Never Stop Asking Questions

When I was growing up, I remember Walter Cronkite on the Evening News. It seemed as though everyone knew and trusted him like he was part of the family. Those were the days when the media was seemingly honest and actually reported on events like journalsists should report on events, with honesty and a sense of pride.  Today, we have all of what is known as the Main Stream Media, corporate owned business’s wjose owners also engage in lobbying in the District of Clowns.   Many of us have realized that what the MSM is reporting, isn’t always (if ever) the truth.  Those days of trusting the nightly news anchor are long gone, and long missed.

Today I wonder how things would be if we had the same kind of media as we did when Dick Nixon was taken down.  Would Obama still be President?  Would Bush and Cheney be in a Levenworth jail cell today?  I have shyed away from the MSM and mostly read alternative news sites on the internet.  That doesn’t mean that they are any more honest, but it would behoove them if they want to succeed as a news entity.  While I remain skeptical of all the media, I do post articles mainly from the alternative media.  It’s not because I believe what is written, but to get even a small discussion going.

While I am deemed a conspiracy theorist often, it’s not because I believe the conspiracy, but I don’t believe what the lying MSM is saying.  Just about everything that could have a political side too it, is often reported differently by all the organizations.  That may be called “Free Press” to some, but not to me.  I will continue to ask questions and challenge the “Official” story at every turn.   I hope you do as well 🙂


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    This is still an Open Mic forum in addition to the above essay. Have a great Monday everyone 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I hear today is “Band of Brother’s Day” ! Cheers to all my fellow Vets 🙂

  2. Report: EPA rules to shut down more than 280 coal-fired units

    New analysis shows that the coal industry is in for some tough years ahead, as more than 280 coal-fired generating units are slated to be shut down in part due to stricter Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

    The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a partnership of industry groups, reports that the number of coal plants slated for shutdown is fives times greater than the EPA predicted would be forced to shut down due to its regulations.

    Coal-fired electric generating plants will be shut down across 32 states, with the hardest hit states being Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, according to the coalition.

    “Regrettably, the number of coal units being forced to close continues to grow,” said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of ACCCE, in a statement. “Yet, EPA continues to downplay the damage its regulations are causing to the U.S. economy and to the many states that depend on coal for jobs and affordable electricity.”

    The list of coal plants slated for shutdown has been expanding rapidly since last summer when the Energy Information Administration estimated that 175 coal-fired generators — 8.5 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired capacity — would be retired in the coming years due to declining demand for electricity and stricter environmental regulations.

    In September, ACCCE estimated that more than 200 coal-fired generating units — more than 31,000 megawatts of power — would be shut down across 25 states due to EPA regulations and other factors inducing cheap natural gas.

    Read more:

  3. @ Charlie……good morning, Canoli Meister….You quoted me, ” “No sir, I did not. Did I go….yes sir I did as that was my duty according to the oath that I took as a United States Army Officer. ( We do not have the luxury of being anarchists)” You further indicated your confusion how I could be against something but then follow it because of an oath. This was in reference to the fact that I was against the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan incursion, but I fought anyway because of my oath as an officer.

    Being a writer, you know that the character of men/women have varying degrees. I was always taught by my father, that a man is only as good as his word. I was taught that the integrity of a person and the character of a person is molded by the way he lives his life and his moral and ethical internal being and then following those ethics. When I chose the military, I made a promise. I believe that a promise is not to be broken. I believe that when you give your word..that is what you do, You follow it. My first war was Vietnam. I was 22 years old when I went over there and at 22….no one knows or understands politics, much less geographical politics. I stayed in the Army as an active duty soldier for 10 years. I got out and went into the reserves to finish my career in the Army…AND…as a reservist, I could get involved in the family business and have both worlds. I stayed in the Army another 32 years and managed to make Colonel.

    This country has its faults. You have seen me write this many times. But I still believe that it is the best that there is. If I felt that there was something better out there….that is where I would go. So would everybody else. I believe that this country and our government can change and I will do what I can to change it. I understand geo-politics a lot better at my age now and I am not swayed by blind argument. I did not support the war in Kuwait as a matter of principle but I was an officer in the Army reserves and when called upon, I could do one of two things….abide by the oath of office that I took, or resign my commission. My integrity and my moral judgement says that I gave a promise…..I should fulfill it, Just because you do not agree with something, you do not cut and run. I went to Kuwait (14 months), I went to Bosnia ( 6 months), I went to Iraq (11 months), and I went to Afghanistan (8 months). I may not have agreed with those incursions, but I was an Officer and I support my country. Call it blind allegiance if you wish to do so…..but I gave my word. My honor, my integrity as a person, and my moral judgement is more important to me as a person, than it is to quit.

    Lastly, you also form bonds with your charges. It is a family. You develop loyalties to the men and women who are in your charge. You train with them, eat with them, listen to their problems, know their families, wives, and children……there is something there.

    So, Charlie, remember that these are my personal feelings and I take nothing that you ask as personal as long as you are trying to understand and learn. Consequently, this is not a lecture….just my personal feelings. You have not attacked me personally and neither has Todd or any of the left wing thinkers. I understand people very well and I know you understand me and I know that you understand most everybody on here. But, I will never move from a promise…it is what makes and designs me, as a person. It is called integrity and I will take that to my grave.

    Fair enough, my friend?

    • Absolutely, Colonel. It’s all cool. You probably did answer this one before but not this explicitly. Good stuff. I think you know where I’d disagree, but that wouldn’t make my opinion of you (or anyone holding to a promise) any less of a person in my eyes.

      I can only point to those instances where the military (as is often stated here on SUFA as a particular concern regarding liberty) is used by the state to put down it’s own people … uyltimately it is how revolutions are won, when the military itself realizes it is doing the devil’s bidding (no, FLPatriot, not the “real devil”–couldn’t resist) … I suspect you wouldn’t side with the government/military in such a case if it were to happen here, but it would require you breaking a promise. Anyway, easy to create hypotheticals (such as I just did) but much more difficult to experience them (which I haven’t, except in my own much humbler versions of moral dilemmas). Thanks for answering. You still the man. half a dozen cannoli put aside for you when you’re ready. 🙂

    • Colonel,

      …and neither has Todd…

      I guess I’m still being to SUBTLE! 😉

  4. This is one reason why there should be STRONG enforcement of the border. This type of thing CAN be prevented.

    Feds say Mexican women were forced into sex trade in NY, NJ, some had sex 25 times a day

    Published May 01, 2013

    Associated Press

    This is a very interesting article and it is something that I am familiar with as I see it down here all the time. What is left out of the article……are the ages. Most of the women forced into prostitution are under 18 and I wonder why this is not reported. We stopped an 18 wheeler six weeks ago….30 women crammed in the back of it headed to Chicago…..the oldest 22, the youngest 11. What is even more sad is the demand for this. We need to close the border….first. Reform second.

  5. Have to admit, this guy is SMART! To take an ideal, sell it and become a multi-millionaire.

  6. Piers Morgan Trolls Conservative Radio Host as She Tweets from Gun Range

    By Matt Hadro |

    After conservative radio host Dana Loesch tweeted about firing “all manner” of guns with friends at her local range this past weekend, CNN’s resident gun police Piers Morgan swooped in to badger her.

    Twitchy had the exchange. Morgan mocked Loesch’s gun range tweet, “Yee-haw!” and pointed out, for all those unaware, that the AR-15 rifle she tweeted a picture of was “The assault rifle used at Aurora & Sandy Hook.” When Loesch replied that everyone shooting were “law-abiding citizens,” Morgan invoked the Newtown shooter’s mother: “Like Mrs Lanza?”

    Trolling conservatives who are enjoying a Sunday at the gun range can be added to Morgan’s extensive list of exploits, which include silencing gun advocates, mocking their pocket constitutions on his show, and referring to the NRA executive vice president as “America’s most dangerous man.”

    Loesch enjoyed a couple of laughs later on, including tweeting, “I’m sitting in a restaurant with 22 of my closest conservative friends from all over & we are laughing at Morgan’s guntrums (gun tantrums).” Morgan responded by bragging about his number of Twitter followers: “I’ve got 3.4m followers laughing at you.” Although some of his followers disagreed with that claim.

    Read more:

  7. The American media does not need to be censored. It censors itself.

    Did the New York Times really fail to come across Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ex-girlfriend and domestic abuse victim while they were busily interviewing every single person in Boston who ever ran into the future terrorists? Doubtful. The New York Times may be incompetent, but it isn’t that incompetent. If it could track down Tamerlan’s old coach, it could track down his old girlfriend. It chose not to.

    So did every other paper.

    Either The Sun is staffed with crack journalists who could do what no American newspaper, news channel and network news program could, or The Sun got the scoop on Nadine Ascencao because no newspaper on this side of the ocean wanted to touch it. And it’s easy to see why.

    Nadine talks about being beaten in the name of Islam, forced to memorize Koran verses and being taught to hate America. Most journalists on this side of the ocean want quotes on what nice boys the two Tsarnaevs were and how, in true liberal fashion, no one could have expected them to do something like this.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, how much longer will those who screamed foul over the Benghazi accusations made here admit that they were WRONG……………… ????


  9. Bottom Line says:

    As 3D printer technology and materials become less expensive and more advanced, we are going to be able to scan and/or download from the internet schematics to produce/reproduce just about anything… including guns.

    Imagine being able to download and produce an AR-15 from the internet.

    • Robert Heinlein, “Beyond this Horizon”. The hero carried a Colt Model 1911 made by such a machine. Last weekend, Sen. Schumer was all over this technology. He wants it banned. Might as well try to ban printing. I guess it will all come down to banning ammunition and components now.

      Another thought. I was working with a guy from Jamaica a few years back. We talked about violence and the reputation that his home had for it. There are tons of firearms and ammunition for them in Jamaica. If they can’t keep this stuff off an Island, how will they keep it away from anywhere else? I think we had better get used to the idea of a totally armed and carrying citizenry. The cat, is out of the bag!

      • Bottom Line says:

        Indeed, the cat is out of the bag, and has been for a while.

        As I was watching the video I had an interesting thought…

        What happens when you combine internet, 3D printing and other manufacturing tools with robotics and autonomous A.I.(artificial intelligence)?

        Ever seen The Matrix, it’s prequel in The Animatrix, or Terminator 2 – Judgement Day?

        I can see it getting bad…It starts out simple and harmless, within 3 decades, giant robots with an IQ of 1,998, made of titanium alloy and Kevlar, are mass produced by other robots and exterminate or enslave the human race… infects us with nano-bots and turns us into Borg or something…batteries, etc

        • gmanfortruth says:

          This 3D tech isn’t that new, it’s just now coming out. They have made AR-15 lower recievers for awhile now and testing them.

          Whatever them govt can’t control, they will want to ban. That’s usually a tell tale sign of a problem. One day people will wake up and see the truth. For most, it will likely be far too late.

          • Where have you guys been? This technology has been out for awhile. There are plenty of tech manuals on the internet on how to build weaponry…including how to build and design the tools and dies to make them? They even post the tolerances for barrel twist to maximize the spin of a bullet.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Colonel, Gman,

              Yes, this has been out for a while. Perhaps I should have been more clear instead of implying. The point is to suggest what it is now and where it is ultimately leading to.

              Right now, it’s guns…but…

              What happens as the materials get lighter and stronger, and/or you are able to make things out of metal? What happens when it costs a couple hundred bucks rather than a few thousand? What happens when it can produce things in minutes that currently take hours? What happens when you can produce micro as well as macro ‘stuff’? What happens when you combine it with other technologies?

              What’s next?

              I can just see some 18 yr old whiz kid making a $100K fabrication shop in his garage with daddy’s money, and producing a Terminator robot, autonomous UAV, or something self replicating…or a thousand of them.

              ..or a doctor producing artificial hearts, people making their own car parts, or computers, or lawnmowers, etc, etc, etc,…

              The possibilities are vast….virtually endless.

              • Ok, I got it……yes, it is endless. I often think of the technological advancements that my own father has seen. He was born in 1919 and is still alive. Whenever I fly him somewhere, he just thinks back about flying in tri motors…..nickel hamburgers……

                even my own son, who is 40 now…once remarked that he did not know how we got along with our computers when I was in school as slow as they were…..I had to remind him that when I was in school, individual computers did not exist…….he has never seen an 8 track player or a cassette…

                So, you are right……pretty soon we will be able to make anything in our garage…

  10. Diane Feinstein’s new move to regulate the workplace on intimidation……the type of car you drive and the clothes you wear could be intimidating to less fortunate co workers. On the Today show, it was noted that someone who wears expensive name brand clothes and shoes to the work place where less advantaged people are working should be considered intimidation.

    Sigh…what next.

  11. A couple of you have indicated that you would like to see what my take on the Benghazi issue is according to any experience that I have had……in writing my article… has come out waaaaay too long…….and I would like to make it more concise….so, those of you that indicated an interest….is there a specific question that I could limit it to…….you are going to see some fireworks this week anyway but is there anything specific.

    Everybody with half a brain already knows that the so called video had absolutely nothing to anything. I do not think for a second that anybody doubts that Mrs. Clinton had nothing to do with this…..and that the POTUS knew exactly what was going on within minutes.

    I think the main issue is going to be centered around…….(1) was security deliberately withdrawn and did the withdrawal knowingly endanger the remaining personnel, (2) could we have gotten there in time to save the lives, (3) was the attack a coordinated military style envelopment, and (4) could it have been prevented. Is there a cover up of the incident and threats against whistle blowers?

    I can answer some things very quickly just based on my knowledge of how these things work.
    Did the State Department know of the attack as soon as it started? Yes.
    Did they know that it was likely to be attacked? Yes.
    Did the POTUS know of the attack immediately? Yes
    Could they have prevented the killings? Yes.
    Did we have QRT and QRF in place? Yes
    Given the time line that the attack lasted over 8 hours, were there assets that could have been employed to deter the attack? Yes
    Is there anyway that the information was diverted away from Clinton or the POTUS so they could claim plausible denial? No

  12. Republicans cow-towing to special interests? Why never …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I saw a post by an historian elsewhere this morning pointing out the picture of Bloomberg was actually from a picture of Lenin. I thought it was Stalin.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I almost forgot. What exactly was it that was wrong with Beck’s assessment of NY and Bloomberg??

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Official response……………the image was taken from a picture of LENIN.

      Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww that!

  13. And one more for austerity! It’s good yous guys do your “research” and don’t just pick things out of the air!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, FLP has a point, Stewart and anything from Comedy Central don’t exactly qualify as factual anything. Just keep getting your info from those folks, you’ll be ready to post at HuffPo soon 😆

  14. I’m sure everyone has heard about the three young woman who were found yesterday after being kidnapped 10 years ago-Check this out!!!!

    • Now here’s where (I think) me and Colonel would be in agreement. Short trail, and once if and when guilt is established, two in the back of the head for each brother, end of story. No fuss, no muss.

      • And you are wasting one shot each…….why?

      • Gun shots to the head-seems much to quick and easy.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Rope is cheap and oak trees are free 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            Give them unconditional custody of the man that did that to them. Put him in an iron cage in the back yard with a metal shock collar and heavy chain welded to the cage.

            Work him like a slave and use cruel and unusual forms of torture to punish him.

            Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

  15. Todd, when I was back bitching in the last topic. I went on about how everything was “too hard” these days. Somebody just sent me something which I think demonstrates that there once was a time…….

    I’m not terribly sure what the EPA would have said about this and of course, there is that end use of the hydrocarbon fuel which lead to our current climate problems, but those old timers, now, they sure knew how to tackle a problem didn’t they?

    • Stephen,
      Pretty cool! I’d never heard of the pipe line, and it never occurred to me how they supplied the advancing Allied Forces.

      But what makes you think we couldn’t do this today? There’s some pretty amazing stuff in Afghanistan!

      All it takes is adequate government funding for research and development. You should talk to T-Ray about that…

      Too bad we only support that funding for wars, and not peaceful aims…

      But you know, some people aren’t too bright…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd, Steven

        Technology aint the problem. Sometimes it isn’t even desire.

        The first thing would be the delay to get the Environmental Impact Statements done and approved.

        Then there would be the lawsuits over the EIS.

        So figure two to four years at the earliest before contract preparation.

        This is why “shovel ready” was such a joke.

        My associates and I used to make cracks about how little of those precious US highways would be built today under the current Federal Laws. Nobody has ever argued that we were wrong. Especially anyone from EPA or the green groups.

        Hell, the companies transporting parts to the oil fields in N.Dakota and Alberta were stopped from hauling the rigs over US Highways in Idaho and Montana recently. Highways constructed for the purpose of commercial traffic.

        The rigs are now shipped via interstate highways but must be cut into smaller pieces and reassembled on site after arrival.

        • How and why did I get dragged into this? 🙂
          Yes what Stephen posted was incredible innovative and practical. JAC, I agree the interstate highways would take a century to build now with all the new rules. Recently, they added a diamond lane to the US50 near here. It was only 3.5 miles long with 3 bridges to expand. So a total of 7 miles of one lane pavement. It took 3 years to complete. The new bay bridge in Oakland had been under construction for a decade. There have been several incidents of substandard steel and bolts. The latest is that about 30% of the bolts in a critical use are snapping. The cost to replace will be $10M and may delay the bridge opening. There have been massive cost overruns on the project.

          Todd I do not object to government funded research but I do object to government subsidies for construction of commercial facilities. Why do I have to subsidize my neighbor’s solar panels? Where is my return on that investment?

    • The EPA and interstate hwy system are just straw man arguments.

      The EPA is not involved in, and the interstate hwy system was not built in, war zones.

      Stephen was bitching (at me) in the last topic how everything is “too hard” these days. I find it laughable he would direct that at me. There’s nothing I enjoy more than tackling a project that’s “too hard” (Exhibit C – 4 years of SUFA!). It’s what I do for FUN!

      His example is “those old timers, now, they sure knew how to tackle a problem didn’t they?” And yes they did – quite an amazing one (I’ll still amazed it actually worked!). But that was a project funded by the government…

      Everyone seems to want to skip that part…and jump right to bitch’in about the EPA and interstate hwys…and how terrible it is that the GOVERNMENT cleaned up the environment and created a hwy system that enables commerce, trade, and CAPITALISM.

      There are millions of examples everyday of people tackling project and problems that are “too hard”. Get off SUFA, skip the conspiracy crap, and go check out the real world…

      I often wonder if some of the people here at SUFA want to actually solve any problems, or just want to bitch about how they’re all Obama’s fault.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Sounds like you are the one who needs to get out and see the world.

        Your response was a little off the mark it seems to me. All I did was point out the truth of the current situation. Whether it is govt or private funded is irrelevant.

        We have hamstrung ourselves with red tape.

        Unless of course you want to move a few hundred thousand people and millions of tons of material to some mideastern country. We can mobilize the same effort today for that, as our fathers did over 70 years ago.

      • Todd, I think you are missing the point. Things are harder today because we burden ourselves with many tasks that have little to no value added to the project. Most if the interstate system was built before the EPA hence did not have the expense and subsequent roadblocks to deal with. It was done rapidly at reasonable costs. I mentioned the new bay bridge above as an example. It is a decade long project with substantial costs overruns and shoddy materials and workmanship. In contrast, the Golden Gate was built in 4 years, is a marvel of engineering and has stood the test of time. Since you are a big government advocate, please explain how we could have lost so much in the intervening 70 years.

        I mentioned another example of building just 7 miles of highway that took 3 years to complete. Up the road a few miles, they recently completed another EPA success. A tunnel under US50 for the deer to use!. We spent $1.6M for a stupid deer tunnel in a time of severe recession. This is not smart government but government run amok.

        The EPA did a great job of cleaning up our air and water. But there comes a point when they start going overboard. Consider the 80-20 rule. You can get 80% of the gain for 20% of the cost. Going after the last 20% gets expensive. We have at least applied the 80-20 rule twice. So we are now at 96-4. They still are not happy so are going after the last 4%. This will be very expensive for very little gain.

        The EPA and environmentalists have also done significant damage. For example, they introduced oxygenates into gasoline. This was to reduce emissions from older cars. By the time it was mandated, most of the older non-computer controlled cars were off the road. Hence it was an unnecessary addition to our fuel and one that reduced gasoline mileage significantly. On top of that the oxygenate of choice was MTBE which polluted lakes and ground water. However, despite all the evidence, the EPA still requires oxygenates mainly because it was a big political win and they do not want to admit it was a technical bust.

        CA has implemented a carbon credit system. It is a royal waste of money. The history of energy for the last 200 years has been from dirty to clean and from expensive to cheap. Because of the natural gas boom and the recession, our carbon output is back at 1990’s decade levels. This is without government involvement. It would be substantially lower if the enviros would stop blocking nuclear.

        We just went through a severe recession. In fact we are still in it. Most businesses took the opportunity to look critically at their operations and to cut the unnecessary and unproductive. Government has not done that. Instead they have grown. We are not getting what we are paying for. It is time to clean it up.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Todd, you should do some research on the decision to build an interstate highway system. You could use some knowledge these days 🙂

        While you taught the GOVERNMENT, you should know that they are nothing without the people. They build because WE fund it. Of course, now it seems my great great grandkids will be paying for GOVERNMENTs piss poor management of the nations money. You know, the 16 trillion dollar debt thing 🙄

        Sadly, our courrent 536 in the District of Clowns are as corrupt as any major crime family in our history. The Gambino’s have nothing on this group.

        • “Sadly, our courrent 536 in the District of Clowns are as corrupt as any major crime family in our history. The Gambino’s have nothing on this group.”

          You know what you’d find interesting (if you could open your mind somewhat larger than the tiny crack there right now?) … the Gambinos … and most organized crime members are staunch defenders of capitalism … geez, I wonder why?

          • Yes Charlie, and if I remember correctly, they were staunch enemies of Fascistic Socialism as practiced by Mussolini. What exactly does that say?

            • CRIME PAYS … ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY … nobody was more upset with Castro than the mob … why? Because they could no longer exploit the people of Cuba with impunity. Say what you want about Mr. Castro, but that would require you ignore what life was like there for peasants under Battista (which I’m sure you all ignore very willingly).

              • gmanfortruth says:

                CRIME PAYS….. And that explains your love of government 🙂

              • G … once again (as always) has it backasswards … 🙂

              • Don’t know that the mob was particularly exploiting the people of Cuba. They basically liked the way they could operate under the Battista regime. Money could be moved round, no questions asked. Castro and his brother had to be two of the dumbest individuals ever to come down the pike. I was 13 when he took over. This country would have welcomed him with open arms. He had the reputation of a Jose Marti or Simon Bolivar.

        • Thank you all for jumping in here. Point about the gasoline is well taken. Science and progress stand still for no one. What has been missing for years is an idea floated in the ’70’s wherein all regulations, laws etc. sunset. At that time, their effect can be evaluated. They could then be modified, adjusted, dropped or renewed.

          Government does not like sunset laws, sacred cows get gored and abolished by them.

          You need look no farther that lower Manhattan to understand “too hard” . With all the pressure exerted to rebuild the World Trade Center, it took 11 1/2 years to top out the new tower. This in a city that built the Empire State Building during the Depression in one day shy of a year!

          Had the whiners had their way with the “dangers” in the debris, there would be no tower today, probably just a protective concrete dome over the remains of Tower 1 and Tower 2 and of course a large number of committees to study which future century would deal with the problem. .

          I understand that we are now up to 10 1/2 million receiving disability benefits from Uncle Sugar. Pretty good way of reducing unemployment. I have to assume that the legal eagles are all over adding to that list anyone who ever walked past the WTC site after it fell. Dust you know. Have a neighbor who is already collecting. He was working down there when the demo was going on. He’s not a construction guy, he’s Wall Street lawyer. If you look at the “plume” from the fall, you can see that half of Brooklyn and good part of Long Island should qualify too. Then there is the PTSD.

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

    Brandon Smith
    Alt Market
    May 8, 2013

    In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.

    Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.

    This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.

    When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him. To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.

  17. gmanfortruth says:
    • WTH? I didn’t even read it. V, How can you keep reading that stuff without blowing a gasket? I know, silence is deadly too. We are so screwed 😦

      • I read them because I am against abortion and if I’m gonna tell people it is wrong-I need to know what I am talking about. And I read them so the abortion pushers don’t win-they work diligently trying to keep the truth out of the media-and they are very good at it-but the information is there-and if people are going to support the practice they should read them too.

        But-You don’t really have to read this one-it’s the most recent undercover video-I think it’s the fourth one released in the last couple weeks.

        • But if you don’t want to read a lot of them-Just read this one-it shocked me-I thought once you got the baby to a hospital the child would get medical care-especially after one hospital was outed for putting a baby into a utility closet to die-but that doesn’t seem to be a given. The word-Abortion- tied to a child’s introduction to the world-seems to equate to a death sentence all by it’s self-medical condition be damned.

          Babies born alive after abortions, part 3: nurses tell their stories

          by Sarah Terzo
          April 12, 2013, 9:31 pm ET

          Often when a baby is born alive during an abortion procedure, the child is kept in the abortion clinic until he or she dies. In rare cases, the abortionist himself takes action to kill the baby. But sometimes the baby is transferred to a hospital, where he can be given medical care. Unfortunately, it is the policy of many hospitals simply to allow these babies to die.

          Nurse Kathleen Malloy, from Jacksonville, Florida, witnessed the death of one baby who was born after a saline abortion and transferred to her hospital. Melanie Green of Last Days Ministries quoted Malloy in her pamphlet “Children: Things We Throw Away?“Malloy tells her story:

          I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet – a crying, perfectly formed baby – but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion.

          This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery – they didn’t even bother to cover her.

          I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick – not a place to kill.

          I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!

          A saline abortion is performed by injecting the caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid that surrounds an unborn baby in the second trimester. The baby breathes in the fluid, which burns her lungs and scorches her skin, causing her to die within several hours. The mother then goes through labor to give birth to the dead baby. This type of abortion is seldom performed today because it led to so many live births and because it was dangerous to women; it had the potential to cause severe damage to the woman’s body if the saline was injected into her bloodstream. A similar procedure where poison is injected into the baby’s heart, or, in some cases, the amniotic fluid, still takes place today and is used in the late second and third trimesters.

          The baby Malloy watched die never had a name and never had a chance to live. In a similar situation, Gianna Jessen, who was also aborted by the saline method, was given medical care and survived. She is now a pro-life activist, and her website can be found here.

          A 2002 article in The Journal of Clinical Nursing seems to indicate that nurses encounter babies born alive after abortions with some frequency. According to the article:

          In the case of late termination, the death of the fetus before delivery, though usual, is not inevitable except in rare cases of extreme physical abnormality[.] … At times the fetus will actually attempt to breathe or move its limbs, which makes the experience extremely distressing for nurses. Also, whereas the woman will probably go through this process once in her lifetime, nurses may go through it several times a year or even in the same week. (1)

          The article quotes author and lecturer Annette D. Huntington, BN, Ph.D. saying that abortion live births are a “regular occurrence.”

          premature babyAnother nurse who found herself in the terrible position of caring for an aborted baby told her story in the newsletter of Friendship Pregnancy Center (now called Women’s First Choice Center) in Morristown, New Jersey. Her story, which can be read in its entirety here, is heartbreaking. On the night the aborted baby came in, three premature babies from a nearby hospital were being taken care of. Two of the three were in danger of dying, and doctors struggled to save their lives. While the doctors were engaged in the struggle to help these two wanted babies, the aborted baby was brought in:

          The nurse from Labor and Delivery walked into our unit carrying a blanket and stating “This is a prostaglandin abortion. He has a heartbeat so we brought him over.” The baby was placed under a radiant warmer and I was told the rest of the facts. The gestational age of the baby was given to be 23 weeks by ultrasound. The mother had cancer and had received chemotherapy treatments before discovering that she was pregnant. The parents had been told that their baby would be horribly deformed because of the chemotherapy.

          I looked at the baby boy lying before me, and saw that from all appearances he was perfect. He had a good strong heartbeat. I could tell this without using a stethoscope because I could see his chest moving in sync with his heart rate. With a stethoscope I heard a heart pumping strongly. I look at his size and his skin — he definitely looked more mature than 23 weeks. He was weighed and I discovered that he was 900 grams, almost two pounds. This was almost twice the weight of some babies we have been able to save. A doctor was summoned. When she arrived the baby started moving his tiny arms and legs flailing. He started trying to gasp, but was unable to get air into his lungs. His whole body shuddered with his efforts to breathe. We were joined by a neonatalist and I pleaded with both doctors saying, “The baby is viable — look at his size, look at his skin — he looks much older than 23 weeks.”

          It was a horrible moment as each of us wrestled with our own ethical standards. I argued that we should make an attempt to resuscitate him, to get him breathing. The resident doctor told me, “This is an abortion. We have no right to interfere.” The specialist, who had the responsibility for the decision, was wringing his hands and quietly saying, “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.” In the end, I lost. We were not going to try to resuscitate this baby. So, I did the only thing I could do. Dipping my index finger into sterile water and placing it on his head, I baptized the child. Then I wrapped him in blankets to keep him warm, and held him. These were the only measures I could take comfort the baby under the circumstances, no matter how much I wanted to do more. I held this little boy, who was still gasping for breath, trying to stay alive on his own. As the tears flowed down my face, I pray to God that he would take this child into his care, and that he would forgive me for my own part in his death. After a while, he stopped gasping. His heart continued to be, but the beating became slower and weaker until it finally stopped. He was gone.

          Ironically, all the while the nurse was holding the dying aborted child, doctors were struggling to save the life of another premature (but wanted) child in the very same room, less than 5 feet away. Sadly, this baby died as well – but she was given every possible medical treatment, while the aborted baby was completely ignored.

          Another nurse, Joan S. Smith, told the following story:

          It was a night I’ll never forget. It was 11 pm and my colleague Karen and I “scrubbed in” at the beginning of our shift in the Special Care Nursery of a large teaching hospital….Without warning, a harried nurse rushed into the doorway.

          Her white uniform seemed out of place in the area of the hospital where only surgical scrubs are worn.

          “Here, take this,” she said, thrusting into my hands a small silver specimen pan covered with a paper towel.

          “What is it?” I asked, realizing by the look on her face that something was very wrong.

          “It’s an abortion at 22 weeks gestation, delivered on our floor. But it’s alive,” she explained, then turned on her heel and was gone. I removed the paper towel to see the perfectly formed body of a baby boy curled up in the cold metal pan….Karen came over to help. “This happens every so often,” she explained sadly. She had trained at the hospital and worked there for over 15 years.

          [After a doctor Joan called simply told her to do nothing but fill in the time of death for the baby] Stoking his tiny arm, I tried to sort out my jumble of emotions. I felt powerless, angry, and overwhelmed by sadness. How could our medical system be so full of ironies? Here I was surrounded by medical technology, which was of no avail to this tiny child. I wondered if the parents even were told that their son had been admitted to the hospital as a live birth with footprints taken, and identification number and band given, a physician notified of his birth- yet all of this merely an unpredicted complication of a routine abortion. It took nearly four hours until that tiny heart slowed to a stop. With tears in my eyes, I wrapped his body for the morgue. This was all of a life this child would ever know. He would never know the warmth of a mother’s embrace. No one would ever celebrate his birth. He would never even be given a name.

          It is not unheard of for a baby born at 22-23 weeks to survive with medical treatment. Little Amillia Taylor was born at just 21 weeks and six days and weighed less than 10 ounces. She survived and is a healthy toddler today. Amillia’s mother actually had to lie to get the doctors to treat her baby – they had a policy of not treating children born before 23 weeks.

          A German baby born at 21 weeks and five days also survived. Her story can be found here. The article also cites the example of a Canadian baby who was born before 22 weeks and survived.

          Cases of late-term abortions blur the line between abortion and infanticide. Clearly, when a baby can survive on its own, even for short while, it becomes obvious that abortion is the killing of a human being. In reality, life is a continuum from conception to natural death – although babies aborted at later stages of development are more fully developed, abortion is murder from the very beginning. But stories of babies born alive and then denied medical care are heart-wrenching and a terrible indictment of our society, which permits such atrocities.

      • Anita, I just realized that the way I worded my post I was almost forcing you to read the article-I’m sorry about that-it wasn’t my intention to try and make you do anything. So do what ever you feel comfortable with-I really don’t mean to be so pushy.

        • I didn’t take it that way at all. They really are sad stories. I’m glad I’m not the one having to answer to God for those actions.

          Don’t even start Charlie.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    D13, Is this valid information?

    by Ken Larive
    Barack Hussein Obama had served 14-State Governors in the United States, National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that the Governor’s actions in attempting to form “State Defense Forces” needs to be halted “immediately” or they will face arrest for the crime of treason. The employment of NSLs was authorized by the Patriot Act introduced by George W. Bush. Contained within the section related to these letters, it is forbidden for anyone receiving a NSL warning to even acknowledge the existence of said communication.

    Obama is angered by the several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as: “State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.”

    Mr. Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces, in that he does not have control of said forces, and with the U.S. Military stretched to near breaking from multiple deployments and theatre actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, these State military forces would be under the direct command and authority of the Governors in which states have said forces. In essence, the Governors would have “de facto control” of the United States.

    The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have: “…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.” Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated: “If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.”

    Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.

    This is a fluid and still developing situation that warrants close attention.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Any STATE FORCE would by CONSTITUTIONAL LAW be considered the “militia”.

      Thus It is subject to the rules of regulation issued by the Congress and President. Up to a point of course. That authority is limited to training and armament and of course supervision when “nationalized”.

      Otherwise the militia is under State control.

      I am curious is the letters are real, however.

    • After my discharge from the Army, I became a member of the NY State Guard. We could not be federalized and served as a back-up to the national Gard should they be called away. During WW 2 the NY State Guard performed security duties and was used during the Harlem Riots. After 9/11 there was a temporary, partial call up. My understanding back when I was a member 1970-1977 was that the leadership of the guards from various states met annually on n informal basis.. Our Commander, General Brown, never stopped marveling at how well prepared the Texas Guard was. While we were lucky to get a week long encampment once a year ( except during budget crises) and occasionally actually being allowed to train with real firearms, Texas seemed to have a regular Army, Navy and Air Force! And, we had to provide our own uniforms.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Great story SK 🙂 History will say that the Fed’s don’t like militia’s they can’t control. Most of these civilian entities are defensive only and should pose no risk. Waco and Ruby Ridge are just small examples, as well as others. I would say that civilian militias should not be advertised, the big gorilla don’t like them 🙄

    • Psst – Tim Pawlenty was Governor of Minnesota from 2003 to 2011…

    • Oooo – can I change my reply????

      Obama did this again?

      Was it the same 14 states??? Or 14 different ones???

      Let’s see…5…carry the 7…divide by 3…that means just 29 states to go…

  19. Just A Citizen says:



    Do you believe abortion should be legal in those cases where the mothers health is threatened by pregnancy?

    Do you believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape?

    • I find that I don’t believe in abortion for any reason-now saying that, I must give you my bottomline definition of abortion-a procedure done for the express purpose of insuring that the baby dies. I’ve come to believe that the abortion pushers use a persons beliefs that a woman shouldn’t be forced to die as a way of giving the impression that abortion per my definition is required but as far as I know there is no medicine or procedure that requires that they intentionally kill the child-the child may die as a consequence but nothing I know of requires they purposely, slice and dice, burn, or poison the baby to death in order to take care of the mom.

      • The left says they want to compromise. There comes a time when you cannot compromise any longer. All the give is on our side. I don’t care if it is guns or abortion. You give, give, give and they want more.

        I am starting to feel like you on this issue. The harder they push, the more I want to push back. With Cuomo that insane nut case in Albany the likely candidate in ’16 after Hillary conveniently self destructs, the battle over the soul of this country is at hand.

        Below is little bit of what he is up to on a local level with abortion. Gun owners already have him figured out. Who would have thought a few short years ago that a man could walk away from a marriage, take up with floozy and then move the whore (there is no better word) into the executive mansion after he won the election. And to think, newscasters with a straight face in NY had the nerve to attack Mark Sanford for his morals. In my opinion, they should both be old news. Oh, and I guess he will run for president as a “good Catholic”.

        • Someone is starting to feel like me-well hallelujah ! You made my day 🙂

          Cuomo as President-makes me shudder to think what he would do with that kind of power. He can’t seem to go a day without coming up with some new idea about what “we the people” shouldn’t be allowed to have or do.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, it is time to swing for the fences to see what kind of reaction I get from the SUFA regulars.

    Mr. Obama is doing a GOOD JOB on the Syrian mess. That is assuming he wasn’t running guns to Syria last year.

    I disagree with him providing AID today. But given our modern President’s desire to ACT for the sake of ACTION, I appreciate his restraint so far.

    I also disagree with and denounce the Republican efforts to chastise him for waiting to get more information on the “chemical attacks”. Although he did jump the gun it looks like when he claimed that it “appears the Hassad govt used chemicals”. UN now reports it was the rebels.

    I am currently giving him a B or B- on Syria.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      HMM, interesting. The CIA is funding and supporting the rebels, just like in Libya. The only reason Obama is holding back the military is likely Russia. This also has Bengazi written all over it. The weapons used in Libya and provided by the CIA and The US (including funding and aiding AL Qeida) are now in Syria. At some point it will likely be told that it was the reason for the attack in Bengazi, to “steal” the weapons.

      With these hearings on Bengazi going on, it’s prime time for something big to happen to deflect the attention. I hope D13 can get his article on here real soon, looking forward to his views. My opinion is that this was a hit and murder, organized and ordered by the CIA. The stand down order is a disgrace. Clinton is a lying bitch, she knew everything. She gave the go ahead and Obama is just as guilty. They are criminal murderers and should be tried as such.

      So the question should be, where is almost 10K heat seeking missiles?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Why would the CIA order a hit on the guy who was setting up the deal??

        That make no damn sense G.

        But it will be interesting if the gun deals come to full light. Can’t wait to hear the rationalizing.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          JAC, I must get information from a differnt place. Why would the CIA whack him? Simple, he was fixing to talk. He was murdered, plain and simple. Now to watch for a war or some other distraction.

          If you cannot see that the Feds are nothing but criminals, I feel for you. But I still like you 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your use of FEDS in this case is just far to encompassing of ALL Federal employees.

            They are not all criminals nor are they all doing shady things.

            As for the Ambassador, how do you or anyone know what he was planning to say?

            The guy was part of the elite. The very corrupt people you are talking about. There is no way in hell he was going to squeal on any operation that he was part of.

            Want proof? Try to think of ANY top tier whistleblower. Not since Deep Throat my friend.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, my bad on the Fed’s issue. To clarify, I’m of the 536 elected ones in the District of Clowns. I could add a few more, but will leave it at that 🙂

              The Ambassador learned something that he shouldn’t have. There are lots of things that don’t get put in print that I hear, so to speak. Another strange rumor that went around for a very short time was that he was also openly gay.

              Not many top tier whistleblowers don’t live to whistleblow. The lower level one’s are just branded conspiracy theorists by the Govt and and their coward leberal media pundits.

              Despite all of this, I’m looking forward to D13’s article. Stay healthy my friend 🙂

    • He was running guns……

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Why do we know this and nobody else? This was so obvious a blind man could see it. He was gonna talk, and boom.

    • You are very benevolent in your grading system…… He gets an “F” for boots on the ground. We are there in an unofficial advisory role. He gets an “F” for involving the US in a civil war. He gets an “F” for supplying financial aid to the rebels. He gets an “F” for supplying weapons through a surrogate Rebel group aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. ( the port of entry is Tripoli ).

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I was using a CURVE. The same one everyone applied to Bush in the beginning. So by the same standard Obama looks like an isolationist. 😉

        Given your intel I will lower the grade to D. For me an F is when we start interceding with our own air/sea/ground forces.

  21. Wow, watching the Bengazi hearings-Normaliztion as policy-another example of Ignore Reality and just follow our ideology no matter the consequences.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Just had to share this comment from a lefty on Huff Po. It was a response to my poking fun at them for being all upset about the Stanford race and how they were reacting by denigrating people from the South. Then I got this:


    Ummm , when anyone starts talking to a Southerner , there isn’t a solitary being on the entire planet who says to themself “Gee , why is the director of NASA or the top physician of John Hopkins talking to me?”……………….


    Please share this with all your friends. I promised this smurf I would send the comment around the world for all to see what a lefty to be.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Southerners don’t really care about morons like this, much less the braindead commenters from HuffPo. If anyone wants to see Fuck!ng stupid, read the HuffPo comments. I read it sometimes to remind me how ……stupid Liberals really are 🙂 Sorry Todd, I have you on the fence when it comes to this 🙂

  23. There was nothing new to me on the hearings that changed my mind any….will put the article on the dash board tomorrow.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Wonderful 🙂 I will add some pictures and post it as quick as possible!

    • Colonel, I have a few rhetorical questions on the subject. Answers are not required.

      1) First the non-PC question. Why did we post a openly gay ambassador to a troubled, religiously intolerant country and brag about it at the announcement? It seems we were just rubbing their nose in it.

      2) Why did we not put assets on a plane and order it to hold at the international boundary if there was a question about our right to interfere. At least this would have kept our options open and reduced any response time to a minimum. Anyone with middle level management skills would have made this call. But yet our “best” and “brightest” at POTUS, SecDef, SecState, CIA, etc. could not think this through? Shear incompetence.

      3) Why did the press wait until Sunday to realize that Amb. Rice openly embarrassed the president of Libya by contradicting him on TV days after the event. She basically called him a liar in public. I caught it at the time and thought it was decidedly undiplomatic. Along the same lines, I have not heard one politician, either R or D, suggest the same. That alone should have disqualified her for higher office and should have cost her her job. If you are going to call someone a liar in public, you better be able to back it up with facts.

      4) I think it is clear that there is a lot more to this story that is not being told. Not only did Obama distort the facts to help in his re-election, that he and his minions showed gross incompetence; I also fear there was illicit gun running happening and that possibly Amb. Stevens was sacrificed.

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    SEAL Team 6 Families to Blame Government For Deaths

    “Never before revealed information” to be aired at press conference

    Paul Joseph Watson
    May 8, 2013
    SEAL Team 6 Families to Blame Government For Deaths 080513sea

    Families of the SEAL Team 6 members who were killed when their helicopter crashed in Afghanistan in August 2011 are set to give a press conference tomorrow during which they will hold the Obama administration partially responsible for the deaths of their sons.

    With the administration already reeling over today’s Benghazi revelations, a press release on the ‘Tea Party Command Center’ website promises “never before revealed information” about the circumstances behind the incident.

    “Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team VI special operations servicemen will be retired military experts verifying their accounts of how and why the government is as much responsible for the deaths of their sons as is the Taliban,” states the press release.

    30 Americans were killed on August 6, 2011 when insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan. Most of the victims belonged to the same unit as the Navy SEALS involved in the Bin Laden operation, although US military officials said that none of the individuals involved directly in the Bin Laden mission were killed in the crash.

    Issues set to be raised include how the Obama administration’s handling of the death of Osama Bin Laden made retaliatory attacks against SEAL Team 6 more likely, as well as how SEALS were sent into battle “without special operations aviation and proper air support.”

    Perhaps even more controversially, the family members are set to reveal how a Muslim cleric attended the funerals of the servicemembers and disparaged them by “damning them as infidels to Allah.” The press release states that a video documenting this will be played to members of the press tomorrow.

    Other revelations include “How and why the denial of requested pre-assault fire may have contributed to the shoot down of the Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter,” and, “How Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen on the helicopter were not properly vetted and how they possibly disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.”

  25. Gman…the article will be ready today…..I am tweaking it a little to stay on the subject matter and taking out some redundancy.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    WOW! Clinton is done! her political carreer just died. If it is ressurected, that would be a shame.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one.

      2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up.

      3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.

      4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.

      5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.”

      6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson.

      7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack.

      Read more:

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for a little thinking. The Ayn Rand Institute on Libertarianism.

    1. Has ARI changed its position on libertarianism?

    No. But the meaning of the term “libertarian” has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves “libertarian” may or may not hold the ideas we oppose.

    The libertarianism we oppose is a specific set of ideas, the essence of which is a dedicated, thoroughgoing subjectivism. Libertarianism in this sense was spearheaded by Murray Rothbard and his followers in the 1960s and 1970s. Its political expression is anarchism, or “anarcho-capitalism” as they often term it, and a foreign policy of rabid anti-Americanism (which they pass off as “non-interventionism”).

    The “libertarians,” in this usage of the term, plagiarize Ayn Rand’s non-initiation of force principle and convert it into an axiom, denying the need for and relevance of philosophical fundamentals—not only the underlying ethics, but also the underlying metaphysics and epistemology.

    This is the anti-objective, anti-philosophic position that, in 1985, ARI’s then-chairman of the board, Peter Schwartz, properly denounced in his essay “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.” That comprehensive critique of libertarianism exposes the movement’s essence: nihilism. (A condensed version of this article is published in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought under the same title.) We agreed with and continue to agree with the essence of Peter Schwartz’s analysis.

    As Mr. Schwartz demonstrated at length, this libertarianism declares that the value of liberty and the evil of initiating force are self-evident primaries, needing no justification or even explanation—leaving undefined such key concepts as “liberty,” “force,” “justice,” “good,” and “evil.” It claims compatibility with all views in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics—even subjectivism, mysticism, skepticism, altruism, and nihilism—substituting “hate the state” for intellectual content.

    This is why Ayn Rand opposed it from the start.

    In print in 1972 Rand issued this warning to individuals interested in defending capitalism:

    Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]

    (For more of Rand’s comments on the libertarian movement, see here and here.)

    ARI has always viewed the movement holding this set of ideas and attitudes as an enemy of capitalism and freedom, and we continue to do so. We will never sanction, cooperate with, or collaborate with any organization that advocates “libertarianism” in this sense. This policy is required both as a matter of integrity and in intellectual self-defense. The principle involved was identified by Ayn Rand: “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” [“The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]

    When this subjectivist approach to philosophy and politics dominated the libertarian movement in the ’70s and ’80s, ARI refused to cooperate with anyone belonging to it. Such cooperation would have constituted a sanction of the anti-ideology of libertarianism. However, today we see evidence to suggest that there is no longer a cohesive libertarian movement. The movement has become fragmented and leaderless (intellectually as well as organizationally), and the term “libertarian” is progressively losing its former meaning.

    Thus when someone or some organization today calls itself, or is called by others, “libertarian,” one should not assume that this means the person or organization is part of the anti-philosophical libertarian movement. What matters, in evaluating these individuals and organizations, are the ideas they actually hold and advocate.

    The term “libertarian” has been used increasingly over the last few years to mean a vague leaning toward liberty rather than government control. Many people, including reporters and commentators, sense that neither “liberals” nor “conservatives” are advocates of freedom. Commentators need a different term to describe those who seem to be more on the side of liberty and will often use the term “libertarian.”

    However, none of the three political terms—“liberal,” “conservative,” or “libertarian”—has a clearly defined meaning, because there exist no clearly defined ideologies. Consequently, the fact that today someone calls himself or is called by others a “libertarian” says virtually nothing about his political viewpoint: he could be a religionist, an anarchist, a laissez-faire capitalist, a middle-of-the-roader, etc. In the current terminological confusion, we look to the content of the ideas advocated, not just to the label attached to them.

    2. What is the Objectivist political position, if not libertarian?

    Objectivism is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Objectivism has a clear, well-defined, and unique view of political principles, which exist as outgrowths of their philosophical foundations. The best way for an Objectivist to describe his social-political position is to use the terms “pro-capitalist” and “laissez-faire capitalism.” Capitalism, in Rand’s definition, “is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” [“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal] As Rand herself wrote in 1962 to describe her position:

    Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles—specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism—as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context. . . . Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish. [“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1]

    Of course an advocate of Rand’s philosophy can also simply use the term “Objectivist” to describe his political ideology, naming “individual rights” as the essential political principle. These terms are in much wider circulation today, thanks to increasing public familiarity with Rand’s thought.

    3. What are some considerations that inform ARI’s decision to deal with another organization, especially one that describes itself as libertarian?

    There still exist organizations committed to the inherently corrupt anti-ideology of libertarianism, in the earlier sense of the word. ARI does not deal with such organizations. Although dealing with an ideological organization does not necessarily imply ideological agreement (as, say, when ARI co-sponsors a debate), it does imply that one considers the organization legitimate—which, in the case of the anti-ideology libertarians, we do not.

    But ARI does seek to work with other organizations on select issues or projects in order to increase ARI’s reach and impact. We assess whether it is proper, and beneficial to our mission, to work with a particular organization, and if so, in what form and under what conditions. For many years now, and especially as ARI has grown to enjoy the resources and manpower necessary to do so, we have been dealing with outside scholars and organizations.

    Some of the guidelines ARI applies in deciding whether or not to deal with another organization are:
    1. Since ARI is an ideological organization—indeed, our mission is to advance a new and radical philosophy—we pay special attention to the ideological nature of anyone we deal with and any joint activities we engage in. We try to ensure that our actions do not unintentionally promote philosophical ideas or concrete policies we oppose. We do not expect complete agreement, but we never work with organizations that directly smear Ayn Rand or Objectivism.
    2.It is vital in our dealings with other organizations that we not imply agreement when there is none. Because we advocate a new philosophy—as Rand said, Objectivists are radicals for capitalism, fighting for the philosophical base which capitalism has never truly had—deep ideological agreement is very rarely present. Even at the level of policy, it is rare for us to be in complete agreement with the position of another organization, because we do not view policy positions as independent of philosophy. Consequently, we must take care to ensure that collaboration engenders no confusion about what we hold.
    3.There are many organizations that are not primarily ideological in mission or activities, but are instead more interested in affecting law and policy. In deciding whether or not it is proper for us to deal with such organizations, we assess, in addition to points 1 and 2 above, the legitimacy and value of the policy and legal changes they are trying to bring about.

    Judging whether to work with another organization, even for a specific and delimited project, is often difficult. ARI does not take such decisions lightly.

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Some cool splicing and dicing of LANDSTAT photography. Ignore the headlines and just check out the magnitude of changes since the 70’s.

  30. Over here with your Ayn Rand …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The word Sociopath was coined by a shrink by combining social and psychopath. So lets look at the meaning of the ROOT word.

      psy·cho·path (sk-pth)
      A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

      Now if we move to the word Sociopath as used in the video, and as described by some sources, we find that judgment is injected rather than observable characteristics. No longer is aggression, perverted, criminal or amoral behavior without remorse required. One becomes a “Sociopath” by simply being anti-social or eccentric.

      In short, the above video is typical of CRAP put forth by those who simply can’t stand Ayn Rand because her views threaten their FALSE PARADIGM.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      On one point in particular, that being the claim she is racist because of her comments about Arabs.

      One of her stated reasons was the RACISM of Arabs.

      So in this morons argument we get calling racists out for their bigotry is racist in itself.

      If the guy was truly capable of an intellectual argument the challenge should have been laid on the issue of dealing with humans viewed as “savage” or “savage like” as opposed to those viewed as “civilized”.

  31. @FLP … about God (He) and using the Bible to war against homosexuality …

  32. @ Stephen … “Don’t know that the mob was particularly exploiting the people of Cuba.”

    come on, man … if they were hand-in-hand with Battista, they were exploiting the Cuban people … or do you think they were operating there so there would one day be universal health care and free education? 🙂

    • Maybe, one never knows. How well did they treat their employees at the casino’s? I know, a lot of the stuff I have is second hand through my Dad and his friends at the time but seems that they were better employers than the local yokels were.

  33. Bottom Line says:

    Jeffrey John Hanneman – January 31, 1964 – May 2, 2013


%d bloggers like this: