Headed into an Abyss

I wrote an article a while back on Iran and was thinking of publishing it to see if there was any interest.  Lo and behold, the Colonel has Iran on his mind.  Will lead with his thoughts and post my article as a comment.

From D13 The Colonel

@ SK…..Cannot blame the Iranians……I would be doing the same thing as A Jad….OIL is his weapon right now. ….he fired it. He says, “ok, want sanctions? I will do my own”…..he is betting that Iran can out last Britain and France and he is threatening to cut off other Europeans. He knows that our President has all but stopped domestic production and cannot supply England or France, and he has, so far because of his nuclear ambitions, has the Saudi’s buffaloed into not turning up the volume to make up for his decreasing supply (Remember that Europe is very dependent upon Iranian oil)…he, Ajad…simply does not care about his people and they are now powerless to throw him out and unless the remaining hard line mullahs and clerics get rid of him, they will lose control to the fiercely independent and reckless fundamentalists that are taking over. I remind you of my map that I submitted last year…..and which countries would fall and when to the fundamentalist….you will see that I am correct to the penny, and many thought it would not happen. It is and it will. The ME is headed into an abyss and A JAd is positioning himself into the total picture of control. Give him a nuke…and it will happen. Well, too late, he will have his nuke and then, when he extends his control, I want to see what people on here think or what excuse they will give him. But, do not blame the Iranians…..Persian history tells the story……read it.

The United States is much weaker now because of Obama…..the only thing that Asians and Arabs understand is power….the big stick…they always have responded to it and always will..they thrive…THRIVE….off the weakness of others,…Just look at history. It tells you the mindset. A first grader, that cannot even read, can figure out what this administration is doing. To ignore it and think otherwise, puts anyone of that thinking in the ostrich classification.

The problem that we have here…..is a European mindset…..an entitlement mentality. This world is not meant to live in peace….never has and never will….power is the name of the game….if you want a seat at the big game…..you better play it.


  1. d13thecolonel says:
    January 3, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    An open letter to President Obama:

    Dear Mr. President,

    Iran has called your bluff. Iran has said that if your aircraft carrier goes into the Straight (which is International Waters) that you will pay a price. In fact, Iran has ordered you out of the region. So what are you going to do? Cut and run like the coward I think you are or will you send the carrier back and preserve the integrity of the United States. Just as they have the right to International waters…..so do you. It matters not what region of the world. That is all this is about…..International Waters….not boundaries, not a sovereign nation…..it is about the Straight and nothing more.

    My recommendation is to send the carrier group back in and call Iran’s bluff…..if they even look in our direction….send their navy to the bottom ( all 12 ships )….they probably need some artificial reefs anyway. You better show some back bone because the alternative is worse.

    I have a great deal of respect for D13. Unlike me, he’s played in that sandbox, met and befriended some of the people over there. But here I’m going to state that I think he’s wrong on this issue. And it’s not out of love or even respect for Iran. What I have seen about them makes me think them to be intolerant. Stoning a woman for adultery, killing gays, not human rights champions…. But we Americans have a few skeletons in our closets, treatment of Native Americans and slaves and our better half(women’s suffrage). But it can be argued we have learned at least some lessons. Which makes it all the more aggravating when we refuse to learn from our past mistakes.

    If you look at an issue in terms of “right” and “wrong”, you have already decided the morals of one’s actions, which clouds the whole debate. Do you want another conflict? Are we seeking war? Think instead of “cause” and “effect”, or action and reaction. If we could have avoided WW2, should we have? Economic sanctions by the US against Japan caused them to react. Was there a path that could have been followed that would have avoided so many dying? Maybe, maybe not. Japan was already at war with China. Did we have any stake in this fight? Was it immoral to sell oil to one or both sides of a conflict. Seems those at war usually force others to pick sides. “You supply my enemy, then you are my enemy also”.

    I think the US had an absolute right to not supply Japan with oil. That does not make it “right” or “wrong”, just we can refuse service just as any store can to any customer. And here we go again, waging economic war against Iran. We have been in conflict with Iran to a greater or lesser extent since WW2. We may not have been aware of that conflict, but they were and are aware. Just like if you dump your trash in a creek, you don’t see the damage it causes downstream. When the folks having to live with your mess want to chat, they might have a different perspective.

    So what is Iran’s perspective? The US and the British overthrew their democratically elected government in 1952. In 1979, they overthrew our puppet and kept hundreds of Americans hostage for over a year. We supported a madman in Iraq that attacked them (accessory to war?) that gives us shared guilt. The fact we later had to invade Iraq to depose the ruler we had supported doesn’t say much positive about our foreign policy.

    As with Japan, I think we have the “right” to impose sanctions. Iran has the “right” to consider it or any statement by any US official as grounds for war. The question for us is what do we want? Do I want Iran to have nuclear bombs? No, but should we be the main actor here? If so, then why? Israel and Saudi Arabia are the most threatened. Both are our “allies” and both are capable of their own defense. So why do we need to start another war? Why invade another Muslim country? (gets to be a habit) Instead, why don’t we sit back and be quiet? “Walk softly and carry a big stick”. Let our “allies” take the lead! Then instead of being the “invader”, we can be the good guy, supporting those only wanting to be allowed to live in peace.

    If President Obama understood the art of diplomacy and the close connection between diplomacy and war, he would order the U.S. carrier fleet back to the Persian Gulf posthaste. The mullahs in Iran are begging for an attitude adjustment, and the time is rapidly approaching when we will have to give them one whether we want to or not. The question at this point is who will initiate the action? Ordering our carrier fleet back to the Persian Gulf would send Iran a crystal clear message: it’s time put up or shut up.

    Neil Snyder

    Thomas Lifson adds:

    I am less enthusiastic about a military engagement than Neil. I worry the mullahs want a small scale fight to rally the nation behind them. Iran does not have the military force to take us on, but could conceivably retaliate with terror operations when the Navy returns to the Gulf. The mullahs may also believe that a suicide attack on a carrier group could inflict damage, or have some other way of claiming victory to their people.

    That said, if they impede any traffic, including Navy vessels, go after them and teach them a lesson.
    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/more_empty_threats_from_iran.html#ixzz1iQqe91o1
    Really? This is how the right views diplomacy? Some popinjay general makes vague threats in their press, our response should be to force him to back his words with action? Put up or shut-up? But this will not be a bar brawl with a bloody nose to the looser, people will die over those words. I wonder what these same writers said when we attacked Libya? My guess is they denounced it, which says to me this is more about Obama is wrong no matter what he does on foreign policy. (funny, I kinda agree with that)
    Are we officially the “world’s policeman”? Why do we have to be the first to act? Shouldn’t Kawaite be first if one of their ships is stopped? If they ask us for help, maybe then, but maybe not, what’s in it for us? Won’t oil price spikes affect China, Europe and OPEC the same as it will the US? Why should we pay the price of sinking their navy with US lives and dollars? Those missiles aren’t cheap. Will the Saudi’s chip in a billion or two?
    The US has long, no, damn near always had a poor record on foreign policy. I think it’s time to change that and a simple mind like mine can only see a simple solution working. I propose US foreign policy revolve around one principle, “What’s in it for us”? Wouldn’t that work a lot better than you threatened us, so we threatened you? Hells bells, if that’s all it takes, we have about a hundred countries we need to attack, starting with Venezuela. We’re supposed to be “The Capitalist” country. How “bout we start acting that way and ask ourselves, sinking Iran’s navy, does that make me more money?
    other info:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/iranian_currency_plunges_in_wake_of_us_sanctions.html#ixzz1iPMfJWZe http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/bonyads_irans_greatest_strength_against_sanctions.html#ixzz1ibw8lv95

  2. An incredible oil boom is underway, destroying the government’s measely estimates for production and getting the US to the point where we will soon challenge Saudi Arabia for the world’s biggest producer.

    Houston Chronicle:

    The United States’ rapidly declining crude oil supply has made a stunning about-face, shredding federal oil projections and putting energy independence in sight of some analyst forecasts.

    After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation’s oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

    The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

    “It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

    Peak oil? Not hardly.

    Last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration upgraded its forecast of crude production in 2025 to 6.4 million barrels per day – 1 million barrels more than were pumped in 2010.

    Previously, the EIA had projected the U.S. would peak at 6 million barrels in 2022.

    “The growth that we’ve seen in shale, that’s one of the biggest changes that’s contributing to our outlook,” said Dana Van-Wagener, a research analyst for the agency. “It’s evolving so quickly. We weren’t anticipating enough growth.”

    That’s nothing. By 2015, production will reach an astonishing 9 million barrels a day. This is after the official government estimate proclaimed oil production in the US would peak at 6 million barrels a day next year.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/oil_production_in_us_skyrockets.html#ixzz1n1gMzFQg

    I’m not sure about these numbers. Yesterday I read where the US had produced 10 million a day at it’s peak production. I think this was reported to counter Gibbs explaining away Obama’s failures.

    • There is not much that Iran can do in a pre-emptive strike……other than the use of economic weapons….their own sanctions.

      They have no military capacity to launch a sea or land invasion anywhere.

      • d13

        Good morning Colonel. Hope you had a good weekend.

        re: Interesting Times. Yes, we are living the Chinese curse.

        Iran: We have two choices. All in or all out. Neither looks very attractive at the moment. Perhaps it is time to start removing them from our hemisphere. A good place to start.

        Now I would like some feedback from more knowledgeable folks.

        We keep seeing these pictures posted of AJad touring the nuclear labs, testing, or whatever, sites.

        Now something has bothered me with these pictures. The “scientists” are always wearing nothing but white coats and a simple surgical style mask, while the Persian Napoleon wears nothing but the coat.

        Every picture I have seen of REAL Nuclear testing facilities in the USA the scientists are covered and use high tech air filtration, not surgical masks.

        So, my conclusion is either these folks will die soon, or the whole thing is a staged bunch of BS.

        Or I suppose it could be staged to make us think it is BS.

        Anyhow, just wanted to share my observations.

  3. questions were raised about how much access visiting U.N. inspectors would have to the country’s nuclear facilities.

    The U.N. team has no plans to inspect the country’s nuclear facilities and will only hold talks with officials in Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday.

    The remarks by Ramin Mehmanparast cast doubt on how much the U.N. inspectors would be able to gauge whether Iran is moving ahead with its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    The two-day visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency team, which started Monday, is the second in less than a month amid growing concerns over alleged Iranian weapons experiments.

    Iran denies charges by the West that it seeks atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation.

    Mehmanparast said the visiting IAEA team was made up of experts, not inspectors. He told reporters that the IAEA team was holding discussions Tuesday in Tehran to prepare the ground for future cooperation between Iran and the U.N. watchdog. He said this cooperation is at its “best” level.

    “The titles of the members of the visiting delegation is not inspectors. This is an expert delegation.

    The purpose of visit is not inspection,” said Mehmanparast. “The aim is to negotiate about cooperation between Iran and the agency and to set a framework for a continuation of the talks.”

    Visits to individual Iranian nuclear sites were also not part of the IAEA earlier visit three weeks ago.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/21/iran-says-un-nuke-inspectors-will-not-visit-sites/?test=latestnews#ixzz1n1mFPJ7E

  4. LOI…good morning, sir. Read me more closely….you and I are in agreement. My only purpose was NOT in instigating anything with Iran. You must understand the mentality of the way of thinking in the ME. It is all about the big stick. My whole response was International Waterways. Iran DOES not own the Straight of Hormuz. In political brinkmanship, one must always project (not use) power. Look at what happened…..we sent the carrier group back in and nothing was said….it was barely reported. No terrorist attacks, no anti-ship missiles, no mine laying, no suicide boats,,,,,nothing. No mention in the Iranian press and not a single word from Ajad nor the clerics. In other words, they did not get to use the propaganda issue, not to Iran, but to the rest of the world, It was a purely diplomatic move to go back to the Straight. It was an example of walking softly and carrying a big stick. It was not hegemony at all….but a statement…..do not close the Straight.

    I agree with all the other powers of the region protecting them selves….we are NOT the world’s policeman. However, we are the ONLY power in that area right now to keep a major waterway open. Russia will not do it…and really cannot project the power to do it. China cannot do it….they do not have the military power to do it. The Saudi’s cannot do it and neither can Israel.

    I have no problem with Iran getting the nuke. I do not like it but it is their country. Will they use it? The answer to that question is yes….but not militarily. It is hegemonic and Iran plays the game better than the United States. It has had more practice….centuries of it. India having the nuke and Pakistan having the nuke did not create a huge arms buildup. But, when Iran gets it…..every state will pursue it over there and I am quite sure we will make sure the other states have it. Dangerous times are ahead….and it is NOT the United States nor Russia nor China that is instigating this.

    But cause and effect are very important issues that you raise. Very important indeed. But cause and effect in the political arena carry a much different conclusion. But, as you stated, the United States does not really know how to play the foreign policy game. We are the big kid……..we do not have to say it nor prove it. Just be it. And if someone does take a poke at us…..there is no such thing as a “measured” response in my book. A measured response does nothing more than instigate further response later. You bloody my nose, I am not going to just bloody yours….I will make sure you do not bloody my nose again.

    As to your reference to Japan….you are partly right and partly wrong….but I am actually writing an article for here on that very subject and the use of the Atomic Bomb.

    Have a great day, sir…and remember…DO NOT stand downwind of a spitting camel.

    • LOI…good morning, sir. Read me more closely….you and I are in agreement.

      D13, Can’t be true! I’m a totally disagreeable person. Gotten so bad my dog tries to bite me when I feed him….

      My main thought-line on Iran is really about Ron Paul. I agree with him nearly 100% except on foreign affairs/defense. Is his strategy on Iran viable or would it lead to more violence and war? The US has done little that I can see to curb Iran’s supporting and exporting terrorism. If we are viewed as retreating from conflicts, would they ramp-up their attacks?
      If they develop a bomb, I would expect some “terrorist” group to find one laying beside a road somewhere and it to end up exploding in Israel. Is or should that involve the US?

      The Saudi’s are competing with Iran but have reduced their oil production. They were the home nationality to most 9/11 attackers, so I cannot think them as an ally or “peaceful”. They are interested in their goals which may have nothing to do with peace or US interests.
      I think they have begun their own nuclear program to counter Iran. It might be if the US and Israel could walk softly the Sunni and Shiite factions would spend all their time fighting themselves.


      I was watching when we re-entered the straight. It seemed the Dept. of Defense didn’t care for any help. Don’t think that should have been expressed to out allies. This was political, not military.

      And a very good morning to you sir. Let me know if I can do anything on your article. Do you have access to publish?

      • I think I have access but do not know how….Please remember….I am a “user” in the computer world…..I break them…somebody else has to fix them. Someone once told me that they had megabytes…….I must admit that he looked really good to have been bitten that many times…..

        I usually alert USW that he has an article in his holding file, but any assistance would be appreciated.

  5. gmanfortruth says:


  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I don’t want to thread-jack, but I will shamelessly admit that this is one. Anyone here who has not been following the latest on Peter Gleick vs. the Heartland Institute ought to head over to wattsupwiththat.com or http://www.climatedepot.com to see what has been going on.

    Let’s just say that one of the High Priests of the AGW True Believers just dealt a serious body blow to his own cause.

    And now back to your regularly scheduled thread, sorry for the interruption 🙂

    • How Will AP’s Borenstein Respond to Peter Gleick’s Admission That He Stole Documents From Heartland?

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/02/21/how-will-aps-borenstein-respond-peter-gleicks-admission-he-stole-documen#ixzz1n2Xby1O1

      Peter, I’ve been watching it some. Newsbusters also show a Soros connection.

    • BELGRADE, Serbia — Overwhelmed by deep snow and harsh temperatures, some countries in Europe closed down schools and struggled to continue public transport and garbage pick-up Monday, as post-snow rains caused a dam to collapse in Bulgaria, flooding a village and killing at least four.

      Another four people were killed by floods in southern Bulgaria, and 10 people are missing, authorities said.

      Europeans across the continent were digging out from heavy snow after a week of bitter cold in which the number of dead — most of them homeless — continued to rise by the day. Temperatures have fallen as low as minus 33 Fahrenheit in Ukraine, the hardest-hit country.

      The big freeze has caused traffic chaos throughout Europe, blocking roads, shutting down airports, and trapping thousands in remote mountain villages in the Balkans.

      But it has also offered opportunities for snowy fun: Ice skaters in the Netherlands were hopeful they could stage a race that hasn’t happened in more than a decade; children in Rome and along the usually temperate Adriatic coast in Croatia frolicked in rare snow; and Bosnians in the capital, Sarajevo, spontaneously organized a winter “Olympics” in which they boarded down main streets and leapt out of windows into deep snow banks.

      The Serbian government late on Sunday declared an emergency situation, saying the intense snowfall has jeopardized normal functioning. Emergency officials said that 70,000 people were cut off by the heavy snow.

      “I hope the emergency measures will lead to better functioning of the rescue efforts,” said emergency official Goran Nikolic.

      They included shutting down all primary schools and high schools for a week to save power and keep children safe. Thrilled, hundreds of kids filled the parks in the capital, Belgrade, sliding and making snow angels.

      Schools will also be closed in the Italian capital of Rome on Tuesday, as Italy copes with unusually heavy snow for the Mediterranean country. So far, ten deaths have been linked to winter weather, including two people who were crushed under a collapsed roof south of Rome, and a 91-year-old woman in the northeast port of Trieste who was knocked down by strong winds.

      In the north, rescuers had to pluck people from their homes, as piles of snow reached 10 feet in some areas. In Milan, Italy’s fashion and financial capital, temperatures fell to minus 10 Fahrenheit on Monday, and the authorities opened a section of the city subway to shelter some 100 homeless people.

      In Bosnia, hundreds of villages were stuck behind snowed-in roads and avalanches and authorities were using helicopters to evacuate the sick and deliver food. Authorities said they have had no contact for 72 hours with about 120 people in the central village of Zijemlja, where residents have no electricity or phone lines.

      “There are several small hamlets with children and elderly people — and we are not able to help them,” said Radovan Palavstra, mayor of the nearby city of East Mostar.

      Emergency official Milimir Doder said his teams must clear 12 miles of road before they can get to the village.

      In Sarajevo, thousands of people trudged to work on Monday, with only occasional buses braving the deep snow. Volunteers, meanwhile, cleared tram lines themselves.
      Authorities told residents to keep their trash on their balconies because no one would be able to pick it up before the city streets are cleared, which could take a few days.

      Young people in several neighborhoods boarded down snow-covered streets or cruised the main street towed behind cars on skis. Others competed with videos on YouTube to show the craziest jump into the snow from second floor apartments — most of them wearing only bathing suits. In one neighborhood, residents mocked local politicians by trying to build the ugliest snowman in their likenesses.

      In Poland, the Interior Ministry reported Monday that nine people died of hypothermia over the past 24 hours. Two elderly people were found frozen in Serbia and Bosnia, and Croatia reported 4 snow-related deaths.

      Ukraine’s Emergency Situation Ministry said Monday the country’s death toll now stands at 135, including many homeless people. Some 2,000 have been hospitalized for frostbite or hypothermia, it said.

      Officials in Bulgaria have declared a state of emergency in much of the south. Civil defense chief Nikolai Nikolov said a 8-foot flood hit 700 houses in the village of Bisser, near the Greek border, after the dam on the Ivanovo reservoir collapsed.

      Bulgarian civil defense officials warned that two other bigger dams in the region, Ivaylovgrad and Studena, are on the brink of overflowing and urged people there to be ready for an evacuation.

      In the Netherlands, however, Europe’s deep freeze means the country’s almost mythical “Eleven Cities Tour” ice skating marathon could be staged later this month for the first time in 15 years, organizers said Monday.

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/06/europes-struggle-under-record-cold-snap/#ixzz1n2ntoBoU

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I love how every news agency/source is calling it a “cold snap”. When temperatures are well below normal for a month straight, that is a little more than a “cold snap” in my book.

        • At the same time they tell us that the US as having the warmest winter on record, is a sign of global warming, oops i mean climate change.

  7. Drop every oil production moritorium and open the pipeline to Canada. Then the ME can do what they want, but their biggest weapon will be useless. Nukes are not their biggest threat.

    As for handling them having one, I say that WMDs + voiced threat for the purpose of extortion, etc. is equivalent to invasion with conventional means. However, WMDs on their own or as a voiced threat of retaliation to attack, for the purpose of defense or keeping others out of their affairs is perfectly fine. Honestly its no different than the micro version. Person makes threats = watch him, but hes probably just a bully or a drunk. Person with a gun = no problem. Person with a gun used as defense or defensive threat = no problem. Person points a gun at you and makes threats = take him down hard. An unarmed person must swing first, but an armed person must only threaten. So long as Iran does not try to use nukes as a threat of attack (not retaliation), then they are within their rights and we would not be within ours to stop them.

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “Drop every oil production moritorium and open the pipeline to Canada”

    Not gonna happen any time soon. God forbid we do anything that would make sense!

    • Indeed, nor, apparently will we fail to do things that make no sense, like continue meddling in foreign affairs. A lot of peope don’t like Paul’s stance on foreign policy, and maybe some of that I understand. He is at best unabe to articulate his reasoning on that very well and at worst not really thinking it throught, but I be danged if I understand continued gobal meddling on our part. It certainly cannot still be viewed as in our best interests. Most of the arguments that seem to carry any weight are either based on fear or on the fact that other bad policies remain in place. Its like saying that we have to keep the safety nets up because the government is still messing up the economy with spending and taxation and so people depend on those safety nets. Apparently this country is consumed by a plague of philosophical myopia and downright cowardice. As far as I am concerned we should just let it all collapse on itself. Nothing restores courage like losing everything.

      • I kinda agree Paul has not expressed himself well on this, but also think his opponents and the media (including FOX) have done a lot to add to his shortcomings. He has never said he would not defend us if attacked, just that he wants a more directed response. But he needs to give some detailed info on what, when and how “Letters of Marque” would be issued and their consequences. It does seem to me that conservatives are the primary war drum bangers on Iran…..


        the belief in the myth of a past “non-interference America” is not a very sophisticated or educated one. Some relatively quiet periods do exist in U.S. foreign affairs from time to time, but these hardly characterize the history of America in these matters at all.

        Over the course of history, the myth of isolationism has snuck its way into increasing popularity and belief, evolving into the current paradigm and school of thought that is non-interventionism or non-interference. A number of politicians in the U.S. today wish to switch U.S. foreign policy to this framework. Ron Paul, a devoted non-interventionist, has been notorious for his inaccurate claims that the U.S. has been subject to terrorist attacks because of the many U.S. bases throughout the world. According to this belief, if the U.S. followed a non-interventionist policy, 9/11 would have never happened.

        Yet Paul and others who subscribe to this view have serious facts to wrestle with. First is that these other nations, such as Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, that are very much non-interferers in our modern world, are also subject to terrorist attacks. These countries are not “occupiers,” in Ron Paul’s parlance, but somehow they fall subject to attacks nonetheless. Secondly, the U.S. leaving its bases and involvement in Beirut as well as Somalia after suffering losses in attacks and conflicts has only encouraged radical Islamists rather than caused them to cease. In the theoretical framework of non-interventionists, this should have appeased those wishing to visit harm upon America.

        In light of 9/11, however, it is highly probable that radical Islamists had already been at war with the U.S. since before any base went up in Beirut or Somalia. Said Islamists would sooner declare a fatwa than accept a withdrawal of troops. In the specific cases mentioned above, the U.S., in their eyes, was perceived to lack the resolve to fight after lives were lost and the stakes were raised.

        The power-projection that the U.S. possesses is what aids so greatly in protecting America, freedom, and democracy throughout the world. If the U.S. withdraws its troops everywhere, it sacrifices an important role in shaping the world in a positive way.

        • Agreed, Paul is not articulating well, perhaps not even thinking straight. And, indeed, his and others’ claims of a non-interventionalist past are shaky at best, and false at worst. Claims of us “bringing terrorist action on ourselves”, or more importantly, claims that withdrawing will somehow protect us are also false. Particularly the latter part.

          None of that, however, is a part of my thinking that supports non-interventionalism. The show of strength and resolve has nothing to do with where our troops are or how oftern they are engaged in foreign affairs. In fact, our engagement in combat has been the strongest demonstration of our weakness and the confirmation that terrorism works on us. A strong person does not need to flaunt their power or bully people, they need only respond when attacked, but they must respond with strength. We, on the other hand, posture and meddle all over the world, make sure everyone sees our troops on the ground, and then, when attacked, we take years to get anything done and misdirect most of our efforts on irrelevant things, and we cowtow to the UN and various media pressures.

          You want respectable strength? Pull out of everywhere, stop spending money taking care of the rest of the world and being their security guards. Maintain training and technology and make sure the forces we have are ready and equipped. We let everyone know what we are doing and why. We let them know that we are not to be messed with, and unprovoked attacks on our allies will be dealt with. Then, if we get messed with, we hit them hard and fast and prosecute with extreme prejudice. If it is not an official act of terrorism, we go after whoever it was, and if anyone gets in our way we go through them. There is to be no quarter offerred or taken.

          We havent fought a war like that since we started unnofficial wars of our own. “Police actions” need to be done away with. If Congress is too fearful to declare war for real, then maybe we really are weak and deserve to be attacked.

          This doesnt mean we dont interface with the rest of the world. We do not need the military to have bases all over the world to be involved in the rest of the world. We are not an island, but if we expect to be a sovereign nation, then we must respect sovereignty ourselves. If we want to get government size under control, then we need to stop blowing money in the name of defense, especially when there is nothing defensive about it. The consevatives need to be brave enough to get rid of the contradictions in their thinking. Just because the Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle defense does not mean it is a blank check or that we should trust this corrupt government of ours to meddle in foreign affars and we give them a pass if they say the word “defense”. If we want smaller government, it has to be smaller everywhere. Sure, I still support defense, but it must actually be defense, and it must actually work. What we have now is not that efficient. Imagine the military we have, with its technology and the abilities of our people, but without beaurocratic limitations and stretching us thin messing with stuff we shouldn’t. Think anyone on earth would really consider us weak?

          • Common Man says:


            Absolutely correct sir. As the father of an Iraqi Vet I could not agree with you more. Bring everyone home, tell our friends we have their six, let those waring countries figure things out on their own and focus our efforts on limiting government, balancing a “reasonable” budget and set things in order for a free and peaceful country.

            Should someone get nasty, hit them very, very hard and don;t let them get back up.


          • “The consevatives need to be brave enough to get rid of the contradictions in their thinking.”

            But I like some of my contradictions, I cling to them like I do my guns and teddybear.

            “We let them know that we are not to be messed with, and unprovoked attacks on our allies will be dealt with.”

            Ooopsi, what allies and what does supporting them mean? France? UK? Israel?
            If any of them are attacked, do we enter the fight or supply support? If you were in a war, would you not consider the guy giving guns and ammo to be an enemy the same as the guy shooting at you?

  9. 🙂

  10. Religion Is Not the Enemy

    By Philip F. Lawler from the February 2012 issue

    A remarkable agnostic, Maarcello Pera, explains why.

    Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies

    By Marcello Pera

    You were taught that pious platitude that you can’t judge a book by its cover. But the truth is that usually you can. This one, for instance, looked easy. You read the title: Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians. You saw that the preface is written by Pope Benedict XVI. You could already guess what you would find on the inside pages. And you would be wrong.

    The author, Marcello Pera, is not an evangelist or theologian but a seasoned politician: the former president of the Italian Senate. He is not a devout Catholic but an agnostic, a secularist. A philosophy professor before and after his political career, he studied Karl Popper and defends the traditions of European liberalism, which have historically been at odds with the public stands of the Catholic Church.

    Nevertheless Pera has made common cause with the Pope because he is convinced that Europe cannot survive as a free and democratic society without recognizing its cultural roots in Christianity. The history of Europe is inextricably entwined with the history of Catholicism, he argues, and to love Europe means to admire the Catholic faith. The Church is not without flaws, he concedes:

    But in the end, how can we fail to see that without the Catholic Church, Europe would have disappeared not once but countless times, and the West would have lost its civilization.…How can we fail to realize that when other institutions, parties, movements, or systems—political, philosophical, juridical, economics—are in error, they simply cease to attract adherents or they disappear, but when the church errs, its very errors exalt the grandeur of its message, the noncontingent value of its words, and the spiritual reality to which it bears witness?

    During the long debate over the framing of a constitution for the European Union, the Vatican—under first John Paul II, then Benedict XVI—implored the leaders of Europe to recognize the Christian heritage of the continent explicitly. This was necessary, the Pontiffs argued, not for the sake of the Church but for the sake of historical accuracy. When the foundational document finally appeared, with only a vague passing mention of religion, the Vatican protested that a fraud had been committed: Europe’s present leadership had renounced Europe’s past history.

    Pope John Paul II, in particular, explained that the need to cite Europe’s Christian patrimony could be justified on purely secular terms. It was the Christian intellectual tradition that begot Europe’s respect for human rights and for the rule of law, he observed; it was the Christian tradition that gave rise to the universities and inspired the artists of Europe for centuries. The nations of Europe have very little in common, actually, apart from their shared experience of Christendom.

    Because of their disparate interests and their well-established tendency to quarrel among themselves, Pope John Paul insisted, the nations of Europe could not form a stable union unless it was based on some fundamental principles. The Christian moral tradition furnishes such a stable foundation, he pointed out; economic interests do not. The late Pontiff warned that a European Union based on nothing more permanent than shifting economic interests would soon collapse. Less than a decade later, his prediction may already be coming true.

    Marcello Pera makes a similar argument for appreciation of the Christian tradition. Anyone who values rational public discourse should notice how it progressed in Europe under the aegis of the Church, he says. Science blossomed in Christendom, and even the Enlightenment must be recognized as a reaction to Christian thought. Pera finds it indisputable that “the collision between Christianity and liberalism, between the Church and modernity produced a fertile outcome for both sides.”

    From the time of St. Augustine, Christian Europe understood the separate roles of Church and state, the City of God and the City of Man. Although there were border violations aplenty over the centuries, when normal relations were restored, political and religious leaders agreed on certain fundamental points: that religious freedom should be upheld, that the church should not be a tool of the regime; that individuals should be treated with dignity whatever their beliefs. These three basic principles, Pera notes, are diametrically opposed to the instincts of both authoritarian government and religious fundamentalism. They are the guarantees of European democracy.

    Unfortunately, Pera writes, the secularism of post-Enlightenment Europe—the secularism of Locke and Kant, which sought to preserve the instruments of government from usurpation by clerics—has been replaced in our time by a more militant form that sees religion itself as an enemy. European intellectuals have fled from the Christian tradition, claiming a fear of fundamentalism—when it is that very Christian tradition that provides their best defense against fundamentalism.

    Moreover, while European leaders have been building up needless defenses against the nonexistent threat of Christian fundamentalism, they have exposed their societies to the very real threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Having decided that all religious faith is dangerous, Europe’s elites have no way to counteract the influence of a faith that is foreign to European traditions and hostile to European interests. Pera laments: “The bitter truth is that the West is afraid of Islam because it is afraid of religion, and of its own religion first of all.”

    There is an old chestnut in politics: “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” If you don’t have a candidate in the race you will lose, regardless of your opponent’s weakness. In Europe today, Islamic culture is making steady inroads because European culture is too weak or too complacent to offer any resistance. “If Europe is not a melting pot but only a container,” reasons Pera, “this is because it does not have enough energy to melt down and fuse its contents.” (Readers in the United States, the pre-eminent melting pot, should take note. When the siren calls of “diversity” render us deaf to any appeal to a common heritage, chaos is just around the corner.)

    Anemic secularism cannot withstand the onslaught of militant Islam, Pera tells his readers. Unless Europe can draw some nourishment from its Christian roots, the civilization once known as Christendom is living through its twilight years.

    An afterthought: Marcello Pera now teaches political philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University: a proud son of the Enlightenment at the Vatican’s most prestigious academic institution. His presence there—and his loyalty to the European liberal tradition, which is so different from its impoverished American cousin—testify to the breadth and depth of Europe’s intellectual traditions, even as his book warns of their demise.


  11. And more hits keep on coming……….The Justice Department can find time to witch hunt a church that does not violate anyone’s firs amendment hiring rights but cannot find the time to enforce USERRA, already on the books, for returning Vets…..oops….unless you are black or hispanic.

    • Watched that on FOX this AM but cannot find it on the net anywhere. The report said the Dept. of Justice has only acted on three out of 47 reported incidents? Some of them involving government agencies violating the law.

  12. Interesting report from AARP

    Worst States for Retirement

    Why You Should Think Twice
    1) Illinois-Poor fiscal health
    2) California-Expensive, and its finances are in disarray
    3) New York-Very high taxes, including property taxes
    4) Rhode Island -Worst-off state in the Northeast from a financial viewpoint; high taxes
    5) New Jersey-Highest property taxes in the United States; has pension funding issues
    6) Ohio-High unemployment and cold winters
    7) Wisconsin-High property taxes and frigid weather
    8) Massachusetts-High cost of living and high property taxes
    9) Connecticut-Taxes Social Security and has high property taxes
    10) Nevada-Foreclosure capital of the world

    • Hmmm, yes WI does have high taxes but cold winters?? We’ve had an Algorian winter this year and will be in the mid-40’s again today! Had to drive several hours north this past weekend to get in some x-country skiing!

      Plus why are people so afraid of a little cold weather anyway? Even retirees?

      • Kathy….I will ask the same…..why would you be afraid of 110 degree heat? However, I have been to Wisconsin in the summer time…to Green Bay. Pretty country…..but you are also talking to a lad that thinks 75 is too cold.

        But AARP was talking taxes on fixed income.

        • Hey big guy – you need to thicken that blood up a little bit.

          110 degrees=hibernating inside!

          10, 20, 30 degrees=just slight variation from summer activities!

          Ice fishing not open water fishing/snowmobiling not jet skiing/snow skiing not water skiing/boots not sandals!

      • Kathy,
        Where did you go xc-skiing last weekend?

        • Minocqua Winter Park – great conditions.

          You doing the Birkie this weekend? Would like to make it up there to watch some year. Have a good friend doing it again this year, but she’s had a tough time training for it (on snow). We’ve had maybe one week down here where you could get it in. She’s made like 5 trips to Minocqua area just to get some time in.

          We were supposed to get some snow today, but nothing so far and I believe they’ve already downgraded the amount, so probably not able to get out this weekend either.

          • Winter Park – you better be careful, that’s getting pretty close to my house!

            I’m not a Birkie skier. Too much hassle, and I really don’t enjoy skiing with my 7000 “closes friends”… But I do enjoy this weekend becasue there are fewer skiers on our trails!!

    • AARP continues to display its ignorance about the world in general.

      NEVADA: Real estate has dropped dramatically, avg of about 35%, making home prices comparable to the “pre bubble” levels. In other words………affordable.

      The number of foreclosures is irrelevant to a “RETIRING” couple.

      Weather is fairly moderate for the northern cities but HOT in Vegas in the summer. But those foreclosed homes have air conditioning and swimming pools.

      Oh……..NO INCOME TAX.

      Property taxes are moderate to a little high based on “rates” but the values have declined enough to compensate.

  13. President Barack Obama’s proposal to raise the dividend tax rate from 15 percent to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent that will kick in next year will effectively triple taxes on dividends, the Wall Street Journal reports.

    Add to this the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions and the 3.8 percent investment tax surcharge in Obamacare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8 percent—nearly three times today’s rate.

    The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51 percent of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders.

    Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?

    Dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. Given a maximum 35 percent corporate tax rate and a 44.8 percent dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings distributed as dividends would be 64.1 percent.

    IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65.

    Read more: WSJ: Obama Proposal to Triple Dividend Taxes Will Hurt Elderly

  14. Planned Parenthood Already “Rapes” Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound

    by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 2/21/12 12:44 PM

    The Planned Parenthood abortion business has crated a firestorm of criticism for itself by making the wild-eyed claim that allowing women in Virginia a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before the abortion is akin to rape.

    However, new information has surfaced showing the abortion business already does pre-abortion ultrasounds on women to determine the age of the unborn child prior to the abortion — making it so the abortion business, in its own words, “rapes” women already. The question then becomes whether or not women will be allowed to see the ultrasound image or heart the audio of the heartbeat of their baby.

    Alana Goodman of Commentary magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:

    “Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

    Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

    “From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying,” Goodman writes. “In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.”

    As pro-life blogger Jill Stanek notes, the ultrasound bill in Virginia in question doesn’t mandate that an ultrasound is performed — essentially because Planned Parenthood already does them.

    “There is nothing in HB 462 that mandates the use of transvaginal ultrasound rather than abdominal ultrasound, but pro-aborts have swarmed around this possibility comparing it to rape,” she says.

    “Early in a pregnancy – 4-8ish weeks depending on several factors, including the girth of the mother – a baby’s age cannot be ascertained by other than a transvaginal ultrasound,” Stanek explains. “And this has been determined necessary for the safety of mothers in Virginia based on previous disciplinary actions against abortionists for grossly misjudging a baby’s age.”

    Stanek points out that in 1999, the state medical board disciplined abortion practitioner Mi Yong Kim for beginning the abortion of a mother she believed was 8 weeks pregnant via pelvic exam, only to have to stop the abortion because the baby was much larger.

    “A hospital ultrasound determined the baby was actually 26-4/7 weeks, and still alive. Kim performed a hysterotomy without further consulting the mother and delivered the dead baby, who weighed a little over 2 pounds, consistent with the measured gestational age,” she notes.

    In 2006 the Virginia Board of Medicine suspended the license of abortionist Reffat K. Abofreka for underestimating the age of one unborn child and missing a mass on another baby.

    “In January 2006 Abofreka began the abortion of a baby he thought was 12 weeks old by pelvic exam only to find the baby was much larger. The baby was later delivered alive at a hospital measuring 23-2/7 weeks but died,” Stanek noted. “In 2005 Abofreka performed no diagnostic tests whatsoever and began an abortion of a patient. When Abofreka could not get “a satisfactory amount of tissue during the procedure,” he wondered if this was instead an ectopic pregnancy and performed an ultrasound, whereupon discovering a cystic mass between the uterus and left ovary. At the hospital it was determined there was indeed a mass and also a 6-6/7 week old baby. Whether the baby lived or died is unknown.”


  15. A few oil facts to checkout.

    (1) 93% of the North Shore Oil………..ships to China. Why? China pays a 25% premium.

    (2) The Keystone Pipeline and the reason Canada wants it…….Canada discounts its oil to the United States because it does not have a delivery system and no one will go get it without discounts……discounts are 25-40%. With the pipeline and direct access….Canada can sell its oil at market prices.

    Little known facts for the Keystone Pipeline…..it is not just about the Ogalalla Aquifer in Nebraska…….there are three sections of the pipeline already being built…..however, Texas is a major obstacle. WHY? Because the for profit private enterprise behind the pipeline is trying to use imminent domain laws and Texas has blocked it. Imminent domain is NOT available for private enterprise….especially in Texas. Want our land…….pay our price.

    Facts from the Colonel’s almanac…..but easily checked out.

  16. Where’s the MSM/left wing outrage over *BO* using Christianity as a basis for beliefs?
    Posted by: ST on February 21, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Seeing as the mainstream media with – sadly – the help of the anti-Santorum Matt Drudge – is waging a full-scale assault on Rick Santorum’s social and religious views (which often go together) in an effort to derail his campaign on the implied basis that Santorum is a fringe freako lunatic who would turn America into a theocracy immediately upon being
    elected President, it’s important to remember that President Barack Obama used his Christian faith, in part, as a strong basis for some of the policies he’s advocated.

    You’re thinking “yeah, right”, right? You don’t just have to take my word on it. He admitted during the course of his Presidential campaign that he was a strong believer in spiritual mentor Reverend Wright’s message of “social justice” – which should have been a clue to most Americans as to his belief system. Below are more examples:

    March 2008: Then-candidate Obama to a pastor on the issue of gay marriage:

    On Sunday in the Appalachian town of Nelsonville, Ohio, where plant closures and the mortgage crisis are rippling through the economy, Pastor Leon Forte aimed his own double barrels at Obama, asking the candidate to explain (a) what he would do about the foreclosure crisis and (b) his faith.

    “Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians,” Forte, who heads up Grace Christian Center in Athens, Ohio, told Obama. “They believe in the social agenda that you have. They have a problem with what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test about who is worthy and who is not.”

    Obama tackled the easy part first -– how to clean up after the burst housing bubble and help struggling Americans keep their homes.

    Then he talked about Jesus Christ and his own controversial minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (who has praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan), along with same-sex marriage and abortion.

    “I am a Christian,” Obama responded in low tones. “I am a devout Christian. I’ve been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”


    Still, he said, “my faith is important to me. It’s not something that I try to push on other people. But it’s something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

    While Obama said he does not believe in same-sex marriage, he argued strongly for civil unions that allow same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital, let them transfer property to each other and protect them from discrimination. “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which, I think, is, in my mind, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

    October 2007: Candidate Obama, pandering to a black Christian audience in South Carolina:

    During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church’s pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be “an instrument of God.”

    “Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics,” Obama said. “Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.”

    He finished his brief remarks by saying, “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

    Interestingly enough, from that same CNN piece:

    There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying “I’m not gonna preach to ya!” when emphasizing a point to his audience.

    According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its “God-o-Meter” tool that measures “God-talk” in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.

    More recently as in a few weeks ago, President Obama went the “Jesus was a liberal” route by asserting that He would be in favor of taxing the rich:

    President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

    The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    “We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”


    “When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us,” Obama said, “I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but I also do it because I know far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

    Where was the red-faced outrage from the left over these remarks? Where has the blood-curdling outrage been from the mainstream media over Obama’s tendency not just to use his twisted interpretation of God’s word as a basis for policy but to, even worse, to cast himself in the role of Jesus Christ? Oh, they don’t care – because they believe he’s “The Messiah” as well so it’s “move along here, nothing to see.” The double standards are disgusting but not surprising to anyone who has watched the mainstream cover, coddle, and attempt to rehabilitate over and over again the “healer” image both Barack Obama and his wife disturbingly have tried to portray to the American people.

    And let’s not forget other high-profile politicos who have tried to use their warped in interpretation of the Word to justify their policy positions on other hot button issues – like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has done more than once on the issue of abortion. Like Senator Babs Boxer has done regarding the issue of “man-made global warming.” I could go on and on, but you get the point.

    An important thing to note here is that it’s perfectly ok to have a belief system that has been largely shaped by your religious background, upbringing, and experiences. It’s also ok for you as a candidate for public office to note publicly that the views you have on a particular issue are based, in part, on your religious influences. In turn, you should expect to be questioned by all sides when it comes to those views if they conflict with the views of voters and/or are particularly controversial. Questioning candidates for office is, of course, ok, too. In turn, candidates need to be prepared to answer those questions, and also need to be prepared for the likelihood that their answers will not please everyone, and will in some cases only lead to more questions.

    What’s NOT ok, however, is for left wingers and their allies in the mainstream media to act like only Republicans wear their respective faiths on their sleeves. So-called “progressive Christians” do this as well, and have done so even more frequently in the last several years as they try to win back “faith-based voters” – and as liberals try to justify their positions using backwards interpretations of scripture, the only people who take them to task for it are people like me who get extremely concerned when they hear both candidates and politicos alike assert a Biblical basis for a policy which doesn’t jive at all with what God’s Word actually says. On the other hand, though, Christian conservatives like Rick Santorum are called to task for every faith-based assertion ever made, as if they’re secretly planning to make the United States of America a theocratic state — and the answers they give are never good enough to please their critics in the MSM and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself).

    Ultimately, the last thing most of us want to see is a battle over religion between presidential candidates in the primaries, and in the general. But if they are, both sides must be treated equally by both the press and liberal Democrats in order for it to be a fair debate – which is never going to happen. Because it’s ok for liberals to use their interpretation of God’s Word as a basis, in part, to advance a “progressive agenda” of “social justice” (for the cheeeldren!), but it’s “unconstitutional” for Christian social conservatives to do similarly in an attempt to advance a conservative agenda based on traditional American values — “because we must respect the separation of church and state!!!!” …. or something like that.

    Is there any issue, any at all out there, on which liberals have not shown themselves to be wildly hypocritical about at some point??


    • VH……it is time you learned the phrase…”double standard”. One you have understood this…..it is time you learn a second phrase..”plausible denial”. Then you will understand. However, in order for you to understand, you must learn to speak in liberal-ese. Once you have mastered this language, you must then learn the art of “steal o nomics”.

      So, you see, it is a learning process.Once you have graduated from “Gimmee University” and have a solid degree path in ” I take from you”…Then and only then,will you understand.

    • gmanfortruth says:


      You should ask yourself a very tough question or two. Has any election made a positive difference in the long term of our lives? Do you really believe that voting will change things for the better this time around?

      • G, Do you really think that the status quo is any better? We know where 4 more years of Obama is gonna get us. A change in shirts can’t hurt. Suppose Ron Paul were to win..anything is possible..but staus quo is unacceptable.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Anita, Voting is the staus quo! It is an illusion to think that the next election will do anything different than the last 50. The Elite has already chosen your choices on who you get to vote for. You really don’t have a choice but to vote for the status quo in DC.

          • OK G..but you get no bitching rights if Obama stays in office! 😉 We get bitching rights for failure with a new guy because at least we tried!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Anita, There will be no election this year, it will be postponed or cancelled. Get your popcorn out, it’s going to be a wild ride 😦

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Anita, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts:

          Where are 4 more years of Obama going to get us? What, specifically, do you see him accomplishing in this timeframe?

          • I see the unemployment #s staying high.
            I see more folks on EBT cards
            I see higher taxes..cap gains, dividends etc..probably some sort of national sales tax
            I see the mood of the country worsening from the above listed problems
            I see more gridlock in Congress
            I see more czar and getting around congress shinanigans happening
            I see Israel hanging out to dry
            I see no job creation
            I can go on……..

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And where do you see things if Obama is replaced with Romney? Or Santorum?

              As for your list with Obama:

              Unemployment has begun to come down, but I’m sure it will continue to be high regardless of who is President.

              More folks on welfare — see my statement on unemployment; kind of connected.

              Higher taxes? Hopefully Obama will be able to do at least allow the bush tax cuts to expire, but I’m doubtful that will happen. Also, national sales tax? Where are you getting this from? I dont’ remember Obama ever supporting this idea.

              Mood of the country? Meh; mood of the country has arguably improved over the past year or so.

              Gridlock in Congress? Don’t see this as Obama’s doing and don’t see this magically changing with a new President

              More Czars and getting around Congress shenanigans? Replace Obama with any president and you’ll get the same thing.

              Israel hanging out to dry? I don’t see Obama has having been bad for Israel in the least; not to mention, blanket support for Israel no matter what is NOT good for Israel (nor for us).

              No job creation? Well there has been some improvement in the economy lately; not nearly enough, but some. Don’t see any major changes with a different president though.

      • Don’t know. Everyone is quoting Regan to try to drape themselves in his image, including Obama. I think that says something, that he effected a change in perception or something.
        I see Ron Paul as a true game changer that is being marginalized by everyone but some of the new media. I think change has to come from within and raising as much non-violent hell as possible, like the TeaParty, is the best method to bring about that change.

        • gmanfortruth says:


          Reagan campaigned on “smaller government” Reality is that government grew under his watch. That my friend is the status quo. Believeing that change will occur via an election is absurd. It hasn’t happened yet, I’d like one logical reason why that might change this time. 🙂

          • New media..blogs..people are much more aware this time around..people are much more fed up this time around..including the Dems.. Alex Jones, Tea Party, young Paulbots, ..it could happen G..Hope for Change

          • Logic? Why would that apply? If logic and reason were being used, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Logic and reason would not result in unsustainable debt. So reality is we are ignoring reality and doing what we want, alloying emotions, what we want, not what we can afford to guide us. So change will require emotional appeal. We see sometimes, it’s the person or team that wants it more that wins a contest. MLK brought about such a change.

            The sad thing is, it might be better if Obama wins a second term. Poverty rate will continue to climb as gas prices eat up more of the everyone’s income. He will continue to expand entitlements without means to pay for them, resulting in more downgrades and increasing our interest rate on debt. Hyperinflation looms, weather it happens before or after he’s out, it will be unavoidable. Then default.

          • gman

            There is a serious flaw in your logic regarding voting.

            It is not the ACT of voting that is futile.

            The problem is in the PEOPLE voting.

            Change the people you will get a different result.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, In this case i disagree somewhat. When your choices of candidates are chosen by the establishment, voting is futile. Until the people realise this and stop voting, or, revolt and take our country back, the establishment will always win. As I see it, the people have but one choice to be free, and it ain’t going to be easy or pretty.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Ok, how’s this for a compromise then:

      1) Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire
      2) Mandate that every person pays a minimum of $1.00 in taxes. For those that pay $0 and get a ‘refund’, they still get their refund based on the current tax system, but must then physically write a check for $1.00 back to the IRS (to, as the article suggests, remind them that the gov’t isn’t free).


      • Buck

        Typical left wing negotiating method. Move the ball as far left as possible then declare YOUR original position as the Compromise.

        Here is a Compromise Buck

        Codify the Bush Cuts into permanent LAW.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Typical left wing negotiating method? That’s funny, because I took it straight out of the GOP playbook!

          And codifying 100% of the bush tax cuts into permanet law is a compromise how?

          • Buck

            No you didn’t. They are incapable of playing that game. It takes some basic level of intelligence to apply the concept.

            They are more likely to start with whatever exists and then move from there.

            The Bush Tax cuts WERE a compromise when they were passed. The Republicans wanted LOWER rates, many were pushing for the flat tax then. But the Dems agreed to the Bush rates because they were considered “FAIR”. Because the significantly reduced the rates for the lowest income earners.

            Of course they immediately started to demagogue the new tax bill as a TAX BREAK FOR THE RICH. That is their HISTORICAL conduct. The same behavior is most prevalent among the Environmentalists who make up a large part of the Progressive power base.

            THEY HAVE NO HONOR.

            You see the upper rates eliminated the incentive for gaming “corporate rates” for personal living costs.

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • Buck

        Saw that early this morning. MORE political BS for the election year.

        What is my proof?

        The RATE he selected. It is the top rate under Reagan and the number being pushed by David Stockman.

        Time for the Republicans to double down and make a counter proposal of a 20% FLAT TAX with ZERO deductions………for everybody.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Actually, many of the GOP proposals I’ve seen have called for a top rate of 25% (as opposed to Obama’s proposal for 28%) and have centered on leaving all of the loopholes, and deductions in place (Obama’s proposal is to close at least some of these loopholes and deductions).

          Given it is a purely political maneuver for the election year, but if you support closing corporate loopholes, shouldn’t you be more supportive of Obama’s proposal than the current GOP proposals?

          • Buck


            A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich. The amount of shit in it is irrelevant.

          • Buck

            PS: The reason you are seeing a 25% Flat Tax rate proposed by many R’s is because that is the level necessary to FULLY FUND the EXISTING level of Federal Expenditures, with some growth.

            The highest effective tax rate, based on AGI, is about 20%. So a flat tax based on Gross Income would substantially increase revenue. If combined with about 1 trillion in cuts, we could pay off our bills over the next 40 years.

          • Buck

            Here is an example of why NOT to support and proof this President is playing games. From the NYT article:

            “Mr. Obama also would establish a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings, the official said, to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas. ”

            The “GAMES” being played are the transfer of income from USA subsidiaries to Foreign Subsidiaries of the same mother company, via license and other service fees.

            FRANCE Inc, charges USA Inc, fees for use of the INC company logo and product licenses. This shows as an “expense” to USA Inc, thus reducing its taxable USA income. FRANCE Inc shows income and higher taxable France income. France has the lower rate (just an example OK?).

            So how does this “minimum tax” on “foreign earnings” help solve this problem? It doesn’t. It simply taxes a certain level of foreign income under USA rates. Similar game to what some States play where they tax a residents income earned in another state if the other state has a lower rate than your Home state.

            Only I expect we will see the final proposal is more “egregious” than what the states pull.

            The answer to this “slight of hand” is to prohibit such “transfer” arrangements between companies where the same entity has “majority” ownership.

            OR to create a FLAT TAX on Gross Income…………… 🙂 🙂

            Starting to see the method of my madness now?

      • Buck, it’s a bait and switch game.

        “Mr. Obama also would establish a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings, the official said, to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas. ”

        The top US companies make over half their profits overseas. I would bet they pay taxes in those countries. And why should GE make things in China, sell them there, pay taxes there
        but then pay even higher taxes to their US home country? And at the end of the day, I would bet GE and Obama’s other cronies will have a loop-hole that lets them slide. You favor the complex tax code. You are therefore protecting the rich you want to exploit. The very change you want is what your preferred policies prevent.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          If you read my comments, I had passed judgment on commenting on Obama’s proposal. Never said I personally supported it one way or the other.

          I do not necessarily favor a complex tax code, but I do favor a progressive code. I favor additional tax brackets. I favor maintaining many of the deductions for individuals, at least up to a certain income level. I favor maintaining favorable cap gains treatment up to a certain income level. I also favor closing many of the loopholes that only the wealthy and corporations can take advantage of.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Buck,

    The economy and civil unrest are the main reasons for my prediction. Other possible causes, false flag terror attack(s) on US soil. A major E Coli outbreak (a very deadly strain). A deadly flu pandemic (the new bird flu for example). Russia and the US trading some nukes over Iran. These are just a few possible causes. It all revolves around fear (real or imagined).

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Buck’s Prediction: Obama wins Florida.

        Remember, you heard it here first.

        • Wanna back that up $$$??? I’d bet $50 Mickey Mouse would beat him in an area with $6 a gal. gas….. But then if he mobilizes the largest voting block, he’s unbeatable.

          “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

          That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.

          The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government, Beach and Tyrrell warned. Coupled with higher spending on government programs, it is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.

          “This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” Beach and Tyrrell wrote. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”


          I found this at Drudge with the headline 49.5% pay no taxes. The rightwingers like to throw that around knowing it to be false, skipping withholding taxes. But consider we are moving toward making cuts to them permanent. What happens when half of Americans receive some form of entitlement but don’t pay anything in?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Sure, I’d be willing to make a wager out of it. Your proposed terms?

            • $50 worth of 9mm pistol ammo? Would be a win/win/win for me.
              Win the bet.
              Win fifty dollars of something I can use.
              Have the satisfaction of you having to buy that “icky”, conservative commodity.

              Or we could do a gift card to Red Lobster or Outback….

              I like the ammo better, would feel like a win even if I lost. Might even throw in some .223 just for laughs…..

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Hmm…I wouldn’t know the first thing to do with my ammo, so how about not.

                How about some type of alcohol? Bottle of vodka/scotch/wine?

                Now what happens if one candidate wins the popular but loses electoral vote? (sorry, its the attorney in me – I need to define what constitutes a ‘win’)

          • Mathius™ says:

            I found this at Drudge with the headline 49.5% pay no taxes. The rightwingers like to throw that around knowing it to be false

            Thanks for this LOI… always nice to see someone on the right call BS on this type of thing.

            Meanwhile, a followup thought.. why is it, do you think, that they always make it seem like the people who pay no taxes are freeloaders who live a life of privileged luxury rather than impoverished SOBs who live paycheck to paycheck? I know some (many? how many?) are certainly taking advantage of the system, but the overwhelming majority are working poor who just don’t make enough money – they’re janitors and day laborers – they make 20k/yr and just don’t have enough to afford income tax (certainly, some are getting paid under the table and such, but what percentage would you imagine this is?). So why are they always portrayed as if they’re gaming the system? There’s also withholding (which you mention), SS, FICA, health insurance (if they even have health insurance), property taxes, state taxes, city taxes, and sales tax (remember, they spend 100% of their income).. not to mention the fact that even their government benefits (pronounced “en-title-ments”) are taxed. Most of these people aren’t freeloading, but the media loves to beat them up as if they were. What is your take?

            • Mathius

              I think your claim that the 49.5% are ALWAYS portrayed as gaming the system or as free loaders is entirely due to your own bias. I here this from the left all the time.

              If I point out that they don’t pay Federal income tax there are two responses I get “almost” all the time.

              First: They do pay tax, they pay payroll taxes. NOTE the FALLACY in this argument?

              Second: Why are you demeaning those who don’t pay? NOTE the FALLACY in this argument?

              Now it is true that sometimes a pundit will have an example of a person gaming the system. This is obviously when they are trying to show you just can’t build it better or improve its efficiency. You are going to get crooked people gaming any system where they get something at less than true value.

              Quite frankly why should it matter if they are barely getting by? They are part of this country and they should help support the Govt they desire. That includes more than just their “entitlement” programs.

              That word, by the way was used by the “Liberals” in the 60’s. “We are entitled to ………”.

        • Heh heh….want to predict Texas?

  18. We’ve all read about the school that claimed the brown bag lunches of a couple kids did fit the guidelines and the kids were made to eat the school’s lunch instead (chicken nuggets) and the parents were then charged. Totally nuts to be sure.

    Here is the letter sent home by one school to parents asking them to step up and meet the USDA guidelines for lunches brought from home. This is beyond crazy!

    Be curious to know what our statist friends here on SUFA think about this intrusion?


    • *did NOT fit the guidelines……

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I guess every school lunchroom is going to be required to have its own “Soup Nazi” from now on?

      (Apologies to Seinfeld)

    • Kathy

      I am reminded of a Dieticians analysis of the USDA guidelines in years past.

      This school would certainly “prohibit” a student from bringing a slice or two of pizza for lunch.

      Yet, the actual analysis conducted on pizza showed it to provide the USDA requirements. Cheese = dairy. Meat = meat, Dough = Grain

      The conclusion of the review was that if your teenager wants a piece of pizza for breakfast, let them have it. They are getting a better meal than a bowl of cereal or breakfast bar.

    • I would send them bacl a very polite letter explaining what part of their anatomy they could stuff their lunch charge (and their school lunch). And even provide them with hands-on instuction if they didn’t understand me.

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    This is a long read, but well worth it. As I have been pointing out for a long time, studies have shown that the sun accounts for anywhere from 50 to 80% of ALL climate change. That is, many studies have shown variations in climate correlate to variations in solar activity with a correlation coefficient of 0.5 to 0.8 depending on the study and the exact climate phenomenon being studied.

    And yet, the IPCC claims that CO2 is 40 times MORE POWERFUL than the sun when it comes to influencing climate. Given that scores of PUBLISHED PEER REVIEW STUDIES show that the sun accounts for 50 to 80% of known climate change, it is not mathematically possible for CO2 to be 40 times more influential… if it was, CO2 would have to account for 2000% to 3200% of known climate change…

    Wait… what was that again???

    So how does the IPCC come up with their numbers? They simply claim that “there is no known mechanism” by which solar activity could possibly influence earth’s climate, and therefore it can be safely ignored!

    Again…. WHAT???

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Peter, Good day Sitr 🙂

      Once we take our country back from the corrupt government, we should burn down the UN building and send them packing.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Well, it might be more humane to send them packing first and THEN burn the building down (once it is empty)… but your method has its temptations I will admit 🙂

  20. Gman, et al

    Re: The power of Voting. And I might add, political participation.

    As I said above, voting is not moot. Whether you get CHANGE depends on the PEOPLE.

    Affecting the outcome of elections requires much more than just VOTING, however. So to claim that the “candidates are pre-selected” shows lack of understanding of the system and/or an unwillingness to affect change.

    Don’t think change can happen within the system? Look at the problems the Republican Party is having getting their establishment candidate nominated. Look at the Party Incumbents who got knocked off last time and those in trouble this time.

    The real problem my freedom loving friends is that MOST people in this country do not understand Freedom, Liberty and Justice. MOST people in this country accept the narrative they have been given and can’t figure out why things seem out of whack. MOST people in this country if given a choice of Freedom, Liberty and Justice or COMFORT will choose COMFORT. MOST of the people in this country are not willing to give up THEIR COOKIES.



    • gmanfortruth says:

      Very well said. Now, let me just wiggle my nose like Samantha in Bewitched and this will occur. Let’s try to come up with something that is achievable, because what you are saying will never occur in our lifetime.

    • gmanfortruth says:


      Let’s demand that we take away the cookies and not allow any politician who offers them to run for election. You might get somewhere, after all the mass graves are covered up and our cities burnt to the ground. The time for talk has long passed. It’s time for the generations that let this crap happen stand up and grow some balls. Throwing words around is what let this happen, time to change the action. Talk is worthless, look what happen when 95% of the people said no to TARP, the bastards passed it anyway, they are not hearing words anymore. It’s time time open up some useful holes that they will understand.

  21. War With Iran A Terrible Idea – Here’s Why

    • Good morning, BF.

      The only reason not to attack Iran is……we have no reason to attack Iran.

      (1) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is going to tout whatever mantra the current administration says……that is his job.He is a politician.
      (2) Iran’s defense is Swiss Cheese. When we went into Iraq, that was touted as the top air defense in the world next to the USA. The same with Iran…..while not a joke, it is not formidable either.
      (3) Iran will have the nuke. That is what it wants and it will get it no matter who does what. Their intent has never been to attack Israel. NEVER. You and I both know this.Their intent is intimidation….period. I do not believe for a New York skinny second that Iran is pursuing only energy.
      (4) The thing for the US to do is to just shut up. That is all.
      (5) Israel gains nothing from attacking Iran and knows it.

      There will be no war with Iran….it would solve nothing. We just need to mind our own business and continue on….Iran will implode if we give it enough time. It has serious internal problems and they are festering…among which is a power struggle with Ajad and the clerics.

      So…in short….I am not worried. AND if there is a Republican President….there will still be no war

        • bama

          Boy that is very interesting.

          Not the part about wanting to get rid of “The Zionist State”.

          But their use of English words to describe their thinking. Notice the mixing of the words “terrorism” with “assassination”. Killing specific targets is not terrorism by definition. But they are linking the two.

          Also the use of Martyr to describe “Killed” scientists. Meaning of course that they are considered “Part of the Holy War”, which then again raises the question of using “terrorism”.

          They also fell off the party line by mixing “Israel” proper with “Zionist State”. OOOPS, on their part.

  22. Southern Humor

    A group of Alabama friends went deer hunting and paired off in twos for the day. That night, one of the hunters returned alone, staggering under the weight of an eight-point buck.
    “Where’s Henry?” the others asked.
    “Henry had a stroke o’ some kind. He’s a couple of miles back up the trail,” the successful hunter replied.
    “You left Henry layin’ out there and carried the deer back?” they inquired.
    “A tough call,” nodded the hunter. “But I figured no one’s gonna steal Henry!”


    The owner of a golf course in Georgia was confused about paying an invoice, so he decided to ask his secretary for some mathematical help.
    He called her into his office and said, “Y’all graduated from the University of Georgia and I need some help. If I wuz to give yew $20,000, minus 14%, how much would you take off?”
    The secretary thought a moment, and then replied, “Everthang but my earrings.”


    A senior citizen in Louisiana was overheard saying … “When the end of the world comes, I hope to be in Louisiana ……”
    When asked why, he replied, “I’d rather be in Louisiana ’cause everythang happens in Louisiana 20 years later than in the rest of the world.”

    The young man from Mississippi came running into the store and said to his buddy, “Bubba, somebody just stole your pickup truck from the parking lot!”
    Bubba replied, “Did y’all see who it was?”
    The young man answered, “I couldn’t tell, but I got the license number.”

    North Carolina
    A man in North Carolina had a flat tire, pulled off on the side of the road, and proceeded to put a bouquet of flowers in front of the car and one behind it Then he got back in the car to wait.
    A passerby studied the scene as he drove by, and was so curious he turned around and went back. He asked the fellow what the problem was.
    The man replied, “I got a flat tahr.”
    The passerby asked, “But what’s with the flowers?”
    The man responded, “When you break down they tell you to put flares in the front and flares in the back. I never did understand it neither.”

    A Tennessee State trooper pulled over a pickup on I-65. The trooper asked, “Got any ID?”
    The driver replied, “Bout whut?”

    The Sheriff pulled up next to the guy unloading garbage out of his pick-up into the ditch. The Sheriff asked, “Why are you dumping garbage in the ditch? Don’t you see that sign right over your head.”
    “Yep,” he replied. “That’s why I’m dumpin’ it here, ’cause it says: ‘Fine For Dumping Garbage.’ ”
    Y’all kin say whut y’all want ‘about the South, but y’all never heard o’ nobody retirin’ an’ movin’ North

    • That right there is some Buuulldookey!!!!! And that stupid standing there trying to defend it!

      I may have had to enforce that law, but I dang sure wouldn’t have defended it!

    • Bama Dad….what do you expect from “up there”….

      Texas version……neighbor spots burglar coming out of house. (Bang bang bang bang bang) **click** (sounds of reloading) bang bang bang bang bang……… Police arrive and view body of burglar….”Is that a Glock 40? asks the policeman…..”why yes it is” says the neighbor….the policeman looking back down at the body…..”Nice shot group”.

  23. Well this gives new meaning to chickens coming home to roost:

    It’s Official – Greece Unveils The Negative Salary, And A Whole New Meaning For “Pay To Play”


    And the public employee unions in WI aren’t happy about having to contribute to their insurance and pension. Yikes!

  24. Interesting-thoughts?

    February 22, 2012
    Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)

    On Wednesday, Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director and host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” rhetorically asked: “Just what has Romney promised Ron Paul.”

    Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.)

    The timing has been noticeable.

    Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue:

    Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

    … After a speech in Louisville today, [Sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

    … “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.

    Of course, this could be much ado about nothing — just a politician answering a question. On the other hand, it is sure to spark more speculation that some sort of deal may be in the works between the Romney and Paul camps. It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign hasn’t stoked speculation. As the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: “Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.”

    On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge. And just imagine if Romney arrives at the GOP convention needing some of Paul’s delegates to win the nomination?

    It’s not an absurd idea.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/rand-paul-says-it-would-be-an-honor-to-be-considered-as-veep-this-explains-a-lot/#ixzz1nDMQ7Yxz

    • No wonder Ron Paul has been pandering to Romney.

      • Kathy

        I don’t think he has. I think that is an “invented” story by the press and somebody else.

        I think he has simply been attacking those who pose the greatest threat to HIS position as the Second Runner Up.

        • All I know is he will speak out against all EXCEPT Romney, including in the debates and with ads. It’s been curious to watch. Now they’ve admitted their “camps” do talk with each other and while they are denying that they are strategizing per se, I’m not sure what else you would call it.

          He will have some leverage if he holds a high number of delegates and now this Rand as VP story makes sense.

        • It may well be invented but I must say that I can see where Paul might think it is warranted if it would get Rand the VP position and maybe the presidency in 8 years. His son being able to do what he couldn’t and carry on his fight.

  25. Buck the Wala says:
  26. Anita – need to borrow some “gear”. Can you meet me at the stateline? Didn’t plan ahead and concert is tonight so we’ll need to step on it!

    • Always good for a roadtrip. Two problems. No country gear and no camaflauge gear. That’s my daughter and son in law’s dept. Daughter’s stuff won’t fit her at the moment and son in law is done huntin at the moment so I can collect it from them. What time? I’m 3 hrs from Gary, IN. Lucky you though!

      • Hmmm, I’ll need to pass and scrounge through my closet to come up with something. I would never want to stop my car in Gary, Indiana!!! (advance sorry if that’s racist; I consider it reality)

  27. d13 the colonel

    Good morning sir.

    The other day you claimed that the reports of record oil production were BS. I see that such reports continue to spread across the media.

    So do you have any data that can support you claim that production is not at a high?

    Thanks and hope you and yours are well today.

    • Actually I read that too. I think the numbers were 8 and 10, ie 8____ produced right now vs. all-time high of 10______. (Not sure of the measurement structure).

    • Terry Evans says:

      JAC, I did hear some interesting information concerning that subject. It seems that the increase is mostly due to the fact that a lions share of the increase is because it is private lands that are being drilled…not federally owned public land. For instance in N. Dakota where a great deal of drilling has been occcurring in the past few years…

    • Howdy sir…..I asked my brother, who gave me the info……and he is the one that told me. He would know…but here is also a link.


  28. This is beyond bizarre and of course, could never happen in this country. Oh wait, it did!


    • I wonder if this DIPSTICK no good JERK can be RECALLED or perhaps IMPEACHED.

      I wonder if his ruling can be appealed?

      I would hang this guy around the Penn. Dem Party’s neck until they choke on the stink.

      Might even hang it around the DNC’s neck. Wonder how that freakazoid Wasserman-Shultz would like to explain this?


      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’ll second that 👿

      • Buck the Wala says:

        And why would we be hanging this around the Dems neck? Are the Dems applauding this judge’s ruling in this case?

        First off, we don’t know all the facts of the case itself. But, let’s just assume that it is precisely as this article suggests. If everything is exactly as suggested, then yes, this judge deserves to be impeached, recalled, voting out (or whatever the process is in PA). Next, the ruling will be appealed and it will be overturned (again, assuming the facts are as suggested).

        I love how we hear of these so-called cases where judges are imposing Sharia law in the US. Yay for fear mongering, especially in an election year! First off, there really aren’t that many of these such cases; the few that do occur get blown out of proportion and completely sensationalised (let’s remember – the same thing happens in cases involving other religions/ethnicities/etc. etc. etc.; the headlines with those just ain’t as good as that Sharia Law bit). Secondly, with the vast majority of these few cases, when the actual facts come out, things wind up being very differently than originally reported. And lastly, with those very very few cases, they are then overturned on appeal.

        Talk to me when you actually have a case where Sharia Law was truly imposed and upheld.

        • Buck

          I am making, what I admit to, a RASH ASSUMPTION that this guy was either appointed by a Dem or elected in a DEM district.

          Hanging it around the DNC’s neck is a political play. Just like the Dems are pulling with Contraception. So if he happens to be from an R District I would still hang it on the D’s. Just like they blame R’s for the President’s DEFICIT budget.

          What the hell, its just politics!!!!!!!!!! Bwahahahahaha

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “Martin was reelected after running unopposed in 2011. He cross-filed with the Republican and Democratic parties.”

            • Buck

              See…… I told you it was the Democrats who put him in office.

              Is Cross Filing anything like Cross Dressing?

              I ain’t some Big City fella so you’ll have to explain.

            • Buck

              Nope. He ran unopposed. Obvious case of Democratic Party VOTER FRAUD. I’m betting the Democratic County Clerk and State Party Chair were all in on the scam. That is how he was able to file for BOTH parties.

              Kind of like the phony “TEA PARTY” candidate that showed up on the Republican primary in Nevada, in 2010.

      • Mathius™ says:

        This seems too cut and dried. I mean, how many times is a judge this flagrantly wrong? Usually, there’s some justification.. something. Here there doesn’t seem to be anything other than an interpretation of the First Amendment which would make Buck The Lawyer cry.

        This makes me suspicious.. like I’m missing a piece of the puzzle. It’s just too perfect.

        And now, off to search for the whole story..

        • Mathius

          Come back. You might ruin all the fun.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Got the full audio.. going through it now..

            • Mathius and Buck

              You two are unbelievable. Of course so is this judge and the officer claiming “no apparent intent”.

              Lets review the facts as we know them.

              Guy dressed as zombie is “attacked”. That is the claim. Any evidence he was NOT attacked.

              Now assuming this is true.

              How could the Mohamadan ATTACK him unless he had intent. Did he swerve to miss the pothole and then just “fall” on the zombie? NOPE, he deliberately attacked him.

              Now the judge uses the Mohamadan’s religion to rationalize that he “thought he was upholding the law”. That would be NOT any law in the USA.

              So he “thought” he was upholding HIS law, when he “deliberately” and with “intent” attacked the zombie.

              Stupid is as stupid dose gentlemen. The guy had full intent to attack the zombie. This is “harassment” at its finest.

              Now let me go to downtown Portland and knock one of those freaking Naked Bike riders on his ass and then claim I thought I was just upholding the law against public nudity. I’ll bet you I get charged with assualt AND HARASSMENT, and probably a freaking HATE CRIME to boot.

              Quite frankly, I hope this judges career is over. Rationalizing away an obvious harassment charge is pure BS and was obviously based on his personal view of this Mohamadan’s religion. His lecture alone should be enough for him to go packing to Pakistan.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You are mistaken as to what the intent relates to here.

                I agree that the judge stepped over the line in his lecture, but based on the facts, the ruling seems to be correct. If anything, you should be angry at the ADA for charging him with harassment I stead of assault.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Our in-house lawyer is, of course, correct.

                The point is that “intent” must be to harass, annoy, or alarm. That is what the statute says. So intent to cause attack the guy, which I agree is present, is irrelevant. The law requires that he intend to harass, annoy, or alarm, and from the audio, I see nothing supporting this intent.

                He did mean to attack the guy – of course he did. But he did not mean to harass, annoy, or alarm him. So, while this should definitely have been a prosecutable offense, it is not harassment. The DA brought the wrong charge (probably in an attempt to be merciful to a guy who made an honest, albeit stupid, mistake). Don’t blame the judge.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Oooh… so sorry to ruin all the fun..

            The statute for Harassment requires INTENT to harass or cause harm. Because the Muslim thought it was a crime to disrespect Mohammad, he thought he was stopping a crime. Ergo, no mens rea, ergo no crime. Ta da!

            Meanwhile, while the judge does go overboard, he is talking about how he believes that the Muslim’s INTENT is to uphold the law, thus his pointing out that where he comes from, dressing as a zombie Muslim would actually be a crime. This goes to throw out the intent. Once intent is gone, the case is toast.

            The judge then goes on to give a (much needed, though highly inappropriate) lecture on cultural and religious respect.

            Here in the US, we have the Constitution which gives us many rights, specifically the First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to provoke others [Mathius adds, that’s exactly what he did]. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak what’s on our mind, not just piss off other people and cultures.

            For what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. Though, of course, the First Amendment does guarantee the right to say things which piss off other people and cultures, I would agree that this probably isn’t what they wanted us to do with it.

            The news story takes select sections of the half-hour recording and makes it seem like this lecture is the ruling – it’s not. It’s a lecture. The ruling is basically.. “he didn’t have the necessary mens rea, so he didn’t meet the statutory definition of harassment.” If the judge had a case of a child misbehaving, he might dismiss the case but spend a little time anyway lecturing the kid on the right way to act. The atheist, in this case, was acting like a doofus. He was rude and insensitive. He was asking for it. And even though this does not excuse the behavior of the Muslim, it’s still not the right way to behave. So, yes, the judge may have been somewhat out of bounds, but his lecture wasn’t the ruling.. This was his ruling:

            Here’s the key quote, which somehow never made it into the story:

            But another part of the element which Mr Thomas [the cop] said, was, ‘is the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy, or alarm?’ or was his intent to have the offensive situation negated. I think, given the situation, that if his intent was to harass, annoy, or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I’m going to dismiss the charge.

            Since I just spent 36 minutes of my life listening to the testimony, I’m inclined to agree. There just isn’t evidence to support a malicious intent. The guy legitimately seems to have believed that he was stopping a crime. He denies touching the defendant (even though he previous admitted to it to the cop), but that’s irrelevant since he was charged with something which requires intent.

            I feel badly for this judge.. this is almost certainly the end of his career.

            • Mathius™ says:

              totally botched the blockquotes.. oh well 🙂

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And now that Mathius has done such a great job of lining up the actual facts and ruling, allow me to repost a segment of my post above:

              “Secondly, with the vast majority of these few cases, when the actual facts come out, things wind up being very differently than originally reported.”

              Again, talk to me when there is an actual case of imposing Sharia Law that is upheld on appeal.

            • Yep, another arrogant ass hat of a judge.

              Glad you dug that up. I was afraid I misjudged the judge. But alas, I was right again.

              Send him to the plank.

            • @ Mathius…….stopping a crime…where?

              • Mathius™ says:

                It doesn’t matter that the Muslim wasn’t stopping a crime. What matters is that he THOUGHT he was stopping a crime.

                The law says that to harass, you must (A) intend to harass/annoy/alarm and (B) whatever else the statue requires. The INTENT wasn’t there because the guy THOUGHT he was stopping a crime, not trying to harass/annoy/alarm the atheist. In fact, the Muslim was the one who called the cops. Why would he do that if he thought he was in the wrong?

                Think about it this way:
                If you are driving your car, swerve to avoid a pot hole, hit and kill a pedestrian, what crime have you committed? Maybe you’ve committed vehicular manslaughter.

                But not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill.

                Because you didn’t have the INTENT, you didn’t commit that crime.

                Now, you look again and see that there wasn’t actually a pot hole.. that you just thought there was. Now is it murder? Still no. Because it doesn’t matter what you did (in terms of the law), it matters WHY. And the WHY remains the same: you thought you were avoiding a pot hole, you were not trying to kill someone.


                Got a problem with it? Take it up with the law makers. The judge’s ruling was 100% correct.

            • Just curious-our local lawyer-under our laws what would the correct charge be-if it isn’t harassment -would it qualify as assault-or does that take intent too. I’m assuming that there is a charge which this gentleman would be guilty of-intent or not-he assaulted this man-based on ignorance of the law(which I thought was considered a moot argument). Are we too allow people to attack others without some type of punishment simply because their intent was to stop a non existent crime?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Didn’t watch the video, but probably Assualt would fit the bill. But since he wasn’t charged with Assault, only Harassment, it isn’t up to the judge to try him for what he’s actually guilty of. Only for what he is charged with.

                You are correct that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but only when you are charged with violating the law you are ignorant of. The facts here is that he was charged with a crime that requires ‘intent to harass’; he had no such intent. His actual intent was to stop what he believed to be a crime.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Of course, I’d be willing to bet that there absolutely is a statute under which he could have been convicted. Assault/battery is probably one such charge. However, he was charged with harassment. My guess would be that the DA didn’t want to levy a more serious charge like assault when he though the relatively minor charge of harassment would be sufficient. (pure speculation here). Having already charged him though, the DA can’t now turn around and charge him again under a different statute (double jeopardy). C’est la vie. Don’t like it, yell at the DA.

                Now, as for ignorance of the law. It is true that that’s no defense. But he wasn’t arguing that he’s ignorant of the law which he was alleged to have violated. That is, he didn’t claim he was ignorant of the statutes governing harassment (which would, you’re correct, have been no defense). But harassment requires intent in PA by legal definition. Whatever his reason for his actions, his INTENT did not meet the definitions set by the law. Because he was wrong about his intent is irrelevant. He did not intend to harass/annoy/alarm the atheist. So, no mens rea means no crime. Don’t like it, yell at the law makers.

                (if my second point is unclear, try reading what I wrote to D13 a few minutes ago.. it’s the difference between manslaughter and murder – it’s not necessarily what you do, but why).

                But to give an even better example, imagine that something was stolen from you. Then, walking around, you see someone holding it! You run up to him, grab it away from him and storm off. HARUMPH! Right? That’s no crime at all.

                But, oops.. it turns out it wasn’t yours, just one that just looked very similar. So you’ve taken something that didn’t belong to you from it’s rightful owner. Sounds a lot like theft, doesn’t it? But it’s not theft. Because theft requires intent. You didn’t intend to steal, you were trying to do the right thing. So, it’s not a crime. The same is true of this case. The guy was wrong, but it doesn’t matter. He didn’t intend to harass, he was trying to do the right thing.

                Again, it’s not about ignorance of the law, it’s about what he INTENDED to do when he acted, because that is a required portion of the harassment law.

                Does this make sense?

              • I suppose it makes sense-if that is what the law says, that’s what the law says-but I find I have a hard time believing this man was unaware that he was breaking the law. As far as the Judge-I find his lecturing the atheist while making the man who attacked him sound like a friggin hero-just wrong and unprofessional. I wonder if the man walked out of the court room believing assaulting another person is A-okay.

  29. The Supreme Court Establishes NEW law once again.

    Overturning a century or more of accepted understanding of ownership of navigable rivers, the SCOTUS has decided that they have a “better” approach. We won’t consider the river anymore, but each segment within a river.

    Raising the question that if this was the actual legal intent upon granting statehood, why didn’t the Fed govt map out and file ownership of these segments? They did that for all their other lands.

    Now I am obviously putting my own bias to work on this comment and the issues can cut both ways. But in my view this is just another example of 9 people in black robs making it up as they go. And of course who wins in this one? The FED govt of course. They get to keep the rent money.


    • “And of course who wins in this one? The FED govt of course. They get to keep the rent money”

      Sorry you are wrong on this one. If a waterway is declared non navigable the stream bed reverts to the private owner not the Federal Government. If you live on a waterway you want it declared non navigable so you will own to mid stream instead of the low water mark.

  30. So D13, question(s) for you on this whole (created?) chaos on the Koran burning in Afghanistan thing.

    WTH is going on?

    1. If they were defaced and/or being used for internal prison communication, yes, destroy them (burn) but JUST DO IT! How the hell does this stuff get out? Were we set up?

    2. Our President is once again bending at the waist kissing their butts and apologizing. As their CIC, how does this behavior go over with the troops? Needs them to pose for photo ops, but damns them any time he can.

    3. His apology letter says he will “hold those responsible accountable” …. I bet the Brian Terry family would love to hear those words (and backed up by actions)

    4. Now 2 soldiers have been shot.

    What is the answer?

    • “Hold those responsible accountable”????? For burning a freakin’ BOOK????!!!

      Let’s ask a question. Who holds their people responsible when they are in the street burning our damn Flag? I don’t care if they burned a damn Koran or not. It’s just a book. No different from the Bible (and a lying piece of trash to boot written by a child molesting camel salesman).

      Why does such a big deal get made out of such small things.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        And is the Bible also written by lying pieces of trash?

        How would you feel if a foreign army was occupying your town and burning the Bible? Just try to take a step back and look at it from their perspective.

        And before you jump on me, no, I am not saying that the violent response is justified. But at least lets try to look at the underlying offense in their terms.

        • I ain’t gonna jump on you Buck. I simply don’t care what reason they have.

          Unlike the Bible, we KNOW what Mohammed was. And even IF he wasn’t. It is STILL just a book. Nothing blasphemus about burning it. Wouldn’t be if it was a Bible either. It also, is just a book.

          And my opinions about things like this have been formed by lot’s of other instances where the muslims have gone apeshit over nothing or not much anyway. Certainly not enough to kill innocent people over.

          Admit it Buck. If we did that shit over here they would be locking our asses up for days and throwing away the keys. There, it is excused because of their radical religion. “Moderate” Islam my ass!!! 👿

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I agree that the response is not justified by the action. But I stress that it is an extremely offensive action and only feeds some of their beliefs that the US is waging war on Islam. All I’m asking is that before we judge the response, we attempt to see the offense through their eyes.

            Now, why is Obama apologizing for the action? Why is he saying that those responsible will be held accountable? My simple, humble answer: DIPLOMACY

            • And now they are saying that his apology only makes it worse. Now we look weak.

              That seems to be one thing Obama is very good at. Looking weak and lily-livered. 🙂

              But Buck. I am simply sick of the Muslims being in an uproar all the time. IMO, we should pull TOTALLY out of every muslim country. Troops, Diplomats, MONEY and all!!!!

              In no time they will kill each other off and we won’t have to worry about them anymore. 😉

            • Sorry counselor……this is not diplomacy.

    • @ Kathy

      1. I would have handled it differently. Knowing that it is a violation of their law to deface the Koran by writing in it……I would have picked up the books and take them to the local cleric and said,look what we have found. How would you like us to handle it? It is proper to dispose of the Koran by burning, according to their law.The military burned the books and the Afghan contractors saw this and reported it. No set up as I see it….just stupidity.

      2. There was/is no case for an apology.from a head of state. For Obama to do this elevates the violence…not calm it down. It is a local matter that should have been handled by the local cleric. There is plenty of precedent for this.

      3. Again, elevating this to head of state glorifies an incident that never should have been. It is NOT this President’s job to “hold anyone accountable”. It is the commander’s responsibility for investigation and correction. Obama is grand standing and trying to appease a culture that does not wish appeasement. The protesters are also instigated and choreographed.

      The answer? When I was there we always worked with the local cleric and let him make decisions concerning his own people. Most of the time, the cleric decisions was worse than anything we could have done. The other answer…….get out. Time to go home.

  31. The CASE AGAINST the President’s proposed Corp Tax Rate.

    The Corp Tax Rate should be EQUAL to the TOP Personal Rate.

    That was one of the greatest achievements of the Bush cuts, in my view.

    By making them the same it eliminates the gaming of the system by those who can form Corps to hide normal living expenses. This in turn REDUCES enforcement costs for the IRS as you don’t have to follow everyone around to see if their Corporation is legit or not.

    Of course, a flat tax on gross income would eliminate these games as well. 🙂

  32. @ Mathius…….

    Again…..stopping what crime? I must have missed that.

  33. From my email inbox. Thought ya’ll would like to know what the DNC is saying about the Republican debate.

    I’ll bet you guys didn’t realize the TEA PARTY is “running” the Republican Party, did ya!

    “Friend —

    In case you missed last night’s GOP debate, here’s a quick recap:

    Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney sat side by side. If one vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the other called Arizona’s immigration law a model for the country. If one brought up the “dangers of contraception,” the other said he’d support Cut, Cap, and Balance and end Medicare as we know it. They’re in a dead heat in the polls — so now they’re in a footrace to decide who’s most extreme.

    No matter who the GOP picks, this is what we’re up against.

    If we wait until November to protect the things we’ve fought for, it’s too late. We’re laying the groundwork now.

    Pitch in $5 or whatever you can to help President Obama and Democrats across the country win in 2012.

    With the GOP primary season dragging on, the Tea Party in charge, and no clear leading candidate, you can expect things to only get more extreme.

    The last congressional races taught us what can happen if we don’t fight back early enough and hard enough. We’ve seen what it’s like to work with the Tea Party in the House.

    Imagine a Tea Party president.

    It could happen this year without your leadership.

    We have less than nine months to keep that from happening. You can help by making a donation today:




    Patrick Gaspard
    Executive Director
    Democratic National Committee”

    Meanwhile the RNC has YET to do anything to tackle this STRAWMAN of the EVIL Tea Party and the notion they are running things. I ONLY WISH IT WERE TRUE.

  34. BF, Buck and Mathius

    As the ones who most often tell us that poor Mr. Leader of Iran has been “misinterpreted” about “wiping Israel from the map”.



    By the way, this is pretty consistent with what my new dentist tells me is going on in Iran.

    • Buck the Wala says:


      You lost me — when have I ever said that poor leader of Iran is misunderstood about wiping Israel off the map? I fear you have mistaken me for someone else.


%d bloggers like this: