The Plan… from Common Man

Good Evening Everyone! Tonight I am posting an article from Common Man. Admittedly this has been sitting here in my inbox for a bit. CM was out of town for a bit and then once he returned, I was so tied up with work I didn’t even think about it for a week! But now I share his article with all of you. His work days are pretty busy these days so he may not be able to comment much during the day, but he will he checking in when he can. So enjoy…

The Plan

I have watched a lot of videos, read a number of articles and blogs that address our current political circumstances, our nation’s economical problems and the events that we are all faced with as citizens of the US. However, the video on this Web site really struck a major nerve.

It struck a nerve because for a number of months now I have grown more and more convinced we are facing a government regime bent on destroying both individual liberty and Constitutional principles. A government that ignores the laws it was designed to protect, or rewrites those laws to enable it to do as it pleases.

That we are no longer in control of our government, but that it now controls us.

It struck a nerve because it provided specific examples of how a regime could go about destroying not only a nation, but the founding principles from which that nation was built. The video presents a scenario of how certain influential powers could go about collapsing a country without revolution and at the same time affirm a new social order; one that would virtually eliminate liberty and freedom.

It struck a nerve because it parallels my theory that government is executing a specifically designed plan to “fundamentally change” America into some kind of Socialist / Marxist / Communist State. A plan that transitions all power and rule to those who hold office, or those who financially control those in office.

I believe it is being done by design, and is being executed with specific and certain precision. I also believe it is a plan that has been in the works for many decades, although initially was not as maliciously intended as it is today. It is also bi-partisan. I believe it is a plan that has evolved as needed depending upon various events and circumstances, and it is a plan that continues to grow and strengthen. Its strength is derived from each success or milestone the plan has built into it. The more successes and milestones achieved the more robust and consuming the plan becomes.

The plan is much like a cancer, and like a cancer if left unchecked it will kill its host.

Some examples:

The recent Healthcare Act/Law which forces individuals and corporations to purchase a specific level of coverage, or be fined. That is an absolute violation of the Constitution and attack on individual liberty

The Stimulus Plan (both Bush and Obama) which further depletes an already exhausted money supply, and creates the need to print more money resulting in a weakened dollar.

Giving the EPA unlimited power and at the same time propagandizing the falsehood that humans are causing significantly negative changes in the environment. And the EPA is now a major catalyst for “Green Energy”, which is a supporting doctrine to alternative energy and government control

An endless effort to create multiple government entities both Federal and State.

Thousands of new laws which are designed to further the control over the population


Continued programs within the Public School System designed to indoctrinate our youth to a pre-determined mindset

Borderless boarders and an absolute defiance on the Federal Governments part to uphold those laws it was sworn to enforce. The more desperate minorities they can add to the government welfare program the more voices they have to continue the message that the government can help.

The promotion of alternate energy sources coupled with the closing of numerous oil and natural gas drilling sites and continued purchasing of foreign supplies. This too is a coordinated effort to further “Green Energy” and the governments influence of natural resources.

Industry bailouts designed to increase taxes but more importantly designed to influence and/or gain control of certain industries. If you want to further your control over natural resources such as oil, then assuming partial or total control over industries biggest user of oil is paramount.

The Patriot Act – This is an absolute and blatant act to allow the government to spy on its citizens and use terrorism as an excuse to prosecute. Additional efforts to gain access and/or regulate the internet further this endeavor.

The Executive Order – The worst and most destructive act/law initiated since this country was founded. No one man or woman should ever be allowed to invoke acts or statutes under any circumstance, otherwise liberty erodes.

Taxes – Completely out of hand and a key to the designed destruction of fair trade, individual prosperity and industry.

Endless Propaganda designed to specifically brainwash the sheeple into a particular mindset. The media is also a significant catalyst to further the plan.

The Federal Governments endless effort to intimidate State government to kowtow to a particular agenda, or suffer shortages in federal funding and/or other needed assistance.

Gun Control and an endless attack on weapon manufactures, their client base, individual citizens and the Second Amendment. They know that an armed citizen is more difficult to control or intimidate.

Eminent Domain – Another example of the government invoking laws designed to solely benefit its agenda and power. This is another absolute violation of both Constitutional and individual rights.

The selection and pandering of specific individuals by both parties on the basis of pure public appeal verses qualifications and abilities. This is more blatant at the POTUS level, but is evident at all levels of government. Obama is just the latest example of bringing the flamboyant, charming and eloquent puppet to the podium.

Continued efforts to promote equality and fairness verses competition and individuality. This is a mainstream agenda at the school level. It is also one of the most influential agendas for molding the next generation to require and expect more and more government assistance. Start educating and indoctrinating them at an early age so that when they are adults they already function as you conditioned them to function

Redistribution of wealth and the continued demonizing of the wealthy. This is an effort to eliminate the entrepreneur spirit that developed both the country and a once great industrial nation.

Racism – Probably more predominant now than it was 40 years ago, but in a way that furthers the gap between all races.

Welfare and Entitlement Programs – although initially created to provide a “hand-up” they have now evolved, by design, to be deprecating enslavement.

Party alignment – This is a critical catalyst in hoodwinking the individual. Debates about specific fundamental issues like abortion, marriage, gun ownership, racism, war on terror, drug legalization, borders and a dozen or more other heated issues only serves to redirect us from the real issue. This enables the government to continue its effort while the majority argues about mindless dribble. What we should be focused on is how licenses for marriage & guns is a direct violation of Constitutional rights, that we only need to go to war to defend against an aggressor, medical treatments are solely individual choices, all people’s have the same God given rights and what drugs we use and how we treat our bodies is also an individual choice. The government has no jurisdiction unless we chose to violate the same rights of another. And they have become experts at redirection.

I could go on for pages and pages, but the critical issue is the number of laws, programs and mandates that surface daily at an overwhelming level. Not only are they designed to reduce or eliminate individual liberties and freedom, they are designed to indoctrinate and intimidate.

Throughout world history government or powerful rulers set about defining and enforcing laws and programs to accomplish two basic principles:

Ensure adequate taxes (the current regime calls it revenue now) to support and promote their desired lifestyle

Control those under their rule in order to maintain their power and secure monies required to minimize or eliminate the threat of revolution or foreign invasion.

Interestingly enough all those regimes that adopted this evil style of government or rule eventually failed and caused or greatly contributed to the deaths of thousands.

It is an absolute that any form of government or rule founded or controlled by these two primary rules will eventually collapse.

Our government has over the past 100+ years evolved to the point of adopting these two primary objectives, and are consciously designing more laws and programs to promote them.

Those in power today DO NOT consciously believe that they are truly functioning in the best interest of the people, and for us to believe otherwise is blind ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that those who currently serve, or are looking too, are self centered, indignant and driven by greed. This is especially true at the Executive level.

If we are to change things we must first realize that the current government is only self serving, and each and every act or initiative it undertakes is designed to further its control.

We must realize that the only thing the government can do that is even slightly to our benefit is NOTHING. Any other effort is hurtful and designed to further the elimination of liberty and freedom, or at the least promotes current rules doing the same.

Despite all the laws and acts that have been invoked over the countless years, life and liberty would eventually evolve positively if the government would just stop.

From my own point of view this direction seems more feasible than working to elect different corrupt individuals to replace the current corrupt individuals. They are all cut from the same mold and either by desire or through peer influenced persuasion will evolve to be no different than their predecessors.

Now the Federal government is already too big and too strong to fight on an individual level, however local officials can be swayed. And since any and all acts or laws initiated by government officials are hurtful to individual liberty and freedom, our course of action at the local level is “NO”. They cannot be allowed to further government’s agenda. No more taxes, no more programs, no more facilities or institutions and no more laws or mandates of any kind.

My vote will be cast for those individuals that run on a platform of eliminating current taxes, laws, programs or rules, but only at the local level. At the Executive level casting a vote for one of the regimes chosen figureheads is an exercise in futility, because we are just placating a corrupt and evil entity. The simple fact that the Electoral College decides who will serve as President is evidence enough that we have no influence.

Maybe this approach will begin the effort to return our Republic and reinstate individual liberty and freedom; otherwise we will see some form of revolution followed by a great deal more suffering.

NO is the only answer.



  1. With things like this and other energy sources available, why is it we are not going after it?

  2. “I believe it is being done by design, and is being executed with specific and certain precision. I also believe it is a plan that has been in the works for many decades, although initially was not as maliciously intended as it is today. It is also bi-partisan. I believe it is a plan that has evolved as needed depending upon various events and circumstances, and it is a plan that continues to grow and strengthen. Its strength is derived from each success or milestone the plan has built into it. The more successes and milestones achieved the more robust and consuming the plan becomes.”

    I think that you are spot on here CM. I have been thinking the same thing here for quite a while. And as I have said also, it didn’t start with Obama. It has been decades in the making. I believe if Obama has stuck to the script, we would still be sleeping peacefully until it was too late. In fact, let’s face it. A lot of us are STILL asleep!

    When you get down to brass tacks, all of us here are not that far apart about the Nation’s ills. The difference is in how we think it should be fixed. I am for Liberty and Freedom of the kind we were supposed to have in the beginning of the Country after the Revolution. I still do even though I am crippled up and disabled. I would make it.

    And the sad thing is that most, or rather a pretty good bit of the ctizens here believe that the ones who believe this are just Conspiracy Theorists and we are dismissed because of it. But every single thing you said above is taking place as we speak. And I don’t understand why everyone can’t see it for themselves. They have stopped hiding it and are doing it right out in the open. It’s not like they are still sneaking around in the shadows.

    I believe the reason they don’t acknowledge what is happening is twofold.
    One, they don’t want to see. They want to go on in their little world as if nothing is going on and they will do so until it begins to effect them personally.
    Two, they don’t CARE because they want to maintain their freebies and giveaways. These types don’t care about personal Liberty. They are perfectly willing to give up their Freedom to be taken care of by the Government. They don’t realize or don’t care that once the Government consolidates their power over us they will begin to strangle us with programs that No one will like.

    My problem with all this is, exactly what CAN we do to stop it? Can it be stopped? Is it to late? These things get me torn up just thinking about them. Not for me. I am old. But for my children and yours and everyone else’s. What kind of world are they going to have?

    • Esom, yes many do not see it but many also realizes something wrong but fear changing it. It is comforting and easy to be told what to do and think or to live off the government. Fending for oneself is terrifying to many who have only seen government as the source of their livelihood. We have had nearly 3 generations of kids grow up under the Great Society. We are entering the third and biggest generation to collect social security, the second to rely on Medicare. Yes there are many of us who would prefer to live without government handouts, but unfortunately there are more who are simply too scared to try.

      It will take a generation (20-25 years) to correct these problems in a smooth fashion. Failure to start the process soon will ensure the correction happens nearly instantaneously like in Greece. However, failure to act will mean the end of our country as we know it.

  3. CM agree with much of what you said. However, I am not yet ready to give up on the federal and state governments. This last year we at least have had presidential candidates discuss eliminating federal departments and agencies. I have never heard that before. The TP has pushed hard to get government back into line with the Constitution. It is frustrating that they not only have to fight government but the distorted reporting in the MSM as well. Despite my fear that the TP would collapse, it has not. So there is some hope that a sizable part of the population may come around to sanity yet.

    Years ago, I moved from IL to PA to attend school. One thing that impressed me was how convoluted and archaic the laws in PA seemed to be compared to IL. It took a while before I realized they had nearly a century more garbage piled up in their code books. My conclusion then is that all laws need a sunset clause. This would force the legislature or congress to revisit them periodically and review them for effectiveness. Furthermore, all laws need to have preface that cites the clause in the Constitution that applies with arguments why it applies.

    I will do everything in my power to block new taxes from being imposed. We need to starve the beast. Here in CA, Gov. Brown is pushing for his taxes by education and public safety hostage. He still has not effectively dismantled the multilayered, overlapping bureaucracy. Nor has he stopped the union control of state government. If he gets his way, we will have a fast train to nowhere.

    On the federal level, we need to dismantle several departments. Congress needs to reign in the EPA and put Congressional oversight into the regulation process. We need a complete overhaul of our tax system with massive simplification. Again, it was discussed by the Repub candidates but pooh-poohed by the MSM instead of getting a fair hearing. ObamaCare needs to be scrapped before it caused irreparable harm.

    Esom, yes energy is a key component of a healthy economy and a key component of national security. We too often ignore that fact that our economic and national security would be in dire straights if ME truly blew up into a major war zone. So far it has been only brush wars. It seems treasonous to me that we have gone 35 years without a comprehensive energy plan that included domestic production and nuclear energy. We have squandered 35 years and billions of dollars.

    • T-Ray

      I am not yet ready to give up on the federal and state governments.

      You and your ilk is the very reason why the problem is out of control.

      Anyone who believes “top down” politics “can work” is naive. It always always always leads to tyranny. There are no examples -not one in 10,000 years that shows differently.

      Yet, like moths to a flame, there are the same people believing that -somehow, this time- it will be different.

      CM has it right.

      Forget the Federal and State politics. They are bankrupt. When the check bounces, the social problems will suddenly become next door.

      Unless you are in a position to influence the local politics, you will be overwhelmed.

  4. Yes T, the energy problem can be easily solved within ten years IF the Federal Govt, Obama, and the EPA would just get out of the way. Obama really kills me with his talk of expanding natural energy sources and then in reality trying his best to strangle it. Heve you gone to the site CM mentioned? If not, here it is.

    That is a compelling video to watch. I posted it to my FB page and can see where CM was taken with it. And there is not one thing that is mentioned that is not dead on target.

    • Yes I have seen the video. It was passed around several weeks ago.

      • What I can’t understand is why we aren’t going after these sources of energy? Especially the Natural Gas? That is clean energy. The kind Obama PROFESSES to be a fan of.

  5. 😉

  6. T-ray and those that hold similar beliefs fail to understand the root of the issue.

    They believe that it is because “no one sees the problem” and “there is some yet-to-be-discovered-solution” that will solve the problem.

    T-Ray’s problem is that his belief is utterly wrong.

    Everyone sees the problem.
    The solution is clear.

    T-ray cannot believe that it is because no one wants the solution is the problem.

    He does not understand “Public Choice Doctrine”, and thus continues to throw the same old nonsense… “we can change Washington”.

    No, T-Ray no one who can change Washington wants to change Washington

  7. T-Ray

    It will take a generation (20-25 years) to correct these problems in a smooth fashion. Failure to start the process soon will ensure the correction happens nearly instantaneously like in Greece. However, failure to act will mean the end of our country as we know it.

    I am not picking on you.


    I do not agree. It will take less than 5 years to correct the problems, and after the first shock, it will go smoothly.
    The process will be sudden – there is “no starting soon”. One day, the checks will bounce. The next day will be interesting.

    Understand this.
    People have been predicting that “unless we act now, there will be big trouble”.
    Politicians did not act.
    There was no real big trouble.

    Now you come along and say “unless we act now, there will be big trouble”.
    The politician says “Didn’t happen last time, so why now?”
    You have no answer.
    They laugh at you.

    This is why there is no change in Washington or anywhere else.

    The country will be just fine – its been through worse.
    What will change and dramatically will be the politics.

    Before 1795, you will rarely find any news about Washington or politics.
    After 1800, you cannot describe the history of America without pointing to some administration in Washington. The vast centralization of government began then, and peaked around now.

    After the bankrupt US government, government will change back to a predominately local feature set. Talk of the day will no longer be about the President and Washington, it will be about the Mayor and City Hall. But it will be all-American.

    Do not get hung up on believing that government defines the country.

    Do get an “ah-ha!” moment … government pyramid will invert …. and you are not ready for it because you are too busy worrying about the top of that pyramid today instead of understanding it will be the bottom … and thus, you ignore the bottom and will become -again- upside down when it flips as you wasted your time instead of preparing locally.

    • All;

      Prior to writing this I thought a lot about my past reactions to the news, the POTUS, debates, various candidate speaches and other Washington propaganda. I also took a look at the results of my actions to effect state and federal government. The letters written, the phone calls made and the in person visits were all moot; nothing changed. Now I have no ego, I am not rich and I am not a well known business owner or executive, so maybe being a Common Man greatly reduces or totally eliminates my influence, but that is the point. I then realized that no matter how I acted or reacted nothing changed. All that took place was my blood pressure rose, I cussed more, friends and family avoided me and I accomplished nothing. My efforts were absolutely futile. As a matter of fact any effort on my part to effect change at the State or Federal Level only resulted in providing me more anger and anxiety. I know longer pay any attention, it is a waste of time, energy and only serves to negatively effect me and mine.

      We cannot alter the course of a speeding train that has already derailed; it is going crash forward or sideways or however it will until the energy driving it is depleted. Once the train stops and only when the train stops do we go about clearing the tracks.

      As ESOM says I too am worried for my children and grandchildren, so I have taken messures to better prepare then for whatever takes place. I am spending time with them teaching them the things I know to be helpful. I have set up some things financially that will assist them down the road.

      The key is to focus our efforts at the individual level and only where we can influence action, or inaction; as sometimes doing nothing is a good thing.


      • gmanfortruth says:


        I couldn’t agree with you more. IMHO, the elections are rigged anyway and the winner is predetermined. All the elections are now is an effort to keep the sheeple from seeing what is really going on. This nation has many problems, the biggest seems to be ignorance. The next Ruby Ridge is just around the corner. The anti-government movement will grow and the economy will worsen. I will venture to guess that at some point this year, September maybe, China could announce that it is backing it’s currency with gold. The end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is coming. What happens next……

        • China can’t back it with gold. It isn’t there.

          • @G Man……China has another huge problem. It has runaway debt as well….and it has invested heavily in the USD. China;s inflation rate is more rampant than anyone’s, including India…….which is about to have serious problems as well. China will have to manipulate its currency lower in value and that makes more worthless money…….It is easy to check out the gold reserves that China has as they sell gold in great quantities. We, as a family have bought several gold pieces in the form of coin from them. China is after USD in quantity because the Euro is going to tank…..quickly. Some think it will take 2 years……..I think less. At any rate, we have planned for it. The Sterling cannot hold up to universal trading……The world monetary system is in trouble but the USD is still the tops……………………so far. Hard metals, some think, is the place to be……but….if you own gold, silver, platinum, tin, copper….whatever as an individual right now…..try to sell it on the open market and see what you a collector. But, if you, as an individual, take your gold Krug or ingot down to the local market…… see how much bread it buys. They are not going to pull out the Wall Street Journal and look up an ounce of gold or any metal and convert. IF you think so…try it.

            No one is sure what is going to happen and what becomes trade-able in the future. Hell, water in Texas will buy more than gold will. So, it is a crap shoot. Please do not misunderstand…I am not saying that metals are not a good investment…..they are an excellent hedge against inflation……BUT…..when it comes to eating………anything will be a trade item. But I do not see China as a monetary threat. They cannot foreclose on the United States…..there is nothing to foreclose on.

        • Gman;

          Years ago my father tossed out an old adage that really sunk in. “It is really, really hard to get an elephant to start tap dancing, but once you do you need to make sure you’re completely out of its way”. The Federal government is tap dancing, so clear the stage and make ready for its eventual hault, and make sure that you and yours are as clear as possible of the reverberations of that crash.

          I am teaching mine about individual responsibility and individual accountability. How to be independent. What a “real” budget means. How to save. How to garden and preserve that which you have grown. How to barter. How to hunt and fish, etc, etc. These things not only insure self preservation, but are also self fullfilling.

          I am also encouraging mine to understand history and the events that led to our current circumstance so they are better prepared to deal with future issues. I will encourage my grandchildren to pursue a profession, trade or hobby that provides social benefit, and can be useful to others down the road. What I mean by that is a skill that others see as beneficial as either a service or profession. IE: Doctor, builder, Mason, Electrician, IT Engineer, farmer, rancher, guide, etc, etc. These professions, trades or hobbies can be traded regardless of economical circumstances and will continue to be needed in the future.

          We cannot stop the elephant without risk to our own well being, so let it continue its dance; it will eventually trip and fall. All we can do is make sure we are not within its shadow when it does trip.


  8. charlieopera says:

    A plan that transitions all power and rule to those who hold office, or those who financially control those in office.

    I will admit I didn’t read beyond this … why, Charlie? (Mocking Mark Levin here). (Yells) Because that’s what we have now!!!!!!!!!!

    Are you kidding me? This is EXACTLY what we have. The article becomes pointless if this is a serious premise.

    • Charlie;

      I am not sure I understand your statement please expound


      • charlieopera says:

        Common Man: I apologize. I didn’t read the entire article (still haven’t). I’m very pressed for time and if I did read what I commented on correctly, the article “appears” to be suggesting that some progressive form of government (socialism/communism) will lead to the wealthiest controlling the rest of us.

        A plan that transitions all power and rule to those who hold office, or those who financially control those in office

        If I read that correctly, I don’t know how you can blame socialism and/or communism or any form of progressive government for what we already have (the 1% ruling roost over the rest of us).

        Again, I could have read this out of context and had a fit (it happens. USW has pointed it out a few times in the past—I sometimes get very upset over a single line and do not read further—as I haven’t yet—seriously don’t have the time these days, except to chirp in from time to time).

        My beef (as many here puke over) is with capitalism. Not the theory wherein the world would be a better place for those with initiative and drive (I find that no less a utopia than communism), but with the FACT that money will always seek more money (and thus power) and the only power money needs to rule with is the government (and it has paid for that a hundred-billion-gazillion fold since the inception of this country). We are already owned by the 1% … (so If I read this right), I ask: What makes you think socialism and/or communism would try for the same result? It may be as corrupt in other ways (the way socialism and communism has been bastardized over time–the way free markets have allegedly been bastardized over time), but the premise is a false one (if you’re suggesting those types of gov’t would seek to permit the wealtheist to control). Even in the bastardized versions, it was the military that did the controlling.

        • Charlie;

          I cannot speak to what style of Government the current regime and it’s predecessors are or have pushed for, only that whatever it is it does not promote liberty and freedom. As a matter of fact current and past efforts are designed to eliminate both freedom and liberty to ensure government control; and each waking day those non-representing representatives toil to add more restrictions and enforce existing ones.

          Do I believe that there are wealthy people influencing and/or controlling government actions and those elected to an office, Absolutely! Is there a specifically designed master plan structured to elliminate Constitutional liberties and God given rights, yes there is as addressed by the countless number of political actions happening every day, week and month. That is the problem!

          You and I can argue until we are both blue in the face over what form of government is best, but then the energy we spend arguing is just wasted. But then that in part is some of what I address in the article. Part of the governments plan is to redirect our attention while they continue to execute their plan. As it is today we cannot stop the Juggernaut that is rolling toward us, it is too powerful and overwhelming for any individual or even group of individuals.

          We can only wait for the derailed train to come to a crashing hault and at the same time make sure we are as prepared as possible.

          In my humble opinion each of us needs to focus our political efforts at the local level because once the train crashes to a hault that is where the rebuilding is going to start.

          And for the record I cannot find a country or government that has practiced any form of “isum” that didn’t eventually cause the people it “ruled” great suffering and/or death. Now possibly that was due to the fact that those who ruled eventually “bastardized” laws and mandates to ensure their own desired life style regardless of the effect it had on the citizens.

          We the People are responsible for where we are, because we either promoted it or selfishly embraced it, and now we can no longer fix it; at least not at the State or Federal level.


          • charlieopera says:

            GREAT response, CM.

            You’re right about arguing blue in the face–I agree. Dems vs. Reps … pointless arguments. It makes ZERO difference which party is in power; they both serve the same master.

            I am not as concerned about the loss of liberty; I guess because short of an anarchist state (if you will–at least a state of anarcy), we’ll have to learn to get along. I think that becomes impossible once the 1% have put yet another generation of Americans behind the financial eight ball (and they are close to doing it now).

            When I advocate for socialism and/or communism, I do so as the alternative to what will come next (I don’t see how either cannot be the result) but only because capitalism has failed the masses miserably (and continues to do so at breakneck speed).

            I guess the difference is: When you see liberties being restricted, you see it as an ultimate absolute. I see things like the bailout and the declien of unions, pensions, et al, as a greater form of chain for worker slaves.

            • Charlie

              During their origin Unions did bring about good, but like government they have been corrupted by those who have gained power and rule over them, and now only serve their master.

              A great deal of what was once good is now negatively influenced by a corrupt government and has therefore evolved to spread more corruption and evil.

              It all must come to a hault for us to progress forward in a positive way.

              More later, but I have a 2:00


    • Pointless? Pointless Charlie? It is a warning plain and simple. But I’m not really suprised that you and I’m quite sure others, won’t pay attention. At least you won’t until it comes crashing down.

      The signs are already here. Violence, unrest, people speaking out about this and being ignored, or worse, being called Conspiracy Theorists. It’s happening every day right in front of you and you can’t see it. This country is in bog trouble and it will only get bigger. The Federal Government is driving us right into the ground, with the willing cooperation of most of it’s citizens who can’t se what’s happening right in front of them.

      Forget the Social distractions. That’s all they are, distractions. To try and keep us focused on those while they wreck us financially. And why do this? Because someone will ALWAYS make money off of it, or usually will. I think this time they have gone too far. I’m talking about a World Economic Collapse where no one will profit. All of us will lose this time.

    • Charlie, I am pretty sure that’s what CM meant, only it was a warning that we are here because of a plan and concerted, long-term effort. And, more importantly, it is a warning that it can, and will, get worse if it is not stopped. And yes, it can get worse. A lot worse.

      • charlieopera says:

        Jon: Now I’m confused 🙂

        I think the long term effort is something not planned but inevitable. Capitalism requires a never ending surge forward (more profits, etc.) … as I’ve argued in the past here, it was inevitable that the monied sought to protect its interests via corrupting the government (even if its intentions weren’t so obvious). Money needs to seek more (some call it greed; I’ll call it successful profiteering) … eventually, it has to own the government and have its way (see bailouts) … so it can’t lose. it doesn’t lose … but we all do, but I don’t see how socialism and communism would play the same role (which is why I’m confused, I guess).

        • Charlie,

          Let me help you out of your confusion.

          Capitalism requires “profits” – you confuse yourself by adding an unnecessary adverb of “more”.

          Your understanding of business is that once I have made my first sale, I should stop. That would make you happy since you vehemently disagree with my second sale, which also earns a profit like my first sale… and so on.

          You hold a core confusion about profits – there are not “more” profits after the first sale. There is a profit on every sale.

          You believe that wanting to sell more of my goods is ok – as long as I do that without making anything on the sale. Yet, you cannot explain how I feed my family doing that….

          You will relent and then claim “Well, you can make a bit of profit” – but then you contradict your own statement and rant about seeking “more profits” – you suddenly believe that is ok, as long as it fit’s “Charlie’s” limits.

          You are so muddled, twisted and upside down in your economic thinking – you are utterly incoherent in economics – and what disappoints me, as that your political intelligence is much more coherent. But the mixing of your irrational incoherent economics with a somewhat coherent political understanding ends up creating a massive incoherent political position that, should it become dominant in society, will destroy society.

          What is even more scary is that most people are inflicted with the same irrational incoherent mix of politics and economics as you are.

          • Damn we’ve missed you BF! 😀

            • Got really busy on a new contract up in the oil sands.

              A real gravy train of a contract!

              Out of 52 weeks of the year, I am off 36 of them! Only 16 weeks working.

              They fly me in for a week then home for a week; house and feed me up there and pay all my expenses plus as many weeks off as I want

              I earn – annualized – 150% more than last year!

              I work waaaay less, have lots and lots of time off, and bring home waaay more bacon!

              I know Charlie will hate me 😉

              • Sweet! The universe likes you BF 🙂

              • Jon,

                The Universe likes everyone, but it does so like sunlight.

                You have to get up and move away from the dark clouds and go to where the sun is shining. Rarely does the sun maneuver itself so to beam on where you are.

              • charlieopera says:

                Never hate, BF. Congrats. You’re not the 1%, my friend. Maybe misguided but I forgive your belief in capitalism. It’s easier to embrace bad things when they work for you. I did when I was a loan shark. So it goes.

              • Way to go BF! Need any help? 😉

                Yo Charlie, I have a feeling BF is alot closer to the 1% than you or I will ever be 🙂

              • Charlie,

                It is not “embracing bad things” – it is an example of how free market works.

                You complain about how much someone is paid by blaming the guy who gets paid.

                But the reality always is, that someone paid him.
                That someone is giving me lots of money because they believe I return more back then they pay. They wouldn’t do it otherwise.

                SO when you rage against someone’s earning $XXX,XXX, claiming they are not “worth it”, you are so way off base because you are pointing at the wrong person.

                You need to be talking to the guy who gave that someone $XXX,XXX. That’s the guy who says “Yeah, but it was worth it!”

                Same with my situation.

                It appears that I can provide more value, in less time than someone else. This company believes that me working 16 weeks while paying me MORE than when I worked 40 weeks, willing to fly me in and out so to satisfy my family lifestyle, give me all the free time off I want … provides them far more value then not having me.

                But you want to argue with them that they are wrong.
                But you have no argument.

                So you want to argue with ME about MY worth in YOUR eyes.

                That is why your position is insane.

              • Anita,

                Sure! There is no shortage of work.

                But few come up here and fewer stick around.

                However, as I’ve said before, people don’t like to go where the jobs are.
                They want the jobs to come to where they are. But it doesn’t often work that way.

                They would rather slog around in poverty where they are then move from “home” to where the money is earned. That is why unemployment benefits etc. are so bad and make unemployment worse – it desensitizes the need to move away from poverty and toward prosperity by paying people to be poor.

                The life here is hard – summer is mosquito heaven – can get so thick that driving down a road you need to use your windshield wipers to scrape off the smashed bits of mosquito so you can see where you are going – and it gets hot (+100) with no shade other than large steel refinery pipes. It smells bad – oil sand smells like oily sand and it is everywhere, in your clothes, your hair, your teeth – think a day at the beach, except add oil. Refineries stink. And then winter can get as cold as -60.

                There are 400 ton trucks with 300 tons of oil sand per load driving hard and fast from the mine to the production facilities – driven by 18 to 20 year old kids. Think “teenager with a 700 ton sports car” and you get the idea.

                It is dangerous up here – they work with chemicals under very high heat that tend to explode when they are put under very high heat.

                Think “boom town” – a bunch of high school dropouts with more money in their pocket than they’ve ever seen – and all that comes with that; prostitution, drugs, wild blow out bar fights…etc. Like the gold rush, they will all get rich working and leave here poor – except the hookers and the bar owners.

                There is nothing up here but dangerous machines and dangerous humans; a barren landscape organized for one thing – making oil for Americans.

                Few want to work here.

              • You expect me to believe that you’re out there in the elements? I’m talking about sitting right next to you in your temperature controlled office. So what gives? 🙂

              • Anita,
                I am out in the elements – there is little else around here.

                The “job” is to build a fluid communication network so to manage these trucks and shovels. They are always moving, and always going to vast deep areas of the mine chasing the best oil vein.

                We are implementing a new-ish protocol – “Delay-Tolerant Networking” – cutting edge stuff attached to some pretty cool geological software.

                So, yeah, its fun! I get to meander all over the place, run around in the trucks, sit with the shovel operators, go into the refinery and the mine, and the offices — where ever my heart wishes to wander… and get paid for it! 🙂

              • “The Universe likes everyone, but it does so like sunlight.

                You have to get up and move away from the dark clouds and go to where the sun is shining. Rarely does the sun maneuver itself so to beam on where you are.”

                Thats the best analogy I have heard in some time, sir! 🙂

        • You seem to have embraced the misquoted biblical phrase “money is the root of all evil”. The actual quote is “the love of money is the root of all evil”. Either way, you seem to ignore something a great deal more important: Power. Power seeks more power. Always. Money often seeks more money, but that is really not evil. It becomes evil when one will use power, including the power that wealth grants, to oppress others in order to seek wealth or greater power. Hiring people is not evil. Manipulating markets or governments or whatever to make people work for less or have no power to band together or reduce competition by supporting regulations, etc. is evil, but while that power may have come from money, it is still not the money that was evil, but the power and the corrupt wielding of it.

          The problem with your alternatives is that they require power. I have no problem with voluntary socialism. When you are forcing socialism on others, then you are wielding power. That power will lead to the seeking of more power. Always. If you think capitalism leads to corruption and powermongering, when it is based on voluntary transaction, how can you think socialism, which is based on force, could possibly not lead to corruption even faster? It is already corruption, because it involves the use of power to force people into an ideal. How is that not evil already?

  9. gmanfortruth says:


  10. I have a question for the lefties or the left leaning…..

    Suppose Wisconsin is successful in the governor recall…..what then? Where will the money come from to fund all these things that the unions want? It cannot come from the state….it does not produce anything. It can tax the wealthy at 100% and that covers 2.4% of the budget…..what then? While I understand that the unions big issue is the fact that collective bargaining has been struck down except for wage bargaining but that does not change the numbers any…….suppose the governor is recalled and they get the governor they want…..what then? Where will the money come from? How will they get it? How do you fund DEFICITS by creating more DEFICITS?

    As BF says….who makes the checks good if there is no money in the till? The state cannot print money…only the fed can. What now, Charlie?

    • Colonel Sir;

      Hope you are well.

      Over the course of the last several months you have provided examples of how you and yours have influenced local government in a positive manner. Could you provide some specifics as to how you went about getting some of those endeavors enforced?

      It might be helpful to others to know some of the specific steps taken to accomplish these efforts, and at the same time better prepare others to do the same.


      • Sure can..I will pen an article on it but it is not for the weary. It is VERY hard to get the right people in the right places but it starts with education and, so far, the best educator has been…….the msm. We have been moderately successful in our endeavors in the city elections and local elections (county)….the conservative movement is beginning to gain a lot of steam here but it is not conservative as in the past, This is fiscal conservatism where people live within budgets.

        What makes it easier for us….is our balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. Our state cannot deficit spend.,,,,and that translates down to cities and municipalities. If a city knows that it cannot get state funds….then they have to deal with the local gentry in the form of raising taxes for revenue. So a city cannot just spend and expect the state to kick in the bucks…..Texas is no different than any other State. We cannot print money,so we must live, by law, within our means.

        We also have a pretty independent leadership and since our legislature meets every other year, we have two year budgets.and our legislatures are not full salaried….so we do not have career politicians.

        When you add all of these things together, it makes it a little easier. One other thing that also helps us…..when we are out of money… stops. For example, if a particular entitlement program is out of money, we do not borrow money to keep it funded…we can’t. It stops. What this forces, is fiscal conservatism…..except where the US government intervenes.

        A lot of states got into trouble with Federal programs with caveats…..unemployment, for example. The Federal Government comes in and extends unemployment and gives fed money for it with the caveat that when it runs out, the state MUST continue the program on its own. Texas did not do this. It refused all Federal money with strings. That was our leadership that did this because our spending is regulated by Constitution. If Fed programs required the state to exceed its budget…….we either raise taxes to continue or we refuse the Fed aid. Business’ are moving to Texas for a reason,,,in droves,,,,,,because we do not have a state income tax nor a state corporate tax although we do have a franchise tax.

        So…all of this to say……without professional politicians and the fact that we have a two year budget and the fact that we are bound within constitutional limits to balance our budget…… makes the job of finding the right people a little easier.

        • Colonel;

          Appears to me that the key is living within the defined budget, which although very logical looks to be the exception verses the rule with most government entities.

          You mention “raising Taxes” to extend or invoke a particular effort. What has to happen to get approval to “raise taxes”?. Do you create a Millage and put it out for public approval? I am assuming you are not just increasing taxes without public approval?


          • All taxes, local and State, are voted on. Texas is very good about bond drives as well to fund particular things like dams and parks….I am not saying we have the answer but it is working here. Every state can do what we are doing but it takes the will to do it.

            Budgets are very good jailers……

            We are finding that, through education at the local levels, is a work in progress. You would be surprised that even the most ardent left winger, with few exceptions, will make the same decisions when faced with the facts and the reason for the facts (Nuttin’ but the facts, please). If everyone is reading off the same sheet of music….. a song appears. But you have to drop the platitudes, attitudes, and all mantra. Educate those that do not understand a balance sheet…..educate those who do not understand but do so none condescending.

        • D13,

          …hits the nail again.

          Education system.

          The public education system has been the root of the recruiting for big, central government – where the brainwashing starts. It is being undermined by the internet.

          Education is LOCALLY provisioned, controlled and funded by the towns/city taxes. Local school districts are administered by local school boards, which operate public primary and secondary schools within their boundaries.

          One of the key steps is to become involved in these school boards locally. The battle for the minds of the future starts there – because soon, money will run out for schools too …and then what will happen to the ‘teenager day care centers”?

          • BF:

            Yes, and it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure these young minds are not warped by the evil force driving government. However, the challenge a lot of us face is that a number of the school officials and teachers are themselves already warped. So, the challenge is two fold.


            • CM,
              Exactly – but the power over the schools rests in LOCAL school boards, which no one notices.

              Everyone is so focused on Washington elections, no one cares about electing the school boards. Do you know who is on your school board?

              This is the secret. No one is focused locally – but this is where all the power of change will occur.

              Seize the local politic offices, like school boards etc. while no one is noticing – now –

              • Totally, utterly, completely concur.

              • Believe me when I say this BF. In this County in Ga (Polk), we are paying attention to OUR School Board! Because they have our schools messed up beyond belief. So badly in fact, that I don’t believe a single one of them can count on being re-elected next term.

                First, we have a 3.2 million dollar deficit. This is partly due due cuts in Federal money and State money, but ONLY partly. The other part is the fault of the members of the School Board. They make ridiculous decisions that waste more money than they save. They want to cut teachers while at the same time giving themselves and the Superintendant a 10% raise. They want to cut the book budget, which would be good if we had enough computers for all the students, but we don’t. How do you teach without books? They already can’t take them home because they only have enough for one classroom of kids per subject.

                They want to cut half of the Vocational classes like Construction, Business, and Welding. And this while increasing the “Standards” required to graduate! They are attempting to establish a School Uniform policy throughout the school system. This would require every student to purchase enough Uniform clothing for one week. Of course this doesn’t take into account how we are supposed to afford this. And, they can’t make up their mind how to set up next years school schedule. And the one they seem to have their heart set on is the one that saves the LEAST money. Because it would be the best for THEM. And when we go to a Board meeting we are not allowed to talk unless we give at least a TWO WEEK NOTICE. Most of this stuff we didn’t even KNOW about 2 weeks ago! If you try to say anything you get escorted out by the police.

                None of these board members children go to school in Polk County. They are all enrolled in Private Schools or go to the schools their parents teach at outside Polk. And it’s obvious they don’t really care about the children in this system either. They got the uniform idea from the Private rich kid school THEIR children go to.

                So We are pretty sure there will be big changes made at the school board in the next elections. There are also some big changes going to take place in our County and City Governments. This is ONE messed up County.

              • I have seen this unfold here in WI. So many people had no idea how the education system works and now a light has been shed on it. For years, like calling someone racist would end all talk of race issues, saying it’s “for the kids” or asking “are you against a good education system?” stopped all real talk of what was going on in the schools, how they were actually funded, the unions’ strong influence, etc.

                This recall election is about so much more than a few dollars taken out of a teachers’ paycheck for their own benefits. It is a power struggle to keep the system as is and take us all down vs. taking a little tiny baby step in reforming an unproductive and unsustainable system.

              • I believe what makes me the angriest is making the cuts in the System and then having the unmitigated GALL to give themselves 10% raises because of all that work they have to do! The Super makes over $200,000 a year. I don’t know what the board makes, but no one forced them to run for office! It was for the power! They think it makes them BigWigs in the County Socially.

      • posting for comment

        • Good article CM, thanks for sharing it… I think George made the point some time back on political parties. Just voted the other day for Ron Paul but was bothered that I could only vote Repug or Dem…what if I wanted to vote for some from each? Political parties are used to eliminate competition, to keep us locked into the two party system. Wondering if I can sue to challenge the law?? BUCK? thoughts anyone?

          George Washington in his farwell address:

          All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

          However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

          Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

          ….Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

          This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

          The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    • charlieopera says:

      Charlie has a suggestion but I doubt the Colonel would like it. How about Wisconsin demand a higher percent of the instate profits of corporations and businesses there? They want to move, triple tax them to do so. Make it so they can earn a living without forcing workers to lose their homes and/or go on welfare. Redistribution, sir. It’s not like the workers don’t deserve it; they added value to every business in the state and aren’t compensated with anything near equity. The rich in Wisconson can remain so … they just can’t force the rest of the state to suffer so they can prosper unreasonably.

      Let the yowling begin …

      • LOI has a suggestion, cut spending! Or do you feel better knowing these public servants aren’t greedy capitalists exploiting the common man, no they are part of our benevolent government…..

        Judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are defending their plans for a million dollar conference in Hawaii in August in the face of questions posed by two Republican senators.

        The Ninth Circuit presides over California, Arizona, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii.

        Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Charles Grassley of Iowa demanded explanation from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in a letter sent electronically May 18.

        In a statement issued Monday afternoon, a spokeswoman for the court said the expense to taxpayers is justifiable. “As part of the Third Branch of government, the Ninth Circuit is fully aware of its responsibilities as a steward of public funds,” she said.

        Read more:

    • I think watching California over the next few months will be instructive. It seems to be the “Greece” of the States. Governor Moonbeam has his work cut out for himself.

      The young’uns won’t get the moonbeam reference but the older ones should.

      • Great point SK! I have been thinking Obama and everybody else is trying to juggle things until after the election. Greece is being propped up by unknown billions. California can expect rescue if the Dem’s hold power. Just hold on, hide the problems a little longer and then Obama can fix everything, once and for all. (like declaring a national emergency and taking over the economy)

  11. Good article CM, and a good collection of the evidence of what is and has been happening. Local focus is, I think, they key, tho I will still vote in the major elections. I will not, however, vote for an R or a D. I will not vote “against” anyone. If there is no one on the ballot I like, I will write one in. I strongly doubt I will ever see an R or D at the national level that I like. I think not voting is a vote for the status quo, tho not as strong a vote as a vote for either major party. Beyond a little looking around for the best guy on the ballot or a write-in option, there is only the lever pull itself that I take the time to do. The rest is either local political work or prep for the fall work (non-political stuff like stocking up, training, equiping, etc.)

    • You and are very close in our personal perspectives, but in this particular example I tend to disagree; voting at the Federal or State level is a waste and furthers the governments objectives. Although it may be different in your area a “write-in” at the State or Federal level in my neck of the woods results in a null vote. It does not get counted, therefore it is an exercise in futility. Now in some elections 90% of all “established parties” are listed, but since the lesser parties have limited funds, cannot spread their ideal equally as the R’s or D’s, and cannot get their candidate ellected, most people wind up voting for the lesser of two evils. This is especially true at the POTUS level. In my minds eye we did not have anyone worthy of a vote in the last ellection and since Romney is most likely the R’s candidate, we don’t have anyone worthy of a lever pull this ellection either.

      If I am faced with a choice of either having my hand smashed by a hammer or a shovel I don’t consider that a real choice, and would chose neither. Besides at the POTUS level ballots are cast for puppets.

      Of course it is you God given freedom to act as you chose and I support your decision to do so.


      • Indeed, as are you. 🙂

        A completely null vote is possibly of no use or at least little use and might be a waste of time. I do know that a few parties manage to get on the ballot that I like, the LP or the Constitution Party for example. I do not think a null vote is worse than a no vote, and might be better. Most people do vote for the lesser of two evils, that is what I am trying to avoid, and I do not see how not voting is superior to voting for a thrid party. I DO see how not voting is superior to a vote for the established parties.

  12. Is Common Man trying to tell us that the government is full of Cylons?

    • Matt;

      Don’t know off hand what a Cylon is? But if that word means manure or shit or do-do then yes.

      • Cylons are fictional robots controlled by a central intelligent robot. All working in concert to control the human race. (Battlestar Galactica)

        So, in that context, I suppose yes. The Government is full of Cylons. And people like George Soros would be the Central Intelligence.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Having spent most of my adult life working in and around Fed and State Govt I would have to say the Cylons are at least a majority.

      And they DO have a plan. Sometime they even slip up an tell you what it is.

      Those who are not Cylons generally go along because they think they are doing the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number in the Long Run.

  13. Charlie,
    To understand the evil of Socialism, you must review the longest experiment in Socialism in human history.

    It is a success story.
    It is a success because it accomplished its goal.

    …and it is America.

    On Indian reservations.

    They were invented to control adult warriors. They had as a goal to keep the native population in poverty and impotent.

    Did the system work? You bet it did.

    Has the experiment been a failure? On the contrary, it has been a success.

    When was the last time you heard of a successful Indian uprising?

    Are the people poor? The poorest in America.

    Are they on the dole? Of course.

    Last year, the U. S. Department of Agriculture allocated $21 million to provide subsidized electricity to residents on the reservations whose homes are the most distant from jobs and opportunities.

    This will keep them poor.

    Because by giving them something for free, the government locks the Indians on the reservation with all this “free stuff” that the would lose if they moved to where they could earn a good living.

    Indian Socialism means Indian impotence.

    The tribes are dependent. They will stay dependent. That was what the Socialist program was designed to achieve.

    That is what all Socialism achieves…. DEPENDENCY which always leads to poverty.

  14. charlieopera says:


    That is what all Socialism achieves…. DEPENDENCY which always leads to poverty.

    As opposed to capitalism, which leads to slavery (to wages). I won’t bother to list all the countries we raped under the guise of business (or the workers here left in the lurch).

    Six of one, half dozen of the other … I’ll take my chances with everyone pitching in for the greater good.

    • Doesn’t seem to be working out for ya Chaz, you & Obama want millions of non-workers and higher taxes just because it’s fair? Fair to who?

      During a normal period of recovery, the economy grows at a rate of more than 4%. This was the case during the Reagan recovery of the 1980s, the Clinton recovery of the 1990s (with a major assist on spending restraint from Newt Gingrich), and the Bush recovery of the mid-2000s. But ever since Obama took office, the economy has suffered. Under constant attack by a hostile administration, businesses have decided not to expand, or they have moved or expanded their operations overseas. The result is that 4.7 million fewer jobs have been created in the past three and a half years than would otherwise have been the case — almost enough to provide a job for every one of those who have dropped out of the labor market.

      Those 5.4 million include older workers who have lost their jobs and decided to apply for disability benefits or exhaust their 401(k) savings while waiting to file for Social Security at age 62. Many of those who retire early are now consigned to live out their lives in poverty. For this cohort, early retirement means that they will not enjoy the golden years they had planned, and many will outlive their savings entirely. And for this, they have President Obama to blame.

      Read more:

      • charlieopera says:

        Yes, and those austere measure are working ganbusters over in europe.


        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          UMM… precisely WHAT Austerity measures? No countries in Europe have actually TAKEN ANY REAL AUSTERITY MEASURES.

          You can call what they did “austerity measures” if you want, and then say that it failed – don’t worry, we are used to it. It won’t be any difference from you mis-defining capitalism and then claiming that it fails as well.

          But, to the real point, they didn’t TRY any austerity measures, so we have no way of knowing whether they would have succeeded or not.

        • Charlie,

          What austerity measures in Europe???

          There have been no cuts, no austerity, no where. All governments have spent more than ever in every country EXCEPT Iceland, who defaulted on all their debts.

          What is happening in Europe, therefore, has nothing to do with “austerity measures”.

          So give that fact, why do you think they are rioting?

        • Here ya go Charlie, just what Pete & Flag are saying but in a simple chart.

      • To be fair, LOI, Charlie is on the record clearly not liking Obama. Its like when liberals accuse many of us SUFA people of being Bush supporters just cause we oppose Obama. Lets not do the same thing. 🙂

        • But Jon, he is in denial on Europe’s austerity…..Or he just doesn’t know what the ‘ell he’s talking about. It feels like I’m Abbot trying to explain who’s on first to Costello.
          Europe has increased their spending while talking about the spending cuts they have made.
          The US has increased it’s spending by a trillion a year and the Dem’s argue against spending cuts.
          Isn’t it more accurate to say we need to stop the increased spending???
          The entire argument has been false framed by the left and the media.

          • Yes, and that is one of his most confusing contraditions.

            Charlie, how is it you can accept and even point out that the media is corporate and/or government controlled and full of crap, and yet believe it when they claim we are capitalist and we are deregulating industry and europe is taking austere measures to fix their financial crisis? It is bunk, and not hard to prove to be bunk. Hint: Corporations do NOT like capitalism, because capitalism would present the only real threats to them: Competition and actual worker unions. The current unions can be bought. The government has always been able to be bought. But a competitor and a group of workers you seek to exploit are not such easy targets for business. So, they use the government and the media to keep the workers in line and the competitors out of the way.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Here Charlie is tacitly admitting that purposely keeping the Indians impoverished slaves to the government is preferable to having them be slaves to wages. You see, in his world, keeping them impoverished slaves to the government represents the greater good, whereas having them work for a living equates, in his world, to REAL SLAVERY.

      • charlieopera says:

        Peter, don’t be sore because you lost Peyton and will go 2-14 next season.

        Actually, keeping them slaves for wages is what you prefer. I prefer they overthrow the government, but not for your sake, my brother.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          What you fail to understand is the CONSEQUENCES of what would happen if they succeeded in overthrowing the government! You somehow think everything would suddenly be wine and roses for all of the “oppressed workers of the world”. Yeah, they tried that in 1917 in Russia… worked out REALLY well.

          Insanity – trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results – Einstein

    • Charlie

      As usual, you take two, opposite, concepts to be the same – confusing yourself.

      Having to earn your own keep is not slavery.

      Your earnings forceably taken from you to give to another who did not earn is slavery.

      You want to fix a problem of a lack of ability, capital, effort of some people in their ability to earn by creating slavery on others.

      You have no real solution to a person’s lack of ability, other than theft.
      You have no real solution to a person’s lack of capital, other than theft.
      You have no real solution to a person’s lace of effort, other than theft.

      The free market system is the only real, proven, solution – let each man keep his own earning and spend those earnings as he sees fit.

      You do not like this system as it rewards ability, capital and effort – and it punishes inability, poverty and sloth.
      For some reason you want to reward incapacity, poverty, and sloth because you believe those suffering these conditions do not deserve it.
      But whether or not someone “deserves” something or not does not justify theft or rewarding factors which undermine social order

      That is the problem with your position – if society achieves your goal, it destroys civilization.

      You do not understand that everyone must earn their own way, regardless of their initial start-point in their own life.

      The Universe does not make anyone the same as anyone else. You hate this, thus want to change the way the Universe works by forcing another concept upon the people.

      But you will always lose against the Universe.

    • Charlie,

      Further, this is where you lose yourself.

      You start arguing about wealth and earnings and you argue that you want to improve the lot of the poor and disenfranchised.

      You present an economic theory of Socialism as a solution to solve poverty and disenfranchisement.

      You are presented fact regarding your economic theories and its consequence always leads to destroying wealth and creating massive poverty – the precise opposite of your goal.

      When faced with your total contradiction, you retreat into mindless rhetoric about politics … avoiding the economic fallacy of your own position … believing in magic that -somehow- your bizarre economic theories will be corrected by some sort of political vision.

      You are disgusted that your economics cannot solve the problem you posit for yourself.

      But instead of correcting your economics so to solve the problem -not to perfection, but to the best humanly possible – you believe in a political-God that must exist so to provide such perfection.

      Yet, this cannot come from God, but from the hands of man.

      But the hands of man has already provided the best humanly possible system – free market.

      But you have denied this, demanding God-perfection.

      And loop-de-loop, you drive yourself into irrational incoherence.

      • charlieopera says:

        You are presented fact regarding your economic theories and its consequence always leads to destroying wealth and creating massive poverty – the precise opposite of your goal.

        They are facts in your mind, BF (as usual).

        FACT: Capitalism has turned the United States into a third world country (for the middle and lower classes).

        • Just A Citizen says:


          BULL SHIT.

          • charlieopera says:



            • charlieopera says:

              No wait. This is better: That’s the fact, Jac!

              • I have to agree with JAC. BULL DOOKEY.

                The fact is that the middle and lower classes in this country live better than any other Nation in the WORLD. That Third World malarkey is all in your head. I am IN the Lower Poor Class. But we have enough to eat, better than any Third Worlders. We have a roof over our head and a car to drive. And plenty of charitable organizations to help IF we need them.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie fails again – can’t define capitalism correctly, and then blames our current problems on it… as usual…


          • charlieopera says:

            Peter, I think you’d do well in bill maher’s “in the bubble” segment. It has to do with FACTS some people can’t accept.


            • If they put me on Bill Maher’s show, the first thing they would have to do is pry my hands off of his throat. If I hadn’t already ripped it out.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Charlie, persisting in using the incorrect definition of a term, and then insisting your information is FACTUAL based upon the term which has been purposefully incorrectly defined is delusional, just as is Bill Maher (because he constantly does just that).

        • Charlie,

          FACT: Capitalism has turned the United States into a third world country (for the middle and lower classes).

          That is a total fabrication and lie.

          Capitalism has turned abject poverty of whole masses of people into riches.

          The average poor person in America is richer then King Henry VIII – and he owned 75% of all the wealth in England in his time.

          Your claim is so bizarre, irrational and outlandish, it is only with a great deal of fortitude I’d considered conversing with you.

          I continue because I know you are confused.

          You are confused between mercantilism and capitalism.

          Sadly, no matter how much myself and others try to teach you the difference, you refuse to learn – because you know it undermines your imbecilic economic rational on which rides so much of your equally imbecilic political theory. You are afraid of reason.

          It is so unfortunate, because its utterly wastes your otherwise accurate insights.

          • charlieopera says:

            Why, BF, I believe you’re calling me an imbecile.

            I won’t take the bait, even though I’m getting the hint you’re a bit more arrogant than usual today, but that’s okay.

            Capitalism HAS INDEED turned the U.S. into a third word country. You probably can’t notice it from where you’re sitting, but you will sooner or later … so try not and act too surprised.

            • No, no, Charlie.

              YOU are no imbecile.

              YOUR ECONOMIC theory is imbecilic. Your economics is so bad it is beyond wrong.

              The problem is your political theory rests on that imbecilic economic theory – so that if your economics is that wrong and bad, your political theory is even worse – and -as I’ve said many times – should it become dominate, it would destroy civilization. Now that is bad stuff!

              But the frustration of mine is that you are a hellva insightful guy. It is just that you put that insight on some really bad concepts, which leads you so wrong you’re not even getting away where walking backwards – you’re digging holes in the ocean with a shovel handle and working hard at it as if you had a blade on that handle and you were digging in dirt.

              • charlieopera says:

                BF, do you EVER wonder if you could be wrong? Maybe it’s your theory that is imbecilic. I mean, not for nothing, but the world seems to be tilting the other way.

                @Kathy: You’re always good for a laugh.

                @Gman: Who loves you, brother?

              • Charlie,

                BF, do you EVER wonder if you could be wrong? Maybe it’s your theory that is imbecilic. I mean, not for nothing, but the world seems to be tilting the other way.

                The only way I could be wrong on this particular matter if:

                (1) Reasoning cannot be discerned in this Universe.
                (2) Cause and Effect works backwards, that is, effect first, then cause.

                I do not believe (1) or (2) exist as necessary cases. Therefore, I cannot be wrong.

                And as I have said before, your insight is spot on. Yes, the world IS getting worse – and there is a reason.

                As the hole gets deeper and more desperate, the realization of the cost and pain that will be delivered also gets worse. If the pain was so feared before, daily that fear grows with the realization it will be delivered.

                Thus, there is an equal increase in avoidance of the eventuality….which only will make the situation worse when it comes.

                So debt is increased, turmoil increases — all due to trying to avoid the turmoil of debt!

                But – one day soon – it comes to a head and *pop*.
                There will be no 24 hr. warning. It will be breaking news. And then, instantly the world as you knew it changes.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Charlie, Charlie, Charlie,

              We have been over this again and again and again, but alas it is like talking to a wall. Your definition of capitalism is incorrect, yet you cling to it like Linus to a Security Blanket. Unless we can agree upon the definition of WHAT CAPITALISM ACTUALLY IS, then it is seriously impossible to discuss it with you.

              You are basically insisting that when you drop a rock it falls UP, and then telling the rest of us that we are incorrect when we attempt to explain to you the law of gravity.

            • Kristian says:


              I make less that 45 k a year, so I think that pretty much qualifies me to speak to this, you my friend are NUTS!!! I have food on my table and clothes on my back, shoes on my feet and a few to spare (too many shoes actually) I have a nice truck and a good job that I’ve been at for a few years. I guess you could say that I’m at or below the poverty level. I know I don’t qaulify for middle class status. My point being this, I’ve seen the commercials on tv and read the articles on third world countries where the people live on a dollar a day or less. That my friend is not the US and you know it. I think you’ve been listening to too many Beatles songs and eating too much cannoli.

              • I’m pretty sure 45k is solidly middle class.


                Adding, what’s wrong with the Beatles?! They’re the greatest band of the 20th century, followed distantly by CCR and the Stones. If he’s been listening to too much Lennon, it’s because he’s listening to Vladimir Ilyich Lennon instead of John Lennon.

              • Kristian,

                You can never, ever, have too many shoes! Please take those nasty words back!

              • 🙄

            • Well since I attended the Joe Walsh concert last weekend his musics been on my mind Charlie, I believe this song fits you perfectly my man!…

          • charlieopera says:

            it is only with a great deal of fortitude I’d considered conversing with you.

            Please, BF (with all due respect), feel free not to converse with me. You’re kind of like a broken record after a while.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              A broken record does not play a tune consistently or skips over important parts of the tune. An unbroken record plays with the exact same content and quality over and over and over again. I think BF is more like an unbroken record for the most part.

        • The country is turning into a third world one, yes, but it is not capitalism. The fact is, we have more regulation and corporate power than ever. Hint for Charlie: Corporations cannot exist in a capitalist system. Corporations are a government construct and are a throwback to mercantilism. Markets are currently heavily manipulated and controlled by a combination of government force and manipulation by large corporations. I do not understand why you continue to claim that we are a capitalist country. The media calls it this, but you are as aware as anyone here how the media lies.

    • For god’s sake Charlie, if you are against collecting wages and consider it slavery, then get off your ass and be your own boss. Completely, totally, be dependent only on yourself. Be master and slave. Until then, knock off the slave crap. It’s your choice to do what you do.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Kathy, Deep down Charlie thinks he’s black and lives in the late 1700’s. He’s also an Indian from the North Dakota who’s tribe was also wiped out by US troops even earlier than that. Not that this has anything to do with things today, it is best to humor him, he may be mentally challenged and it would not be politically correct to give him a bad time. So, if Kunta Kinta, or Black Half Moon, or Charlie says something, don’t be critical, it’s just not FAIR 😆

      • Yes, please start your own business Charlie, then maybe you will understand what the rest of us are talking about.

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Please read this, it is very good in my opinion.

    • Just A Citizen says:



      I have a new favorite poem, from your cited article:

      By Peter A Barton
      Huntly Clermont Qld

      There’s a blight upon the country that’s really quite degrading
      Invented by the bureaucrats to stop their jobs from fading
      A nasty imposition that now has been put in force
      It’s become an obligation to attend a two day course.

      There are courses by the hundred to improve your education
      It’s now become essential that you get accreditation
      You will need that piece of paper or you’ll really be in strife
      Although what you’ll be learning you’ve been doing all your life.

      In the drought of ’69 I cut scrub from dawn to dark
      And fence posts by the thousands I have hewn from ironbark
      Now it’s hard for me to fathom that I could break the law
      If I dare to start the motor of my trusty old chainsaw.

      Take chemical application, that’s something I know best
      By now I must have sprayed every single living pest
      From cattle ticks to buffalo fly, from burrs to rubber vine
      Now a course must be attended or I’ll risk a whopping fine

      Just ask those who know me if I know how to use a gun!
      From every sort of weapon I’ve shot bullets by the ton.
      Though I’ve been proficient since I reached the age of ten
      It seems that this is something that I have to learn again.

      I’ve studied on computers, learnt how to market crops
      Benchmarking and QA, I’ve been to those workshops.
      Breedplan is something I now understand in full
      It took two days to learn how to scrotum test a bull.

      My stock are getting poorer from general lack of care
      And all my bores and fences are in sad need of repair.
      You might think me lazy but that simply isn’t true
      I’d go to work tomrrow but there’s another course to do.

      The bank would like to see me for the funds are getting low
      And I’d like to get the time to plant the crops I need to grow.
      My wife and kids all miss me ’cause I’m hardly ever there
      I’d love to stay at home but there’s this course in Cattlecare.

      If I continue in this vain I’ll surely end up broke.
      All these accreditations are really just a joke.
      I’d rather wrestle with scrub bulls or ride on bucking horses
      Than be subjected to all these two day f*****g courses!!

    • Great Article.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    I have said it before and apparently I must say it again.

    There are millions of people in this country. They all have different levels of interest and a variety of experience and skills.

    There are more than enough to tackle ALL levels of the Govt problem.

    But what is needed is a clear understanding of the long term Goals and the short to medium term objectives and tactics.

    Almost 4 yrs ago I stated my desire for the “tea party” to remain active but underground. It has now gone underground so to speak. A little late for my desire but it is now working hard to keep upsetting the apple cart.

    Meanwhile those same people are affecting local and state elections in major ways thought impossible.

    There will be wins and losses. But only through persistence will there be Victory.

    Turning the ENTIRE ship of state around is NOT impossible. It is however, a daunting and long term proposition.

    But in the meantime it is necessary to wage a rear guard or delay action. Thus the “obstructionists” elected to Congress serve a CRITICAL need. They allow us time to achieve the necessary objectives. Education is in fact one of these. But it goes beyond the kids.

    Speak out and keep speaking out. But make sure what you say is grounded in reason and not filled with contradictions. Use FACTS as we know them and then put them to your friends in “common sense” terms. Like “how do you propose we pay off 60 trillion in debt over the next 40 years?”

    There is a great benefit in working at the local level. After all, local eventually becomes State which becomes Federal. But this overlooks the need for an entire new paradigm for Govt. It also ignores the short term risks and the role the State and Federal will play.

    For example, when they turn off the water and power who can turn it back on? The local town mayor or the Governor?

    One more thought to share. CM, and others, when you fail to get a person to change their mind does not mean you have not affected their thinking. You might find that same person standing with you a year from now because of your discussion today. The same holds for efforts in politics. Just because you didn’t get your “guy” into office doesn’t mean the effort did not affect the outcome today or tomorrow.

    Sometimes all the hand ringing sounds like a team who wants to throw in the towel just because they got behind in the third quarter. The game aint’ over until the gun goes off.

    • JAC;

      Hope you are well my friend. Was just down on the White River the week before last and spent several great days fishing for those hard fighting Booger Browns. Biggest one this year was close to 28 inches and about 7 pounds. You need to go some day.

      I don’t believe I promoted “throwing in the towel”, at least not from a local perspective. I no longer believe I, or those like me, have any effect on ellecting the POTUS; it is a staged agenda. I do strongly believe we can have a vast amount of influence at the local level, which is paramount in establishing sound principles and standards.

      And, I agree entirely that even though you don’t always change a person’s mind it doesn’t mean you don’t positively affect their reasoning, which can effect a positive result in the future.

      The Colonel mentioned the idea about not allowing the local government to spend more than was budgeted, which is sound and stable principle for controling a government that is now controling us, or working to do so. I would suggest taking that (at the local level) one step further and first questioning how the budget is allocated to ensure the monies are being spent righteously. This process will have a much more beneficial effect on our day-to-day lives than trying to get the elephant to stop tap dancing.

      BF also mentions that we need to regain control of the School Board to better ensure our children are taught what is important to further the effort of liberty and individual freedom. I second that idea, especially since the youth is a critical force down the road.

      From my own experience once we get past the level of your local congressmen or representative the evil machine eliminates your influence simply because at that level and beyond they need to play the game of find themselves out of it.


      • You might note Common that D13 also pointed out that the reason they could do what they did at the local level-was because it was the law at the State level-and reading the constitution it seems that it is the State that has the power to fight the federal.

        • Thats a good observation. Local power is dwindling. Tho I do agree that having the right people in place will be key when the house of cards falls.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You sir have managed to push my “jealous” button. I promise to get down to the White one day soon. Perhaps at a time you and the clan are there.

        I have to run for now so I will try and respond to the rest later. Just keep this in mind. While our efforts on POTUS may not have an affect today, the efforts could have a distinct impact in the future. The “establishment” is not very comfortable right now. A misstep or two and they could find themselves among the dinosaurs.

    • JAC, your comments are close to what I was trying to say above before I got jumped on by our resident expert in all such matters. I made no comment on politics at the local level above. They are important and the training ground for new individuals at the upper level. What I did say was that I am somewhat encouraged by the Republican debates of this spring in that the ideas and solutions offered were novel and previously unheard of. If this trend continues, there may be so hope of reducing the size and reach of the federal government. A lot of seeds were planted that may eventually grow. If it wasn’t for the need to attend to my wife’s physical needs, I would be actively attending their meetings.

      I do monitor the local newspaper (not the local city paper) and do comment on letters and articles. So I am trying to influence things at the local level as well. The state level is far more frustrating since this is CA.

      • We have several here trying to change things at the local level. Tea Party people. REAL Conservatives who are willing to fight to change things at the local level first. We will get to the State level later. Right now we have to fix this County. As you can read from my post above, our School Board SUCKS. Our City government SUCKS. And our County Government, ALSO SUCKS! 🙂

  17. Hijack

    I wouldn’t have thought so, but I have to conclude that the Arizona attorney who is petitioning Hawaii for the President’s birth certificate is *gasp* getting a bad rap from the *shudder* liberal media.

    He’s being played up as a rabid birther out to keep Obama off the ballot and, upon further review, it seems to me that he’s no such thing.

    On behalf of the Liberal elite, I hereby apologize to what’s-his-name.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Thank You for that.

      It has been driving me crazy watching the attack on this guy, just because he is from Arizona (my belief anyway).

      Every Sec of State is responsible for ASSURING eligibility. If there are questions raised about validity of documents then it is incumbent upon them to go to the source for clarity.

      Hawaii should not have stonewalled this. They are just being piss ants when it comes to a fellow Govt Official at this level.

      • I understand what’s going on with Hawaii.. they’ve been inundated from every corner and now they’re getting annoyed that every little pissant prosecutor and AG feels the need and right to be personally independently assured of the legitimacy of the President’s birth certificate. I get it. They’re just have a little bit of sport. Not that it makes it right, but it is understandable. To be fair, I do the same thing at work when someone annoys me enough (then again, I don’t work for the government and I have the luxury of being the client in my business relationships). Moving on..

        Now, that said, the thing that really turned me around on this was this last paragraph to an apparently rabid birther:

        I can tell from the tone and language of your letters that the only acceptable outcome for you is that his name not be on the ballot, period. That may be what happens, but under my watch, it won’t happen based on opinions, petitions, probability or pledges to support or oppose me in the 2014 Governor’s race. My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of our State and country, and I’m going to do that by following the law. I look forward to continuing to work this issue under those parameters. Otherwise, I will respectfully agree to disagree.

        HUZZAH for this guy!

        And, especially since he’s writing it to people he’s being portrayed as aligned with. It would be one thing if he said that to the press as a form of PR – I might discount it more. But he said this in a private email. I suppose it’s possible he wrote this because he knew it would get out.. but I think he earned the benefit of the doubt here.

        Now, for the hundred million dollar question: Who cares where he was born?

        His mother was born in Kansas. Last I checked, the children of citizens are automatic citizens regardless of location of birth. Yup, here it is:

        If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
        the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present”[7] in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and

        US law does not permit expatriation of minors. And there’s nothing to even remotely suggest Obama renounced his citizenship after the age of 18. So how does it matter if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii or in the Andromeda galaxy?

        • So does this mean we can send him back?,,,,,I pick Andromeda. I am not a birther but I do wish to send him back…….

          • Give it some time. Andromeda is heading our way.. and it’s three times the size of our galaxy.

            The Milkey Way is toast.

            On the flip side, we’ve got roughly 3-5 billion years to prepare. Then again, our sun is set to burn out in 4.5 billion years and will be too hot to sustain life on Earth in 1.5 billion years.

            But, regardless, Obama is on his way to Andromeda.

        • Just to be thorough, here’s backup that you cannot renounce your child’s citizenship since a lot of people claim that Obama “lost his citizenship” while living in Indonesia:

          (see F)

          “loss” of citizenship isn’t something that just “happens” – it’s a formal process which involves an oath of renunciation, the presence of a US diplomat, the convincing of that diplomat that the child actually understands the consequences and wants to renounce. Since Obama lived in Jakarta from 6-10, it seems highly unlikely that he could have successfully done this. Is someone somewhere claiming that Obama walked into the consulate at age 10, sat down with a diplomat, explained the nature and consequences of renunciation, then took an the oath on it?

          Seems there’d be some paper trail on that, no?

          So, to reiterate, why does it matter where he was born?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Citizen is NOT equal to Natural Born Citizen. Only a “Natural Born” citizen is eligible to be President.

          And what has been questioned by supposed “experts” is the validity of the documents. So it was appropriate for the Sec of State to ask for validation. In fact, ALL 50 States should do the same for EVERY POTUS candidate. Which of course could be accomplished by the campaign producing a “certified” and “notorized w/stamp” copy of the Birth Certificate.

          • Define Natural Born Citizen? My understanding is that it’s not specifically defined, but has been interpreted to mean a citizen by birth.

            Do you have a different definition? (not being argumentative, just trying to figure out where this comes from)

            See, I understand objecting to “false” documents. I even understand (AND AGREE!) that every state should verify the eligibility of everyone it puts on a ballot. That’s fine. No complaint here.

            But my point is that, fake or not, it makes no difference. His mother was a citizen, therefore he is a citizen, by BIRTH. So, unless you (or they) have a different defintion of “natural born citizen,” this is all moot.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The term had a pretty distinct, but not singular, meaning in the days when it was penned.

              It was not defined within the document, just as many words were not, because while they figured future generations may want to change the powers I don’t think they believed they would just change the meaning of words. So this has allowed some to try and ignore the actual word and its historical meaning, in lieu of Congressional mandates on “citizenship”. Another lesson in how to make it say what you want.

              There are two general meanings used at that time, that I have seen. One was that a person born as a citizen AND who’s father was also a citizen, the other included either the mother or father being a citizen. And to complicate the matter, “citizen” meant having been born in the country or one of its territories.

              The reason that Natural Born was used was the concern over having the child of a foreign interest gain the Executive seat. In England the concern was that the son of a French man or other foreign interest would gain a seat in Govt and thus affect laws to favor the father’s country. Fathers were the concern because it was believed that women wouldn’t greatly influence their sons. Men after all, ruled the world 😉 .

              So the Natural Born criteria created a full generational separation from the “immigrant” to the offspring.

              If the strictest meaning were used then Mr. Obama would NOT be eligible as his FATHER was Kenyan and British. He would be a citizen, having an American mother, but NOT Natural Born.

              So the BIRTHER issues are actually a few different ones. Some are over his birth location, thinking Natural Born means he had to be born in the USA. But the English definition (Constitution times) included citizens born abroad whose “fathers” were serving the kingdom. So the birthers were not using the correct meaning either.

              Then some came along who understood and focused on the FATHER. But alas, there were some cases where the term was used in conjunction with either the Father or Mother. So in this case Mr. O would be legit, thanks to Mom.

              But in all of this the issue has been limited by the DNC and the media to the issue of just “citizenship”. Because they seem to want to avoid the Natural Born meaning it feeds the “conspiracy theory”. And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

              Now I have to give these purists credit. They have been hammering the “right wing” sites, such as Red State, pointing out that Marco Rubio would NOT be eligible for VEEP due to the same criteria. Father NOT BORN IN THE USA.

              So at least these “crazies” are showing some consistency. Much more than I can say for the “main streamers”.

              I will find Dr. Natelson’s work on this and put it up for you to look through. It is very interesting.

            • From what I have been reading it’s not whether he is a citizen or not. I think most agree that he is in fact a citizen. They’re trying to prove he’s a LIAR. He either lied about being born in Kenya or he lied about being born in Hawaii.

              Also read some time ago from an election official in Hawaii that it is a known fact that there is no Hawaiian birth certificate. This also plays into the “most transparent president” theme.

              • Yea, but I still think it is a waste of effort. Its like trying to dig up something stupid that Joe biden said in private 20 years ago to prove he says stupid things. Why bother digging, there are so many easy to prove, current examples. Just simple stuff like Obama claiming to have ties to the Selma march in a speech in Alabama can prove he is a liar and will say whatever to get votes.

              • I agree that at this point it’s pretty late to get into a court over it..but stuff like this…with the short attention span of certain groups of people…leave it on the table to keep reminding them why he shouldn’t be voted back in. But if he does get re elected…shoot me first… then proceed to the courtroom.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Mathius, It is all moot, Obama is the most pathetic president ever! He could be a Martian and it wouldn’t matter. He sucks, really bad. Carter was bad, but Obama is the true president from the nut farm! 🙂

              • I, obviously, don’t remember Carter’s Presidency. However, from the amount that conservatives seem to hate him, I bet I would have liked him a lot.

                Clinton was great, too. Bill, not Hillary.. she won’t be President until 2016.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But she may prove to be another great President too!

              • Well I remember Carter. And he was from GA remember. And we have been ashamed ever since. Up until Obama became President he WAS the worst President we have ever had. And I bet you wouldn’t have liked him either. Not only did he not know what he was doing, he was gutless.

                My Daddy was in Construction at the time and we lost everything we had. The Construction business just DIED!. Shoot, the whole blasted ECONOMY died. Interest rates were at 20+ percent. We went into the biggest recession since the end of WW2. It took Reagan 2 YEARS to put us on the road to recovery. Of course, he did it by CUTTING Government and spending, not increasing it by TRILLIONS.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “…he WAS the worst President we have ever had.” Wait, are we talking about Dubya?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And as far as Reagan is concerned…aren’t the Reagan years when we really started racking up the debt?? I thought I came across a chart not too long ago on this point…something to do with cutting taxes and increasing DOD funding…

      • JAC,

        Every Sec of State is responsible for ASSURING eligibility.

        While I agree with this, I just wanted to point out something. He isn’t checking on every candidate. He’s singled out just one. Unless I’m mistaken, he hasn’t written to Michigan to request verification for Mitt (R-Money).

        Your thoughts on this?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I agree, he should just ask to prevent the “appearance” of going along. But he did admit that his inquiry was caused by “significant” constituent “concern”. This concern included various issues over “authenticity”. So I think he did the right thing. If I were him I would be sending out similar requests for anyone petitioning to be on the POTUS ballot this year.

          If Hawaii hadn’t been such an ass it would never have even made the local news. I did like his play, however, that if Hawaii wanted to continue its behavior he would be forced to keep POTUS off the ballot. I am sure the left can use this to fan the TeaBagger flames but it was well played in my view.

          I also see that some lefty group is trying to drum up controversy and force him into checking Romney’s. This is BAD FORM in my opinion. If there is no controversy over the authenticity of the documents outside this silly group then it is a bad move on their part.

          Stupid should not beget stupid, just to get even. The regular Donks and Pachyderms provide enough of that each day.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Obama should just be impeached for treason. He is such a anti-American it discusts me.

            • While I’m not sure what “discusts” you about him most, but being “anti-American” (as if such a term had any real meaning) isn’t an impeachable offense, at least not since the days of McCarthy. Is there a specific act of treason you’d like to point to? Perhaps we sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union and you have evidence of this?

              Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them “anti-American” nor does it mean they’ve engaged in treason. It means you disagree with them. Let’s try to avoid appointing ourselves the arbiter of “American-ness,” shall we?

              • Fast and Furious? Concealing records? Suing Arizona over immigration? Fighting Texas over border control?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, can you be a bit more specific as to what the impeachable offense here is? Nothing that you mentioned is impeachable.

              • Honestly Buck, you are the lawyer and you can lawyerspeak me to I will concede the word ‘impeachable’. But let’s be fair..None of the things I mentioned are meant to prop up the red white and blue. Or am I missing something?

                More food for thought:

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Its not about lawyer speaking you to death….you are contending that Obama has committed some impeachable offense. That’s just not the case in my opinion. So I’d like you to be a bit more specific as to what Obama has done that is an impeachable offense.

              • From wiki…(since there doesn’t seem to be a consensus from the other dictionaries)

                In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

                I don’t see a problem with my examples. What I do see is you being obtuse ( 🙂 ) in admitting that all of my examples are relevant to the fact that Obama has his own agenda..that being ‘fundamentally transforming’ America.

                How about you explaining what the problem is with my examples? And the answer cannot be ‘because they are not impeachable offenses’ Prove it.

              • Fast and Furious? Started under Bush (in 2006?). Secondly, it’s an attempted sting operation. I’m not sure why or how you consider that sting operations aren’t allowable? Is it just because it went south (literally)? Do you contend that, in hindsight, Bush should have been impeached for this?

                Concealing records? Which records exactly? Oh, and here’s an interesting article.

                Suing Arizona over immigration? Since when is it a crime to sue someone? Let the courts decide – isn’t that what they’re there for?

                Fighting Texas over border control? Since when is it a crime for the feds to claim control over the border? If Texas doesn’t like it, they should sue. I assume they’ve done this and the courts have ruled. Why is this a crime exactly?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Impeachable requires “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Very vague, I’ll give you, and clearly (as proven with Clinton) it amounts to whatever a majority of the House considers it to be at any given point. But that shouldn’t be good enough!

                I don’t believe any of the above amounts to an impeachable offense:

                Fast and Furious = a sting operation gone awry
                Concealing documents = not sure what you’re talking about here – something other than normal claims of ‘executive privilege’?
                Battling AZ and TX over immigration and borders = a genuine issue of state sovereignty vs. federal question

              • I do not have any other words to describe how I think my examples are relevant.

                Calling for re-enforcements: JAC? Colonel? All hands on deck!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, per your own post: “…so I will concede the word ‘impeachable’.” You’ve already conceded that the cited examples are not impeachable offenses! 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Anita and all, Anyone can order a new long form birth certificate from their birth state. This document, will have a blue border (I would put up a pic, but can’t). per the Pa licesne bureau, all new certificates come with this blue border, and without it one cannot get a Pa drivers license. At this point in the game, considering the investigation down in Arizona, Obama has not proven he is even a legal US citizen. I will stand up and say that I doubt very much he is eligable to be President, thus an impeachable offense 🙂

              • HOOOOLD UP! I just saw your reply Buck. I only conceded ‘impeachable’ because I didn’t get to the good Prez Ford’s definition yet! So I retract my concession. How’s that for Anitaspeak? 🙂

          • If he had just provided the Birth Certificate when he was asked the first time back in 2007, there would never have been a controversy to begin with. He was asked a legitimate question about it then because there was some confusion. He started the Controversy by not just coming out with it to begin with. Making excuses and refusing to show it only made it worse. So he can blame no one but himself for the Birther Conspiracy.

            • McCain also refused to release his birth certificate… just saying..

              • But there was no Controversy about him. I’m not arguing whether or not he is a Natural born citizen. What I AM saying, is that, when the row started about it, had he provided it and not purposely held it back and refused to show it, there would have BEEN no controversy. HE made it look like he had something to hide. I think he did it knowing what it would cause.

                It certainly had the effect of making all the “Birthers” look like wackos to some. Especially to his worshippers!

              • I don’t entirely disagree with you…. but..

                But, he shouldn’t have to.

                It’s not about not needing to prove citizenship in order to run for President – that’s fine. I think he should.. But then, I think everyone should.

                But if everyone is not required to, he shouldn’t have to, just because some people are suspicious. Maybe because his name, maybe because of his father, maybe because the color of his skin, maybe (most likely) because they’re just shopping for any reason to keep him off the ballot. And don’t you doubt for one second that there were a lot of people in those first categories too. But, it doesn’t matter. Just because you have questions doesn’t give you the right to demand he authenticate himself in a way that no one else has ever been required to do. Why should he be subjected to a double standard?

                If I were Obama, I would find it very offensive that people considered my short-form birth certificate insufficient when it has been sufficient for EVERYONE else. I would wonder why my American-ness was being called into question unlike everyone else’s. And I would consider it offensive that extraordinary proof was demanded of me when I had spent my entire adult life in service to my country. And remember, McCain was born abroad, yet no one seemed to have a problem with that.

                Imagine you were a solider with a funny sounding name and one foreign parent. You spend your life defending and serving your country. Now, you’re up for a promotion to, let’s say, colonel, and all of a sudden you’re being hammered from every angle by people wanting to know if you’re really American? Well screw them. You show the birth certificate you have on hand. And they tell you that’s not good enough. But for everyone else, that’s been sufficient. How do you react? Do you tuck your tail between your legs, and go off in search of better evidence or tell them to go f**k themselves because you are an American, damnit, and you’ve supplied your proof already? Just try to put yourself in his shoes – would you be able to escape the feeling that you’re being questioned, at least in part, because of the color of your skin or your middle name, in addition to plain old partisan attacks? Would you be inclined to kowtow to that?

                That said, I absolutely would not discount the possibility that he wanted this to be an issue so that he could make his political opponents out to be foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.

              • Obama isn’t an ordinary citizen-he is the President of the United States-He has the right to be offended. He doesn’t have the right to act like an offended child. He should have been the Adult in this situation-and gotten and shown his actual stamped birth certificate. But he did not do that-he either cared more about his feelings or he cared more about using it as a talking point than stopping the problem. He was given a lot of power and he owes it to the people of this country to respond like a President not an offended man.

  18. If the Federal Government would open up ALL Federal lands to drilling and Oil and Natural Gas production, it would not only solve a lot of our financial needs (not all by any stretch), AND provide thousands of badly needed jobs in addition to making this Country energy independent.

    So I have to ask, once again, why is this not being done? Because of a Turtle? An Owl? An Aquifier? Do they have a REAL, COHERENT answer? I can see no real down side to this. Huge financial gain. Job creation. And not having to grovel to the Middle East or ANYONE ELSE for our energy needs.

    What is The Administration’s agenda? This can be realized in as little as ten years. The jobs realized almost immediately. There aren’t that many Environmental wackos out there to have to cow down to them. And Even they would be shouted down once the jobs started, and completely shut up once the energy began to be produced. Also, most of this is Natural Gas, a clean energy source. So how is THAT objectionable?

    This is a major sign that there is an Agenda to destroy this country. Because there is NO real reason not to do these things, only lame excuses.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      First, the Federal Government should explain precisely why there are such things as “Federal Lands” in the first place!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Choke, spit, cough……………….hack!!!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Can you elaborate on that JAC? I would assume that since you are generally not much of a Federalist, you probably aren’t in favor of so-called Federal Lands… but I could be wrong in that assumption.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was just reacting to the fact that nobody has asked that “root” question in a while. I forgot to add ROTFLMAO.

            I do support some Federal Lands. But that is because I am totally SELFISH. I like being able to wander across millions of acres without running into fences with “No Trespassing” signs on them. It is a FREEDOM thing unique to people like me, who were raised in the West with our “subsidized open space”.

            I see a day when those lands could be conveyed to the States, but I doubt the people will ever support them being “privatized” en mass.

            However, there are lands and facilities that could be disposed of now. Some transferred to the States and some sold for cash.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Don’t let selfishness get in the way of your core beliefs. You love the open lands of the West because they represent FREEDOM. Yet, they are not truly “open lands”, they are “Federal Lands”, which makes them CLOSED LANDS! As such, they NO LONGER REPRESENT FREEDOM!

              • What are you saying Peter-at the State level we cannot have any parks or protected lands for the whole to enjoy!

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                For example, I believe that the National Parks are wonderful places. However, I believe that such places could exist and be preserved without a government mandate to do so. Free people would band together to preserve such places, because such places are beautiful, and such places SHOULD represent freedom (although currently they do not truly do so).

                Take for example the contrast between Mount Rushmore and Crazy Horse Monument. Crazy Horse Monument has refused any and all government money, and yet the monument and the lands around it still exist, and they are even using some of the donated funds and entrance fees to build a medical school for the local tribes in the area in addition to building the monument itself. When I am in South Dakota, Crazy Horse seems to represent freedom a lot more than Mount Rushmore does, although I do admit that I LIKE Mount Rushmore… I just view it differently than I used to.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Nope, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think that GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED in order for such places to exist. We have a natural innate desire to have such places exist and to protect them. See my Crazy Horse post above.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Actually the idea of “closed” Fed lands is relatively new to us “westerners”. Especially the Rocky Mtn variety.

                Here is the irony, however. As the Feds increase their efforts to close off Fed lands to general public access, they erode the public support for not just those lands, but the Agencies that administer them. So it is that the Feds may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

                In fact I am looking at a brochure for a conference on transferring Fed Lands to a State Trust arrangement. This is the extension of the scheme my friends and I hatched many years ago, in that back room of a bar in a small rural Idaho town.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      You could open ALL Federal lands today and it would have little impact on oil or gas prices. Not unless you want to FORCE the companies to DRILL BABY DRILL and then FORCE them to PRODUCE and then FORCE them to sell all products here in the USA.

      • But not opening them up and drillling is not accomplishing ANYTHING JAC! We sure won’t have any of those things if we DON”T!

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I agree we need to develop the resources. I am just pointing out that the Republican Talking Point is not FACTUAL. At least in the short term.

          For example, there are leases currently where no drilling is occurring. Of course the Dems fail to explain the cumbersome process for getting drilling approved.

          BOTH SIDES are not telling the truth on energy development.

          And what bothers me even more is the increasing talk from supposed “conservatives” about keeping the energy at home, or taxing overseas sales to reimburse Americans. Direct royalty payments like in Alaska.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Opening all Federal Lands today might have “little” impact on oil and gas prices, but NOT opening them has NO IMPACT.

        Little impact is better than none.

        Also, your argument is a fallacy. Opening all Federal Lands today would have little IMMEDIATE impact on the price of oil and gas, but the LONG-TERM impact would be HUGE!

        Just because the major impact happens in 10 years, and not immediately, that does not mean that there is NO IMPACT.

        10 years from now, we could be completely energy independent, but far too many people use your exact argument to ensure that that will never happen.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Also JAC, keep in mind that if you increase the supply of a commodity, the price of that commodity will FALL, regardless of whether that commodity is sold in its country of origin or somewhere else in the world.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Yes, I missed adding long term to the price affect. I thought using “today” in the sentence was enough but it is not technically accurate.

          However, I am not so sure the future impact would be that HUGE without the force I mentioned. It is a GLOBAL market.

          So if the world continues to increase demand, then we can expect prices to continue to climb.

          So in reality, the large affect will be that we may pay “higher” prices that would be “lower” than they would have otherwise been without increased access. And of course that assumes all other things remain equal.

          Boy, that sure sounds like the current POTUS explanation of how he saved the economy.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            There is a problem with your logic. The US Geological Survey states that the US ACTUALLY HAS about 3x the oil reserves of the middle-east, but they are largely untapped, but could be tapped economically with the latest technologies (ones that already exist). Also, as economies around the world mature, they tend to become more efficient although they also demand more energy. Your premise seems to be that demand will outstrip supply no matter what we do, so prices will rise. I disagree. Technologies such as Thorium Reactors, abundant, cheap natural gas (have you checked that natural gas price recently????? If not you should), and other factors will limit the demand for oil, while the supply can be increased immensely. This is precisely what is happening with Natural Gas. So much Natural Gas has been discovered, and the technology is now available to extract it safely and efficiently, and compared to 5 or 10 years ago, the price has dropped like a rock.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              There is nothing wrong with my logic. I said all other things remaining equal. Obviously, discovery of some large oil reserve would change the global market conditions. IF IT WERE DEVELOPED.

              What everyone is missing here is that opening fed lands to drilling does not mean that drilling or production will increase. That is up to the companies who are awarded the leases.

              That is the first fallacy in the argument that drilling WILL ABSOLUTELY reduce price. First the drilling has to occur. Then the production.

              Next up comes the barrier of refining. You can’t push 100 gallons/minute through a 50 gallon/minute nozzle.

              There is a whole lot more to this than just “opening federal lands to drilling”. Gingrich was an idiot for claiming he would get prices down in a year. Not possible under our current situation without using FORCE to make the companies drill and produce. But then whamo…….back up against the refining problem.

              I would also be cautious of using USGS data as an indicator of “economical” supplies.

              • Peter, JAC

                Remember, there is lots and lots and lots and lots of oil, everywhere.

                This is not the issue.

                The issue is:
                …at what price

                Shale oil -lots of it- but it costs a lot to get it – probably right now too expensive.

                Same with the oil sands – so much oil it could provide the entire world’s supply for decades on its own – but costs +$50/barrel to get it.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                EXACTLY. That was part of my point.

                And of course the fact that permits do not force actual production.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Let me add this. Without altering the Govt strangle hold on the oil industry, the monopoly influence enforced by Govt, drilling more will not have a substantial affect on price.

                For that to happen you need COMPETITION.

              • Natural gas prices are down domestically because the domestic supply is up and gas is very difficult to ship off the continent. Hence it is priced in the local market rather than by the world market. The advantage resulting from this is that industries that are heavy users of NG now find it economical to expand in the US. There are now 6 new ethylene steam crackers on the drawing boards. This from an industry that was declining domestically for the last twenty years. It is now economically viable to make ethylene here and its derivative plastics and export them to other countries. This is a healthy improvement to our economy and a good example of how domestically produced low cost energy along with our high productivity and innovative nature can offset low labor rates in other countries.

                Drilling for oil or gas requires the equipment. For decades the number of domestic drilling rigs declined. That trend too has reversed although we are still less than 50% of the previous peak back in the ’80s. One thing has happened and is happening. The new rigs are faster and more efficient. I am now seeing demands to increase the speed of analytical measurements on rigs from 1-5 minutes to 1-5 sec.

                When Bush proposed drilling in the early 2000’s, it was pooh-poohed by the usual crowd by saying that the oil would not be available for 10 years. While this is largely true, one can argue that a trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Failure to take that step ensures failure to complete the trip. We just wasted the last decade while enriching the Middle East potentates and impoverishing ourselves.

                Yes any oil we produce, since it is easily transported, will be priced at the world market. Demand is increasing in Asia so world wide demand will increase for some time. Domestically, demand will increase proportional to our economy but lessened by any conservation measurements or inroads from alternate forms of energy be they wind, solar, biofuels, coal, or nuclear. Oil will remain the primary fuel for transportation for the next couple of decades at least. NG may make inroads into this in bus and truck fleets.

                As to refining, yes we need more refineries to convert crude to useful product. Crude, as it comes out of the ground is useless.
                Due to the recession and reduced domestic utilization, our exports of refined product have increased. The calls for export duties on petroleum products I believe are blocked by the Constitution. If memory serves me well, the Constitution permits import duties but explicitly forbids export duties. The government can block exports but they cannot tax them. They can tax or demand royalty payments as the oil is pumped out of the ground especially if it is coming from federal lands.

                BF and I went through these arguments a couple of years ago. It is reassuring to see my position becoming reality. We can wean ourselves off of ME oil and thus pull back from that problem area and let other fight over it while simultaneously improving e our national economy.

          • JAC, in my post way up there somewhere, I did say this would take “as little as ten years”. 🙂 I know there would be no short trm effect. But there is also no short erm solution with “Green” energy. Mostly because the technology is not ready for primetime yet. This little inconvenient fact is glossed over by the Greenies every time they start gushing about it.

            So we could either have plenty of energy sources to draw on within 10 years, OR, in Ten years we can still have another President putting it off by saying there is no quick fix for the problem just like the current President does now. And like the other President 10 years ago said. And the one ten years before that.

            Starting to see where I’m coming from? 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:


              As I said before, I agree with opening things up.

              I am just pointing out that the arguments supporting this that are posed by the Elephants are not necessarily true.

              More supply is good. It will come at ever increasing cost, however. Some day the cost of hydrocarbons will be high enough that other sources become “feasible”.

              Only a FREE MARKET can allocate the use of each type to MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY and thus our PRODUCTIVITY.

              Our national policy should be to maximize the btu output (work) at the lowest input cost possible.

              • I’m not arguing for the Republicans to begin with. I am arguing for increased production and decreased dependence on foriegn sources for the obvious reasons. Every time someone farts too loud in the ME, prices go up. And we should not HAVE to depend on the ME. Green energy will be a good thing. When it becomes economically feasible. That time is not yet. And won’t be for some time.

          • That’s because it’s fiddle-faddle and rot.

            Opening all restrictions on domestic oil production and permitting only domestic oil drilling in US waters would not have an immediate effect on supply. It would, however, have an immediate effect on futures. Futures have a major effect on gas prices. Just because Obama mentioned speculators as part of the problem with prices does not make it untrue, the opening of lands, infrastructure, refineries, etc. would have a huge impact on futures prices, which would effect the price at the pump in very short order.

            The effect on the world market, at least when things started coming online, would also be notable. A major supplier from a relatively stable country would attract a great many buyers, even if at a premium. This would create a response of dropping prices from OPEC and other suppliers so as not to lose their revenue, and presto, the worldwide market price drops.

            The effect here, even tho the world market would clammor for our oil, would still be an increase in domestic oil use, since the absence of shipping costs and the general sentiments of “buy American” would create at least some increase in use of our own oil. This would further depress world market prices since the biggest buyer would be buying less.

            The effect on jobs would be immediate, helping with our current economic situation. The effect on the trade deficit would not kick in till production came online and we began selling overseas, but that, too, would assist with economic stability. The additional revenue would even assist in propping the dollar up, further helping the cost of buying oil from overseas as the dollar would not continue falling (note, positive effects on the dollar could be easily outpaced by negative effects of continued deficit spending).

            The world market would still keep the prices higher than natural gas, so the current trends to convert to NG would continue, further decreasing our demand for oil. That also effects the world market price, and could offset the increases coming from Asia when combined with the additions of our supply.

            Supply and demand is infallible. Increasing supply will drop prices. Dropping prices will increase demand, yes, but never to the extent that prices would go up because of an increase in supply. The expansion of demand in the face of dropping prices prevents major moves in prices, but it does not prevent moves from happening at all. If, in the end, prices never fell, it would be because of increasing demand or other factors that would have happened anyway, and would have increased prices more than if we brought our increased supply online. There is absolutely no reason to continue restriction of oil production, and plenty of reasons to open it up. The “Republican talking point” is generally correct, tho it should be better explained.

            • Jon,

              I think you are missing the point.

              There is no supply problem with oil. There is so much oil that we are awash in it. There is a huge amount of oil sitting in tanks all over the US waiting to be refined.

              The issue is that people do not understand that producing oil has a cost. Delivery has a cost. Refining has a cost.

              Drilling for oil in the US will NOT lower fundamental cost of production. IF it costs $50/bll. to produce, finding 1 million more barrels will not lower that cost.

              The difference between ME oil and indigenous oil is NOT the cost of the oil – it is the assurance of delivery.

              • BF…what if the “Dollar Store” of oil refining came on the scene..or the “Walmart” of oil refining…Your the guy who always says you can put what ever price you want to something. We know that billions are made in oil profits. So what’s to say that “Dollar Store Oil” can’t bring the price down?

              • Anita,

                Oil PRODUCTION costs are very unlikely to go down – all the “easy” oil, you know the stuff that just bubbled to the top of the ground like “Beverly Hillbillies” stuff is gone.

                Now we have to go and mine it out of sand – why does this cost so much?
                Hint: think “sand paper” and what millions of tons of it does to machines … the 10 ton shovels that mine the oil sand needs its shovel teeth replaced every 6 hours, and sheds the weight of two cars daily from running it through the sand….

                Now we have to go out in the middle of the wild and woolly North Sea to drill for it – or in the middle of the Arctic etc. etc.

                There is no shortage of oil – the amount of “easy” stuff to the total oil was 1/1000 …. now, we are getting into the 999/1000 that is harder to get…

                Refining is another issue – the econut movement has essentially prevented the building of new refineries and these guys are not built overnight. This is the #1 reason gas costs so much.

                You cannot solve problem #1 – production costs; this will always go up.
                But #2 problem can be solved; end the econut tyranny.

              • Good enough answer for me, thanks.

              • ME presents a “supply problem” in terms of dependability and they are able to dictate price at least to a certain point. My understanding is that ANWR and some of the offshore areas are still in the category of “easy oil”, tho not the level of easy that is the texas wells or the Beverly Hillbillies stuff. ANWR is far and transport would be an issue, but it is not oil sands or oil shale. The offshore stuff is worth getting or we would not be selling leases to other countries to drill where we have restricted it. It would represent a cheaper total cost than ME oil, or at least put downward pressure on OPEC. More importantly, it would reduce the volatility of the market because squabbles and saber rattling in the OPEC regions would not have such dramatic effects.

                Still, I know it is more an issue of refining than oil supply, but that is as much a problem of legal blockades as the restrictions on drilling in certain places. Drilling might not fix the problem, but removing legal blockades on oil production, which would include refining and piping, would have a small immediate effect and a significant longer term effect.

              • Jon,

                It would represent a cheaper total cost than ME oil, or at least put downward pressure on OPEC.

                Hmmm…. you need some figures for you to understand the problem with your argument.

                Saudi oil costs $5/barrel from ground to refinery.
                Oil sands costs $45/barrel from ground to refinery.
                North Sea oil costs $35/barrel from ground to refinery.
                ANWAR oil costs $20/barrel from ground to refinery (for the easy stuff) and $40/barrel for the hard stuff.

                ANWAR is NOT cheaper by a long shot.
                It is more RELIABLE by a long shot.

                Opening ANWAR would not lower the price of anything – it is competing on price ($20) vs Saudi ($5).

                If you are competing with Walmart for its clothes customers, and you open a Madonna store, which sells a T-shirt for $45 – do you think you will get many Walmart shoppers? Will you drive down the price of clothes of Walmart? … Answer: No and No.

                But if the threat that Walmart may close may make you opening a Madonna store a good idea.

              • I did not realize the numbers were that high for ANWR. Still, I would expect some reflection in the market price of a barrel of oil because of the drastic effects of dependability on futures. Is that effect still operating below the $20 cost of ground to refinery?

                I do see where even some effect would really not be noticeable at the pump without more refineries, and potentially, new refineries could drop the transport costs if they are built in the right areas.

              • Jon

                Still, I would expect some reflection in the market price of a barrel of oil because of the drastic effects of dependability on futures. Is that effect still operating below the $20 cost of ground to refinery?

                No, however, your point is correct.

                The difference between the production costs and the $100/bar. price is mostly made up of the cost of “uncertainty” of supply and demand.

                China is expected to demand more – price goes up.
                Iran is embargo’d – price goes up.
                Iran war is threatened – price goes up, then relieved, price goes down, then threatened, price goes up….
                Japan shutdown all its nukes, and spun up all its coal/gas/oil turbines – price goes up.

                Europe falling into recession -price goes down.
                US in a recession – price goes down.
                China going into a recession – price goes down.

                If the world was more steady a place, I’d expect the price to fall to 55-60/bar.

                I do not expect that price to happen soon.

                I do see where even some effect would really not be noticeable at the pump without more refineries, and potentially, new refineries could drop the transport costs if they are built in the right areas.

                This is the huge bottleneck.

                Diesel fuel, by the new government law, has a new additive – which only 4 refineries in North America can produce.
                The permits to refit other refineries have been all bottled up by the econuts. Thus, diesel – traditionally 1/3 price of gas is now more expensive.

                etc. etc.

  19. @ BF… has been a year now…’s the arm?

    • D13,

      Thanks for asking!

      Once in a while it reminds me of the wound – but generally its “ok” … 90% mobility, which is all that was expected.
      The end of my baseball career I guess 🙂

  20. @Charlie……re: your proposal

    You are correct, I did not like it but you warned me. However, you still did not answer my question on Wisconsin (or I missed it)….

    Let us assume that you triple tax the corporations and business’, small, medium, and large, if they move out…….what then? There is nothing left. What of the people then? No business, no employment…a triple tax will not pay one year of their “entitlement:…..what then?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      You don’t get it D13,

      The EVIL businesses that enslave the people would be bankrupt or gone, and the government as it is now should be overthrown (according to an earlier post from Charlie), and then even though there is (literally) no money, and also no jobs, apparently wine and roses will spew forth from the greater good and nourish the souls of all… ok, not all, just the formerly oppressed who are deserving of this fantastic cornucopia.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    The problem that I see with your philosophy is that you advocate overthrow of government because it is controlled by the greedy, the powerful, the wealthy. The problem is, this has been tried repeatedly. Just within the past 250 years, it has been tried in America, France, Russia, China, and MANY other places as well. In EACH CASE the thing that rather rapidly replaced the corrupt government which was controlled by the greedy, powerful, and wealthy was simply a DIFFERENT corrupt government controlled by the greedy, powerful, and wealthy, who may or may not have had different names than the people who were previously greedy, powerful, and wealthy.

    So, Charlie, my question is, what would you do differently to prevent this from happening again?

    For the sake of argument… well, actually for the sake of good conversation, let’s imagine that you got your wish in this country, and the government was overthrown. What would you propose would happen, and HOW would it happen, to prevent the formation of a new government which was controlled by the greedy, powerful, and wealthy? How would this time be any different?

    Please note, in one important aspect, you and I both want the same thing. I do not want myself, or anyone else for that matter, to be controlled by the greedy, powerful and wealthy. I believe that we are at least alike in that desire.

    • charlieopera says:

      Peter: Unlike so many of you, I’m not sure. What I keep saying (repeating over and over) is that it seems to me socialism (or some version of it) will have to be the next step; which would require nationalization of all industry and finance. The elite system of politics would have to be dissolved (i.e., extreme term limits with truly equal representation–not just Harvard, et al lawyers, etc.). The absurdity of letting corporations donate (own) campaigns seems to me the final slap in the chops that will ultimately cause some kind of revolution here (not necessarily violent, but at some point, perhaps when the next generation (or the one or two following it) are left with nothing but pumping gas jobs, enough people will be exhausted enough to create genuine change.

      More important, perhaps, is the fact (and I do mean fact) that what we have has turned us into a third world country; the gap between the wealthiest and middle classes grows every day … the availability of jobs declines and the open global markets strip away what little is left behind. I don’t know how further freeing up the markets does any good when it’s how we got to this point in the first place.

      So, I don’t know. I don’t know if my idea would work or not. I know what we have now doesn’t work. It works less and less with each passing day. That is obvious to me.

      • Charlie,

        which would require nationalization of all industry and finance.


        Charlie, the nation is essentially nationalized the major industries (ya do remember that GM is government owned, as is the steel industries, and nearly every company requires some sort of government subsidy) and fiance IS nationalized – no bank exists without government grant.

        Your solution: make it even more so….

        The consequence of your solutions: massive unemployment, massive shortages, massive financial confusion, massive poverty.

        The elite system of politics would have to be dissolved

        No meddling necessary.

        Elitism rests on centralization – how do you believe 500 or so people can control 300 million if not for massive centralization?

        The greater the decentralization, the less empowered elitism becomes – they are simply out-numbered….. and should decentralization go to its logical end to the individual, only then will the elite be completely irrelevant.

        Your solution to elitism: more centralization – which, as shown, increases elitism.

        The absurdity of letting corporations donate (own) campaigns seems to me the final slap in the chops that will ultimately cause some kind of revolution here

        The absurdity of corporations – period – exists on the power of government. The larger the corporation, the more centralized it becomes … see a trend between large government (centralization) and large corporations (centralization) and large corrupt mercantilism (centralization)?

        the gap between the wealthiest and middle classes grows every day

        Who cares?

        How much money I make makes not one little bit of a difference to how much money you make.

        The gap is irrelevant.
        The only measure is the rate of wealth increase.
        The poor have received the fastest rates of increases of wealth than any class over the last 250 years.
        The richer get richer, yes, but the poor are getting richer faster and that is a fact notwithstanding the recession.

        This can be reversed, Charlie – and will easily throw the poor back into negative growth by the errant policies of government socialists tendencies.

        . I don’t know how further freeing up the markets does any good when it’s how we got to this point in the first place.


        It the continuing entangling of the free market that got you here.

        Only to a Socialist could claim that adding 70,000 pages of new laws and regulations per year is “freeing up the markets”

        • charlieopera says:

          Nice try, but it’s only to your choir you preach, sir. You contradict yourself at every turn, but that’s okay. Does the government own Wall Street or vice versa? And how oh, how did this big mess come about, BF (the third world we’ve become)? Government? Who owns it? How did that happen? Unions did that? Social Security? Medicaid? Please, brother, your arguments are all over the place.

          Capitalism doesn’t work, except for the ruling class (and believe it or not, you’re not one of them).

          Only a Ayn Rander could claim to be an anarchist, point to the government as the big boogie man in the room, point to GM as socialism (do you really think the workers at GM are getting the same salary and compensation as the CEO?), ignore the bail out and point to government regulations. So how did all that happen? Money wasn’t the cause? You want to blame people on welfare for that? Public employees?

          Capitalism requires greed for success. Greed is immoral (or evil, if you prefer) … and its run its course. Welcome to the 21st Century, BF.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, Considering the economy and unemployment, it seems that Flag is doing well for himself and frankly, I’m doing better now than I ever have. I was, for the first time in my life, able to buy into a company that has a good future ahead of it. While I’m not even close to an Elite, I’m quite happy with my life right now. The further away I have gotten from Federal government control, the better things have gotten. From my own life’s experiences, I can say that for way too many years I was held back financially as a result of governemnt interference, not what you refer to as capitalism.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Does government own Wall Street and vice versa? Yes Charlie, that is exactly correct.
            Do I really think the workers of GM are getting the same salaries as the CEO’s? No, but THAT ISN’T THE DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM ANYWAY.
            Capitalism does not work for anyone except for the ruling class? Certainly not as YOU define “capitalism” it doesn’t!
            Can you point to me ANY INSTANCE WHATSOEVER where socialism worked for anyone other than the ruling class? (I didn’t think so).

            Capitalism requires greed for success.
            No, capitalism requires enlightened self-interest for success. In your world, perhaps that equates to greed.

            BF’s answers are “all over the place”? No, BF’s answers are logical and internally consistent. Your arguments are not internally consistent, but you fail to see your own inconsistencies, so you project them on to BF. Now, I am not saying BF’s arguments are “perfect”, no one is perfect. However, BF tends to examine his positions and evaluate them to try to ensure that they are consistent with his core belief/core principles, and he knows what his core principles are.

            We have tried to get you to examine what your core principles actually are, so that you can begin the process of evaluating your own arguments to see if they are consistent with your own core principles, but so far we haven’t really gotten anywhere.

            So far, it seems that your core principle is that you give the most power to the people by taking all of the power away from the people. That seems contradictory to me.

          • Charlie,

            Does the government own Wall Street or vice versa?

            Both require the other.

            Equal example was the Emperor and the Church.
            The Church did not own the Emperor
            The Emperor did not control the Church.

            But both needed the other.

            The Church legitimized the Emperor’s actions.
            The Emperor’s armies made the Church rich.

            Today, Wall Street pays for the Government.
            Government protects Wall Street monopolies.

            Eliminate the provider of violence – in all cases – and the situation ends.
            Without government force, monopolies cannot exist.
            Without monopolies, Wall Street cronies would dissolve under the avalanche of competition.

            Your solution, however, is to increase government power – which can only lead to deep monopolies and more cronies.

            There are only two ways to distrubute resources:
            -earn and pay
            -steal and ration.

            If you prevent the first, you increase the latter.

            If you decrease the latter, you increase the former.

            There is no other way.

            • Point of clarification: What are the monopolies to which you refer which Wall Street has?

              • All of them.

                You cannot offer financial services without a government grant – and the requirements are so steep, only those already within a monopolistic protection can overcome them.

                You cannot issue shares for capital without a government grant – and if your business is not big enough to attract the monopolistic financial services, you cannot raise cheap capital (shares). This avenue for small business is unreachable. Thus, cheap capital is funneled to cronies; expensive capital (loans) is miserly given out to small business.

                You cannot give out loans like a bank. You need a license. You cannot give out loans as a business, even if you are not a bank. You need a license.

                You cannot sell shares in your business beyond a small group, without a permit.

                You cannot buy shares of a business that does not have a permit, unless you are very very rich (a “sophisticated investor”) which prevents Mom and Pop from investing in incredibly profitable startups and saves these for cronies.

                The entire system is rigged by the government for the benefit of cronies.

                The cronies have no problem paying 25% of the take back to the government.

              • Yeah and did everybody get burned on the Facebook IPO…………………………………….

              • D13,
                Insiders did brilliantly.
                Zucker pulled $1.3 BILLION in cash out of his shares … his underwriters pulled out $15 BILLION or more.

                The suckers; small time fools.

                I mean -Really!!!???- who in their right mind believes a internet site that does not produce any real tangible good has a market cap greater than any company in the world except Apple???

              • I wouldn’t touch FB with a 12 foot pole.

                Fraud / no fraud, whatever. ::stiffles nose bleed:: Flag has it exactly right:

                who in their right mind believes a internet site that does not produce any real tangible good has should have a market cap greater than any company in the world except Apple???

                I can tell you that we, in finance, sometimes work ourselves up into groupthink. We think something is valuable because others think it is valuable and they think this because some other firm thinks it’s valuable. When this happens, it’s easy to lose sight of simple things like the fact THAT IT DOESN’T PRODUCE ANYTHING, and that it could be beaten out by Google+ and demolished inside of a year. I won my office pool guessing the price of FB at first day’s close. Some people (thankfully not our analysts) had guessed as high as $63. 63! Are you kidding me?! You’ve got to be a moron.


            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Wall Street technically DOES own the government, and vice versa, because Wall Street (the FED, which is run and controlled by Wall Street) prints all of the fiat money which the government then GIVES TO WALL STREET so that Wall Street can BUY OFF THE GOVERNMENT. It is basically one big circle-jerk where the two are essentially indistinguishable from each other.

      • Charlie;

        From history we know that “isums” don’t work, and as a result citizens suffer. The reasons vary, as do the timelines to failure, but the fact remains that “isums” fail. Even our current ‘practiced’ form of government is failing (at least from a individual liberty and freedom perspective), but that is because it is being bastardized like an “isum”, so blaming the fundimentally sound principles of Free Market is illogical. As an example: If I instruct you in the proper process for handeling and firing a rifle, but you decide to ignore what I have taught and fire the weapon with the muzzle pointed toward your shoulder, it is not my lesson or the guns fault for your wound.

        Setting up or implementing unconstitutional laws under the guise of ‘fairness and equallity’ only serves to restrict fundimental human rights and liberties, which disrupts the principles of a Free Market. Do this enough and eventually the principle foundations errod to the point that they are no longer recognizable, and then the ignorant blame the foundational principle.

        Socialisum, Communisum and Marxisum don’t work because they are not based in the foundational principles of freedom and liberty. Capitalisum and/or Free Market work because they are based upon those principles. So arguing that Capitalisum is as disfunctional as the other ‘isums’ because our current government is changing it or violating its foundational principles makes your point invalid.

        You would be better off touting the alleged benefits of your chosen ‘isum’


      • Correct! What we have now does not work. And I cannot garauntee that resetting back to freedom and a free market with a government still in place would not eventually lead back to where we are now. People like power, and those who can will consolidate it. But starting with freedom is a lot better than starting with consolidated power. That is the real problem with socialism. It is not so much the concept (communal living works if you all believe in it, and fails if people get lazy and take advantage of it), it is the enforcing of the concept. Socialist states already have consolidated power, thus, those seeking power will immediately get themselves into position to wield it. So even if you started with your perfect set of people in power, your society would not last a generation.

        • Jon;

          I agree, we cannot expect any kind of reset to work long term if we allow the same warped style of government and/or the current magnitude of government. It would be no different than rebooting your computer before removing the virus that crashed it in the first place.

          And the problem with all forms of government is that they are run by people, and people are flawed. It is not the form of government that causes the issues, but of the people who run it and of the citizens responsible for insuring elected officials preform as they should.

          However things pan out over the next several years we as a people need to ensure our principles of individual liberty and freedom provide the test for any and all rules

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Hey, down here… running out of room above!!!

    I am just curious… why do you think that government must exist in order for people to want to have a park? Would the Grand Canyon cease to exist without the government?

    Now, you could argue that if the Grand Canyon were privately owned, the owner could choose to “ruin it”, but I personally think that that could be pretty easily avoided.

    I am ALL FOR having beautiful, pristine areas which are preserved and kept the way nature made them. I would cry if Yellowstone ceased to exist, and I haven’t even been there yet!!! (I hope to rectify that soon!). However; my premise is that Yellowstone could still easily exist without the need for what we currently call “government”. Keep in mind, my definition of government is “any group that claims the right to “legitimatly” initiate force against the non-violent”.

    You see, there is a fundamental misunderstanding for almost all people. Nearly all people CANNOT UNDERSTAND that society would still have rules even in the absence of what we currently call “government”. Nearly everyone confuses the issue. I am not the best person to explain this, but check out nearly anything and everything that Kent McManigal has ever written… he explains this a hell of a lot better than I currently can 🙂

    • At the moment I am not arguing anything-simply asked you to clarify your meaning. 🙂

      But just how might one stop a privately owned Grand Canyon from being ruined-if that is what the owner wanted to do.

      • Yes, I would be concerned, not about the Grand Canyon being mined or something, but about it being lined with resorts or something. I am sure there is a market method that would be superior, but I also do not have a problem with federal ownership of land, it might be a good way to fund the government without taxation. Then, you would actually own your own land.

  23. Kathy..Hillary is calling your name on Drudge again. 🙂

  24. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is Mr. Natelson’s brief explanation of Native Born

    • Buck the Wala says:


      Am I missing something or does Natelson completely fail to touch upon the definition of “Natural Born”? He provides a pretty good, concise summary of why the Founders put in this requirement for President, but ignores the over-arching issue of what it even means. The Constitution is vague on this score, and there are very few SCOTUS decisions that touch upon it. But, based on those decisions, Mathius is correct. Natural born means a citizen at birth. Do you have any articles from Natelson in which he analyzes the meaning of the term?

      I do completely agree with you on one thing though — it is just plain stupid to demand certifications for Obama, but not for any other candidate for this office.

      Hope the day finds you well.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        He included it within the discussion: “A subject was natural born if he was born in Britain or a British territory or, if born abroad, his father was at the time a loyal subject not engaged in treasonous or felonious activities.” Just replace Britain with USA and “citizen” for the word “subject” and you have the meaning of the term as it was used when written.

        Note that this definition would make Obama “Natural Born” if born in Hawaii. Thus fueling that portion of the birther debate. Because if not born in Hawaii he would not be Natural Born as his “father” was not a citizen.

        I will try to find the other works on this I found previously. I don’t think they were Natelson’s. They included quotes from British law and old sources that used parent citizenship as a criteria, whether the child was born in country or abroad.

        But given Natelson’s work in the area of Constitutional history I would lean towards his definition as described above.

        So I don’t think the document is vague on this issue. At least it wasn’t until folks wanted to create ambiguity where none previously existed. It does seem that SCOTUS has avoided tackling a “direct definition”.

        Now, I see another issue raised by the “birthers” that involves dual citizenship or renouncement of citizenship. The issue being that Mr. O was automatically a British citizen because he was the son of a British Citizen. The claim being that Natural Born does not allow dual allegiance. But notice that there is nothing about this in Natelson’s definition.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’ll grant you that definition. One caveat though: I would argue that ‘natural born’ must necessarily include a child born to a US-citizen MOTHER as well.

          As for the dual citizenship issue — completely irrelevant to me. And this is probably why Natelson ignores the issue as well. If you are considered natural-born merely from the fact of being born on US soil, in that situation, your parents’ citizenship is completely irrelevant. You may well be a natural-born UK citizen, but you are also a natural-born US citizen.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I disagree. It should be BOTH parents not one or the other. That better serves the purpose and eliminates the sexual bias.

            To include the mother only opens us up to conflicts with other cultures where the man drives the values in the family. But in more modern cultures this threat could come from either parent.

            I think Natelson ignores dual citizenship because I dont’ think such a thing existed when the term was being used. A Brit born in India would not be considered a Citizen of India by the Indians or the British. He would be a British subject and thus Natural Born just as much as if he were born in England.

            It seems to me that in those days the idea of “citizenship” was not nearly as “legal” as it is today. It largely depended on the persons intent when living someplace and whether they were viewed as subject to the laws, esp. taxation, in the same way as obvious “citizens”.

            So the issue of “dual citizenship” really doesn’t come along until Govts start codifying “citizen” with legal definitions.

            Remember Thomas Paine. A Brit who moved to America and became an American. Who visited England, under cover, and then moved to France where he provided advice but then became an officer in the French Govt. His later demise included rantings about his “citizenship” but it was based on “his claims” of loyalty and the willingness of the mother country to recognize him as theirs. The local French viewed him as one of theirs when they elected him to office. But his opponents viewed him as an “outsider”. In the end he died an American in America but was later moved to England where certain Brits claimed him as their own.

  25. Ladies of SUFA – anyone read the Christian and Anastasia series?

  26. Interesting….and I either have missed it or it was not mentioned……..but why is not the MSM upset at the pinata bashing of Nikki Haley at a union rally…..”in fun”……and her being called a “rag head”……free speech but when there is a dart board with Obama’s face on it in a local pub, they are accused of a hate crime and calling Obama a “sand monkey” is hate speech and racist?

    Why is it a collection of racists and bigots when the Tea Party (1) applies for a permit, (2) confines their rallies to the area authorized, (3) rents and uses porta potties and restrooms, and (4) has no violence whatsoever….and

    The OWS crowd (1) does not get permits, (2) openly flaunts and breaks the law, (3) pisses on and in sidewalks and alleyways, (4) defecates on police cars and in park fountains, (5) beats up and shoves innocent by standers that do not support their movement, (6) stabs policemen, (7) refuses to leave registered and legal business’ and when forced to, breaks windows in response, (8) destroys public property…and the list goes on……………………….is an exercise of free speech and right of assembly?

    If these two examples are truly a reflection of the Progressive movement, then I would want no part of it as there is no credibility at all……if it is not part of the Progressive Movement, then where is the condemnation from the Progressive movement and where is Obama in condemning this movement? For that matter, where is the outrage on the Progreessive believers on SUFA?

  27. There must be a progressive conspiracy to “rile the Colonel” today. Another question for those of you, and there were many, concerning the UBL raid. So, let me see if I have this straight…..

    (1) Obama takes credit for the killing of UBL (when it was actually a culmination of over 6 years of work) Ok, it happened on his watch and even Charlie could have made the decision for the hit…
    (2) So the SEAL team goes in and makes an almost picture perfect raid and supposedly hits UBL and gets out.
    (3) Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden’s presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief last May in a unilateral raid.
    (4) The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally. But many Pakistani officials, especially those working for the country’s powerful spy agency, do not see it that way. “He was working for a foreign spy agency. We are looking after our national interests,” said a Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with the agency’s policy.
    (5) Afridi’s conviction comes at a sensitive time because the U.S. is already frustrated by Pakistan’s refusal to reopen NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. He was tried under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, or FCR, the set of laws that govern Pakistan’s semiautonomous tribal region. Human rights organizations have criticized the FCR for not providing suspects due process of law. There is no right to legal representation, to present material evidence or cross-examine witnesses.The verdict was handed down by a Khyber government official in consultation with a council of elders, according to Nasir Khan, a government official in the Khyber tribal area, where the doctor was arrested and tried.
    (6) A senior U.S. official with knowledge of counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda in Pakistan said the doctor was never asked to spy on Pakistan. “He was asked only to help locate al Qaeda terrorists, who threaten Pakistan and the U.S. He helped save Pakistani and American lives. His activities were not treasonous, they were heroic and patriotic. ”

    NOW…you have a UBL hit that was sanctioned and credit taken by the Obama Administration. This same Administration has classified the operation, sequestered the pictures and transcripts for 75 years, throws the body to the fishes so no one can see OR EXHUME it, and threatens military careers if any of the operation leaks out…………….

    SO….now, the Obama administration leaks the information to a frigging film maker, allows access to the “forever classified documents” so a movie can be made just before election time. ( Payback to Hollywood, of course) and this is going to be a great work of fiction.

    I have a question for you Mr. Obama…( I refuse to call you Mr. President any longer. You are not worthy of that title )……BUT…… took great credit for the UBL raid……you said you planned it, executed it….etc etc. So, why did you not plan and execute a raid to “snatch and grab” the doctor that made all this possible? It would have been much easier than the UBL hit. Why has the United States Special Forces not gone in to get out the doctor that YOUR LEAKS imprisoned? WHY are we turning our back on the very man that made “YOUR” raid possible? Talk about headlines and respect… could have done this and now, what is happening… are making a movie and the man that made you a “hero” is going to die.,,,and you did it.

    A little further….you promised hope and change……Ok let’s change something……GET THE HELL out of Pakistan and do not give it the one billion dollars per year it wants. They do not like us and they are not our true ally….they rely on our money…so CHANGE THAT…

    ( Sigh……….and before you start on me, Walla man…..I cannot have coffee (nasty stuff anyway), I cannot have a DP, I cannot have RB…the list goes on… I cannot take a “chill pill”……I would like some answers that make sense……but I cannot have that either.)

    So……………………… are you today?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “There must be a progressive conspiracy to “rile the Colonel” today.” — damn, he found out! We gotta do a better job of keeping these things under wraps!

      I’m….busy. Too bad you can’t have coffee — I guarantee it’d make you feel better!

    • All joking aside..that is ridiculous to hang the doc out to dry. Playing with fire….. may have to come out of retirement and handle this yourself.

    • Sad to say it does not suprise me one bit that Obama would throw someone ELSE under the bus after they have gotten their use from him. Typical Obama tactics.

  28. Great article!!!! This is just the budget numbers. A lot more listed there…

    Since 2009, that annus horribilus, federal spending has been flat as a fraction of GDP. What is left out of the story is the huge jump up in 2009. That jump was huge any way you measure it: half a trillion dollars, an increase of over 17%, and an increase of 4.4% of GDP. There has been no real increase of over 17% in a single year since the Korean War (1952). And that increase has been made permanent. (That was the crisis that wasn’t wasted.)

    And to whom did Mr. Nutting assign responsibility for 2009? President George W. Bush, of course. You see, in Mr. Nutting’s universe, Bush is responsible for a 4%-of-GDP increase in spending in a year he was in office for less than three weeks. Meanwhile, President Obama is declared innocent for simply maintaining this huge level of spending. See? No increase these last three years.

    What is left out of that story? (1) Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2007, writing the budgets for both 2008 and 2009. (They don’t write them anymore; they don’t need to. They are locking in their gains. The new normal is a federal government that’s the biggest it’s been in peacetime.)

    (2) George W. Bush left office January 20, 2009, or less than three weeks into 2009. Within two months of Bush’s leaving, the Democrats finished the FY 2009 budget (which Bush had not signed) for an additional $410 billion and passed Obama’s $825-billion stimulus. You think maybe that Democrat-authored spending had a little bit to do with that sudden half-trillion-dollar increase?

    The real story is that current federal spending is at an historical peacetime high, as it’s been since Obama’s inauguration. And that massive (half-a-trillion-dollar) step up over the historical norm came when Democrats took over budgeting.

    In all the above stories, the raw facts were technically true (at least I think so). But the stories were spun more than Regan’s head in The Exorcist. Good news was made out to look bad. A historically massive increase was made out to look historically small. Etc. Up is down, and freedom is slavery.

    Read more:

    • Just A Citizen says:


      One correction, and it is an important one when discussing “budgets”.

      Mr. Bush left office 3 months and 3 weeks into FY 2009.

      Mr. Bush could have VETOED the Dem spending bills for FY 2009 but he DID NOT.

      • JAC…do you think that said veto could have been over ridden? You make a great point. He could have vetoed and the dems controlled both houses………he should have put their feet to the fire.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good morning Colonel. I think his VETO would have stood.

          I think there were “conservatives” looking for him to lead and enough Dems who hated some of the spending that an outright VETO would not be overturned.

          The question is WHAT would have replaced it. I expect we would have seen “continuing resolutions” until the cows came home.

          But in using logic of debate, we must hang Bush for his lack of Veto as we hang Obama for his lack of veto on the increased 2009 spending.

          BOTH men are responsible for the DEBT that occurs during their administration. Budgets is a poor criteria for assigning blame. Because budgets can and are amended all the time.

          One other note. The CBO ratings on projected budgets uses the “base line” which assumes about a 7% increase in federal spending per year. The base line year for the projections became 2009 when that year was tallied.

          They then adjust the base line to reflect what they see as current laws. So they show a major increase in revenue with the tax cuts expiring. This then allows the Dems to say they are “reducing” the deficit. But there is NOTHING that codifies the expiration. So this is where CBO plays games according to their politically correct rules.

          Contrary to popular belief the CBO is NOT an objective third party. I have personal experience dealing with those dolts, so I will not give them the benefit of the doubt. That is my rant for the day.

          At least I can lean on my coffee for solace.

          Best to you this day Sir.

          • JAC,

            I agree and even if they could pass it over his veto, he should have fought that battle. I posted to Charlie above how this whole cut spending is a false narrative. I do blame Bush for many mistakes. I also give him credit for a few things. History will judge.

  29. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I am curious, because you said in an earlier post that the workers of GM should make the same amount as the CEO.

    For the sake of argument, lets say the two of us work together at the same place which manufactures widgets. The widget factories have all been nationalized, so there is a standard salary scale for all widget factory employees. Further, let’s say that widgets are your specialty. You have had extensive training, and furthermore, you are just naturally excellent at widget-crafting. You commonly produce an average of 100 widgets per day. Only 0.5% of all of your widgets fail to meet QA requirements.

    I, on the other hand, don’t have the training that you do, and I don’t quite have the knack for it. I am not a bad worker, I show up on time, work hard, and am a model employee, but I can only produce on average 75 widgets per day, and about 3% of my widgets fail to meet QA requirements.

    Would you say that it is fair that you and I make the exact same salary?

    • Peter, please quit being logical and rational….it makes heads spin too fast…..and spinning heads contra to the earth’s rotation could…well….send us all off to Andromeda faster than a billion years from now.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Don’t worry D13, I don’t think the question will get an answer.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck, Mathius and Anita


    1. Fast and Furious……..violation of US Law and International Treaty. That is a “high crime”.

    And Bush did not do the same thing. In fact, Bush admin stopped the transfer.

    But the crime was in making the sale and NOT informing Mexico. That was the commission of a crime.

    By the way, a STING does not involve the actual sale and transfer of contraband. It involves setting up the sale and then making an arrest.

    The FED Govt committed a CRIME. It violated its own laws and a Treaty to which it was part.

    2. Murder of a US Citizen and his son, traveling in a foreign country which we are NOT at war with.

    3. Using military force against Libya without Congressional consent.

    4. Deliberate failure to secure the borders as directed by Congress. This includes personal misuse of the military for political gain. As in sending the Nat Guard to sit around and watch the Texicans deal with the problem.

    • Heh, heh, heh…….crickets. IOU one JAC (like I could ever measure up 🙂 )

    • Sorry.. missed this.. not crickets. For some reason that nifty notifications bar at the top of the page stopped working. Odd..


      1. Stings will sometimes allow for the sale in order to trace the money/drugs/guns/whatever, in order to catch higher-ups. That’s the point here. They didn’t want to catch the buyers, they wanted the bosses.

      Regarding the legality / illegality of the failure to notify Mexico of the operation (regardless of the practical considerations), I cannot say whether this was or was not legal (in the US!) as I am not informed on the salient treaties. My understanding, however, was that they allowed purchases in the US, and the individuals committed the crime of crossing the border. Not sure what our treaty obligations are with regards to this. Assuming it IS illegal, do we know that Obama sanctioned it personally? I would assume he did as it’s generally unlikely that someone would undertake this risk without top-level approval. But do we know this or are we just speculating?

      2. Murder of a US Citizen and his son, traveling in a foreign country which we are NOT at war with… what is this in reference to? I don’t know who we murdered. Adding, did Obama pull the trigger himself?

      3. Using military force against Libya without Congressional consent… there’s an argument that the congress granted certain limited powers to operate US troops under the auspices of the UN. We got into this before and I dragged up the UN contract where it says that the US can support a security resolution with the military within certain parameters as long as congress was notified in a timely fashion.

      4. Deliberate failure to secure the borders as directed by Congress… the gov’t does this all the time. They enforce, laxly enforce, don’t enforce, selectively enforce. It’s been this way forever. Whether this is legal or not, I cannot say.. but let’s at least pretend this is something new.

      This includes personal misuse of the military for political gain.. please define.. what’s he doing with the military for personal political gain? Is he landing on a US carrier wearing a flight suit?

      As in sending the Nat Guard to sit around and watch the Texicans deal with the problem… does he not have the authority to order the Guard to sit around watching? Is this some kind of new crime I’m not aware of?

  31. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: the price of oil, drilling, etc.

    If you want an immediate reduction in the cost of oil and GASOLINE then there is only one way.

    ELIMINATE the taxes on gas.

    But now you must replace that tax with another tax that will cover roads, bridges, etc.

    • JAC and SUFA,

      A point of note.
      Gasoline tax does not go to building road or bridges, etc.


      100% of the funds goes into the Treasury.
      All taxes are fungible. There is no “pre-allocation”.

      There is a government budget.
      The budget allocates ALL the funds, regardless of source.

      The roads have a budget. It is allocated funds.

      It is a mistake to take a fact -revenue from gas tax – and measure it to expenditure – spending on roads – and believe that the first funds the second.

      This was a SCOTUS case, where a citizen sued the government for not spending tax revenue on the item that the tax was raised to support.

      The case: Social Security. The defendant: FDR and his government.
      FDR was spending all the taxes come in.
      A citizen demanded that SS funds be set aside, as promised.

      SCOTUS confirmed that all taxes is fungible.

      It confirmed that the SS funds do not have to be set aside and spent on SS.

      It confirmed that Government retains sole discretion to raise any tax on anything for any reason, and can change whatever reason it wishes and spend any tax money on anything.

      • So, to clarify for JAC.

        Eliminate gas tax would absolutely lower the price of gas – by about 1/2.

        The gas tax revenue would be lost to the government.

        The government still spends.

        Therefore, government would necessarily have to raise taxes somewhere else OR borrow, so to maintain the same or greater level of expenditure.

        Of course, it is a pie-in-the-sky dream to think government would reduce its expenditures by the amount diminished in tax reduction.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It has been awhile since I looked at this for the Feds, but you may be correct. There used to be an income account that was then allocated to Dept of Transp. as “income” in the Congressional budgeting process. So you could see the balance supposedly tied to roads but in reality the money was in a single pot.

        Now at the State level this can be different, depending on the State.

        Also, there are some federal funds that are not mixed in the general fund. These however are more like “trust funds”. But…..always the but…..if the fund balance at the end of its life is in excess of needs, the balance is absorbed into the Fed Treasury, not returned to the entity that it was collected from.

        Here is a little trick used by Congress though. They have used the trust fund balances to SHOW a balanced General Budget. A standard trick but perfected by Clinton. That is one of the reasons I know his budgets DID NOT BALANCE in reality.

      • To clarify the point of note and offer one minor correction…..Texas, as do most states, have a state gasoline tax. In Texas, it does not go to the general revenue fund. 25% of the state gasoline tax (which is .20 per/gal) is earmarked for education. Another 25% goes to the Department of Public Transportation. 50% is earmarked for construction and maintenance of roads. However, there is an additional Federal gasoline tax that goes to the Federal Treasury.

  32. All;

    I want to wish each and everyone hear a great and wonderful Memorial Day holiday. Please take time to thank a Vet and/or current member of the Military for their dedication and service. Also, say a prayer for those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.


  33. WAY TO GO SENATE….that will teach them thar Pakistanis…….

    The Senate stepped up today and voted to cut aid to Pakistan in protest of the arrest and conviction of the doctor……

    The amount of the cut………………………………..33 million…one million for each year of sentencing……..33 million from an aid package of 1.2 BILLION. That’ll show em!!!!!!

    Meanwhile, Obama says not I… was the Pakistani intelligence that fingered the doctor….hmmmmmm…..the same intelligence service that was kept in the dark the entire time and knew nothing of the operation until it was over.

    and the HITS keep on coming.

    • Agreed to it’s dollar value insignificance. That said, you and I both know that little things like this get blown up in echo chambers. Someone’s personal project gets cut, they start yelling, sentiment gets drummed up, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It’s not the money itself, it’s the statement.

      Not that I think the statement means anything, but maybe in Pakistan, they’ll disagree? Who knows?

      Not that I think we should be giving such shitty “allies” so much foreign aid anyway.

      Scratch that. Not that we should be giving such shitty “allies” ANY foreign aid. You know what? $1.2b / 300m people is an average of $4 / person. Odds are good I’m paying my share and the shares of several other people. I want my $20-ish back.

      Now, if we really wanted to make a statement, we could have taken that 33mm and redirected it to India. That would have ruffled some feathers.. hehehe

      • From what I read-they made sure they charged him under some law-where he would not get the death penalty-I Wonder Why?

      • It is not even symbolic……Take the entire foreign aid to Pakistan, remove it….. remove all military advisers from Pakistan…..put Pakistan on the terror list…..let it go rogue….and let India deal with it. I do not care about the nukes there…the USA is in no danger……but Russia and China would be…..

        Afghanistan is the worlds largest drug factory and the US Military is restricted from bombing and burning poppy fields…..Let Afghanistan go rogue and let Russia deal with it… needs it for the pipeline access which is also off limits.

        Since I am on a roll here…….Let Iraq go rogue ( it is anyway) and pull all aid and leave what ever investment there go on its own….that is called risk.

        Forget Iran and its nukes. They will get them anyway. Let Russia deal with it. Let Syria and Yemen and Egypt go….no foreign aid at all and remove all bases. Give Africa back to the natives and make deals with whatever government is there for the natural resources we feel we need on a straight purchase basis….if we are the highest bidder….ok. If not…..ok.

        Take all trade and make it balanced. If we wish to trade it is dollar for dollar. NO IMBALANCES or TRADE DEFICITS.

        Open up all drilling in the United States and become energy independent….we have more reserves that all of the ME now with our two new recent discoveries and ability to get shale oil out. ( Note to BF: We are very involved in the Barnett Shale……we are getting plenty of oil out for $52. There are two new shale oil discoveries in Texas alone that can be pulled out for the same price. All of it on private property that the Obama administration is trying to block……but Texas has said it will drill anyway…..bring in the troops if you dare. There is a private consortium that has the money and the technology to erect two refineries on PRIVATE land that can produce only regular gas and number one diesel fuels with no lead and no sulphur for $65 per bbl…total cost and that includes drilling. Obama Administration is trying to block that as well…but dozers are already clearing land…..contracts are signed and the drilling and construction is starting. The idea is to keep it a State operation and sell no gasoline over state lines. According to informed sources, these two refineries can provide all Texas gasoline for an estimated……….$1.96 to $2.20 per gallon.)

        Screw the green energy…….it is not working….(Proof is the massive wind farms in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico) The energy they produce barely lights up little cities at a cost greater than $110 p.bbl oil AND has resulted in the destruction of several thousand square miles of pristine farm and ranch land not to mention the massive interruption of wild life and the depletion of deer, antelope, and elk herds to the tune of 41% in those areas……There is no upheaval from the environuts on this…..more hypocrisy of the progressive movement.

        Screw the Euro as well…it is dead and I do not agree with the economists on the faltering of the Euro…..Let Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany all go independent as well……have their own currencies. Who the hell cares? If anyone has not been monitoring their own 401k or investments in Europe….that is called risk. Too friggin bad…..I disagree with the economists that it will tank the dollar…..we think otherwise.

        Reduce our military to one million and that includes reserves…..defend our shores but keep offensive capability as a deterrent….it will be needed. If someone kicks sand in our face………..throw a shovel full in their face. Just because we are the biggest kid on the block does not mean we have to exercise restraint….hit us with a brick, we hit back with a boulder. Keep QRT’s in readiness with no rules of engagement. Pull all troops and bases in Europe and the East and bring em home. No defense pacts with anyone unless it is on an EQUAL basis… other words, they pay us for their protection.

        Follow the Texas lead and use the military to patrol the US Southern Border. Deal with the cartels without fanfare as we do….the shootouts have dropped over 80 percent now because we shoot back. Do not throw a rock at us….we will shoot you. Pretty simple. We do not care about care about reasoned response….and it is working. AND, we are getting legal immigrants out of it and we are not hurting for farmland labor.

        Let’s see……..I think this is a good start.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good morning SIR.

          Boy, we need to find a way to get you some DP. Absent that perhaps a trip to the target range would be in order.

          And all that sir is why your my nomination for SEC DEF…………….. VDLG PARTY rocks.

          I soooooooooo agree with your comments on the wind farms. So much of my “open space” is now filled with windmills. They multiply faster than rabbits.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    OK counselor, explain how the three ladies on the court could wander so afar of what seems a pretty clear case. Seems further evidence of a lawyers ability and willingness to find nuance anywhere they like.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Actually I believe the esteemed lady justices have a solid argument here and, to me, are probably correct but for the fact that this is a procedural question — was the jury’s verdict entered into the record? It wasn’t as the Judge decreed a mistrial as to all charges.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        They were correct “but for the fact”………EXACTLY. The FACT did not support their argument.

        There was a choice of ONE of several options. They did not pick one of those options. Judge rules mistrial. NO VERDICT is entered. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

        Yet the three ruled it WAS.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You are quick to make the leap to the conclusion that they declined to listen to the facts. That’s not quite the case. There is legitimate room for debate here (enough to get to the Supreme Court) based on what had transpired and the state law in question.

          The jury clearly and unequivocally declared in Court that they unanimously voted to acquit the defendant of these charges.
          The jury was deadlocked as to the other charges brought.
          The state law mandates a guilty verdict as to at least one charge or an acquittal as to all charges.
          As neither was met, the judge was forced to declare a mistrial.

          The constitutional question then is how does this forced mistrial under state law, where the jury unanimously acquitted as to certain charges, squares away with Double Jeopardy under the Constitution. I feel the 6 got it correct because, procedurally speaking, due to the state law in question, there was no actual judicial entry of guilt nor of acquittal (despite the fact that the jury had voted to acquit). But the 3 do have a great point in looking at the intent behind the Double Jeopardy clause and the unequivocality of the jury’s verdict as to these charges.

  35. Kristian says:


    I’m sorry, I looked at my most recent W-2 and it was only a little over 32K. I believe you need to make at the very least 50K in order to be considered middle class. I think. Not sure. This has been a LONG day folks.


    You are correct dear, you can NEVER have too many shoes! I take that blasphemy back, I didn’t mean it I swear!!!

  36. This is going to be huge!

    Fury over the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts’ continued refusal to report the lawsuits Catholic entities have filed against the Obama administration has spread beyond the Media Research Center watchdog group and Catholic leaders to nine additional Christian leaders equally concerned about this decision to deliberately not report national news. Below are statements released by FRC’s Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer of American Values and seven more leaders.

    For the third night in a row the broadcast networks have refused to cover this correctly. This momentum is fueled by CBS Evening News’ outrageous decision not only to spike the Catholic lawsuits but instead to lead the news with yet another story about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The broadcast devoted two minutes and 31 seconds to the accused abusers and allegations that occurred decades ago. That’s roughly eight times more coverage than CBS Evening News gave the historic lawsuit on Monday.

    “Those fleeting 19 seconds remain the only evening news coverage of the damning anti-Obama lawsuit in 72 hours since the unprecedented suing by one of the largest institutions in the country,” stated Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “Make no mistake – CBS intentionally resurrected the decade-old scandal last night while ignoring the lawsuit to throw salt on the wound of America’s 60 million Catholics. The media are holding this historic news hostage from the American people. At least CBS has heard of the word ‘Catholic.’ ABC and NBC are behaving like the Catholic Church — and one out of every four Americans — don’t exist.”

    Read more:

    • They won’t be able to ignore it forever-another college dropped health insurance too-this debacle is just starting!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Single Payer here we come!!! 🙂

      • I don’t recall the church ever going public like this, not in modern times…

        • I don’t think this is The Church. I think this is a Catholic-aligned group. Without digging deeper, my guess would be that they’re just a conservative front group shilling Catholic values for votes. I’d be very interested in knowing who is paying for this.

          If The Church (note the capitals) were going to weigh in so directly, it would be out of the mouth of the Pope while sitting in the Big Chair – you know, the one from which he is infallible and carries the authority of God himself as Christ’s vicar on Earth.

          Anything less than that is not an Official Endorsement by The Church and is, therefore, no different than any other political group.

          But Mathius wonders aloud how many Catholics will see through this and believe the Church itself is behind this… Mathius further wonders if there might be a backlash…

          • LOI wonders why Mathius, no, never mind… I think the backlash is hitting Obama for mandating insurance coverage to include birth control. When religious groups asked for an exemption, (didn’t McDonalds and the unions get exemptions?) they were told firmly, no. This is bound to incite all religious groups, a clear warning that religious freedom is subject to every government agencies whims. Who would be the enforcement agency checking for compliance? IRS or Health? Or both?

            • Yes they did get the exemptions as did the majority of business’ in Nancy Pelosi’s district.

              • This also begs the question….if the single payer system is so good….why the exemptions and why is not Washington DC going on the same plan?

            • They also exempted the religious-aligned institutes from paying for the contraceptives, though they would still be covered by the plan. Presumably, the insurance companies would just charge the rest of us more to make up for the difference.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                And then RAISE the rates charged to the Church for the Employee Plan.

                That was a backdoor approach by the Administration.

                If the Admin. wasn’t such a bunch of Arrogant Ass Holes, they could have solved this without all the blowback.

                So the question is, are they just Arrogant Ass Holes, or did they want the blowback?

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “This is going to be huge!”
      Agreed! ( Just sitting here restraining myself so I don’t burst out with some lunatic sounding RANT! AND I don’t even go to Church!)

  37. WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.

    Man-made climate is threatening the existence of many species, such as the giant polar bear.(what a crock! polar bears are thriving)
    But in the case of the small drab British butterfly, it took a species in trouble and made it thrive.

    It’s all about food. Over about 25 years, the butterfly went from in trouble to pushing north in Britain where it found a veritable banquet. Now the butterfly lives in twice as large an area as it once did and is not near threatened, according to a study in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

    Read more:

  38. charlieopera says:


    Let me provide a very brief (pressed for time) synopsis of my way of thinking for you (and you can call it imbeclic afterward–after all, it is a somewhat free society):

    Let’s assume you’re new gig is paying you (for argument sake) $10M … now, there are certainly more people involved (below your position) who contribute to the overall profit of the company. I go one further … I wish to include everyone you’ve ever had contact with in your life; teachers, gas pump attendants, janitors, etc., etc. … all who have added value to your life (why isn’t their value considered an investment)? To me, it is/they are.

    The other issue for me is the capital gains your company is making (not necessarily earning) … it provides them with power they get to wield over a government (to protect their investor interests, etc.–How I believe our current state of affairs came to pass–pure power in the form of money).

    It isn’t about stealing from you or your company, BF. People like me just don’t believe a market gets to keep people in the mud and for there to be a 1%, there has to be a 99% … it’s neither fair nor realistic to assume anyone is worth (for arguments sake: $1,000 an hour while others work for minimum wage.

    Tough loss for the Rangers last night … I don’t know if they will recover.

    • Several years ago when you were young and trusting, you bought a used car from a very slick fast talking salesman. It turned out to be a bad investment but you learned a valuable lesson about business. So by your definition, this salesman was a teacher and deserves to share in your success today. Are you willing to share your hard earned book royalties with him? If not why not? He worked hard for that sale and still works hard selling questionable cars and educating new customers.

      • charlieopera says:

        That actually happened … lemon Cutlass back in the late 70’s.

        To answer you question: Yes, of course. We take the good with the bad now, except ONLY the 1% benefit (bailouts). Why shouldn’t the people have their turn? So a cheat makes a few coins off a bad car. I can live with that much easier than knowing I had to pay $26K a few years ago in taxes for working 7 days a week and having to live with Wall Street welfare.

        Even by your definition, he did teach me something. It was valuable.

        • Exactly Charlie. That is why we all support a free market. Bailouts and high taxes do not happen in a free market and small government. None of us are fans of what we have, Its just that we do not see how starting over with a big government (which would be necessary to administer socialism) would really avoid those things. So everyone’s income is closer together, so what? We still end up with this sort of crap going on.

    • Charlie,

      Let’s assume you’re new gig is paying you (for argument sake) $10M … now, there are certainly more people involved (below your position) who contribute to the overall profit of the company.

      No matter what you assume, it is the guy’s money and property.
      He can do with it whatever he wants.

      If he wants to set $10 million on fire in the middle of his living room, do you think you have a right to stop him?

      If he wants to crash his car into his own brick wall, do you think you have a right to stop him?


      So if he Chooses to give me $10 million for whatever he reason he wants, it is not your right to stop him, argue with him or anything


      • charlieopera says:

        So long as it effects the rest of us, we think it is our business.

        So there.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The key words there were “we THINK it is our business”.
          What you think is your business and what REALLY IS your business are often two completely different things.

          So there.

          Now, please explain to us how someone giving BF $10 million for any reason whatsoever affects YOU, because I would really like to know.

        • Charlie, Charlie, what’s the governments record on managing our money? Do they spend it well? And yet you want more, bigger gov?

          “Profit for profit’s sake is not what investing should be about”) is deftly countered by Mr. Thiesen’s disquisition on “Public Equity” best summarized as:

          After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity – and that record is not pretty.

          He continues:

          Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters – leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions.

          He then recounts the many stumbles, bumbles, and failures produced by the “Public Equity Investment” geniuses.

          And about their beneficiaries:

          Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

          Read more:

        • Charlie,

          It doesn’t affect you.

          You do not own the money or property. It is not yours.
          You are not the payer of the money. It is not yours.
          You are not the receiver of the money. It is not your.

          You are merely an envious observer, wishing you had the money and property, wishing people paid you that money.

          It stead of figuring out why some people value my effort more than yours, and then doing the same thing so to be come so valuable – you merely want to steal the stuff instead.

    • What about the work that he did that he was not paid for? What about the people he came across that taught him nothing, or worse, held him back? Do they get money for this? Should they be charged for their negative impact on society? What about someone who has not had a positive impact on anyone? Should they be stripped of any possible compensation by virtue of some arbitrary measure of deservedness? Humanity is not an island, I understand that we benefit from each other. But we also are hurt by each other, how does your system account for that? Also, the janitor is a contributor, but is he as great a contributor as an inventor? What if BF discovered a viable means of fusion. The ultimate in clean power, with very cheap or even free fuel. The cost to provide energy to the whole world is cut to a tiny fraction of current levels and our pollution output is cut to match. Should he be compensated more than the maintentance guy that works on one of his reactors? Why or why not?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      You still labor under the fallacy that the 99% are forced to not only accept the position that they are in, but they are forced to STAY THERE.

      Now, I will admit that the government does this with so-called “public assistance” programs and attempts to force as many people to stay in these programs as possible, so for that (rather large and growing) segment of the population I would argue that you are at least partially correct.

      For me personally, if I don’t particularly like where I work or what they are paying me for my labor, I look for a job elsewhere which I will like better and which I will be better compensated for doing.

      You also labor under the fallacy that capital gains are not earned. Under the current rigged system, you may actually have a point here, so as things currently sit, maybe it isn’t so much of a fallacy. In a free market that isn’t distorted all to hell, capital gains are money which is RISKED as an INVESTMENT in a (hopefully) growing company. The company then uses that money (ideally) to grow and expand and become more successful. This raises the stock price which results in a gain for the person who was willing to risk their investment of capital into the company.

      Now, you could argue that that isn’t the way the current system works. You could easily say that in the current system it is a rigged casino, and 80% or more of the time, the 1% who control the casino are making money no matter which way the market goes, because they are the ones that DETERMINE which way the market goes so they can act on it ahead of time, unlike the rest of us schmucks. So, you could say that the current system has nothing whatsoever to do with a free market, and as such, Wall Street is NOT A CAPITALIST SYSTEM currently, it is simply a rigged casino where the 1% fleece everyone else.

      If you did say that, I would be about 99.95% in agreement with you.

  39. Mood music from the birthday boy. 71 today! Dang!

  40. Only in California……well, maybe New York and New Jersey….

    Safeway Worker Stops Man From Beating Pregnant Woman, Gets Suspended.

    • Boston?
      Go green? Sign a 3yr contract claiming to save money, but pay $50K more plus double electric rates for any consumers foolish enough to elect to “buy” green energy.
      NO (zero) green energy being produced in said area, despite claim it will be 100% green production. Reality, buying carbon credits NOT being used to buy windfarm offsets, but for “Projects include sustainable forestry and methane capture at landfills and “livestock biogas” (capturing cow flatulence).
      “Read more:

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I would like to add one thing on the “reforestation” carbon credit issue, mentioned at the very end of the article.

        From the beginning Forest Scientists have been pushing for Carbon Credits for maintaining health forest lands. Science is firm on this. Trees use CARBON and STORE CARBON.

        But from the BEGINNING the Enviros have OPPOSED these credits in any configuration. That is because that a forest’s ability to STORE carbon declines as it grows older. So to keep the Carbon storage at high levels, you must cut and replant the forest.

        So a scientifically known method of enhancing CO2 storage, along with O2 production is opposed by the GREENS because it might mean cutting trees someday.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          The Oceans store about a GAZILLION times more CO2 than all of the plants/trees in the world put together. Sure, having more plants and trees will provide a bit more of a carbon sink, but overall, the whole “plant a tree, get carbon credits” thing is basically a money-making scheme. Just ask Senator Lugar… He converted alot of his farmland to “forest” in order to get carbon credits, which he could then trade to industries at the “market price” to “offset” their emissions, thereby earning him a nice tidy profit. He did this in anticipation of “Cap & Trade” either passing or being forced on us by the EPA. Neither has happened (yet) so he hasn’t been able to profit from this scheme yet, but people know he did this in anticipation of being able to profit from it, which is one of the reasons he got his butt kicked in the Primary Election here a few weeks ago….

          When the Oceans heat up (as they did from 1979-2007), they RELEASE CO2 (think about what happens when you open a carbonated drink and it warms to room temperature… if room temperature is 50 F, it releases CO2, but it does so more slowly than if room temperature is 90 F.)

          When the Oceans cool, as they are starting to do now (ENSO is neutral after a double-dip La Nina, PDO is NEGATIVE, and AMO just went NEGATIVE), the Oceans ABSORB CO2. This is why many real scientists believe (and can show from ice-core data) that rise in temperature PRECEEDS increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 94% of the increase in CO2 in the past 60 years has been because the Oceans have been warm, and thus have been releasing CO2. About 5% of the increase in CO2 has been from volcanic eruptions, and about 1% has been from “human emissions”. So, even if human emissions of CO2 WENT TO ZERO, it would basically have no real effect.

          Now that the Oceans have started to cool, within a few more years we MIGHT see the atmospheric CO2 concentration curve start to level off. However, there are theories out there that when the sun goes into a grand minimum, this weakens the solar magnetic field AND weakens the magnetic field of the earth as well, which could theoretically lead to big increases in volcanic activity here on earth. Basically the theory goes something like this:

          Solar output goes down in a grand minimum, which begins temperature reductions on earth. Concurrently, reductions in the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields could cause increased volcanic activity on earth, which further reduces terrestrial temperatures. Depending on several factors, this can lead to anything from a “Little Ice Age” to a full-blown Ice Age. I have seen quite a few papers predicting that we are now at the very beginning of such a cold cycle, but only time will tell.

          • nodding along, nodding along, lost me a little, nodding along… boom:
            So, even if human emissions of CO2 WENT TO ZERO, it would basically have no real effect.
            ::insert Gong Show sound effect::

            Let’s say, hypothetically, that everything you said was true and complete. That humans accounted for 1% of added carbon emissions and that the rest is perfectly normal natural variation due to cyclical ocean temps storing/releasing CO2.

            Here’s where I always see issues. Just because something is a small piece of the puzzle doesn’t mean it can’t have out-sized effects.

            Water’s great, it’s necessary for life. I drink it every day. I consume it by the pint. But there’s some point at which that one extra glass begins to be detrimental. Maybe I was drinking a natural, albeit large, amount of water and then drank one too much and, woops, exceed the tolerance of my body. Maybe my bladder burst, killing me. Or, if you prefer, there’s tons of perfectly normal and perfectly natural plaque in your veins at all time.. but just a tiny bit extra in the wrong place and the wrong time causes a clot and kills you.

            I’m not saying that’s what’s at work here. I’m not saying any of this is right, wrong, true, false, partially correct, or anything else. I’m not making any claims as to the science.

            What I’m saying is that it’s wrong to just assume that something is necessarily benign just because there are other larger forces at play. Do you understand what I’m saying?

            • Mathius, Man made global warming is nothing more than a fraud. Al Gore should have been charged and convicted of 300 million counts by now, but he is protected by the government. On a different note (I’m being bad here) 🙂

              SEX IN THE SHOWER

              In a recent survey, African-Americans have proven to be the most likely to have had sex in the shower.

              The survey was carried out by a leading soap and toiletries firm. The results revealed that 86% of African-Americans said that they have had sex in the shower.

              The remaining 14% said they haven’t been to prison yet.

              Sort of brings tears to your eyes.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You are correct. Which brings you back to the entire debate about what the ACTUAL affect of CO2 is on temperature. And of course the affect of temp on human existence and the cost to mitigate.

              Quite frankly it seems to me that while “warming” is possible and it could be both good and bad, we are focused on the WRONG mechanism. That being CO2.

            • I see your point Matt, the sort of “straw that broke the camel’s back” argument. The only issue is, in organic systems, small moves rarely have catastrophic effects. There are mechanisms that counter-act changes. Certainly, a balance can be tipped, but the balance of nature is not a delicate as it appears. Nature has a balance, but it tends to be self-balancing. In real life, the camel would have laid down or had some significant signs of overload long before snapping its spine with a final piece of straw. Your body will exhibit significant symptoms long before an overload of water kills you, or even causes major health issues.

              Now some may argue that the earth is already showing such signs, but the very fact that most point to historical evidence to indicate those signs belies their point. In fact the greatest signs of sickness in the earth are not global, but local, and are nothing to do with CO2, but with other human waste, activity, pollution, etc. The fact that CO2 has become the boogieman has not only been harmful to the economy and freedom and all that. It has been harmful most of all to the environment itself, as the focus of science and environmentalists has shifted away from toxic chemicals, waste of resources, and overdevelopment of lands, thus wasting funds and effort fighting a harmless gas and not the real issues. It is foolishness.

            • Matt,

              Did you read the entire article? Do you “trust” the people making decisions on green energy? Was my condensed report accurate? They bought carbon credits that are not going to be used for carbon credits. Carbon credits are a ponzi scheme. The point, the whole BS selling pitch is built on the ‘tipping point” theory. So do you trust the same people who want to double your electric bill just to have a “green credit” included on your bill about how important that one percent is? If you drink one percent more water than you need, does it harm you or do you just sweat or piss it away?

            • Mathius,

              Just because something is a small piece of the puzzle doesn’t mean it can’t have out-sized effects

              We’ve gone over this before.

              You are arguing for Positive Feedback Loop – that is, a small push of the marble sitting tenderly balanced on an upside down soup bowl causes the marble to roll off, down the curve and out into oblivion of “disaster”.

              You are claiming that a small change will cause an effect that will begin to recursively add to itself, and toss the Earth into some sort of climatic confusion.

              But you fail to for account geological fact

              If a small push by humans would be so capable of such effect on the marble, then a massive 9.0 earthquake should be more then enough to launch the marble on the upside-down soup bowl flying

              The Earth has been hit by massive asteriods; suffered super volcanos; 9.9 scale Earthquakes; pole reversal; solar flares; comsic ray baths…

              …effects that are measured in powers of orders of magnitude greater then human influence.
              …and none of these caused the Positive Feedback Loop that seems to terrify you.

              What we know, then, is that the Earth is NOT a positive feedback loop system – but a massive Negative Feedback loop system….the soup bowl is not upside down, it is right side up with steep sides.

              Push the marble that away, it goes up, then falls right back down again. The harder the push, the higher it goes up, but the faster it comes back down again – this is Nature.

              Nature is not in any static equilibrium. The marble never stops moving, as the bowl never stops shaking.

              But the marble never leaves the bowl, and always rolls up and down around a dynamic center point.

              Adding your chaotic but incredibly minor shaking to the already chaotic shaking soup bowl does nothing to the chaotic and dynamic equilibriumthere is absolutely no way for you to know where the marble would have been with or without your shaking – and to your point, there is no shaking you can do to make the marble leave the bowl.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Your description of the system as the bowl and marble is pretty good.

                BUT……you fail to point out that the size of the Bowl and the movement of the Marble must be large enough to account for all potential natural changes, which means that the AFFECT ON HUMANS can be devastating.

                It all depends on HOW FAR that Marble is pushed, whether by Humans or by something else.

              • You are arguing for Positive Feedback Loop

                Not so much.

                More like a blood clot.

                Hit the wrong spot, the wrong time, the wrong way, too fast, whatever, and the whole thing goes haywire.

                Again, I’m not saying this is at play here. Just that the logical argument that “a small push cannot have a big effect” is a flawed argument. In your soup bowl analogy, imagine that it has steep sides along the x-axis, but is flat along the y-axis – nature one disturbs it certain ways, but we can disturb it differently.

                The Earth has been around for a long time and it’s endured all kinds of things, as you point out, but never Humans. And Humans are a special animal. So your assumption that it has adequate negative feedback mechanisms for EVERYTHING is unfounded. Unfounded, not necessarily wrong, but unfounded. The only thing the data shows is that it has these negative feedback mechanisms for this, that, and the other thing. And you are inferring that because of these, that it also can handle whatever we’re doing.

                And maybe it can. Maybe it can’t. Who knows? Sure as hell not me.

              • Mathius,

                You are arguing for Positive Feedback Loop Not so much.


                Deserves me right for trying to explain scientific fact to an imbecile.

                You ARE arguing for a Positive Feedback Loop – no other operative exists to explain your position.

                You claim a small change makes a big effect. This IS THE DEFINITION OF A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP.

                No other condition exists to explain it.

                You “bizarre” analogy to a blood clot simply has no merit within the system of Earth and climate. There is no “artery” to block.

              • JAC

                BUT……you fail to point out that the size of the Bowl and the movement of the Marble must be large enough to account for all potential natural changes, which means that the AFFECT ON HUMANS can be devastating.

                It all depends on HOW FAR that Marble is pushed, whether by Humans or by something else.


                The size of the bowl is so vast and huge, it is nearly incalculable.

                It has meandered as it is for 7.5 million years.

                To believe, little ol’ us, barely 5,000 years of cognitive existence, can overwhelm a system that has survived asteroid strikes that nearly shattered the planet is utterly bizarre.

                In the 7.5 million years, JAC, the continental plates have drifted, crashed into each creating massive mountains, creating huge continents of desert and rainforest where before there was neither. Vast unimaginable changes to climate, geography and life have occurred over this period.

                …and yet, the Earth is still -as far as climate and atmosphere, pretty much the same.

                So to believe puny man’s influence is greater than tectonic plates, creating mountain ranges, creating continents of desert etc. … well, prove it!

                We can’t even handle one small tornado.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                My old friend, you need to read more slowly.

                YOU just AGREED with me.

                During the period there were times when humans would have done well and times not so well. Times when we could live “where” we do today and times when we could not.

              • JAC,

                That’s right – but none of it is due to, or could be caused by, human action.

                We ADAPT to the ever chaotic planet – we are NOT the CAUSE of the chaos.

              • Mathius,

                The Earth has been around for a long time and it’s endured all kinds of things, as you point out, but never Humans. And Humans are a special animal.


                You are an idiot.

                Humans are not “special” within the perspective of the Earth.

                Dinosaurs were special.
                They lasted a couple of million years.

                We haven’t been around even a rounding error in comparison.

                …and YOU think we are some sort of “special” on this Earth….

                *face palm*

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius, statistically and scientifically speaking, here is the math:

              Total CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.04% by volume

              Total CO2 in the atmosphere strictly due to human activities, 1% of that, or 0.0004% by volume. Remove the “human” CO2 completely, and you still have an atmospheric concentration of 0.0396% by volume.

              Not a big enough difference to have any RELEVANT effects whatsoever.

              The most abundant greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, and it is quite a bit more “powerful” than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Fortunately, nature has its own thermostats, known as storms and hurricanes, and these self-regulate the temperature of the earth, and are quite obviously also linked to water vapor in the atmosphere. This is why the planet has runaway cooling from time to time (ice ages), but the planet has NEVER had anything that would demonstrably resemble runaway warming. The systemic thermostat mechanism works to well for runaway warming to ever occur.

              If you ever want to see anything really cool, look at infrared pictures of the ocean surface before and after the passage of a hurricane. Before the hurricane, the water surface will be all oranges and reds, and after the hurricane, the water is all greens and blues. Where did all the heat go? The hurricane pumped it up to 60,000+ feet in the air, where much of it actually reaches the ToA (Top of Atmosphere) boundary and escapes into space. Hurricanes are nature’s air conditioner.

              • Not a big enough difference to have any RELEVANT effects whatsoever.

                How much arsenic is in your body? A tiny, irrelevant amount. How much more would it take to kill you? A tiny addition.

                So, what’s your point?

                All I’m saying is that tiny changes CAN have disproportionately huge effects. Not that they will, not that they necessarily have to, not that this even necessarily applies to global climate systems. But that the logic that says “because it’s not much, it must be irrelevant” – that that one piece of your logic structure is flawed.

                Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Arsenic is a poison to the human body. CO2 is a naturally occurring component in the atmosphere, and has been as low as 0.025% of the atmosphere, and as high as 0.4% of the atmosphere. Below 0.025% plants start to die off because they cannot produce enough food for themselves through photosynthesis, so we don’t want THAT to happen, but even when the concentration was 0.4% (ten times higher than it is now), there was no “tipping point” which led to runaway warming. As a matter of fact, not too long (geologically speaking) after that 0.4% concentration, it seems we had one of the worst ice ages in the history of the planet.

                What you have to realize is you have to understand Lethal Doseages. For humans, 0.002% Arsenic in your blood stream might not be immediately fatal, whereas 0.005% in your blood stream might be immediately fatal. In the atmosphere, CO2 is merely a bit player. Totally necessary for life on earth, but other than that, it just isn’t that big of a deal. So far, from what the geologists tell us, anything between 0.025% of the atmosphere and 0.4% of the atmosphere seems to be tolerable to the climate system of the planet. My favorite question for ANYONE is to ask, “If CO2 was over 1000ppm many times in the past, and the planet never went into irreversible runaway warming, why should a doubling of CO2 from 270 to 540ppm in the atmosphere have that effect NOW?”

                If they bother to answer at all, they usually say something like “the geological data are unreliable”, or the more deluded say, “The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was ALWAYS 270ppm prior to man polluting the earth!”

              • Mathius,

                Opps, nope. We are talking about feedback loops, not arsenic.
                The systems are totally different

                This would be akin to arguing that sound waves travel in a vacuum.

                You continue irrational claim that “tiny changes” can disproportionally create huge effects solely rests on a theory of a positive feedback loop

                But you have no -not even a hint- of the existence of such a feedback loop.

                There is no “MAYBE” here. 7.5 million years says “it simply doesn’t exist”.

                To claim that man can produce one – over the whole earth – in …what?… 200 years vs. SEVEN MILLION YEARS of the planet’s history is…


                Prove your feedback loop exists, then MAYBE your argument MIGHT BE considered.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I see what you are saying Matt, but what I am saying is that we KNOW that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied greatly over time, and that it has been 5x, 10x and possibly even 20x higher than what it is currently, with no demonstrable “destruction” of the earth’s climate system.

              • That’s fine. And you could very readily be completely correct.

                Then again, maybe it’s never risen as sharply? Maybe the this usually happens over tens of thousands of years and a spike of 1% in 100 years is unprecedented (ie, shock to the system)? Who knows? I’m not claiming to have the answers. Just saying that we don’t know enough and that a small effect COULD possibly have a disproportionately large affect.

                Would you at least concede to possibility?

                Other than that, I don’t know anything authoritative beyond my humble and unsubstantiated speculations.

              • Mathius,

                To concede the possibility requires you to demonstrate the existence of the mechanics first.

                Demonstrate the mechanics – show the positive feedback loop – and then, and only then, do you earn the label of “possible”.

              • Considering the massive levels of greenhouse gasses and various other pollutants put into the air by volcanic activity, and the fact that it is expelled into the atmosphere withinhours, not years, I would say a sudden increase has been tested in nature and found to not really do diddlysquat in the grand scheme of climate change.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Which brings up a question I have asked before. WHY have the oceans been WARMER? I think this has been overlooked at there is probably more “deep” sea volcanic activity than realized.

            ALSO, my scientist friend. I would be interested in you AND Black Flag commenting on the increased Methane releases from the shallow Arctic shelf in northern Russia. Seems there has been a warming in the region that is increasing release of Methane hydrates as gas.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              I could write all day and still not give you the complete answer to your several questions, so I will try to summarize:

              Solar cycles 22 and 23 were some of the strongest solar cycles in the past 500 years, so for the ~30 years that these 2 cycles lasted, the land and the oceans warmed significantly. There is also a lot more underwater volcanic activity than most people previously suspected, but as yet I have not seen any RELIABLE data on just how much ocean heat content can be attributed to vulcanism. Also, ocean heating and cooling LAGS behind heating and cooling of the atmosphere. This makes intuitive sense. It doesn’t take a lot of energy at all to warm air, but it takes a tremendous amount of energy to warm water. This is why it takes a few years for the AMO and PDO to flip from negative to positive after warming starts. The PDO ALWAYS flips first, for geographic and physical reasons. The AMO flips later.

              Solar cycle 24 has been weak, but not “grand minimum” weak. A few years after the start of SC24, the PDO went negative, and recently, the AMO went negative. The last Super-El-Nino was 1998. There haven’t been any significant El Nino years since then, but there have been several La Nina episodes. Decrease in intensity and frequency of El Nino, negative PDO, and negative AMO all point to imminent cooling. Projections for SC25 and SC26 that I have seen are predicting “grand-minimum” like cycles. If that does happen, look for a LOT of cooling to happen.

              As far as the methane hydrates go, yes, this past winter was totally bizarre in the arctic. The Bearing Sea got more ice than it has ever had before on record, but Northeastern Russia has almost no sea ice the entire winter, and it was abnormally warm there. Most of the “Siberian” cold ended up in Southeastern Europe due to the polar and pacific jet stream patterns.

              The abnormal warmth in that area has exposed methane hydrates, and this is releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. How much affect will this have on “global climate”??? Good question! I don’t know the answer. The AGW crowd will say that it was CAUSED by human releases of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, and it PROVES that they are right because methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and the “excess” releases will cause amplification of the warming.

              For myself, I would say that the same thing happened in the period of ~ 1920’s through 1930’s and has probably happened on many many times in the past, and as such I am not too concerned about it. This isn’t the first time that that part of the Arctic was ice-free in winter, and it won’t be the last time either. The DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) has Arctic Ice maps from the 1920’s onwards, although anything prior to satellite data is a bit hard to find. I will try to dig up the article that shows the old maps and shows that same region being warm enough to be ice-free in winter for the 20s and 30s.

        • JAC, Peter,

          Great posts! I love the information that gets tossed around here. Sad reality, being honest, skeptics cannot and will not claim there is no “tipping point”, nor where it is if it exists. It would be like proving God doesn’t exist. You can show all the numbers, past and present. CO2 was higher and lower. World temp was higher and lower. All this before man had the numbers or ability to make a significant impact. Even today, much of the percentages claimed are “noise”, being within the margin of error of today’s best instruments. And most of the claims they make and research seems focused on “chicken little” theories while ignoring the big picture, cosmic radiation and the sun’s effect on our little planet.

          How do you reason with people who believe dinosaur and cow farts cause global warming. And Matt, I don’t mean you. I think you believe the many warnings these wacko’s spout.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            How about this:

            So far, in the 4.5 Billion Year history of the earth, there has been no demonstrable climactic tipping point related to CO2 causing “runaway warming” even though the concentration of CO2 has ranged from 250ppb to 4 parts per thousand. As such, we can postulate, although we cannot prove, that for the next 4.5 billion years, a CO2-related tipping point which will cause “runaway warming” within the same boundary conditions of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

            Is that better?

            As a scientist, I do actually realize that science does not (and cannot) positively prove anything. It can DISPROVE things, and it can leave us with the most reasonable current explanation, but it cannot conclusively positively prove anything.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              I should have said “for the next 4.5 billion years a CO2-related tipping point which will cause “runaway warming” WILL ALSO NOT HAPPEN PROVIDED WE REMAIN within the same boundary conditions of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

              I was trying to write what I was thinking faster than I was thinking it…. That usually doesn’t work too well!

              • Peter,

                PS: Venus proves that CO2 does not create the conditions seen on Venus.

                It is the H2SO4 (sulphuric acid) that creates the conditions. Co2 happens to be a consequence, not the cause.

                The acid dominates the atmosphere, creating massive insulating condition and air density for thousands of feet to the surface. It is this air density created by the acid – heavier than the bottom of our ocean – that traps the surface heat.

                CO2, even on Venus, is a minor contributor.

            • Peter,

              I don’t think it matters how well you explain it, it will not change a belief. I believe in God, I cannot imagine any words or wisdom that will sway my belief. We people latch onto an issue, sometimes it’s hard to separate “I believe” from “I think”. All the history science shows happened, proves a warmer earth was very prosperous, for the dinosaurs and the Romans. Ice ages have also been shown to be really sucky times. Science indicates we might be moving into a serious cooling phase, but the battle cry is still stop AGW!
              I think greenhouse gasses are five % of the atmosphere.
              Mankind’s contribution to that is 0.28%.
              If someone tells me we are causing global warming, I think they believe in cow farts.

              PS, methane was one thousand times higher, way back when…..

          • How do you reason with people who believe dinosaur and cow farts cause global warming. And Matt, I don’t mean you. I think you believe the many warnings these wacko’s spout.

            No one is saying cow and/or dinosaur farts are the issue. They’re saying the issue is with the burning of fossil fuels. Attacking them for a belief in the danger of farting / breathing is a strawman argument.

            Then again… I’d bet dinosaurs sure could break some serious wind…

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Believe it or not, there was recently an article published in a “reputable” journal about just this subject:


            • Matt,

              First it was global cooling, brought upon us by particulate pollution. And they drastically reduced the solid particles emitted, air got cleaner. Then they said more was needed, but didn’t have a reason. Global warming was created. Peter has shown the numbers, that we produce some one percent of CO2, but the AGW’ers want that stopped. Their top target is coal power plants. What’s next? There are studies that claim methane is 30 times worst than CO2, so they want to reduce the methane associated with human activity. Again, some studies claim wetlands, including RICE fields account for half the methane produced by humans. 90% of the worlds rice is grown in Asia. If you think it through, they view humans as the main cause of climate change.

              This is from wikipedia. Note the source shown, “A 2006 UN FAO report “. The same universities, organizations and advocate groups that are pushing CO2 as an issue are also concerned about methane and other factors. They are doing studies on cow farts and belching. I think you dismiss them when they start waving their panic flag on cows and rice, but will hear them out when they attack coal power plants for CO2 emissions. Do you think natural gas is not next? Do you think raising the cost of electricity so we use less is good and desirable? When the poor on fixed income, mostly the very young or elderly die as a result, will that still be good? China and India will not change, so only the US and other idiot countries will pay this cost. But hey, we can feel really good about ourselves, saving the world and all that…..

              In 2006, the amount of methane emitted by farm animals alone exceeded that of the iron, steel, and cement industries combined.[4] Two reasons can explain this immense amount of methane emission: first, the mass collections of cattle that must be used to supply the meat industry, and second, changes in natural feeding habits. In order to reduce the costs associated with the large amounts of feed needed to support livestock, humans have begun adding more nitrogen to cattle feed. The addition of nitrogen to the feed causes the cattle to need less food to feel full. This increase in nitrogen, however, feeds not only the cattle, but also the microorganisms in their stomachs. More methane producing microorganisms means higher methane emissions.

              A 2006 UN FAO report reported that livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. A senior UN official and co-author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.

  41. Mississippi Marine’s family rips school for making little brother hide Corps logo

    By Cristina Corbin

    Published May 23, 2012

    Read more:

    Cool T shirt………more political correctness.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I’m not sure a dogs balls are part of the PC movement, but who knows. You might be right.

    • BS!

      BS, SIR!

      BS, and you know it.

      They aren’t making him hid the marine logo. They’re making him hide dog testicles.

      Want to test this? Send him to school with the same shirt, no balls and see what happens? Then send him to school with a shirt with just the balls, see what happens? Just because an inappropriate shirt happens to ALSO have a marine corps logo doesn’t mean the other parts which are in violation of the dress code are magically excused.

      That’s like saying a politician has to be respected because he’s wearing an American flag lapel pin.

      • Well, you and JAC see it the same….I guess that I am wrong…..I see no problem wearing the t shirt at all and the point was….you are bringing up the rear…

        So, I guess if it was a female dog (bitch), you would see no problem with it? It is only a male dog that all the kids probably own one anyway?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Don’t get me wrong SIR. I am not supporting the ban of the shirt. These kids are 13 and they live in Miss. Not like they don’t see a dog’s backside daily.

          I was just saying it was STUPID as opposed to Politically Correct.

          The shirt did not violate the dress code. It simply violated the Principles over sensitive values. Or, this is where PC is possible, his over sensitivity to possible complaint by someone else.

        • I, personally see no problem at all.

          Male dogs have balls. So? Is there something intrinsically inappropriate about the canine anatomy that means children need to be protected from see it such that the school needs to ban clothing featuring it? Bah!

          But the school had a rule, and the ban wasn’t against the Corps, it was against the balls.

          If you’re going to be upset and raise a stink over this, be upset and raise a stink over the right thing: the suppression of free speech by a puritanical school administrators (ostensibly public school, otherwise you’re S.O.L.). But you don’t get to point at this an be offended that it’s some kind of anti-marine-logo nonsense – it’s not.

          Adding, I saw a guy in a huge SUV on my way to work this morning. He had a bumper sticker which read “HARDCORE TEXAN”, and was towing a horse trailer. I couldn’t see any horses, but at one point I thought I might have seen a scale-covered tail. I assume this was you?

          • Oh, I am not raising a stink about it……..isnt there something else more important to make the news?….LOL

            I know it was a rule and there are no exceptions…..I get that…it just shows the stupidity of it all……still a cool shirt, tho….

            No sir, not me…..this time. Remember I have para raptors….no need to trailer them. Also, RAptors don’t take kindly to trailers…..

          • Matt,

            Are they going to ban walking dogs in public? Or make you put butt-flaps on so as to not offend. Seems to me it’s not that noticeable on the shirt, bulldogs not being endowed like a horse. Oh, and what about the horses that give carriage rides? Why is it something in life always offends someone?

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    Today I find something to give Mr. Obama an atta-boy for. The sad part is that due to his character I find myself wondering if there is an ulterior motive. But for now I will leave it with I AGREE.

    Oh crap, did I use “boy” next to “Obama”??? Ah, to hell with it.

    • Not so fast there, Batman………………………reading the article further seems to indicate pharmaceutical efforts…….Obama received huge bucks from these guys.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I noticed that but it may be that he got two birds with one stone. So I still give him credit for the one bird.

        I also noticed many comments linking this to his opposition to single payer as a Pharma buy off. It might have been Pharma but it was a large number of Dems that got bought off, not just Mr. O.

        And of course, the answer to drug costs is as simple as ELIMINATING PATENT PROTECTION for new drugs. Doesn’t cost the Govt a single dime to implement that Cost Cutting plan.

  43. Charlie,

    Contrary to much misunderstanding, Hayek never argued that the slightest deviation from laissez-faire capitalism launches a society on an unstoppable march toward tyranny.

    Instead, he reasoned that tyranny is the inevitable result of government policies aimed at preventing market competition from ever threatening anyone’s economic prospects.

    As long as voters demand that government protect them from all downsides of economic change, governments can oblige them only by shutting down, one after another, all avenues for economic change.

    Competition; entrepreneurship; innovation; consumer sovereignty; workers’ freedom to change or to quit their jobs; even changes in demographics; Government must obliterate these and all other sources of change if no one is to be exposed to the risk of losing a job or of having her wages or benefits cut.

    Thus, Charlie, your demand of preventing consequences due to economic choices can only lead you down the path that you -equally- rage againsttyranny by an elite.

    You have to pick one or the other, sir.

    Accept total tyranny of the elite and wallow with the masses of slaves and in terror and poverty
    Accept the inequality of economic benefit in parallel to the inequality of ability and talent of free people

    There is no third option.

    • charlieopera says:

      As long as voters demand that government protect them from all downsides of economic change, governments can oblige them only by shutting down, one after another, all avenues for economic change.

      This is how choose to view it, BF. We don’t. Nobody is seeking protection; just fairness. What you list below is something people will do on their own, without the reward factor of money alone (some people just enjoy being innovative, my friend; some actually seek fulfillment for the sake of feeling good about themselves (they don’t need to be the kings of the world).

      Competition; entrepreneurship; innovation; consumer sovereignty; workers’ freedom to change or to quit their jobs; even changes in demographics; Government must obliterate these and all other sources of change if no one is to be exposed to the risk of losing a job or of having her wages or benefits cut.

      Your assumption that all of this would disappear is one only your choir hears, my friend. It is bogus.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “No one is seeking protection, just fairness”

        Ok, so PRECISELY DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY “fairness” and then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion about that topic.

      • Charlie

        This is how choose to view it, BF. We don’t. Nobody is seeking protection; just fairness.


        When economic forces say “this job doesn’t work anymore” you want government to make that job reappear because it is “unfair” to the guy, who did that job for 20 years, to be fired.

        Of course this is what you demand, Charlie – gawd, man, be honest about something within your principles!

        Your failure is that you are never honest.
        No matter the devilish consequences of your position, you deny you position created them!

        The fact is, you reward failure and poverty.
        You hate that reward breeds more of the same.
        You hate that your program makes more failure and poverty.
        You hate that the very solution you offer makes the problem worse.

        Your solution – as with every Socialist on Earth – accelerate the rewarding of failure!

        Socialism “works” right up until they run out of other people’s money.

      • Charlie

        Your assumption that all of this would disappear is one only your choir hears, my friend. It is bogus.

        No, sir, that is YOUR assumption, not mine.

        Your argument is a demand of perfection.

        Yours is an evil existence – rooted on theft of neighbor upon neighbor – pretending that if the theft is broad and systemic, everyone will be equal.

        But the thief wins over the honest man, but the murderer beats the thief. Your system evolves into massive slaughter – measured in millions of souls – as history amply provides example.

        Free men are unequal as their ability and talent are gifted from God is such unequal ways.

        But what is equal – and that which you deny – is everyman is gifted all the power regardless the talents God has gifted to be used in any way he so chooses.

        You hate that some man do not choose to use their power, so you want to steal from others to reward that choice.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What people need to realize is that when the automobile absolutely destroyed the horse and carriage over a VERY short period of time, many HORSES became PERMANENTLY unemployed. This DID NOT HAPPEN with PEOPLE, their unemployment due to this vast economic shift was very temporary!

  44. charlieopera says:
    • Charlie,

      And I think you are possibly – and very dangerously – correct.

      Most people are as economically illiterate as you.

      They will ignorantly believe the way to fix cronyism is by increasing it – hoping, though, that their “guy” will be the “guy” that picks and chooses economic benefits to them and not “the other guy” they don’t like because the other guy doesn’t.

      The only saving grace, if you can call it that, is that Socialism ends when it spends all the money of other people.
      Right now, there isn’t much of it left.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Boy if that wasn’t a bunch of CRAP.

      Keep wearing that Envy for all to see. It is sure to get the Population agitated and committed to MURDER.

      • charlieopera says:

        Sometimes murder is a good thing, Jac.

        Just look at how much you’ve benefited from the slaughter of the native population here … look at how your capitalism has done so well on the backs and deaths of others. I would think you’d support people standing up for fairness. Or is it that you require people to be underfoot (does it make you feel better as a man)?

        @BF Funny, we see you as being economically illterate (or just plain old greedy) but that doesn’t stop us from loving you, brother.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes Charlie, BF is “economically illiterate” because he believes that the value of a thing is determined by how much others want that thing, whereas you seem to believe that the value of a thing must be determined by “what is fair for everyone” (whatever that actually means, I still haven’t heard ANYONE define WTF they actually mean when they say “fairness”)

          • Peter,

            You have to forgive Charlie – he is no different then those that raged against those that said “The Earth is not the center of the universe”.

            They yelled and screamed saying “Are you blind? Can you not see the sun moves from the east to the west? Can you not see that the tree -there- does not move. Can you not see that – therefore – it is the Sun that must move and the Earth does not?”

            As we know, such an understanding is flawed and badly misinformed. We can forgive those who we know held such understanding in such ignorance.

            But what do we do with those, when the knowledge of the truth of cause/effect is demonstrated – that the world works differently and their held view is badly and dangerously distorted?

            This is the real problem.
            It is not that such knowledge of economics is unknown.
            It is not that such historical fact of the consequences of Socialism/Communism is unknown.
            It is not unknown of the fact of the economic perversity and poverty that such systems create.

            Yet, self-blindness rules.
            Just like in the 1500’s, even visual evidence of the moons orbiting Saturn was not enough to demonstrate the error of their belief, so to is it today.
            The utter, humanly devastating disasters that such systems promoted by Charlie are fact, his ilk blind themselves to the reality, and ignorantly promote the very destruction their well-meaning souls seek to prevent.

            • charlieopera says:

              The world according to BF … always amusing, seldom accurate (but he speaks with such confidence/hubris) … which is usually the first sign he’s dead wrong.

              We know the consequence of capitalism, that’s for sure. We’re just starting to live with it (becoming a third world country) … while the rest of the world (especially those we’ve exploited) learned it a long time ago. 1% ruling over 99% … with less and less benefit to the 99% … recipe for revolution/disaster. BF and his ilk (many of you) blind yourselves to the reality, and ignorantly promote the very destruction your greed seeks to covet (you have no souls) … but we’ll make sure there’s a place for you too …

          • charlieopera says:

            Peter … something tells me you can’t understand WTF anything means that isn’t in your wheelhouse (talk about closed minded) … but we still love you.

    • Of course it is, because Obama and Congress will never stand for making less than a CEO. In fact, if you look at the increases in net worth for members of Congress and presidents, you will see that they, in fact, DO earn a lot more than they are paid. The cronyism is a huge problem. All socialism really does in real life is solidify that cronyism. It does not do what it claims to do, it is not like it is in the pro-socialist books. Applied socialism centralizes wealth by force and those in control of it have all they want, everyone else gets only enough to keep them from revolting, until the whole thing collapses under the weight of the economic cost combined with nose-diving productivity.

    • Did it mention Obama has raise a BILLION in campaign contributions? And he’s the one championing the cause of the little guy…..

      • charlieopera says:

        Obama is a Republican in drag … you call him a socialist from desperation (because he’s going to whip your boy Romney’s ass in November) but he’s as much a socialist as I am a skinny man.

  45. This letter was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.

    Dear Mr. Rand,

    Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. This isn’t what you were looking for, but it’s is the most honest response I can give you. Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith. While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours.

    Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

    Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there! We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.

    This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.

    Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without invitation or consent. The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator’s language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them. I DON’T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get? Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?

    We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government’s free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government’s free handouts. It is a “slippery slope” we must not embark on!

    As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain ) once said “Socialism is GREAT – UNTIL you run out of other people’s money”.

    We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you. I am disappointed as all getout! I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life! I am ANGRY! I am MAD as hell, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!

    Walt & Cyndy Miller,
    Miller Farms Equine Transport

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Last night on Stossel I was pleased to find out my “unscientific” methodology and conclusions for identify the appropriate maximum TAX RATES has been substantiated by others.

    You all may recall that I have pushed for a Max Rate of about 20% of gross income with about half targeted at Debt reduction.

    Well it seems Rasmussen has conducted polling to find out what Americans think is the FAIR maximum tax rate.

    Get ready LEFTIES, you ain’t goin to like this.

    99% believe the FAIR maximum rate for ALL taxes should be 30%.

    If we assume a State rate of 10% or less this leaves us a Federal rate of about 20%.

    Now one more interesting thing came from the polling data. The overwhelming number of Americans who OPPOSE any tax increases AND that includes for the Rich are in the lower middle to middle income group. It is NOT the Rich themselves, but those who aspire to become rich and those who still hold the American value of “fairness” as being “equal treatment under law”.

    • those who still hold the American value of “fairness” as being “equal treatment under law”.


      Since when have these ever been “American values”?


      ::keels over::

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Actually there have been several studies on Core American Values and this is one that has always come up on the list.

        Also included is empathy for the “little guy”. Americans will almost ALWAYS pull for the little guy, the underdog, the Cinderella team.

        You, like so many on the left, just can’t grasp that a “majority” of Americans share such a value despite the outward political manifestations. It has been this conflict that is a source of the American disdain for Govt. As the perception of “unfair” increases the disdain increases.

        THAT is why the Obama campaign and the DNC have tried to isolate FAIRNESS as their issue. It plays on this core value. Their problem is that their use of the term is not consistent with other American values. Like allegiance to Capitalism as an outcome of Freedom.

        Since I doubt you realize this, the General Welfare provision in the Constitution was about “equal treatment under the law” and “benefit to the Nation as opposed to a group”.

  47. The EPA’s war on coal will result in the closure of 319 coal-fueled generating units totaling 42,895 megawatts, about 13 percent of the nation’s coal fleet, according to the Sierra Club. This will result in consumers being hit with a 10-15% increase in their electric bills by 2015. That’s an extra $150-$330 per year.

    So while much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. Former Apollo astronaut and senator from New Mexico Harrison Schmitt believes the number one priority for the skeptical community is to “recapture” youngsters in the K-12 grades. It’s too late for this generation, he says, because they have become so thoroughly indoctrinated. But Schmitt believes it is critical for the future that young people be given the opportunity to be taught both sides of the climate change debate rather than brainwashed to accept the AGW religion.

    Beyond that, there is a real problem with trying to get the media to report the position of climate realists accurately. This was brought home by protestors at the conference, many of whom carried signs saying “Climate Change is Real.” As president and CEO of the Heartland Institute Joseph Bast made note of on several occasions, the vast majority of skeptical scientists believe that the climate is indeed getting warmer. That is not now (nor has it ever been) the issue. What climate realists are “denying” (if that’s even the right word) is: 1) that man is primarily, or solely, responsible for the increase in temperature and 2) that the effects of climate change will be catastrophic for humanity.

    NASA’s climate hysteric Dr. James Hansen believes that sea levels will rise 75 meters (236 feet) by 2500 if we don’t do something to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. That claim, when repeated during the breakfast session on Tuesday, elicited gales of laughter from the audience. How is it possible to predict anything with any accuracy 500 years into the future? But Hansen is taken seriously by the scientific community and climate realists are smeared as tools of the oil and gas industry.

    The forces arrayed against climate realists are well financed and very organized. Sometimes it appears to be a hopeless task:

    Next month in Rio de Janeiro, the Rio+20 conference on “sustainability” will be held. Twenty years ago at the first Rio conference – the first “Earth Summit” – nations adopted “Agenda 21″ – a blueprint for disaster. As the conference website states:

    Twenty years after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, where countries adopted Agenda 21 – a blueprint to rethink economic growth, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection – the UN is again bringing together governments, international institutions and major groups to agree on a range of smart measures that can reduce poverty while promoting decent jobs, clean energy and a more sustainable and fair use of resources.

    Rio+20 is a chance to move away from business-as-usual and to act to end poverty, address environmental destruction and build a bridge to the future.

    Reading the reports and research papers on that website is extremely illuminating – and not a little frightening. This is not just a question of redistributing wealth on a worldwide scale. Resource sharing, technology transfers, no intellectual property rights, world taxes, transfer payments – it’s all there in black and white if anyone cares to read about it.

    Read more:

  48. “One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”
    —Ayn Rand

  49. charlieopera says:

    Here’s your Ayn Rand …

    • Snore…

      Yes, he’s right, of course, but dear God.. could he possibly have made his argument any more boring?

      Adding, “you should believe me because I once wrote a paper in college and then I put it up on the internet for you to read!”

      ::hits snooze bar::

      • charlieopera says:

        It fooled me, too Matt. I saw Colbert and didn’t even listen until it was posted … (my bad) … for a few seconds I thought he was going to support Rand …

    • Actually Charlie-based on the little I know about Rand-I think she is too extreme but then I think YOU are too extreme too 🙂 I just happen to think her logic is a lot closer to the truth. And the above quote is spot on. I don’t just discard everything she says because I think some of her ideas are too extreme. Just like I don’t discard everything you say 🙂

      • One other thing-I posted the quote because of the truth of the words-all you seem to see is the Name of the author. Why is that?

      • charlieopera says:


        Fair enough, V.H.

      • Huzzah!

        For what it’s worth, I think Rand and Charlie are both nuts too… but I think Charlie is a lot closer to the truth.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Lets evaluate. Rand believes in Individual’s desire and need to act in their own self interest.

          Charlie maintains the masses will revolt to Socialism because they want to “protect their self interest”.

          So it seems “self interest” is in fact a Human characteristic.

          But Charlie wants to impose a political system that ACTS against self interest. Rand embraces FREEDOM instead.

          But you think Charlie is closer to the truth.

          You are a danger to yourself.

          • charlieopera says:

            JAC, you keep this up and you’re going to lose your soul, my brother.

            Listen, even Charlie thinks he’s nuts … but I’m so friggin’ loveable.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            If Charlie and Mathius REALLY EVALUATED their own daily activities, I would be willing to bet that well over 90% of what each of them does involves serving there own (hopefully enlightened) self-interest.

          • I believe in a hybrid of capitalism and *gasp* socialism.

            America has been a hybrid for CENTURIES. It’s only ever been a question of extent

            I think Charlies in the deep deep left, Rand is in the deep deep deep right.

            If the correct answer is 50, Charlie’s guess is 10, Rand’s is 100. They’. Flare both nuts, but Charlie’s closerg’s guess is 137,626.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              As usual your create a fallacious example to justify your erroneous answer.

              FREEDOM = 100% = The CORRECT answer.

              Charlie sits at about 10%

              The DNC sits at about 30%

              The RNC sits at about 45%

              Rand sits at about 90%

              • While I disagree, of course, I should point out that the DNC and RNC are exactly equal on your Freedom-o-meter.

                The only difference is HOW they impact upon you.

                Red shirts want to legislate morality, control women’s uteruses, enforce Christianity as the official religion, mandate English, force gays into the closet, etc.
                Blue shifts want to.. well why bother listing it, you know what they want.

                Both are for corporate welfare (just DIFFERENT corporations). Both are for Big Government. Both are for Crony Capitalism.

                Please correct your post.

              • More new left

                NYT Claims ‘An Uneventful Weekend’ in Chicago…Except for the Mass Arrests and Terror Plots

                Read more:

              • charlieopera says:

                Charlie has the numbers and therein lies your rub, my dear friend. We will win, sooner or later. The hybrid model will come first, but it will always slide closer to social-democracy and eventually socialism. Not because socialism is the ultimate answer, but because capitalism (in the 21st century) is a guarantee for third world status. The more pure the capitalism (what you call free markets/freedom) the faster it falls apart. It’s a beautiful thing that you & BF are so sure you’re right … hubris is the other guarantee it’ll fail. How cool is that?

              • Charlie

                Charlie has the numbers and therein lies your rub, my dear friend. We will win, sooner or later.

                No, you won’t “win”.
                But you ilk may dominate.

                Your “win” is the erosion of civilization, deaths of billions of people, and the remainder living is a state of desperate poverty and starvation.

                There is nothing in the Universe that says this is “impossible” for humans – as well as we have achieved some modicum of civilization we can just as easily lose it by following your depraved moral code.

                That is the danger.
                Your depraved moral code appeals to those who are short-time preferenced – that is, those who cannot conceive of the long term consequence of their immediate action.

                Poverty in the modern world is significantly – and almost exclusively except for rare exceptions – due to the individual actor’s choice of action that are justified – not in a long term viewpoint – but in a short term gain at the cost of the long term.

                Wealth in the modern world is significantly – and almost exclusively except for rare exceptions – due to the individual actor’s choice of action that are justified – not in the short term vewpoint – but in a long term gain at the cost of the short term

                Poor people’s attitude:
                “Eat and be merry because tomorrow we may die”

                Rich people’s attitude:
                “Scrimp today, for more tomorrow”

                Most people have a combination of both – thus they muddle in what we call the middle class – they have a house with a fence and a car and 3 weeks vacation a year, and live “well enough”.

                These people are irrelevant to your ilk and to mine. They have no mind of either, and will blow around like fall leaves in the wind.

                There are a minority of people who are dominate in the short-term thinking. These people fill the prisons and the ghettos.
                There are a minority of people who are dominate in the long-term thinking. These people fill the mansions.

                That is where the battle is made

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Re the scale.

              Sorry, but you need to pay more attention. The DNC has in fact moved “left” of the old DEM Party. Clinton’s DNC would have scored closer to the RNC.

              The RNC is not proposing any of the things you posted. That is from the “conservative” or the “religious conservative” subgroup. The “Tea Party” subgoup is pushing the RNC to the “rigtht” while the other subgroup is pushing them “left”. I might give them a 40 but NOT the same at this point in time.

              Now if that subgroup gets hold of the RNC structure, then I would agree to put them BOTH at 30%.

            • Mathius,

              Hybrid does not work – no more than adding lead to a gold bar makes the bar “worth the same as pure gold”.

              The problem with hybrid solutions – one or the other principle so conjoined is perverted.

              If you add capitalism to socialism, you get mercantilism.

              You add socialism to capitalism, you get corporatism.

              Both consequences are desperately far worse then either their parents.

              If you want socialism – do it – purely. All people will be equally suffering extreme poverty – but it will be equal.

              If you want capitlaism – do it – purely. All people will share unequal wealth, but no one will be poor, but no one will be equal.

              • charlieopera says:

                If you want socialism – do it – purely. All people will be equally suffering extreme poverty – but it will be equal.

                Or maybe they won’t suffer extreme poverty. Maybe everyone will have something closer to an equal opportunity to succeed in ways that don’t require gazillionaires. How cool is that?

                If you want capitlaism – do it – purely. All people will share unequal wealth, but no one will be poor, but no one will be equal.

                No, they won’t be equal. Very good, BF. You’re getting the picture. Those with the gelt will rule over those without, thus making slaves of the have-nots to the whims of the haves. I think you’re starting to understand. This is good. This is progress. You’re now showing an ability to comprehend. Big up to you, boyo.

              • Charlie,

                Or maybe they won’t suffer extreme poverty.

                No, Charlie – they will.

                Even noted Socialist/Communist theorist and advocates admit this.

                Because there is no incentive to produce but plenty of incentive to sit and receive, your society grinds down to subsistence – people do just enough to survive.

              • Charlie,

                Those you can produce are always valued far more than those who cannot.

                To believe that stealing from and killing those that produce will change this is insane.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am curious. Are the “extremes” you see primarily related to religion and abortion? Or are there other concerns you have.

        Put them out there and I will try to address them.

        • Man has no responsibility to help his fellow man-that is my huge problem with Rand. That is my main disagreement with you 🙂 But before you start-I acknowledge, almost all I know about Rand is what you have written on this blog. 🙂

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Read more. Certainly man has NO RESPONSIBILITY to help his fellow man, but from my understanding of Rand, it is generally IN MY OWN INTEREST to help another person in need, especially if that person is family, a friend, a member of my church, a co-worker, etc. So, while helping others may not be my responsibility (and I would argue in the case of a family member it actually IS, but anyway…) I am very very likely to act in my own self interest and help others when they need it.

            Another way of putting it is that Rand believed that people didn’t need to be forced to help other people, it would just happen naturally.

            • charlieopera says:

              Another way of putting it is that Rand believed that people didn’t need to be forced to help other people, it would just happen naturally.

              Or they wouldn’t (help naturally) and people would suffer, perhaps through no fault of their own, but Rand’s prototype would do just fine eating their ice cream cone, wiping their butt with gold leaf toilet paper while squatting on a diamond toilet bowl.

              Of course Rand had to use public assistance at the end of her miserable life, but that’s another story.

              There is a moral compass we follow as individuals but sometimes it just isn’t enough. Some CEO “earning” (and I use the term extremely loosely) 4,000 x’s what an average worker ACTUALLY EARNS is insane (or imbecilic, if you prefer).

              • Of course Rand had to use public assistance at the end of her miserable life, but that’s another story.

                Actually Rand did that, AND she fraudulently filed to get extra assistance. So she’s not only a hypocrite but a criminal and a liar as well.

                Just trying to keep things in perspective. 🙂

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Some CEO “earning” (and I use the term extremely loosely) 4,000 x’s what an average worker ACTUALLY EARNS is insane (or imbecilic, if you prefer).

                You get no argument whatsoever from me there Charlie, I agree that it is insane. You would say that the source of the insanity was “Capitalism” whereas I would say that the source of the insanity wasn’t capitalism at all, but something else entirely. THAT is where we disagree 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Seems strange how you always know more about Rand’s personal issues than the Philosophy she taught.

                Yet you don’t realize you are just following the left wing habit of “character assassination”.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                I agree with your assessment. We may never know whether she viewed her own hypocrisy as a failure or not, but it certainly didn’t align whatsoever with what she claimed to be her core principles, that much is certain. What you must remember is that hypocritical behavior does not necessarily invalidate the philosophy.

                I mean, take a look at a large number of Democrats in the House and Senate… quite a few of them ARE members of the 1%, yet they go on and on and on railing against the 1% and talking about how evil the 1% are just to get votes…. and yet you know whatever legislation they enact is NOT GOING TO HURT THEM IN ANY WAY….

              • Seems strange how you always know more about Rand’s personal issues than the Philosophy she taught.

                Yet you don’t realize you are just following the left wing habit of “character assassination”.


                I agree with your assessment. We may never know whether she viewed her own hypocrisy as a failure or not, but it certainly didn’t align whatsoever with what she claimed to be her core principles, that much is certain. What you must remember is that hypocritical behavior does not necessarily invalidate the philosophy.

                In fact, I wrote something to this affect, then deleted it. I was going to an easy joke at her expense rather than a serious commentary on her world view.

                I consider her view wildly inaccurate and fatally flawed in her concept of human decency. I believe a Randian society would rapidly devolve into a landed gentry ruling class with absolute power over their serfs.

                I just find it amusing that she seems to be so idolized, yet people completely ignore her hypocrisy. Still, I agree, even if she had been an axe murderer, it doesn’t negate her theories. What negates her theories is that they’re wrong.

                I mean, take a look at a large number of Democrats in the House and Senate… quite a few of them ARE members of the 1%, yet they go on and on and on railing against the 1% and talking about how evil the 1% are just to get votes…. and yet you know whatever legislation they enact is NOT GOING TO HURT THEM IN ANY WAY…. True, of course.

                Then, on the flip side, look at the red shirts who are likewise 1%-ers claiming that they’re sticking up for the little guy.

                The simple fact is that wealth = power. Those with money have power, those with power have money. A representative democracy holds that power in check.. somewhat.. not perfectly, but better than other systems. Rand’s idea is to simply remove any system and let the chips fall where they may. Yet she ignores the tendency of powerful interests to abuse that power and assumes that everyone will behave properly – this is simply not in line with human nature. If you abolish government, robber barons and the moneyed elite become the new de-facto government, only they no longer even have to keep up the pretense of caring about you.

                I, for one, hope that never happens.. or at least that it doesn’t happen until I can be sure that I’ll be a member of the ruling elite..

            • Yes, I should read more-I don’t want to make assumptions about Rand’s ideas.

              I agree with your Another way of putting it-I do think people will help without being forced to do so. But I adamantly disagree with “Certainly man has NO RESPONSIBILITY to help his fellow man” . I may agree that man should decide what helping means-in some cases it means not doing a damn thing-but the underlying principal that we don’t have a moral obligation to help-throws our humanity, that which makes us human -out the window.

              • Don’t do that to yourself.

                Seriously. It’s painful. I had to be hospitalized for a week and haven’t stopped grinding my teeth since.

                Might I suggest a good Michener instead? Hawaii, perhaps?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You will not find much evidence of this “HUMANITY” in HUMAN history. Not at the scale that would warrant the conclusion that it is some “OBLIGATION”. You will find evidence of compassion and empathy, even sympathy from time to time. But nothing approaching an “obligation” or “duty” for one person or group of people to act to help others.

                Because you see, for an Obligation to exist, it must come from some place. Something or someone must create this obligation.

                So if it is not part of Human Nature to be so obligated then WHO is the source of this Obligation?

                This is the crack in the “obligation” theory. I expect you will eventually have to rely on “God” for the source. That is fine if you wish, for YOU. But I do not accept this theory. So there we are, standing on opposite sides of the issue. It CAN NOT BE RESOLVED.

                There is one other “crack” I would like you to address if you can.

                If you have a “moral obligation” to help others, how do you resolve a CONFLICT between this obligation and YOUR OWN interest?

                Are you OBLIGATED to tackle the thief in order to save the old man in the alley?

                Are you OBLIGATED to give 10% to charity even if it means NO FOOD for your children?

              • Trying to figure out how to answer these questions 🙂 But I am a little side tracked by the distinctions you are making. You point out compassion, empathy, and sympathy which point to man’s desire and ability to be humane. But then you claim it is not part of his nature. Man is capable of identifying with another human being and their pain and need. This ability makes people want to help, not just because one believes it is best for him personally but because he cares. So the source of the obligation comes from within ourselves, whether you believe it is from God or is instinctive, is up to you. But man is a mixture of good and bad. The underlying principal of helping your brother is one which should be promoted-it should bring about good not evil-but governmental force on steroids corrupts and takes advantage of this simple good.

                It also doesn’t help that we come to mostly the same conclusions-I simply disagree with the underlying principal-which to me seem to be a pretty big deal on one hand-what principals we are teaching the next generation-and not too big of a deal on the other-we would aim for basically the same when it comes to the government and what they do.

                And no, I do not have the answer to every moral question when it comes to an obligation to help-I also don’t have the answer to every question about freedom and when we are or aren’t intruding on someone else’s. But man learns and grows and sometimes goes backwards-but basic human principals based on being a humane society are very important-when we are walking through this world. Even though we see the meanings of these principals corrupted, mostly by governmental force, doesn’t mean we should throw them away.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              RE Rand’s “hypocrisy”.

              Actually she presented an argument for using Govt Welfare or other services LONG BEFORE she needed them for herself.

              So given her view, she was not a hypocrite.

              Now the real issue is whether he view was TRULY consistent with the REST of her philosophy.

              I think it represents a flaw. Not in values but in the Normative Outcome. It can result in a viscous cycle of Moral people playing the system because the system is corrupt, which in turn feeds the corruption, which in turn encourages the Moral person to keep playing the system.

              By the way, her argument was that ONLY those who were ABSOLUTELY opposed to these types of Coercive Govt Programs were morally or ethically justified in using them. Because any RATIONAL person should be allowed, in fact required, to act to retrieve a portion of the property stolen from them.

              You can see why I say it could create a nasty cycle.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Yes, I remember our discussion on this issue.

            You are correct. She would say we are not OBLIGATED to help others. However, we are FREE to help others as WE CHOOSE based on our OWN evaluation of our Self Interest. And in this case Self Interest does not mean JUST economic return.

            • charlieopera says:

              V.H. What JAC is trying NOT to say is that if person A is in need and person B can more than afford to help but is a selfish SOB, person A is shit out of luck (let’s assume person B is handicapped and can’t fend for themselves). Rand’s social darwinism essentially leave person A in the lurch (die if they must … and help “decrease the world’s surplus population” (Scrooge from Dickens’ A Christmas Carol) …

              Dickens, too, by the way … was an imbecile much like myself … that and he was a much better writer.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                What I am saying is that it is up to person B to decide whether to help person A, and it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether they do or not.

                In the meantime, YOU and the other 299 million people in this country are FREE to help person A if you want.

                And once more time…….Rand’s philosophy is NOT social Darwinism. It is NOT even close.

                Your constant barbs at her work confirms to me the inability of someone with a “closed” mind to learn much from another persons point of view or arguments.

                You remind me of the child sitting in the middle of the room with his fingers in his ears crying na na na na na na!

              • Charlie, I think JAC is more than capable of saying what he means. I also know that JAC believes that people would help in almost all situations if the government hadn’t taught them that they don’t need to take on that personal responsibility-the government will just take your money and do it for you.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Whether or not person B can “easily afford” to help person A or not isn’t actually relevant Charlie. I know you think that that should be the #1 Criteria for person A deciding to help person B, but it isn’t.

                You see, the REAL problem is that using government force to confiscate money from some people and use it to help others is demonstrably more inefficient than people helping each other voluntarily through their family, neighborhood, community, churches, and charities. Also, the government has a really bizarre definition of what it means to “help people” in many cases.

        • Rand’s primary failing was her complete contempt for love. She may well have postulated accurately that we help others with an ultimate motivation of self-interest, but she herself, in her portrayals of the ideal, had no interest in love or loyalty or faith or beliefs. They were beneath her purist view of production, trade, and desire. A fine ideal only if everyone understands it and is motivated the same way. Not a fine ideal in a society of actual people.

          The world in her view really would be a dearth of charity. Now, that does not mean that she was innaccurate in terms of freedom and trade, nor even production. These are all great things. It is the contempt for the other things in the lives of people, or the ignoring and marginalizing of them, that makes her system appear unrealistic.

  50. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Ok, so what we have in the links here are 2 graphs of temperature from the IPCC. The first one is the IPCC temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years shown in the 1990 Assessment Report. The second graph is the IPCC temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years shown in the 2001 Assessment Report.

    Graph 1 clearly shows the medieval optimum, followed by the little ice age, followed by the modern optimum. Graph 2 shows steady temperatures for 930 years or so, and then 70 years of a rapid ramp-up in temperature.

    So, the survey questions for today’s discussion are as follows:

    1. Which graph do you think is a more accurate reconstruction of past temperature and variations?
    2. Why?
    3. Why do you think that the IPCC switched from graph 1 in 1990 to graph 2 in 2001?

  51. charlieopera says:


    What I am saying is that it is up to person B to decide whether to help person A, and it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether they do or not.

    Back to Mr. Dickens (does he remind you of a child with his fingers in his ears crying na na na na na na!)?

    Mankind is my business.

    And as closed-minded as you are about socialism, my dear friend … well, all I have ssay about that (imitating you) is: na, na, na, na, na, na….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      We are perfectly open-minded about socialism. We have analyzed it, we have evaluated it, we understand it, and we have decided that if you try to apply it beyond a small family or tribal unit, IT JUST DOESN’T WORK. This doesn’t mean we are close-minded about it, it just means our detailed and thorough analysis of what has happened each and every time people have tried to apply it on any scale beyond the family or small tribal unit it has been utterly disastrous.

      We have also analyzed capitalism, and have found that it must be applied on the INDIVIDUAL level.

      • charlieopera says:

        Peter, Holland would prove your results wrong.

        The problem with your assumption about capitalism is seriously flawed: it assumes, for one thing, the riches of A would not affect the poverty of B (or vice versa) … it does. It inherently does so. To the point where A gets to buy the government that rules of a B. Socialism (or some form of it–social democracy) “may” do more for the greater good than having wealth rule the same.

        Calling socialism, communism,etc., imbecilic (as BF does) doesn’t sound very open-minded to me. I mean, there are quite a few imbeciles out there if it were true and I kind of suspect that those who throw the first stones usually have the most to fear … (i.e., defensive about maybe being wrong?)

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie, Holland has tremendous agriculture, quite a bit of heavy industry, and unlimited free trade within the Eurozone. It also has an extremely small population. Almost all of its trade is with the UK, Germany, and France. Because it produces more food than it needs, and produces more products than it needs, this allows it to have a trade surplus, and a debt/gdp ratio of under 50%.

          Notice WHICH Eurozone countries are successful – The Northern countries that are heavily industrialized. Notice which Eurozone countries are completely screwed – Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece… all of the Southern countries which are NOT heavily industrialized. By creating the Eurozone, Germany essentially finally took over Europe, this time with the tacit approval of the UK and France. However, the economies of the UK and France are deteriorating, and the Germans are about to try to shut off the money spigot to Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

          What do you think is going to happen when either

          A: The rest of the Eurozone won’t allow Germany to shut off the money spigot


          B. Germany succeeds in shutting off the money spigot.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Socialism fails to meet the test of RATIONAL THOUGHT.

      It does, however, make for a great escape for those who want to REACT to everything from nothing but an EMOTIONAL point of view.

      • charlieopera says:


        I “think” you know what you can do with your RATIONAL THOUGHT. You can keep Ayn Rand there right alongside it, thank you very much.

        If you think this is a reaction, wait until the roof blows off your capitalism. Unless there’s a calm step toward social-democracy first, you’re going to relieve the Russian Revolution … and yes, it’ll be violent … but greed usually does bring about the worst upon itself.

        And so it’ll go …

        • Why don’t you two just get a room already?

          Ok, it’s time to settle this. BF and D13 are loaded 1%-ers.. we’re going to need their help.

          I’m going to need four identical islands and 1,000 volunteers for each island. Charlie will go to Island A where he will set up and help run a thoroughly socialist government. Buck and I will go to Island B, where we will set up our own version of a slightly more progressive / liberal version of the US. JAC, LOI, etc will go to Island C where they can set up their VLDG gov – this shouldn’t take more than 1/2 hour prep time. Flag and Kent can head to Island D.

          We’ll check back in in a few years and see how everyone’s doing.

          (Please note that Islands B and C have to be near each other because Emilius is going to want to live on C, and I’m going to want to be able to visit her. Please locate D far away so that when they become a base of operation for Somali pirates, they can’t easily loot the other islands and mess up the experiment.)

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Can island B be in French Polynesia?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            If you are concerned about Somali pirates then it is Island A you want to stay clear of.

            I love your idea. I’ll take the Northwest Territory. You guys can fight over the rest. I know it is not an island but we can defend it well enough.

            Don’t worry. We will treat Emilius with great respect and the courtesy she deserves. We will let her visit YOU. Not sure we can let you cross the border. I’ll have to check with the tribal elders to see if we can give you a special “conjugal visit” exemption.

            • I’m definitely on C, close to D..I hear the beer flows freely there.

              • Nothing flows free on C or D… But DPM’s Grog Shack does give out free samples.

                On Island B (located is French Polynesia), the is beer, and it is subsidized.. you know, for the greater good.. but most people oddly enough prefer to drink wine.

                The beer would flow freely on A, but unfortunately, the “economy” collapsed after a few days and everyone starved to death so there is no beer to flow.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                AND great BOURBON.

                V.H., Esom, and a few others from the hill country migrated here with Grandpa’s recipe.

              • I hear there is some pretty good cheese and brats there too

          • Mathius,

            “D” Island.

            I always laugh at those that claim a place where violence – no matter who provides it – is aberrant is always declared the place where violence is unrestrained.

            It is always claimed by those who love violence… when it favors them and are fearful of it when it doesn’t.

            They can never contemplate a place where violence is seen as never favorable … period.

            • Mathius says:

              We’re going to need some of your fiat dollars to set up this experiment. I’ll send you wiring instructions through USW.

              • Mathius,

                Entirely unnecessary; logic and reason is the only tools you need.

                A society with abhors violence is not one where violence in unconstrained – to believe the opposite is totally irrational.

                A society, like yours today, which rewards violence is where violence flourishes. You are hazy in seeing this because the application of violence and its rewards is centralized and monopolized so that the rewards are gained by a specific political elite.

              • Mathius says:

                Entirely unnecessary; logic and reason is the only tools you need.

                Nothing replaces a good experiment.

                Let’s see those FRN’s. Put up or shut up.

              • Mathius,

                Why would I waste money on something that is pathologically determinable?

              • Darn autocorrect

                PRAXALOGICALLY determinable

              • Mathius says:

                I’ll believe it when there’s been a large-scale test in the real world.

                Want to convince me? Want to convince the world? You could end the argument in a matter of months, topple all the world governments and create the utopia you so desire.

                And all it would take is a few million of those little green pieces of paper.

              • Mathius,

                There is a “large scale test” – but like Charlie, you blind yourself to it because it is so vastly pervasive – like the fish, you cannot see the water you in which you swim.

                Civilization – that which has brought you alive here and now – exists solely on the premise of non-violence.

                There are but two and only two means of distrubting resources:

                – trade
                – steal

                Civilization rests completely on the former – abrogating that collapses social order and civilization – the larger the volume and extent, the greater the civilization and social order. You survive today in great comfort due to the high division of labor – an aspect that can ONLY OCCUR via trade.

                No civilization or social order can survive the the pervasiveness of the latter. The greater the theft, the more rewarded violence becomes until the murderer beats the thief, social order collapses into an orgy of slaughter and civilization collapses.

                This is the great human paradox:
                The more the former is expanded, the better and wealthier and more prosperous humans become.
                The more the latter is expanded, the worse, the poorer and desperate humans become.

                The paradox: people like you fear the former more than the latter and demand the latter must control the former; and as Hayek pointed out, doing that impedes the former, expands the latter, poverty and suffering increases, and paradoxically, people like you demand even more of the latter.

              • @Bf –

                @Matt – the real believers would not leave socialism regardless of proof. And those who seek power would never embrace a system that distributes power. Even if BF were proven right, it would take a lot more to change things than the proof itself, many will resist. Hard.

              • Jon,

                I HAVE been proven right – and you are right, regardless, people are full of fear – the fear of self-responsibility.

                It is easier to die by the order of their master because in their final breath and thought they can sooth themselves thinking “It wasn’t my fault I am dead, it is my masters fault!”

                It comes from the dominance of short-time preference thinking.

                Such has served humans well for 300,000 years – for 290,000 of those years, there wasn’t much of a future beyond tomorrow or the day after worth considering – the immediate threats of predators and starvation were always forefront and present.

                It is incredibly hard for most people to understand long-time preference thinking and what little they do, it is so long term as to be ‘beyond present thinking” – like people putting money in 401(k) when they are 20’s for when they are 65. Thinking 25, 30 40 years in the future is not long term thinking … it is “so far in the future I don’t have to think about it” thinking. So, they take the ‘easy’ way, mindless way of doing that too!

                So as frustrating as it is for us who do the long-time preferenced thinking – who are self-responsible – to be surrounded by -literally- hunter/gatherer/cavemen brains of others, all that can be done is to take advantage of their disadvantage for profit and build a heritage for your own family.

              • Mathius says:

                Mr. Flag,

                Civilization – that which has brought you alive here and now – exists solely on the premise of non-violence.

                Oh, no no no. Noooo…

                Violence is the father and mother of the human race, of our civilization.

                Is it violence which drives the engine of evolution. It is violence which has determined for billions of years which species would be allowed to live and which would die. For millions of years, it’s been a violence – raw and naked – red of tooth and claw – violence, the all-consuming selfish rage of the most brutal species the world has ever known – which led to us. Violence which elevated man to the top of the food chain. Violence which kept us here. Violence which created and then destroyed the great civilizations of the past – Rome and ancient Greece. It is violence which binds us. Violence which unites us. Violence which keeps us together. Violence which orders our lives. Violence, always violence. It is there in the background of lives, always.

                It comes in many forms. But it is violence all around us. Violence from the politicians. Violence from the police. Violence from criminals. Violence from even our friends and neighbors. You are threatened at every angle with violence. Imprisonment, theft, and of course, traditional physical violence. You are controlled from birth to death, and for what? For the glory of civilization – for the continuance of civilization – of life as we know it, for the delusion of peace and the luxury of prosperity. Because it cannot exist if our true natures are left unchecked. We are animals, and when the chips are down, we will kill and we will feed and we will take what we need. We lie to ourselves. But it is the violence of society which mitigates the violence of ourselves, which holds it in check. We have only traded one violence for another. “Civilization” is a thin veneer on the foaming cesspool that is our nature, but it hides the truth that we are still inundated with it so that men like you can lie to yourselves and imagine that it is peace which made all this possible.

                “Civilization exists solely on the premise of non-violence” … nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Violence created all of the circumstance which make it possible to have anything remotely similar to a banding-together of humans into society. Violence is why you are who you are, violence is why you are where you are. Violence created you – it created all of us.

              • No, sir.

                Co-operation created you – and violence is a poison to co-operation.

                Many animals co-operate to improve their prosperity – from wolves to lions and tigers to monkeys and man.

                Natural observation demonstrates that the higher degree of co-operation, the more successful the “pack”.

                Civilization exists by ever-increasing division of labor, which requires (note that word…”requires”) high cooperation.

                The higher the degree of cooperation, the more poisonous becomes violence.

              • Mathius says:

                Cooperation is a tool.

                Humans have learned how to use this tool to increase our capacity for violence.

                A human alone might be able to kill small game and live on the edge of starvation.

                A small band of humans can invent bows and arrows and bring down bigger game.

                A larger group can go to war with each other with guns and bombs to compete for resources and glory.

                A larger group can develop nuclear weapons and end all life on the planet.

                Cooperation isn’t an end, it’s a means. It is a means to amplify ability. And we’ve used it to amplify our capacity for violence. Bows, arrows, knives, swords, guns, tanks, bombs, bigger bombs, nukes. And why? So we could fight, not for our survival in nature – for food and water – not so that we could eat, but so that we could dominate each other because we are vicious sociopathic brutal animals. We brought our amplified violence to bear against other humans using their amplified capacity for violence. And we used it to a create a system of checks and balance which we call civilization so that we could have the perks of being happy and wealthy and protected from the physical and random violence of the world at large. And we bought it with violence. And we maintain it with violence.

              • Cooperation is a tool.

                No, it is not a tool.

                It is a system.

                Violence is profitable – we agree.
                It is one of the methods of distributing resources, we agree.

                That is not the dialogue, however.

                We are talking about the creation of civilization – an existence created by the subduing and elimination of human violence not its expansion.

                Civilization and violence are opposites – the larger the one, the more the other diminishes.

                Your examples of magnification of violence, should they be exercised, would destroy civilization – you will not claim nuclear war improves civil progress.

                …and that’s my point.

                It is not a claim to say violence does not exist, nor expands or contracts.

                It is that it is NOT the creator of civilization, it does NOT make civilization, it does NOT improve it, nor grow it.

                It destroys civilization.

              • Mathius says:

                Somehow I’m not surprised that you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of reality.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                YOU are using a different definition of “civilization”.

                To be “civilized” by definition means we set aside arbitrary violence. It becomes only a “retaliation” of “last resort”.

              • Mathius says:

                Who said anything about arbitrary violence?

                No, civilization is directed violence.

              • Mathius

                Who said anything about arbitrary violence? No, civilization is directed violence.

                Only if you pervert definitions.

                Violence impacts human history but it is NOT civilized.

              • Mathius says:

                “Civilized” is very different than “civilization.” You know this. You’re switching terms. Your original quote:

                Civilization – that which has brought you alive here and now – exists solely on the premise of non-violence.

                Civilizations for almost all of human existence have been quite uncivilized.

                Rome was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                Sparta was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                Nazi Germany was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                The USSR was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                The Hun Dynasty was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                Ancient Egypt was a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.
                Myanmar is a civilization, no? But they most certainly were not what we, today, would call civilized.

                Is America civilized in your opinion? Is it a civilization? What created “America” as it currently stands? It is a collection of 50 states ruled by a federal government which intrudes and regulates your entire life. It does so with the threat of arrest, of jail, of fines. It does so by funding itself by taking money against your will which you earned. How is this not your definition of violence? How did America come to be? Violence in Europe drove people to the New World. Once there, violence allowed them to subjugate the indigenous population and take their land. Once done, violence allowed them to break away from England. Once done, the new government almost immediately began imposing on it’s own people by threat of violence, remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Founded in blood and maintained in blood.

                Can you show me any civilization in history which was not founded in violence and kept intact with violence?

              • Mathius,

                Civilizations for almost all of human existence have been quite uncivilized. Rome was a civilization, no?

                Rome had some civilization, and in other parts not.

                It is not a binary thing, Mathius – please re-read what I said.

                As one expands, the other diminishes.

                They are operative at the same time and opposite to one another.

                Civilization come from abhorrence of violence, not its embrace.

              • Mathius says:

                Abhor it all you like. Violence is what makes civilization possible.

              • Mathius

                You are incomplete.

                The abolition of Violence is what makes civilization possible.

              • Mathius says:

                If a civilization were ever non-violent, a different civilization which was violent would come in and destroy them or their own citizens would destroy it from within.

                Time elapsed: 1-2 business days.

              • Mathius,

                If a civilization were ever non-violent, a different civilization which was violent would come in and destroy them or their own citizens would destroy it from within. Time elapsed: 1-2 business days

                Well that is utter nonsense.

                Your theory rests on the belief that free men will not defend themselves.

              • Mathius says:

                I believe people will defend themselves. I also believe that people are hostile, short-sighted, selfish, greedy, sociopathic, psychotic, violent bundles of id, just a half-step from the African savanna.

                The second you get rid of the government, anarchy breaks out. And not your sunshine and puppy dog vision of anarchy. More like the post-Katrina New Orleans kind of anarchy. More like Thunderdome.

              • Mathius,

                I believe people will defend themselves. I also believe that people are hostile, short-sighted, selfish, greedy, sociopathic, psychotic, violent bundles of id, just a half-step from the African savanna.

                Reality betrays you.

                The proceeds of civilization surround and dominate your environment – therefore, your perception of humanity -though common- CANNOT BE FUNDAMENTAL.

                The second you get rid of the government, anarchy breaks out.

                Yahoo! And what a glorious day that would be!

                And not your sunshine and puppy dog vision of anarchy. More like the post-Katrina New Orleans kind of anarchy. More like Thunderdome.

                I don’t have a “sunshine and puppy dog” vision of anarchy. I have a rational and reasoned understanding of how it operates and its consequences.

                As Jefferson quipped, I’d rather worry about the few extremes associated with too much freedom, then the extremes of too little of it.

                And, no, it would not be at all like Katrina – that mess was due to a wholly misguided trust in violence providers – who, in the end, killed a lot of people …because that is all they are good at.

                As usual, you describe consequences due to a rampant failure of government as if it was the fault of free people.

              • Mathius says:

                Give me evidence of one time and place, just one, where a non-violent anarchist society has existed in the entirety of recorded history.

                How are things going in Somalia lately?

                Of course anarchy is like post-Katrina. It’s every man for himself and the dominating from the weak – because humans are nothing more than animals with bigger brains. I’ve seen dozens of examples of anarchy presenting this way. But you keep saying that it’s absolute fact that anarchy is the best of all possible worlds, and blame any contrary evidence on ‘wholly misguided trust in violence providers’ rather than the perpetrators of the violence within the anarchist system itself.. well show it to me then. Prove it. Show me empirical evidence, not some contrived ‘proof’ that you cooked up in a vacuum in a lab. Just one shining example. One.

                If no such perfect society exists, why not?

              • Mathius

                Give me evidence of one time and place, just one, where a non-violent anarchist society has existed in the entirety of recorded history

                Your home.

              • Mathius

                How are things going in Somalia lately?

                It was a whole lot better when they lost their government, and now a whole lot worse now that one is coming in.

              • Mathius says:

                “Your theory rests on the belief that free men will not defend themselves.” – BF

                If things are getting worse with one coming in (first I’m hearing about this, by the way), why can’t free men resist?

              • ?

              • Mathius,

                No surprise – almost every one pulls up Somalia as some sort of negative example with utterly no clue about what they are talking about, and you are no exception.

                So you believe that if they had a government, they’d always win against invasion?
                You are daft if you believe such!

                That’s the problem with your mindset.
                Free men do resist but they do not always win. So you claim freedom always loses.

                But government men attack but they do not always win either, but you do not claim government always loses.

                Your measures are lopsided.

              • Mathius,

                See that is what I mean when I say you are lopsided.

                You don’t pull up another government to compare to another government – say Sweden vs. North Korea, since that would claim it is not meaningful.

                But you believe pulling up Somalia vs another government is meaningful. Thus, you are bizarre.

                You do not compare Somalia with government and without government, where in the latter nearly every measure of human suffering fell, every measure of prosperity expanded rapidly. But nope, that would be a rational comparison, and not one you’d like to use.

              • Mathius says:

                And, by the way, how do you measure “a whole lot better when they lost their government”? In terms of what? If you are able to offer this as a factual statement rather than a declaration of opinion, I assume you have some firm metric in mind?

                Seventh highest birth rate.
                Fourth highest infant mortality rate.
                Ninth highest death rate.
                70% drink untreated water (91% for rural)
                Average age of 17.7.
                215th highest life expectancy (out of 221)
                32.9% of children 0-5 underweight.
                37% literacy (male 49.7, female 25.8)
                GDP per capital $600 (rank 222 out of 226)

                How does this stack up to that bastion of government force and violence that is the United States of America?

                Ok, so I’ve offered some metrics. Your turn.

              • Mathius says:

                So you claim freedom always loses.

                Show me one time / place where “freedom” has won. (please point to the us, please point to the us, please point to the us…)

                Surely, if “free men” win some of the time, then there’s somewhere on Earth where a “free” society exists. If it’s not Somalia, that’s fine. Can you point it out to me? I mean, there are hundreds of countries, with thousands of states, with millions of cities/towns, every one of which is ruled, to some degree or another, by a mean and nasty violent government. Where’s your example of the opposite?

                That is, unless violent governments (whether from without or within) win Every. Single. Time.

              • Mathius

                So you claim freedom always loses. Show me one time / place where “freedom” has won. (please point to the us, please point to the us, please point to the us…)


              • Mathius says:

                But you believe pulling up Somalia vs another government is meaningful. Thus, you are bizarre.

                You do not compare Somalia with government and without government, where in the latter nearly every measure of human suffering fell, every measure of prosperity expanded rapidly. But nope, that would be a rational comparison, and not one you’d like to use.

                Very true. Very true.

                But I do not suggest that ALL governments are good. Government is a tool. And like all tools, it can be used for good or bad. So when you compare Somalia’s bad government to it’s bad Anarchy, you are painting all governments with one brush. But that’s not fair. Some governments are good, like Sweden. But you contend that Anarchy is inherently good – that it ALWAYS nets the best result. And I’m saying that’s not true. So if Anarchy is ALWAYS good, show me one example where that is the case, where it has been peaceful or where it has succeeded against outside aggressors or where it has rebuffed internal strongmen from taking over or any of this. All you have is theory, but it isn’t borne out by the real world.. or am I missing something? Atlantis, maybe?

              • Mathius

                But I do not suggest that ALL governments are good. Government is a tool. And like all tools, it can be used for good or bad.

                It is not a tool. It is a system.

                To evaluate good/bad of any system, one needs to understand purpose and means.

                The purpose: social order.
                The means: violence.

                This is why those that become Black Flags do so, not because of emotional whim, but by hard logic and hard reasoning.

                Anarchy is a consequence of a reasoning man’s moral system to achieve the best humanly possible social order construction.

                Government is a contradiction – a belief that through initiation of violence, social order is increased. Yet, in all cases the reverse is true.

                Therefore, those who adhere and champion government hold a different purpose then social order and civilization

              • Mathius says:


                You, sir, are not a civilization. You are a single person.

                I could see how you’d be confused, what with the giant ego and all… but let’s try to stay on point.

                You cannot argue that anarchy works because of “you.” Show me an anarchist civilization that has ever had any success as a peaceful entity.

              • Mathius

                Me. You, sir, are not a civilization. You are a single person.

                I am and yes, I am.

                You are confused.
                You believe there exists some core indivisible entity called “society” – yet, all it is but an abstraction to try to define some undefinable aggregation.

                All things human, no matter what, always, and forever end up based on individual choices.

                All human action is ultimately individual – and all measures and judgement of such action are equally individual upon individuals.

                As far as large composites, there are volumes addressing your question with Iceland, American Indians, Europeans in first century… but you need to study history, and you don’t do that.

                And, PS: who said anything about peace? Why do you insist on assigning irrelevant virtues to things? You really have no concept of freedom, do you?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I hope that if the roof blows off as you say that it IS in fact VIOLENT.

          That will assure that YOUR repugnant political/economic theory is relegated to the ash bin of history, once and for all.

          But don’t fret, because your dream of REVOLUTION WILL NOT HAPPEN here in the USA.

          • charlieopera says:

            JAC, you’re too violent for me, brother.

            I’m duking my pants as I type …

            You’re right, though, it won’t happen here in the US&A … it will happen slowly over time. It has to. Capitalism is fading fast, my friend. It’s the new slavery without the Marxism …

            How cool is that?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Charlie, point to me a time when there actually WAS capitalism in the United States. The actual answer, on a national scale is “never”. Locally, there used to be quite a bit of capitalism in the US, but even that was a LONG LONG time ago. Essentially, you are claiming that something is “disappearing” from this country that never was really given a chance to exist in this country in the first place.

              • charlieopera says:

                Charlie, point to me a time when there actually WAS capitalism in the United States. The actual answer, on a national scale is “never”.

                Please convey this to your friend BF. He insists he always gives examples of it working. It can’t happen because it is doomed to failure (see third world–here we come!) … yippeee!

            • It faded into mercantilism a long time ago, and whats left of that is fading into marxism or facism, we cant seem to decide which side to elect…

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Don’t be so sure… after so many years of totally warped “Public Education” and with such a high percentage of the population completely dependent on the government for their goodies, all it will take is a collapse of the fiat currency to cause exactly what Charlie is talking about, and that collapse is being held off by the very people who are causing the collapse. They cannot hold it off forever.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie… How can the roof blow off of capitalism when the economy of the United States is not a Capitalist economy?

          • An excellent question!

            • charlieopera says:

              Excellent indeed. So what happened to your “free market” capitalism? It seems to me: A few of the wealthiest became so powerful (rich) they were able to consolidate their power (not necessarily a conspiracy but because that’s what capitalism forces those with the gelt to do) … with increasing power (i.e., corruption of government) they simply protected their interests and tha’s the mess you have now). Totally free market Capitalism cannot exist. It simply blows up … which, even with the government tossing off bones, can’t stop it from doing.

              Bada-boom, bada-bing. We win.

              • Charlie,

                Totally free market Capitalism cannot exist. It simply blows up

                Well, of course it does not!

                Even in your own very example, you pervert your own rational – you introduce a “NOT a Totally free Market” … you said: “…with increasing power (i.e., corruption of government)…” – you still have violent, irrational violence as your root.

                But to you *heck* it can’t be that!!! that creates the violent problem!?! Oh no! A massive provider of violence can never be – in Charlie’s world – the problem of mass violence!

                It can only be the fault of free, non-violent men that creates massive violence! Oh, the greatest killer of humanity can NOT be the problem of violence in the world! Only people who deny and abhor violence create violence!

                Such insanity….

    • Charlie,

      Yep, leave it to you to believe in”ghosts” …. and that somehow…they define social morals.

      Doing harm is evil.
      Theft is doing harm and is evil.

      You declare that theft -therefore evil – is a moral good if it solves another person’s economic problem.

      You believe that the problem so solved is greater a good then the evil necessary to solve it.

      You cannot understand that evil in action creates evil, no matter the reason.

  52. charlieopera says:


    Jack repeated what I said (that it was Person B’s choice to be a Scrooge or not. That was my point … obviously he needed help.

    Not that he made a point beyond the fact that Person A can die for all Person B cares …

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie… Person A can ALWAYS die for all that Person B cares… it doesn’t matter what kind of government/society you set up. Set up the wrong kind, and a whole bunch of people die directly because you set up the wrong kind.

  53. charlieopera says:


    No, actually I used a wealthy Person B the way extremes are often used in such paradigms. But you’re right, people should help other people however they can. The problem (and I’m sure you know this) is that there are far too many Person B’s in this wonderful world of ours (especially in the good old US&A). Please don’t point to charitable contributions and put me to sleep. The bottom line is when a CEO can “earn” 4000 x’s what the average worker earns (or for a more extreme case; 2 years ago in Boston, the hedge fund manager who “earned” $2.4 million an hour) …what you have is beyond greed for the sake of greed. How long do you really think that can go on before those without anything (which the middle class seem to be joining in record #’s — why we’re a third world country now) have enough of this wonderful economy for the rich by the rich?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      My guess would be “not much longer”. The problem is, most people do not recognize the problem for what it really is, so the “solution” is likely to be worse than the original problem.

      As far as selfish bastards (Person B types) who have no desire to help others regardless of the circumstances, you are going to have that regardless of whether you have a free society or not. In a free society, such people get scoffed at, ridiculed, and most people tend to avoid such people and not do business with them.

      In a not-free society, they end up running the place and people end up being forced to do business with them whether they want to or not (precisely what we have now in this country and virtually all other countries as well).

  54. Just A Citizen says:


    “Charlie, I think JAC is more than capable of saying what he means. I also know that JAC believes that people would help in almost all situations if the government hadn’t taught them that they don’t need to take on that personal responsibility-the government will just take your money and do it for you.”

    YES my dear, this is TRUE.

    It goes to the other ROT created by Govt growth in our lives. We often talk about those “hooked” on the system. But we don’t often talk about how these programs and activities KILL the “intimate connection” between donor and recipient. It is a change in our society that I saw come to the front about 12 to 15 years ago.

    If we think back to the President’s effort to “Increase Volunteerism” (Colin Powell was part of this if I recall) there was a reason for this. Voluntary HELP was dropping off at that time. People wanted to “hand off” their effort to a third party. Whether that was some “group” or the “govt” did not matter. The comment I heard most was “Can’t I just write you a bigger check instead of helping myself?”

    • If we think back to the President’s effort to “Increase Volunteerism” (Colin Powell was part of this if I recall) there was a reason for this. Voluntary HELP was dropping off at that time. People wanted to “hand off” their effort to a third party. Whether that was some “group” or the “govt” did not matter. The comment I heard most was “Can’t I just write you a bigger check instead of helping myself?”

      And now, for another story from Mathius’ Big Book of Ye Olden Tymes:

      Once upon a it was expected that all Christians would attend mass several times per day, including noontide mass and midnight mass. You can imagine how disruptive this must have been to everyone’s lives. However, the rule of The Church was absolute, so attend they did.

      Then someone had a great idea. I’m going to hire this religious guy over her to pay on my behalf. God is still getting his worship, I’m still sacrificing and contributing to the glory of God, just with my wealth instead of my time.

      The idea, as one might expect, caught on, and thus were born the monks.

      You see, it was inefficient for individuals to each get up, get dress, walk to church, and pray so often. But it was great when it was centralized.

      And when bad things were going on such that more prayer was needed, well then, the question wasn’t, should I pray more, it was.. “can’t I just write the monks a bigger check?”


      Stay tuned, children, for more stories from Mathius’ Big Book of Ye Olden Tymes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Clever, and even a little funny. But wasn’t the “sale” over favors and “positions” and not “praying”?

        • What “sale” are you talking about?

          Certainly once the idea got going, the monasteries became local centers of power throughout Europe. This, however, is how they got started. What they evolved into is another chapter in Mathius’ Big Book of Ye Olden Tymes.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was talking about the Church’s selling of favors and positions that led to Martin Luther’s revolt.

  55. charlieopera says:


    You have it all wrong. Us Island A-types are EVIl and will use our self-motivated types to build the necessary weaponry to become Somali Pirates … then we’ll invade one island at a time, take what we want and skedaddle.

    We’ll do this because we’re sure the capitalist islands will try to steal our resources (you know, they way they ALWAYS do).

    We’ll leave Kent and BF alone because they’ll probably kill each other anyway.

  56. To refresh some memories on what Island D looks like: From the SUFA archives:

    Black Flag says:
    January 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Looking across the valley at a village where Black Flag lives. Wondering whether to go stay or just visit for a beer before returning to my village

    As you know, you’re always welcome.

    The village is always a buzz when you come and visit – celebrations spontaneously explode everywhere! And, of course, the beer flows freely those days….

    …and you can stay as long as you wish. You’ll always find a welcome room in any home at the village.

    …and if, one day, you decide to make it your home – there is a nice piece of property (for sale, of course) just over there that’ll fit you just fine, I reckon!

    Mathius says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    I’ll come for a visit.. just let me get my tetanus booster first.

    I’m very curious to see how things work over there.. for example, who cleans up roadside litter? And given that the beer factory is massively polluting the river, is the solution just to locate the town upstream?

    Also, is there a generally agreed upon designated area for duels so as to avoid death by stray bullet?

    These questions and more.. I shall have to bring a notepad..

    Maybe I’ll also bring some new technology as gifts since your abhorrence of the concept of intellectual property will stagnate R&D. And maybe some books too, since nobody there is likely to spend a year writing and have someone else just sell copies on the internet without royalties.

    Anything else you need before I head over? Let me know. I’m scheduled for some time off the week of Feb 14.

    Black Flag says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    I’ll come for a visit.. just let me get my tetanus booster first.


    Please stay away for at least two weeks after that shot. We wouldn’t want you infecting the rest of us with all that crap you just shot into your arm.

    I’m very curious to see how things work over there..

    Equally, we’ll ask you to forgive all the strange stares from us. It’s not often we see a wandering ‘slave’.

    for example, who cleans up roadside litter?

    Those that are annoyed by litter either do it, or pay someone to do it.

    And given that the beer factory is massively polluting the river,


    Poisoning someone else is strictly forbidden. It is an act of violence against another person.

    The beer plants are all prestene. Yeah, we had a few others try to come in here and sell their crap, but it wasn’t long before the People realized they were merely poisoning everything.

    Most of the people simply stopped buying their stuff. They went bankrupt eventually – bought up by some group from JAC’s tribe – they’ve made a real go of it!

    is the solution just to locate the town upstream?

    If you can tell the difference, let us know!

    It’s probably cleaner downstream.

    Also, is there a generally agreed upon designated area for duels so as to avoid death by stray bullet?

    There’s an area over yonder called “Slave-land” that some sneak over to duel. Most “duels” here are debates in the middle of town square where the one with the best facts, reasoning and truth mixed with the best rhetoric usually wins.

    Not always though. That’s what makes it fun!

    These questions and more.. I shall have to bring a notepad..

    More than one I’d suggest…

    Maybe I’ll also bring some new technology as gifts since your abhorrence of the concept of intellectual property will stagnate R&D.

    Are you kidding??? We’re so far beyond what you’ve dreamed!

    Ya see … when we see genius, it’s popular. The stuff he invented gets built and rebuilt and copied so its everywhere.

    But everyone knows where it came from. He’s the talk of the town, rarely pays for anything – heck, the amount of money that just drops at his door anonymous is staggering! He wouldn’t want it any other way!

    He loves seeing his inventions EVERYWHERE – nearly everywhere his eyes falls he can say – “I invented that!!”

    Richest man in town, I’d guess….

    And maybe some books too, since nobody there is likely to spend a year writing and have someone else just sell copies on the internet without royalties.

    Books are for pansies… but the blogs are rich – flowing with free thought and debate – one of the fav’s around here is some strange blog called “SUFA” – everyone’s always there throwing their free ideas around – purifying them with the test of the real flame of unfettered thinking – USWep is some what of a hero around these parts….

    Anything else you need before I head over? Let me know. I’m scheduled for some time off the week of Feb 14.

    Bring gold – your paper money doesn’t carry here.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Clever lady you are today……. 🙂

    • You know.. I visited as planned.. I think, perhaps, it’s time I told you about my life…..

      The second I set foot on the island, roving band of bandits, snuck up behind me, stole everything I had, and left me stranded on the beach.

      I wandered into town, gingerly stepping around the festering piles of roadside garbage (which no one had picked up or paid to have picked up since everyone considered it someone else’s problem). I called out for help, only to be told that the is no sheriff here and that I should be more careful next time. I asked for some clothes, but was told that I didn’t have any money.. too bad.

      I settled down in a field somewhere, cold and hungry. Halfway through the night, someone shot at me and yelled at me to get off their land (I hadn’t seen a sign). While running away, I stepped on something and cut open a gash on my foot. When I slowed down to limp, the guy must have thought I was refusing to get off his land so he shot again, this time grazing me in the arm.

      I limped and shambled back to town, begging for help. Someone came up to me and told me that they couldn’t help me, but for a silver oz, they’d tell me where I could get help. I didn’t have this, and explained about being robbed. They just shrugged and walked away, muttering something about TANSTAAFL. Whatever that means.

      I kept limping and begging, but there were so many beggars. Hundreds of them, and many in worse shape than I!

      By sheer chance, I wandered to the home of a Mr. Flag. I started limping up his front path to knock on his door and beg for help, but as soon as I set foot onto his land, a siren went off and automatic defense measures deployed. I jumped back onto the street and the sirens muted. I shouted for Mr Flag, but I guess he wasn’t home. I waited for hours, but he never showed, so I had no choice but to move on.

      Carrying on, I found a local pub. The sign said simple: DPM’s, Best Grog Anywhere. I wandered in, hoping for help.

      I saw him, a huge imposing giant of a man, with one missing eye, a peg leg, and a parrot on his shoulder the size of a pterodactyl. He said simply, ‘y’arrgh, go around back.’ So I did.

      Once there, he allowed me to clean off using his waste dish water (which was conveniently soapy), and clean my wounds in some powerfully alcoholic grog. He tossed me a scrap of meat and gave me a swig of water and an old apron to wear. I thanked him profusely.

      “Y’arrgh,” he said, “your shift starts now.” I looked confused, so he clarified. “You don’t think I gave that to you for nothing? It’s your wages, half paid in advance out of the kindness of me heart. You’re on duty until 11, or later if I decide.”

      He didn’t look the type to be messed with, so I did as he said. At the end, he fed me the other half of my wages and told me I could sleep in the barn. The next day I went out looking for help, for a way off the island, or a job that paid me more than a few scraps of food a day. When no opportunity presented itself, and once several people had told me how fortunate I had been to land even that job, I returned. The pirate set out terms of my employ.

      He was permitted to strike me at any time. I was barred from seeking alternative employment. My wages were to be three square meals a day, plus water. I could sleep in the barn (provided I did not disturb “his pets” – I did not ask what types of pets). At any time, for any reason, he could alter the terms of the agreement and I must either accept or be dismissed. No sick days, no weekends, no holidays.

      He explained that bodily harm was only permissible if I permitted it, but that I would have to permit it if I wanted the job. I needed the job, so I agreed to his terms. He cuffed me upside the head – I think it was meant to be a light cuff, but as I said, he was a mountain of a man – and I went sprawling. He left with a deep rumbling laugh. He did so enjoy roughing up his employees… I once saw throw a man through the side of a barn.. but always with their permission, because they needed the job on whatever terms.

      I wasn’t sure how I would ever escape. I wasn’t saving anything. Hell, I wasn’t really earning anything other than just enough to stay alive. There was no way to escape my situation, and because of the terms of our deal, I would lose even that fragile lifeline if I looked elsewhere.

      Things continued in this way several years, me as DPM’s virtual slave, yet still far above the standard of living on that miserable island. Eventually, one day, while swabbing the desks of the Thor’s Hammer, I saw my chance. DPM, staggeringly drunk on DPM Select Spiced Rum, put his musket down!

      Quickly, I grabbed the musket, and aimed it at the Pirate, planning to finally make my escape. He took another swig, obvious, and passed out in his captain’s chair. Tying him to the mast, I sailed the Hammer home, where I locked him up in my basement.

      And there he stayed, until a mysterious submarine operated by a man known only as “the colonel” broke him out.

      • Your first problem is that you landed on Cuban Island D. You’re 4000 miles off course.

  57. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: your comments on Rand.

    “Rand’s idea is to simply remove any system and let the chips fall where they may. ”

    As I said, you DO NOT know what her philosophy is yet you condemn it, on the basis of Your opinion about it. Your statement is FALSE.

    She was not an Anarchist. She believed in the Right of Men to organize Government. She believed Govt an essential part of Civilization.

    She constructed a defense of Govt that leads to identifying the “proper role” of Govt based on higher order philosophical principles of Individual Freedom, Liberty and Justice.

    Thus the Govt would be as moral and ethical as the people which it was designed to protect or serve.

    Furthermore, these were not ORIGINAL Rand ideas. These principles and concepts have existed for hundreds of years. Those who oppose them ALWAYS fall on the side of a Powerful Govt that acts as CARE TAKER. Realizing it or not they seem to want to simply replace the KING of “olden tymes’ with a new King called Central Govt.

    • charlieopera says:

      Thus the Govt would be as moral and ethical as the people which it was designed to protect or serve.

      Translation: the rich. They own it (corruption), they get what they want from it. The circle is complete. The US&A … a mess.

  58. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I still want to see exact precise dictionary definitions of what Charlie means when he says “capitalism” and what he means when he says “fairness”.

    We have had many conversations on this website, and it is pretty easy to find MY definition of the word “government” and my definition of the word “capitalism”. I don’t think I have ever bothered to define “fairness” because fairness is not a governmental or economic concept, it is only a concept used to DISTORT government and economics.

    I find it really difficult to get past the basics when it comes to conversing with Charlie, because I am not really sure what he actually MEANS when he says “capitalism”, although I have SOME idea what his definition might be. As far as “fairness” goes, I am not even going to begin having discussions on that one until he defines it for me, because I have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what his definition of “fairness” actually is.

    So Charlie, I don’t know whether it will end up being more productive or not, but I do know that you and I do actually see many of the same problems and agree that they are indeed problems. We don’t agree much on the solutions, but my personal feeling is that it might help move the discussion forward, rather than just always getting stuck at the exact same place with each other if you could at least define those two words for me, because those 2 words are featured prominently in nearly all of your posts, but I am not precisely sure what those 2 words mean to you.

    • charlieopera says:

      Fairness: that which gives the most aid to the greater good (at least the necessities of life).

      Government: a truly representative institution that has extreme term limits and includes workers as well as wealthy lawyers (or lawyers born into wealth) …

      Capitalism: there’s no point in arguing this with you (I don’t think) because my definition will be assaulted as not “truly free markets” even though YOU CANNOT POINT TO a point in time here (THE US&A) when there ever was TRULY FREE MARKETS. My definition is a traditional one: private/individual ownership of goods/profits they produce (even if they never have to work a day in their life (inheritence)). Now, go crazy.

      • Charlie,

        Fairness: that which gives the most aid to the greater good (at least the necessities of life).

        …to who?

        So if I steal from you, and beat you senseless; it’s ok as long as BF deems it was for the greater good, and you, pummeled bloody in the street, would agree.

        Well of course not.

        Fairness has no meaning beyond an individual. What is fair to you could be unfair to me.

        It cannot be measured upon a group – since in that group, everyone has a different measure of it. Fairness is not “some average”

        Because you do not truly consider the concepts you invoke, you promote actions that are dangerous.

        Government: a truly representative institution that has extreme term limits and includes workers as well as wealthy lawyers (or lawyers born into wealth)

        Government can NEVER be representative nor work well. It can ONLY be to the favor of a very few at the cost to the very many.

        It always requires the taking from those that have and giving to those that do not.

        By mere logic, the latter must be smaller than the former – you cannot have more getting then that which is taken.

        Government, therefore, is ALWAYS a minority feeding off the majority.

        Again, since you do not truly consider the concept you invoke, you instill irrational and impossible conditions.

        … Capitalism: there’s no point in arguing this with you (I don’t think) because my definition will be assaulted as not “truly free markets” even though YOU CANNOT POINT TO a point in time here (THE US&A) when there ever was TRULY FREE MARKETS.

        Of course I have, repeatedly.

        But since it undermines your position every time, you utilize your well-honed skill of “self-blindness”.

        • charlieopera says:

          Go Rangers!

          Hands over my ears, sitting in the middle of the room and saying: “Na, na, na, na, na, na!”

          You’ve never pointed to free markets, BF; just an example of one (a guy and a cup of coffee) refusing to acknowledging the exploitation behind the beans … game time … more domani, fellas!

          • Charlie,

            Of course I have – you experience it every day.

            But because it is so “normal” for you, you can’t see it – so you blind yourself to it, and believe it doesn’t exist.

            • charlieopera says:

              Oh, BF, you’re so funny (and cute, I bet) … how can you argue there are no free markets in the U.S. (no true capitalism) and then argue there is every day? Which is it? Pick a side. What I see are exchange with absolute inequality and exploitation day to day. I guy a cup of coffee from a vendor, he makes a profit. Does the profit filter down to the poor SOB picking the beans? I doubt the corporate investors are sharing it. Sorry, your endless (and boring ) examples always lead back to the same place (except you keep changing your statements about capitalism and free markets) … like Costello told his drill sergeant (left shoulder arms, right shoulder arms, left …) “Make up your miiiiiiind.

              • Charlie,

                As explained often enough – but as usual you refuse to understand it –

                Capitalism and the Free market is infinitely scalable – from 2 to infinity of people.

                Socialism/Communism is not scalable. It can only exist within a small, emotionally attached, group.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The way that Charlie defined fairness proves my point that it is not a political or economic concept, it is merely a concept used to distort politics and economics. It relies on another term “greater good” which is, once again, not a political or economic concept, but merely a concept used to distort politics and economics.

        The sad truth of the Universe is that it MAY (and I say may because I am speculating here) be most fair for the strong to survive and thrive and the weak to perish. It is not the universe, but HUMAN NATURE which says otherwise.

        I am interested in Charlie’s take on one thing though, I am not sure if he is familiar with Mr. Holdren and Mr. Erlich and their “population bomb” arguments from the 1960’s and 1970’s. They are still around, of course… in fact, one is the “Science Advisor” to President Obama.

        At any rate, Erlich and Holdren said (and still believe) that the only way to “save the earth” is to DRASTICALLY reduce the population. In their world-view, this is the greater good. So, my question is, how can this view of the greater good be reconciled with what people like Charlie commonly refer to as “the greater good”???

  59. If anyone is still in town tonight Hannity has turned his show over to Frank Luntz for another focus group discussion. Evan Bayh is with him…very interesting. Title of the show..Is Washington Broken… In the past these discussions have been rerun over the next couple days if you don’t catch it tonight.

  60. JAC,
    Re: Oceans warmer.

    The question behind that claim is:


    Yep, oceans are warmer “over here”, but colder “over there”
    Last year, they were warmer way over there, but colder here.
    The year before, it was all different again.

    This is the problem.

    Some generic claim pops up “The ocean is warmer…right here!” … and it is taken as some sort of bizarre anomaly.

    But it isn’t – the ocean warms and cools all over the place in different places all the time – and a typical change is not unusual – indeed, NORMAL. Indeed, if it didn’t that would be weird

    But given the politicalization of the science, any change is abnormal

    • Wondering how to “buy” part of the ocean or a sea…very cold, large body of water. If cold water is the best CO2 sink, I bet I could then sell carbon credits to the liberals! Wanna write me up a deed Flag?

  61. BF
    Reading your evening comments with a smile on my face, kids are asking me what I’m laughing at!

  62. My Uncle Jon died a little bit ago. I only mention it here because it is also John Wayne’s Birthday. If he could have picked a day to go on, today would be the day. My Uncle loved The Duke. Had every one of his movies. I used to borrow some occasionally and watch them before I got Dish Network. Uncle Jon is gone but he has left us with a lot of good memories. I’m sure going to miss him.

    • Sorry fro your loss Esom, I am glad you are embracing the happiness of his life rather than the sadness of his death.

    • Thanks y’all. But we’re not grieving for him. He is in a whole lot better place. But we will grieve a little bit for us, because we’ll miss him so much. But as you said Jon. We will remember the great memories and the good times we had. He was my second Dad. He was a GREAT man. And he left a even GREATER impression on our lives.

  63. Charlie,

    This is the underlying problem with your belief system.

    You hold:
    (1) unequal allocation of resources = ‘bad’
    so you advocate:
    (a) theft and murder to adjust the allocation.

    (a) theft and murder is really, really bad.

    So you replace a bad with a really, really bad, and believe it is an improvement.

    You hold:
    (1) lack of caring for the weak and the poor is immoral.
    so you advocate
    (a) theft from and murder of those who do not care.

    (a)theft and murder is a far, far greater immorality.

    So you replace a repugnant moral code (ego-centrisim) with a deep and core human evil (stealing and killing) and believe this is an improvement.

  64. charlieopera says:


    This is the underlying problem with your belief system.

    You hold:
    Freedom requires men own what they produce, including the land they produce it on.

    Nobody can own what is not theirs to own. Better, nobody can what wasn’t theirs to start with. So, if America was once someone else’s land, how did it come to be what it is today? The answer? Violence. Therefore, your entire structure is based on that which you claim to abhor. Like fish, you cannot see the water in which you swim. And if you do accept the land as your, even after it was taken violently, how DARE YOU have a problem with revolutionaries who some day take it back …

    You see what I’m saying?

    Your pure capitalism can ONLY exist in the vacuum you constantly assign it (you buy a cup of coffee for $1.00; a fair exchange according to market value).

    Of course you dismiss how the beans were cultivated; who was left out of the market value formula, especially in the case of third world countries where the labor has no say in the process (sound familiar? See the American workforce of late–are men/women truly “free” to walk away from jobs they feel exploited at? Only if they want to go hungry. Only if they want to escape one form of slavery for another. Nice system you have there, buddy.

    So, as a favor to me in the future. Explain what happened to your utopia of free market capitalism (without ignoring the fact that it was money that created the governments you claim to abhor; that is was money that created both corporatism and mercantilism to protect and/or expand its interests). I mean seriously, dude, if it worked so well, what happened? Outside of a 1% vs. 99% (so long as the 99% accept their fate), we’re a third world country …

    And if you’re going to point at the cup of coffee again, I may barf on your keyboard …

    • Charlie,

      Freedom requires men own what they produce, including the land they produce it on.

      Freedom does not “require” anything from anyone, Charlie.

      This is why you have such trouble – you really do not understand what “freedom” means.

      Freedom means “CHOICE”

      It is not measure in goods, or property, like you believe.

    • That is a very good point Charlie. Land is one of those things that has changed hands through violence so much and so recently that it is difficult to distinguish rightful ownership. Certainly, land in the US today is exchanged via trade, but 150-400 years ago, it was acquired another way, via violence and “claim”. Now, what someone produces from land is in part their own. A farmer might not be able to produce without land, but he is not simply rich because of the land, it takes a lot of work and effort and risk to farm. Trade is a valid means of transferring property. Violence is not, but “proper restitution” is difficult, especially when those stolen from no longer live. And I know that at least some of the “success” of the US was because of its resources and territory. However, Russia has more land AND resources than we, yet we spanked them in the cold war without ever firing a shot. Why? Because free trade is more productive than communism, even at war. Same with the North Vs the South in the Civil War. The Norht won because they were industrialized and because they were not dependent on some under society. Hierarchal, feudalistic society is inferior, and that is essentially what plantations were, little feudal kingdoms.

  65. BF and Mathius, Re: Violence
    Matt you make a good point. Violence is very prevalent in human history and remains so currently. It is also present in nature, the balance of nature is quite violent. Nature is not, however, civilized. Neither is much of society. As Gandhi said when asked what he thought about Western Civilization: “I think it would be a good idea.” A truly civilized society does not need violence, but it only takes one violent individual to mess that up. Violence begets violence, as there generally must be a violent response. However, a civilized society would handle violent disruptions as they come and not resort to a state of constant violence.

    • Mathius says:

      However, a civilized society would handle violent disruptions as they come and not resort to a state of constant violence.

      But how does such a civilization organize itself? It has a police force, right? Paid how? Paid with your money. How did they get that money? They took it from you. This police force tells you want you can do and how, right? It tells you that you can’t drive the way you like, or that you can’t cut down the tree in your own yard. And you listen, why? Because ultimately, failure to abide results in violence – either they take more of your money (fines) or they lock you up. How is that not violence per SUFA’s definition? So it’s the constant threat of violence against it’s own citizens which maintains the order.

      And who calls the shots? The politicians, right? Paid for how? Paid with your money. How did they get that money? They took it from you. And they’re in charge of you. They determine what you’re allowed to do and how, and they use the police as a tool to enforce their will on you. How is this not SUFA’s definition of slavery?

      The violence is always there there, in the background. How about that precious gasoline that you use to drive? Where did that come from? Did fairies burp it up? It came from other countries. Gas is a fraction of the cost here as it is in other countries, and why? Because we mess – violently – with those countries. The middle east, in particular, has seen decades of on-and-off war with the US coupled with decades of meddling/covert operations/UN sanction/etc. We use violence to suppress the price of a vital good. Violence. More of it, just directed outward instead of inward. All to keep you happy and in line. Gas shortages are a severe threat to the US, so our civilization supports itself by force upon other civilizations. Think of that next time you’re out cruising around on your ’62 Panhead.

      • charlieopera says:

        The violence is always there there, in the background. How about that precious gasoline that you use to drive? Where did that come from? Did fairies burp it up? It came from other countries. Gas is a fraction of the cost here as it is in other countries, and why? Because we mess – violently – with those countries. The middle east, in particular, has seen decades of on-and-off war with the US coupled with decades of meddling/covert operations/UN sanction/etc. We use violence to suppress the price of a vital good. Violence. More of it, just directed outward instead of inward. All to keep you happy and in line. Gas shortages are a severe threat to the US, so our civilization supports itself by force upon other civilizations. Think of that next time you’re out cruising around on your ’62 Panhead.

        BF (and Ayn Rand) have absolutely no problem with violence until it might be used to take from them what they stole in the first place. It is comical reading (and rerading, etc.) his constant knock on violence now that he and his ilk (those great proponents of freedom and liberty and capitalism) are firmly in the driver’s seat (with a government and violence to protect them). What a joke …

        • Mathius says:


          It is always this way. Once someone is comfortable with a shifting situation, they seek to lock it in. For example, as we’ve discussed gay marriage here before. Marriage has changed and evolved a tremendous amount – from a purchase contract for women-as-chattel (note the plural) to a monogamous equal life-time union of one man and one woman. And people are comfortable with that, but now that it’s starting to shift more (to include homosexuals), suddenly now they they want to lock-in the definition and stop it from changing as if the status quo was always the status quo. And they want to use the government to do that.

          Same with wealth and power. Everyone is fine with financial mobility.. that is, until they reach the top.. then they want the gears to stop turning and they want everything to lock in place. The US has as rigid of a class system as India, but we still pretend we’re the land of opportunity. And the elite have convinced the bleating masses that the best way to help themselves is to cut government spending, primarily among social services. As if cuts to education, SCHIP, head start, and more will somehow magically improve the mobility of the lower class (perhaps by motivating them? Because we all know that people are only poor because they’re lazy).


        • Charlie,

          BF (and Ayn Rand) have absolutely no problem with violence until it might be used to take from them what they stole in the first place.

          You’re insane.

          Only insane people claim that those that abhor violence use it.

          • charlieopera says:

            And Only Ayn Randers let others use violence for them/their sake.

            So tell me how those coffee beans are grown again, BF? Are they magical too? Do they just appear (like the fuel Matt mentioned earlier) … ?

            I may well be nuts (not insance, not really) but you, my brother … are full of crapola (you’re far too smart not to know better).

            • Charlie,

              So tell me how those coffee beans are grown again, BF

              The process is called photosynthesis. Sunlight is turned into sugars for the plant to grow.

              Again you repeat your own fault – over and over again.

              You cannot distinguish one transaction from another -lump the whole thing together into an incoherent mess, and attempt to analyze this incoherent mess by applying an equally incoherent theory – believing the conclusion of such an effort will be meaningful

      • Mathius,

        However, a civilized society would handle violent disruptions as they come and not resort to a state of constant violence. But how does such a civilization organize itself? It has a police force, right?


        That’s the problem, Mathius – you are historically confused and cause/effect backwards.

        Civilization came to men long before “police force” –

        The British police function was historically performed by private watchmen (existing from 1500 on), thief-takers, and so on. The former were funded by private individuals and organisations and the latter by privately funded rewards for catching criminals, who would then be compelled to return stolen property or pay restitution.

        Humans are a self-organizing entity – I know this is hard for some minds to understand; you are not wired that way.
        You believe everything must be planned.
        But you have a serious bootstrap problem.

        How do you plan for the unplanned when you need a plan first?

        Other words, how did humans get to a stage to “plan” in the first place if such a stage first needed a plan?

        In all cases -even yours- requires self-organizing – by the natural benefits and rewards an individual receives, he tends to do things that continue those rewards and avoids things that hurt.

        This natural tendency is why you need no traffic cop on a sidewalk – you avoid running into people because it HURTS YOU, and as others are like you – both, naturally with total strangers, self-organize in a manner to avoid collisions – unplanned, uncontrolled, chaotic, but perfect and functional.

        By the abhorrence of violence, men chose differently.
        Those choices leads to civilization.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “Humans are a self-organizing entity”

          This is very true, BF, and why human societies will always create government.

          • Buck
            That is factually false.
            Many societies that are civilized have not created government.

            Your claim is completely wrong and untrue.

          • FURTHER,
            Simply because some societies still believe violence solves non-violent problems only demonstrates moral depravity and ignorance of the people in such societies.

            Your position would claim that once a savage always a savage – yet, with your own history as proof, this is not true either. Your savage greatx-grandparents bred you – a somewhat civilized man.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Thanks for the (somewhat of a) compliment!

              Two points though:
              1) Still waiting on a large-scale society that has not created a government.
              2) You still seem to be jumping back and forth between “civilization” and “civilized” in your discussion.

              • Buck

                1) Still waiting on a large-scale society that has not created a government

                You have Mathius disease. You impose an artificial demand based on your bizarre mental crackpot theory and apply it externally – thus, by your error, blind yourself to evidence.

                There is NO REQUIREMENT for any society to be “large scale” so to prove its existence or capability. This is YOUR artificial demand based on your own bias and ignorance.

                . 2) You still seem to be jumping back and forth between “civilization” and “civilized” in your discussion.

                Civilized men create civilization.
                All human action is ultimately individual

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, there is a requirement of scalability. What may work for a small tribe will not necessarily work for society at large in the modern world. Your view here is just as utopian as Charlie’s for pure socialism, if not more so. This is not an artificial demand. You keep circling back to Iceland as your example. I am assuming you mean Iceland pre-13th century?? Hate to break it to you, but there was a form of government in place. There were laws. There was hierarchy and chieftains. There was “A constitution drawn up c. 930 created a form of democracy and provided for an Althing, the world’s oldest practicing legislative assembly…”

              • Buck

                Yes, there is a requirement of scalability.

                There is absolutely no requirement for scalability!
                If you wish to form a closed society – a cult – why do you believe it can only “exist” when it reaches …what? 10,000? 100,000? 10 million? 100 million, 300 million members?

                That highlights the problem – you have no scale – because none exists to define “society”.

                What may work for a small tribe will not necessarily work for society at large in the modern world. Your view here is just as utopian as Charlie’s for pure socialism, if not more so

                NO IT IS NOT. I have never said such a thing.

                I have said Charlie’s system cannot scale – I also said it works for small, emotionally attached groups

                There is absolutely nothing at all that “does not work” for Socialism – you live it! – called your family
                Just because an attempt to centralize it, force emotional bonds where they cannot exist – and require massive, murderous violence to force the centralization and the fake emotional bonds fails does not mean that the same system decentralized, unforced emotional bonds and no murderous violence does not work either!

                Again, I harken back to previous posts – your measures are flawed, thus you continue to make the same errors.

            • Mathius says:

              Your position would claim that once a savage always a savage


              The only difference is that the society has given us enough that we do not need to express our inner savage. Because I have enough food, because I have enough drink, because I have enough physical security, because my family is safe, because I have enough comfort, because I have enough stability, I am content. And, even if I were not content, I would not be so discontent that I would risk the violent rebuke of the society (ie, through it’s enforcement arm, ie the police as directed by the political class).

              However, lift the veil, have a food shortage for example, and watch mayhem break loose. We will kill, we will steal. We will loot and raid and plunder and pillage in order to secure enough resources for ourselves. We will kill each other over a single bite of food, ownership be damned. You think humans would defer to ‘civility’ when it’s a question of life and death, of survival of the fittest? HA! We’re savages to the core, only smarter than our animal cousins. When the chips are down, we’re nothing but savages with a razor thin film of respectability.

              Treat a lion the right way, give it enough food, water, an no reason to fear you, and it too will be nice and friendly. But you would be hard pressed to say that the lion isn’t savage.. it’s just content. Fail to feed it one day, and watch as it tears your arm off for a snack.

              • Mathius

                Your position would claim that once a savage always a savage Yup.

                I agree – that is YOU.

                Not me, sorry!

                The only difference is that the society has given us enough that we do not need to express our inner savage

                For you, I agree.

                But that is not the discussion here.
                The discussion here is the cause of the rise of such society that has given you such “enough stuff”.

                It was NOT your savages.

              • Mathius says:

                So, push comes to shove, you won’t steal bread to feed your family?

              • Mathius,

                So, push comes to shove, you won’t steal bread to feed your family?

                Fill in some conditions:

                What prevents me from earning my bread?

              • Mathius

                Would you throw a child off a life raft to save yourself or save your child?

              • Mathius says:

                Myself… maybe. I’d like to be able to say no, but I am human and humans are programmed to survive. I would, however, feel bad about it.

                To save my child? Yes, in a heartbeat.

                Are you saying you wouldn’t?

              • Nope, or else no one survives.

                If I toss an innocent off the raft, someone will toss mine off the raft.

                The inevitable consequence, everyone is in the water fighting for the raft and we all drown.

              • Mathius says:

                You live in a fantasy world.

                You seem to believe, somehow, that your refusal to do evil yourself will protect you in a bad situation from others who are willing to do evil?

                If you don’t steal the bread, your child dies. And somehow you turn that around to: if you do steal the bread your child dies, so let him starve?


              • Mathius

                You live in a fantasy world. You seem to believe, somehow, that your refusal to do evil yourself will protect you in a bad situation from others who are willing to do evil?

                Again, you are wrong.

                I do not believe that at all.

                What part of
                All human action is ultimately individual do you not understand?

                I do not control the actions of others – so… how can I make an assumption that by my action, others will not act??? You are being bizarre, like a cornered mouse :p

                However, I do know this:

                Not doing violence reduces violence
                Doing violence expands violence

                Not doing evil reduces evil
                Doing evil makes more and worse evil

                So, by refraining from doing either, less of each exists.

                If you don’t steal the bread, your child dies. And somehow you turn that around to: if you do steal the bread your child dies, so let him starve? Bizarre.

                No, I asked a question:
                What circumstance prevents me from earning my bread?

                You see, such bizarre hypothetical are just that – bizarre. They do not, ever, stand alone nor measure a moral code.
                Unless you expose the circumstance – you are merely playing fairy games.

              • And further, the life raft.

                No, I did not say that at all.

                I said that the consequences of destroying civilizes behavior always ends up into savagery- and only a few survive savagery- which is why savages do not build great cities, only civilized men do.

                If I become a savage, and toss innocents into the water – I am assured others will not accept such savagery and toss mine into the water. The water falls to savages and we all die.

                By maintaining civil order, some may still die – but some will live.

              • And further, I see the mental brick you are missing here.
                You measure civilization based solely on your OWN, PERSONAL, success or failure.

                That is, if MATHIUS fails, civilization has failed. But if Mathius a successful barbarian, then savagery is right!

                That is a sign common among many called
                EGO-CENTRIC VIEWPOINT.

                You do not measure success or failure based on SOCIAL ORDER, which means, at times, good guys don’t win ….

              • Mathius says:

                You and your child live in Ethiopia when a drought strikes. There isn’t enough food or water. You are smart and hard working, but there simply is not enough to be had.

                You are located in the dead-center of the country and have no means of escaping in time. There are no cars, mules, goats, horse, Segways, or power scooters. The nearest village is 50 miles away and there is no food their either.

                You offer to sell everything you have, but it isn’t enough. Only Charlie has food, and he needs it in order to feed himself. He will not sell at any price, especially not any price you can afford. There are no other stores within range.

                Now Flag Jr. is crying because he’s starving and dying of thirst. There is not other way, it’s your child or Charlie.

                A) So you let your child die rather than steal from Charlie and risk causing him to starve.

                B) Insist that there must be another choice, confuse the issue and change the subject by asking a tangential rhetorical question

                C) Steal from Charlie, feed your child, and feel bad about it.

                A, B, or C, Flag.

                Face it, you are a savage just like the rest of us. When the chips are down, you will act in your interest, morality notwithstanding.

              • Mathius,

                So the best you can do is to provide extreme examples as if they define social norms!
                That is why you fail.

                You and your child live in Ethiopia when a drought strikes.

                Well, since I saved during times of plenty, …since I am smart and hard working, I would either wait it out — or move to where live is better.

                Next problem!

              • PS:
                Mathius, I am not Ethiopian.

                You are asking me, Black Flag, what I would do

                Do not make up artificial stories about other men in other times – it is ridiculous, and as easy as you make up wild bizarre stories, you will get wild and bizarre answers.

                Now, what circumstance TO ME prevents me from earning bread?

      • Mathius,

        violence is always there there, in the background

        So what?

        Just because violence happens to be another way to obtain resources does not at all have any relevance to its part in creating civilization

        To show that some men are still uncivilized is meaningless. Civilization is does not require 100% attendance.

        • Mathius says:

          So, I’m still waiting, where is your example of a peaceful, successful, non-violent anarchist civilizations?

          If there are millions of examples of violent civilizations which use government to control the population and maintain themselves and they are, to varying extents successful or not, extremely violent or mildly violent, peaceful or war-like, where is your counterexample?

          Where, in all of history, has there ever been a single successful civilization which did not employ a government of one type or another? And, in the event you can dig one up, where are they today and how do they stack up against the US?

          (Reminder: You, Mr. Flag, are not a civilization, nor is a family, nor a group of a few families living on the prairie. For the sake of argument, let’s say that a civilization must entail at least 10k members.)

          If violence is not a prerequisite for a civilization, then you should have at least one example, no?

          • Mathius,

            So, I’m still waiting, where is your example of a peaceful, successful, non-violent anarchist civilizations?

            Me and my ilk.

            • Mathius says:

              You and your ilk, huh?

              How many are “your ilk,” where do you live that you have established a bonifide civilization free from government? Do you have an island somewhere?

              I was under the impression that you were commenting from your gold-lined bunker located in an undisclosed location within United States borders.

              • Mathius

                How many are “your ilk,” where do you live that you have established a bonifide civilization free from government?

                1. More then two. The size is irrelevant – an artificial, unnecessary condition you falsely impose.
                2. Here, right now, aprox. 2400 sq.ft. at the moment.

              • Mathius says:

                And this meets your definition of a “civilization”? I think, maybe we need to dig up the definition of the word..

                civ·i·li·za·tion   [siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn]
                an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

                Perhaps you don’t like Maybe there’s a Mises definition you’d like to share?

              • And this meets your definition of a “civilization”? I think, maybe we need to dig up the definition of the word.. civ·i·li·za·tion   [siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn] noun 1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. Perhaps you don’t like Maybe there’s a Mises definition you’d like to share?

                Let me see.

                I have an advanced human society here.
                Very high culture,
                and … goverNANCE


              • Mathius says:

                Oops.. Looks like you changed a few words there by accident. Here, let me help you out..

                Industrious Industry
                goverNANCE Government

                I don’t think you have either in your 2,400 sq ft country..

              • Mathius,
                No, let me help you.
                Industry – fine, I have one

                “goverNANCE Government ”

                No, goverNANCE – government is UNNECESSARY and VERY DANGEROUS to civilization – which is our dialogue here.

                A dictionary provides an understanding, not a definitive – it does not define the word, it provides an understanding to a meaning of the word.
                (Bet you didn’t know that, right? –

                Dictionaries are DESCRIPTIVE not DEFINITIVE

                A lot of people think dictionaries are like rule books and that dictionary writers make judgements about acceptable and unacceptable words; but most modern dictionaries are descriptive, which means they attempt to describe the language as it is actually used.

          • Mathuis,
            Ah, yes we are notwithstanding your bizarre convoluted attempt to exclude.

            The challenge the dogs you is that you continue to attempt to define or subscribe a planned order to a system whose existence is natural, chaotic and self-organizing.

            Because you hold a bad definition, those things that do not fit within your self-imposed error are discarded. With no surprise you see nothing.
            This is “Charlie’s” disease as well (and you two are not alone, either).

            • charlieopera says:

              Leave Charlie out of this. There are socialized society that work (for the greater good within that society; not perfect but for the betterment of those within that society) … Holland is the prime example … so when others here point to how “small” Holland is, I guess I should point to BF’s anarchist state of X with 24,000 square feet?

              Sweet Jesus …

              • Mathius says:


                You slipped an order of magnitude. BF’s anarchist state is 2,400 sq ft., not 24,000.

                Also, the Netherlands has 16.7mm people. BF’s state, though the population is an undisclosed state secret, cannot possibly fit more than 100 if they cram in there like sardines. So, your example is 167,306x the size of his.

                Yet you’re the crazy one?

                PS: Please don’t interpret this to mean that I think you’re not crazy. I think you’re certifiable.. just less crazy than Flag.

              • Charlie,

                I like you because you present examples that blow your own argument out of the water.

                Holland – a nation who, historically:
                invented banking
                invented insurance
                invented modern fiance
                invented stock market
                world’s greatest trader and entrepreneurs.

                ..who, because of their nascent free market system, was a tiny nation who became so economically powerful because of it, was seen as a world power.

                Yes, they had other evils as well.

          • You set the bar of proof mighty high Matt. You have been arguing for days here but the reality is that if you, personally, and I personally, and Buck and BF and even Charlie could live a full life without the help of government, then every single human is capable of the same thing. You just won’t admit it. So…could you do it, live without govt or not? (no long constructs allowed. The question is straightforward and simple)

            • Mathius says:

              What makes you think you, buck, BF, Charlie, and I could live a full lives without government?

              By day three, you would have hog tied charlie and roasted him over a (reinforced) spit. BF would shove the apple in his mouth just to shut him up.

              Buck’s not very handy, so his shelter isn’t going to stand up to the snow, so he’ll die in the winter.

              BF’s going to get it when he tries to trade with some other group of people and, rather than trade, they simple kill him and take his stuff.

              You drink some stale water, get dysentery and die a very unpleasant death.

              As for me, well I tried to ford the rive but my oxen drowned.


              Short version, a government is not necessary in a small group, but no large group (ie, a civilization) can exist without a defined, empowered, hierarchical structure.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Its true…I’m not very handy at all. In fact, I have a guy coming over later this week to hang some pictures…sad, I know.

              • charlieopera says:

                Hey, what is it, pick on Charlie day?

                Madonna mia. Can I at least have a cannoli stuffed in my mouth? Not for nothin’, but a friggin’ apple?

              • Kristian says:


                That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever seen you post. You mean to tell me that if we don’t have government that we don’t have the ability to take care of ourselves? You tried to ford a river and your oxen drowned, why the hell are you using an ox would be my first question. And my second would be, why do you assume that because there is no government we’re going to be thrown back in time to before the industrial revolution?

              • Matt, a large group can exist without a government, a large nation or definable civilization cannot. Such things require a unified purpose and identity. All major, historically “worthy” undertakings have been done by either a heirarchal government or a religion.There has to be something to unify purpose. Of course, there is the question of whether such things are a good measure of a civilization. So if everyone on earth chose a free life, the system would work, and would not require any sort of government management, though there would likely emerge certain leaders and institutions for conflict resolution. These things are not necessarily government, just because government does those things in our current culture does not make those actions the definition of “government”. Most of the success stories of anarchic civilizations and peoples are tribal in nature. This is not necessarily a bad way to live and operate, and most of the lack of technological advancement was a result of lack of trade. In today’s world, initiating such a society would likely work quite well.

                Still, it would not be a nation or have certain borders, etc. Such things are political constructs. Now, as to whether such a congolmerate would survive at any reasonable level if they faced an organized military action from a heavily funded and united government, I have my doubts. Without significant innovation and preparedness, such a group would have a vast military disadvantage. That does not mean they would not survive at all, but they would lose many battles, even if a dogged few guerila soldiers managed to stave off an actuall defeat or surrender.

              • Jon,

                Such things require a unified purpose and identity

                This is very common – but utterly wrong idea and very fatal to the People when believed.

                There exists no “unified” purpose or identity for any group larger than an extended family – and even that is pushing it.

                Do you really believe you have a unified purpose and identity within your own extended family?????

                And you believe you can extend one that captures all your friends???

                And then you believe you can extend one that captures everyone you do not even know???

                Such naive belief – yet, dominate.
                And such belief is always used to dominate you.

              • Mathius says:

                Only one way to know for sure.

                Convince D13 and BF to put up some of their FRN’s for my 4-island test.

                Logically, though, Jon, it seems to me that if anarchy were a viable alternative to organized government, that there would be examples of it somewhere. Maybe it’s possible there have been a few in history. But there are thousands of government-based ones. So why are they so vanishingly rare if it’s a completely viable alternative?

              • Mathius,

                . So why are they so vanishingly rare if it’s a completely viable alternative

                I have explained it to you.

                Theft is very profitable
                The reward-to-effort ratio is very high.

                Common theft, though very rewarding, is very dangerous. Victims resist.
                Organized theft increases the reward, but also increases victims resistance as they, too, organize themselves into defense.

                The best of all thievery – legitimized – where the victims see the taking of the thief to be justified, and that the victim’s resistance to the theft is turned around and declared unlawful, illegal, wrong.

                Government exists as a evolution of theft – “legal banditry”.

                As why the victims accept this illusion of government – it is cheaper to pay off the criminal then to fight it.

                When that cost analysis reverses, however, is when government is overthrown – but because the tools of overthrow is the same violence as was used in tyranny, the victims merely replace the horrific criminal with one less horrific.

                The notion that the state is a legitimate agency – one deserving respect – an institution that, despite its flaws, generally promotes (or at least aims to promote) the welfare of its citizens – is increasingly difficult to understand, much less to accept.

                A far more realistic view of the state, any state, comes from Mancur Olson: the state is a stationary bandit.

                Prudence might require that ordinary people tolerate it, but wisdom requires that those same ordinary people understand that, when dealing with the state, they are dealing with organized thuggery.

                Obey it because your failure to do so will prompt it to unleash its guns and prisons on you, but please don’t pretend that the state’s commands are issued with your best interests in mind.

                Why the current rise in anarchism and freedom thinking?

                The cost of resistance is getting lower.
                The price of the bandits demands is getting higher.
                The capacity of self-defense and avoidance of the criminal is improving.

                In all points of history, when the victims ability improves to resist the Grand Bandit, freedom expands.
                The long-bow made the Magna Carta
                The long-rifle made the Declaration of Independence.
                The Internet and pervasive knowledge and its communication will change YOUR world in the same way – a new found freedom.

              • BF – I was not recommending this or even claiming it as a good thing or a method of demonstrating the “need” for government or religion. I was pointing out that my family, nor yours, extended or not, would not have been able to construct, for instance, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the Pyramids or Stonehenge, at least not with the technology of the day they were made. Further, someone asking for a specific border or population of an anarchist society that does not hold to borders or even census their members is an unrealistic question.

                Matt – Anarchy is risky, and it does not permit consolidation of power. The drive of some to have power over others and the fear of many more to trade power for security makes the likelihood of an anarchist society low. It does not mean it is not viable or unworkable, it just means that people tend not to choose it. Just as people in a socialist society would likely not choose to contribute according to their ability and would try to exaggerate their need. It makes any long term success less likely.

              • Jon,

                I utterly and totally disagree with you.

                First, you assume “these great things” are great, therefore, were necessary to be built.

                They are not great. They merely exist.

                Some tyrant, who obviously must have been an evil, ego-centric psychopath, thought it would be great.

                Because some bizarre, insane criminal thinks something is great does not make it great.

                Second, you are mistaken that “large” things cannot be done without government.

                Yet – the largest navy in the world – twice as large as the combined navies of the Russian and US government – is privately owned.
                Yet – the largest companies providing the whole world with its resources are privately owned.

                The greatest real accomplishes of mankind have been exercised – not by government – but by individuals -alone and in cooperation.

                The only thing great about government is its ability to deal death and destruction on grand scales – 300 million dead in 20th century.

  66. Mathius,

    a single successful civilization

    Perfect example of your self-imposed error.

    You have no measure of success – it is airy and whimsical – you change it randomly as it suits your own illusion.

    To show that Iceland had an anarchist society that lasted 400 years to you is a failure – since it no longer exists.
    You will say the USA is a success because it still exists – yet, hasn’t lasted nearly as long.

    But when it does fail, you will not claim it is a failure of government – you will claim some other excuse – and argue for a re-establishment of the same immoral and criminal system …over and over again … because for the same reason you support the current one – FEAR.

    • Mathius says:

      400 years.. is that the 10th to 13th century by any chance?

      • Mathius

        See video – what year or not is irrelevant. You asked, you got. Move on.

        • Mathius says:

          What video?

          And the year is very relevant. The 10th century was when the Icelandic vikings started raiding their neighbors. Not particularly peaceful, if you ask me..

          • Mathius,

            You are falling behind in the posts … look up, way up, and learn.

            Further, your measures fail again – you continue your lopsided viewpoint.

            Who the hell said that “peace” was a requirement?

            Heck, if you use that requirement then your claim of success of government is wholly out the window!! …the single greatest killer of men in the 20th century could hardly be considered “peaceful” – thus, by your demand, completely unsuccessful!

            • Mathius says:

              Who the hell said that “peace” was a requirement?

              Fair enough.

              So your contention is that a stable anarchist state can exist and be non-violent while simultaneously wrecking havoc on it’s neighbors by raping and plundering it’s way through Europe?

              • Mathius

                Who the hell said that “peace” was a requirement? Fair enough. So your contention is that a stable anarchist state can exist and be non-violent while simultaneously wrecking havoc on it’s neighbors by raping and plundering it’s way through Europe?

                No, my contention is your irrelevant requirements in defining “Success” and “stable” and “peace” is an error.

            • Mathius says:

              Heck, if you use that requirement then your claim of success of government is wholly out the window!! …the single greatest killer of men in the 20th century could hardly be considered “peaceful” – thus, by your demand, completely unsuccessful!

              My argument has been, from the beginning, the violence is necessary to the creation and continuance of civilization. You have argued that it is not.

              So for my examples, say America, to be violent (yup), is not an issue. Violent civilization is violent.

              However, for your example, Iceland, to be violent (yup), IS an issue. Just because the violence is directed outward rather than inward doesn’t change the fact that they’re still violent.

              So the question remains. Where is your non-violent anarchist state example?

              • No,
                My argument is that civilization is created by the abhorrence of violence not its magnification.

                Simply, is war civilized or savage?

                War destroys civilizations – the absence of war creates civilizations.

                This FACT demonstrates the fallacy of your contention.

                Again, this is not discussion of an ABSENCE of violence – which is where you constantly and fallacious drift to, no more than you’d argue there CONSTANT violence all the time.

                The argument is: what makes civilization?
                And it is NOT violence, but the lack of it.
                Introduce violence back, civilization retreats.
                End violence, civilization expands.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mathius: War creates civilizations.
                BF: War destroys civilizations.

                All depends on which civilization wins the war…

              • Mathius says:

                I didn’t say war. I said violence. (note: using BF’s definition of violence)

                Violence is a necessary part of civilization in the sense that taxation, political hierarchy with coercive powers, enforcement of rules, etc are all necessary features of a civilization. Violence for defense of that civilization from external threat. Violence to procure external resources. Violence to control the populace, maintain order, etc. All present in every civilization in history.

                Except, apparently, medieval Iceland where they were too busy non-violently pillaging neighboring countries.

              • Mathius

                I didn’t say war. I said violence. (note: using BF’s definition of violence)

                War is violence.

                If your claim is true, the more violence, the stronger civilization.

                But that is obviously not true.

                Thus your claim is -equally- not true.

                Violence is a necessary part of civilization in the sense that taxation, political hierarchy with coercive powers, enforcement of rules, etc are all necessary features of a civilization


                That is not true – it is UNNECESSARY, though it exists.

                There is no necessity of taxation, coercion or such in civilization.

                Violence for defense of that civilization from external threat.

                … the abhorrence of violence – if initiation of violence did not occur, defense violence is unnecessary.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Very true.

                I still don’t buy the argument that Iceland in the 10th to 13th century was a truly anarchistic society — there was a Constitution; there was a hierarchy; there was a government. And there was pillaging!

              • Buck

                there was a government.

                No there was not, hence “anarchist”

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Oh, and there were mandatory taxes (in the form of tithes to the Church)….

              • Mathius says:


              • Buck the Wala says:

                I guess we’ll just have to wait for BF’s explanation of this…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Umm…yes, there was a government:

                “In 930, the ruling chiefs established an assembly called the Alþingi (Althing). The parliament convened each summer at Þingvellir, where representative chieftains (Goðorðsmenn or Goðar) amended laws, settled disputes and appointed juries to judge lawsuits.”

                Also, what do you make of this statement: “From 1097 people in Iceland had to pay tithes to the church.”

                Or are you talking about Iceland during a different period? If so, what period?

              • As the video points out in the beginning, you need to define government – and we already know, from the past, your definition of government is faulty and incomplete, so it is no surprise Iceland confuses you.

              • Buck,
                Further, as you continue confusion – organization is not government, nor an existence of organization NOT anarchy.

                As I’ve complained before – you have no coherent definitions of either, nor a coherent reference.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Some more insight into medieval iceland:

                “Each farmer had to belong to the commune in which his farm was located and to contribute to its needs. The Icelandic Commonwealth did not allow farmers not to join its communes…”

                How exactly is this an example of an anarchist system?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So please BF, why don’t you explain it to me/us? You keep complaining about how we can’t possibly understand. Are you sure it is us who are confused?

                Everything I’m reading about Medieval Iceland points to there being a government — individuals were compelled to belong and support to the commune in which their farm was located; there were local chieftains; there was a national parliament. They even had to pay a tithe to the Church — this was mandatory by law, by the way. How, given these facts, does Iceland provide you with your example?

              • Buck,
                Review the video and then ask your question.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Can’t watch a video while at work…can you summarize how you believe Iceland provides you with your example?

              • Buck,

                I have summed up, but you don’t seem to be hearing me.

                Watch the video later, and then we can chat tomorrow.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Meh…we’ll see if I get around to it tonight…but hopefully we can continue this tomorrow.

  67. charlieopera says:

    @ Mathius … all those feet … I’m so confused.

    But so long as I’m “less” crazy than BF, I feel somewhat relieved.


    And had I not put on another few pounds this week, “reinforced” might’ve pissed me off.

    Here’s to the cannoli man putting on some extra weight …

  68. charlieopera says:

    @ Mathius:

    BF has you pissing into the wind (again); debating violence as if it makes a difference. All “his” violence has been done for him (by the same clowns he claims to abhor – unless of course those governments popped out of thin air like the coffee beans and fuel). His (BF’s) situation is in place (he can ignore all the advantage he’s had through the years, whether intellectual, financial, physical and/or the color of his skin) … because once he’s in position, he gets to say: Why don’t you work as hard and be just like me? He neglects how his advantage came about in the first place. His debates on the cup of coffee (or the gallon of gas) are no different. The exploitation of workers, national states, etc., and all the violence inherent to them mean nothing because he’s looking over his shoulder at it.

    Of course he abhors violence now … all the dirty work has been done. He’s the one who stands to lose. The fact that what he has comes from the misfortune (or the expense) of others is irrelevant.

    Besides, all those exploited have a choice, don’t they? They can be BF’s too!

    Oy friggin’ vey …

    • Charlie,
      Everyone has one thing or another – benefits and deficits – in their lives.

      You are angry at God, for what he did or did not give you, so you want to punish men for it.

      • Mathius says:

        God did not create these systems which Charlie criticizes. Men did. God might have given you that thick skull of yours, but it was man who created the abuses which exacerbate those natural differences.

        Man created bigotry.
        Man created slavery.
        Man created economic slavery.
        Man created the exploitation of child labor.
        And so on.

        Charlie isn’t out to punish everyone. He’s out to fix the imbalances which man put into the system.

        • Mathius

          God did not create these systems which Charlie criticizes. Men did.

          Charlie is not angry at the systems – he is angry at God for making men unequal in talent and ability and he wants to create systems to repair the work of God.

          In doing so, he makes it worse.

          • charlieopera says:

            BF … you believe in God. Why didn’t you say so in the first place (and not wasted all our time).

            • Mathius says:

              Charlie! Why didn’t you ever tell me you were angry at god for making men unequal in talent and ability?

            • What exactly Charlie, does that mean?

              • charlieopera says:

                VH … I am an atheist and don’t see the point in arguing the nature of man with someone who does. No knock on his beliefs but it’s pretty pointless to me.

                I am not angry at God. I’m angry at the Rangers for their lousy forechecking against the Devils (no pun intended) … then again, the Devils were the better team.

                I’m also angry at the jury in the John Edwards case … we finally had one of these pieces of shit by the short hairs and they let him go. Morons.

                Come to think of it, would it really have screwed up his (or her) master friggin’ plan to let Norwood make that field goal?

                So, yeah, I guess I am pissed off at God …

              • I see-okay Charlie-if I make the mistake of answering one of Your posts in the future-remind me that your an atheist and it’s a complete waste of time for us to talk.

              • Oh and Charlie-you tend to jump to major conclusions 🙂 without all the facts.

          • charlieopera says:

            BF, seriously, could you reach any further?

  69. charlieopera says:

    VH: If you’re going to count on an omnipotent being as the ultimate source of your argument, you’re probably best to do exactly that, not waste your time … 🙂

    Now, on the off chance there is somebody up there, what say he/she reverses time to Super Bowl 25 and lets Norwood kick that baby straight threw the goal posts?

%d bloggers like this: