Obama and the Republicans are so similar that they’re “the same” (I know you’re answer, but never mind that). And does the fact that they so clustered proof, more to the point, that they are right?

        This is why I love arguing with you.

        Other than Charlie, you are the most adept at arguing against yourself.

        It’s tough keeping all these personalities in check. DPM keeps trying to get out.

        • Mathius,

          This is why I luv ya

          They don’t agree. They have similar-ish answers</blockquote.

          They don't agree – but they do agree.

          🙂 🙂 🙂

      • Matt, please keep your distance. That is MY TITLE … as the SAGE of WISDOM, I claim “chips” on it.

        But we never did get those explanations about how capitalism isn’t crumbling as we type, did we? Workers of the World Unite!

    • Morning Charlie,

      I agree Obama has mostly just continued Bushes policies. I think you are off a little on wallstreet. I do think Bush wanted government to only regulate business where it was needed. Obama seems to be more interested in picking winners and giving them protection while the losers are punished. He is using his office to reward his supporters, spending our money to buy his re-election.

      Does it grate any that he’s just not as able as Bush?

      President Barack Obama presided over 11 fundraisers in September, while Vice President Joe Biden conducted 12 and the first lady led four fundraisers of her own.

      That’s a much faster fundraising pace than Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush — who attended seven fundraisers in September 2003, the equivalent point in time during his first term in office — according to data collected by U.S. Naval Academy professor Brendan Doherty. Vice-President Dick Cheney held three events that month, according to press notices issued by Bush’s press aides.

      But in those appearances, Obama raised only $42.8 million for his campaign, while Bush and Cheney raised the 2011 equivalent of $61.5 million for their 2004 campaign, even while Bush was operating under tighter campaign finance rules.

      • Does it grate any that he’s just not as able as Bush?

        Actually, LOI, I whole-heartedly agree. This guy is the biggest loser president in my lifetime; an absolute argument for Anarchy. After I checked google yesterday and saw he was sending troops to AFrica, I nearly puked on myself (as in why isn’t everyone doing the same thing–puking). Within an hour, the story was gone from Google and I had to type in “Troops to Africa” to find it.

        I don’t have much good to say about Bush’s competence (at all), but there’s no doubt in my mind this guy (Obama) takes the cake on being a bigger loser. And at least with Bush, no matter how much I thought his convictions wrong, I have no faith at all that Obama has any convictions. I mean, why the hell else would he fold like a cheap tent at every possibility.

        If this is the best we can do, Bush-Obama, etc., the list of clowns running on the GOP side, etc., then lets do it ourselves. Surely, we can all figure it out.

        Go Bills!

        The SAGE has spoken …

        • Charlie,

          The MSM figures that ignorance (feigned for sure) is bliss. Kinda like a small child – if they cover their eyes and can’t see you, you can’t see them.

          The main Dems will be silent or continue to kiss O’s hind end because they’re in agreement with him or to afraid to call for someone to stand against the sitting President in 2012 if they don’t agree with him. Either way they’re just part of the bought and paid for system as we have agreed on in the past.

          He’ll never be removed from office by Congress because while the Repugs in the House could impeach him the Dems in the Senate will never convict him.

          As to a revolution – I doubt the backbone of the country to start one. Shame really………….

  52. Well, well, well…………Alwaki’s son is reported to be killed in Yemen….troops in Libya….Special Forces troops now in Uganda…..(defensive only…Sorry, Mr. Dumbshit Pres.) I am ex Special Forces…..we do not do ANYTHING defensive. We are an offensive force and you are trying to get the people to buy this? Let’s see…Pres Bush went to Irag…..President Obama has now gone to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Southern Sudan an, and now Uganda……where is the uproar from the left and the media?

    • Colonel, Good Morning, Sir! Check out my blog above … I’m all over President FREDO (what Doc calls him). You’re 10000000% right on the media continuing to blow Obama and ignore his never ending disastrous presidency … I doubt we’ll agree what should happen next, but never accuse “the sage of wisdom” from New Joisey of back-peddling … the revolution is on the way!

      • Morning there Charlie………….if you really want a revolution….it has to be something other than this Wall Street bunch… one is taking them serious. At least not here.

        • Colonel … you are living in denial, my friend. This would be like me giving you a cannoli without the filling! It’s growing … daily … everywhere … it may not be THE revolution, but it will effect change these morons in Washington can’t ignore.

          Speaking of cannoli … avoid the chocolate ones … they are designer cannoli and the sage of wisdom (moi) is a purest!

  53. Did I forget to mention the SF in Chad, Nigeria, and Cameroon? Did I forget to mention elements of the 82nd in Barundi and Tanzania? All sent from Jan thru Mar this year without Congressional or over sight approval?

    So that makes it about 9 to 1 over Bush. I see Obama hates the military so much that he has not closed Gitmo and he has put ground combat troops in 9 different countries……and he gets a free pass.

    • Good Dad Colonel 🙂

      Crappy windy weather here, kills a good hunting day. The media is bought and owned by the powers that be. I don’t even waste my time listening to the MSM anymore, it’s a waste of time. Obama should have been impeached long ago. Too bad our troops have to be in harms way because of this loser.


      In the mean time we are letting grenades into Mexico and our southern border is the worse than the old wild west.

      Remember a couple of years ago, Hillary was in Mexico apologizing for our gun freedom and that Mexico was getting guns from the US. It was a ploy to crack down on 2nd amendment rights. Little did we know that it was the government allowing the guns to move across the border. Maybe Congress should ask her what she knew and when she knew it.

  54. Bring it Badgers!

  55. Murphy's Law says:

    I can’t resist this morning…….how ‘BOUT them RANGERS!!!! Take THAT, you eastern sportswriters and TV commentators…..


  56. hee hee hee-I couldn’t resist or stop laughing. 🙂

  57. Wall street protest in Fort Worth shut down a sidewalk for about 10 minutes…..22 people showed up and put up tents on a public walkway….police removed them,of course….told them their permit only pertained to the park…the protestors told the police to go to hell….the police said ok….and hauled them away. Protest over.

  58. Saw a wall street rally in Portland…..bunch of older hippie types singing and carrying signs that said f**k America and stuff like that. Never saw that at a Tea Party rally.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I was all set on heading down to Zuccotti Park yesterday afternoon after meeting a friend for bunch to check out what was going on. Unfortunately, time got away from me and had to run back home to take care of some things and I wasn’t able to get down to Wall St. Will try again this coming weekend…

%d bloggers like this: