Open Mic Part 11

Moving this in to speed up loading. Hope everyone has a great day 🙂IMG_0031

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. plainlyspoken says:

    February 18, 2014 at 4:57 pm (Edit)

    Whenever—
    (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
    (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
    (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
    the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

    10 U.S. Code § 12406 – National Guard in Federal service: call

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is NO authority written within this code that allows the President to use the National Guard in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    • You will get no where with that argument. I am sure there is sufficient other law that clears their use in Afghanistan. I just don’t want to go and find it.

    • We’ve spoken about this in the past, but the upshot is this. There are TWO fundamental systems of laws: statutory and case law.

      In the former, every law, every power, ever nuance is written down in laws passed by the legislature. If the President has the authority to send the guard to Iraq, then that is a law somewhere with a signature on it, not “inferred” or “evolved” or whatever – but explicitly stated as such. Otherwise, he has no such power and taking action to do so is a breech of authority, period, full-stop.

      However, we don’t live under that system.

      We live under the later.

      Under a system of case law, the laws are more of what you might call.. a guideline. The COURTS are the drivers of the “real” law. They “interpret” the laws. They build up rules around the laws which have the full force and power of laws themselves. At any time, the legislature can pass an explicit law and override existing case-law, and the judiciary goes back to square one trying to figure everything out, but barring that, the case law is the law. This is where people get the idea of “judicial activism.” In the US, it is the job of the courts to be activist.

      As this applies to the above, the statutory law is what you’ve quoted. The case law surrounding it permits its use in this manner. If the legislature were insistent that no such power exists, then they could pass another law reasserting that, but barring that, the case-law stands.

      The legislature makes a law – they own it – but the law drifts in the wind as the courts interpret it and rule upon rule is built on top. At any time, the legislature has the right to enforce their will, but if they fail to do so, then the law is whatever the courts say it is.

      • That is not true.

        The courts are NOT supposed to be activists.

        It is up to the PEOPLE to be activists.

        The use of NULLIFICATION -in a jury- is the proper procedure, which of course, has been usurped by the courts and judges.

      • Mathius, there is some good at sending over the National Guard units, at least in the understanding that the Feds could have ordered a DRAFT. That likely saved you from possibly having to serve in the military. On a different note, that will not make anyone happy, since the beginning of Iraq, part 2, more Americans have been killed by our own cops than have been killed in combat, in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Our servicemen and women however have sustained far more life threatening injuries that have led to disabilities, including brain injuries, lost limbs, blindness etc.

        My point, I doubt that sending them is based on some idiot judge’s ruling on any law. I’m guessing, it is a written law. However, if not, there should be lots of Federally elected people who should rot in jail for the rest of their miserable pathetic lying ass lives. 🙂

        • I am sure G that there is sufficient authority, likely in the Authorizations to Use Military Force (AUMF) and possibly even in the War Powers Resolution passed in the 70’s to give Obama all the authority he needs.

          Now Mathius, I disagree with you in that the courts are to be activist in nature. If this were really the case then the courts could intervene whenever they chose instead of waiting for cases to be brought before the courts. When they do intervene I believe it is their responsibility to interpret the law within the case being heard – this creates the case law that is then guidance for future understanding and rulings of the law.

          • D13 clarified for the most part. I wonder what the families of the dead would think if they knew that their loved one was “volunteered” by their Governor, one that they may or may not have voted for?

            • Allow me to be more explicit…..

              The governor did not “order” the units overseas…..it works this way. The Governor has a military hierarchy that works for him exactly the same as the POTUS has…..a Pentagon, so to speak. Organized the same way….with generals and everything. All National Guard units were voluntary…….to go over seas. The Gov goes to his Generals…..asks them if they have units that wish to participate in the overseas operations. Overseas operations have requested help in specific areas….let’s say…..medics. If a State has a unique and full operating medical unit, that governor would be asked, who in turn goes to his commanding general, who in turn contacts the unit commanders and asks for volunteers. I have yet to see a unit that did not volunteer to go.

              I have yet to see a mobilization order from the POTUS.

              • “..stop militant groups..”

                Best way to stop them is not provoke them.

                A massive 180 is necessary in foreign policy – the very long overdue retreat from the “Eisenhower Doctrine” that has utterly plagued and perverted modern US relations.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              You don’t think those families knew that before their loved ones got on the plane? That they forgot when that loved one came home in a box?

              No, I think they all knew up front and many were both happy they served and heart broken when they did not come back alive.

        • I’m not subject to the draft.

          Flat feet, bad back, thyroid problem.. ain’t happening.

          • They don’t care about your problems, your expendable, remember?

            • Fun trivia: During the civil war, the North allowed draftees to “purchase” an exemption for $600. That money turned out to be far, far more valuable than just another body.

              Anyway, no I’m not expendable.

              Maybe you are. Maybe the Colonel is. I’ll leave that to you to decide for yourselves.

              I, however, am not.

              And I will be perfectly happy to rot in prison for a large number of years or move to Canada Aruba. But I have zero intention of going off to other people or be killed by them over some idiot’s game of geopolitical chess.

              How I feel about war: http://i.imgur.com/POhqgLr.gif

              • Normal people don’t think your expendable either, but the psychpath’s in government certainly do. That is where the problems lie. You are safe for now, but……check out the stuff from Kiev, things can change overnight.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Aruba? Ug… a big coral desert rock with no trees.

                Grenada, however….

              • I’ve been to Grenada. No complaints.

              • Re Kiev:

                No people can be oppressed but by their own permission.

                Ukraine has decided that they no longer feel like being subject their their government and are shaking it off like dogs shaking flees.

                Give me a month to plan and a year to execute, some resources, and a dozen committed men and women and I can overthrow the US government. Do you doubt me? It’s be so easy given the government’s obsessive need to overreact to everything – just push and push a little bit until they constrict the innocent population too much – then stand back and watch as the whole powder keg goes up.

              • Careful there Mathius or the feds will be knocking at your door with an offer for you to join them on a trip to Cuba. You “enemy combatant” you. lol

              • Well, on the plus side, at least I’d get out of this snow!

              • Mathius, “No people can be oppressed but by their own permission.” very well said and mostly true. Oppression always seems to morph from what we all call “voting”. Hitler was elected, in a landslide, in Austria. Voting works, that’s for sure, but usually not for the people. Most governments end up being oppressors at some point in history, if they are not destroyed by an invading army first.

                The sad part about your “plan” is that the very same plan may already been planned by the oppressor, you know the story, never let a good crisis go to waste 🙄

              • Then again, you may be arrested as a “whistleblower”! 🙂

              • Plainly,

                I was thinking about it – I think the best way would be to pick off a moderate conservative politician once a day in a different part of the country for a few days. The conservatives would still feel threatened as if they’re being under attack, but the hawks wouldn’t feel like they need to hide and would (probably) start screaming the loudest and demanding changes. The blue shirts would fold like a cheap suit (“soft on terr’ism!”) and viola, full-blown military police state.

                Step up pressure with some blown bridges (keep the civvy count down!) and other infrastructure. Attack food supplies. The point isn’t to actually damage the infrastructure or supply lines but rather to provoke a response by the government into guarding and policing everything. When the food trucks only move in armored convoys, the food shortages will start naturally.

                Follow it up by attacking the new police state’s implementation itself – maybe snipe at checkpoints or some such. Provoke a response against the civilian population. If they won’t do it, do it yourself (say burn down opposition headquarters) and let them take the blame / try to deny it.

                Let someone else recruit resistance and fight the rebellion – that’s not your job. Your job is to keep up pressure on the police-state such that the rebellion feeds itself. Attack both sides (police-state and legal opposition). Keep pressure on the supply lines – it doesn’t take much, just a hint of insecurity.

                Yea, this is pretty doable.

                Good thing I’m pro-big government, huh?

              • Good thing I’m pro-big government, huh?

                Which would be a great cover for you to orchestrate your plan. lol. Shame though such a good mind as yours is going to waste on supporting bloated, repressive government. 😉

              • Yes. Great cover. Awfully convenient..

              • Yes. Great cover. Awfully convenient..

                It isn’t working for those who have been committing mass killings in schools and such, so it’s probably a really bad idea 🙂

              • It isn’t working for those who have been committing mass killings in schools and such

                You’d have to target the political class. Targeting random civvies or kids in school does nothing to make the politicians feel scared. It just makes them wonder how they should respond for the best political theater.

                Targeting low level RINOs would scare everyone up the chain (there but for the grace of god go I). High level pols carry more risk (security/survelance, etc), but mayors and down should be pretty soft targets. The other pols would respond in a manner best suited to making themselves feel safe. That means extra security, curtailing of rights, et cetera.

                And, more to the point, targeting RINOs would cause a flight to the right amongst Red Shirts as they strive to prove their bona fides. They’d become ultra-militaristic hawks while the moderates go into hiding and give tacit consent because they’re scared and don’t want to risk drawing attention to themselves. The Blue Shirts all just fold.

                You know what? I’m going to stop there.. I can feel BF taking notes..

          • SKTrynoskySr says:

            An oldie but goodie that you probably haven’t heard before:

      • The role of the President is supposed to be Executive – as the word means, execute the laws – NOT CREATE LAW.

        Legislation is supposed to be the sole prevue of CONGRESS. Period. The only extent of Presidential prerogative in this process is veto.

        Application of the law in the prevue of the Courts.

        But you, Mathius, believe that the Executive can make, apply, and create law, that the courts can make law, and Congress…. wholly redundant.

    • A great story about our own Judy’s daughter-n-law, who recently returned from Afghanistan!
      http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/When-Mom-is-in-the-Military-246062301.html?=refresh

      • Very cool and much respect for Sgt. Sabatini. I’m a sucker for those reunions, tear up every time, no matter how many I see.

    • Brought forward….I posted on the other thread…

      Not entirely true…..one must remember that there is the National Guard and the State Guard. In Texas, you have the Texas National Guard and the Texas State Guard. The two are completely separate. In order to be an officer in the Texas National Guard, your commission must be a Federal Recognition. Being an officer in the Texas National Guard carries the same responsibilities and rights as a regular officer or non commissioned officer. The National Guard is a member and is reported in the Reserve Component of the United States. It is, however, under the control of the Governor of each individual State. The Governor has the power and the authority to call out its National Guard troops anytime the Governor deems it necessary. The only authority that the POTUS has over the National Guard is if the Guard is Federalized and Mobilized under the direct authority of Congress.

      For example, there were Guard units that were mobilized and sent to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan but the mobilization was voluntary from the Governors. There was never an order from the POTUS to mobilize. The Pentagon can request the aid of National Guard Units but cannot order it.

      In the advent of hurricanes or tornadoes or emergencies, the National and State Guards are under the direct command of the Governor. I know this for sure for I have been there and done that. I was a commander of a unit for Katrina when we went to aid the Louisiana National Guard. It was at the invite of the Louisiana Governor. The Feds allocated money for it but it was a State function.

      The next issue is the State Guard. The officers and non commissioned officers are NOT federally recognized. For example, a State Guard Captain carries no authority over National Guard units. The State Guard trains alongside of the National Guard units and will fill in when the National Guard units are deployed. For example, if there is a National Guard unit that is assigned to hurricane duty by the Governor, when it leaves, the State Guard fills that position and reports directly to the Governor. The State Guard is paid by State funds in total. No Federal allocations.

      There is more, but I hope this helps.

      • I commented this on the other thread. lol.

      • My comment from the other thread:

        I agree with you Colonel. The Governor has full control over the National Guard when the Guard is not federalized. Whether or not the President orders the Guard into federal service is up to him – based on the laws Congress provides for activating the Guard.

        As to the State Guard, I agree as well and just wish more States had active State Guard units outside the authority of the federal government. It would be a stronger check on the power of the federal government psychologically as well. States would be better served knowing they did not need to be concerned that the feds would order Guard units into federal service to prevent a Governor from utilizing the Guard units in their state against the interests of any federal designs on the population of a state.

  3. .

  4. Is Liberalism a much worse mental illness than anyone is told? Maybe it’s just this one person, NOT: http://barbwire.com/2014/02/18/salon-white-thugs-killing-black-teens-time-violent-response/

  5. @ Plainly….

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is NO authority written within this code that allows the President to use the National Guard in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

    You are correct in that the POTUS cannot pick up the phone and direct a National Guard unit to do anything……unless it is Federally mobilized under the authorization of Congress.

    • Correct, it is just the guiding law. As to their use in Afghanistan or Iraq I would need to review the AUMF’s for those conflicts, or the Wars Powers Resolution of the 70’s etc., but I am sure they gave Bush some language that he & Obama could use to point to the law outlined making their use “legal”.

      • Their use was legal……it was legal in that it was voluntary….and the units were used as “round out” units….in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        There was one National Guard unit that went to Desert Storm ( Kuwait ) that was not a round out unit and operated independent and reported directly to the theater commander.

        • Thanks for the clarification Colonel. That answers all my questions on the subject 🙂

          • My pleasure.

            “subliminal cut to Mathius”……turn him loose….turn him loose*****

            ****picture fingers to temples attempting mind meld scan….

            • Colonel, Mathius is being stubborn about releasing DPM. I think it is time you file a case against Mathius in the SUFA Court of Law. As clerk of the court I see the docket of Judge Anita has an open spot to fill. 😉

              • Too bad Chief Justice Wala has me presiding over traffic court. He’ll accept the bribe from Mathius and they’ll meetup in Granada sipping their girly drinks.

              • Bwa ha ha ha!

                Too bad El Presidente Weapon is absent or he could appoint a new Chief Justice..

  6. @ BF ” A massive 180 is necessary in foreign policy – the very long overdue retreat from the “Eisenhower Doctrine” that has utterly plagued and perverted modern US relations.”

    And do it NOW !!!!

  7. @ BF

    “Best way to stop them is not provoke them.”

    I am sure that you understood that I was referring to militant groups within the ranks of an already organized military unit.

    Militant groups outside the units….go for it.

    • D13, about the internal “militant” groups within the service. I blame the NCO’s for any of this happening, period. Both sides of those in that story would have paid a heavy price under my leadership as an NCO. The only thing any unit should be concerned with is abiding by their Oath to defend the Constitution. There is not much room for today’s politics in the ranks, and if there is, it’s a failure of leadership.

  8. Unrelated subject – CLEAR AIR TURBULENCE

    For those flying….please take this from an experienced private pilot….

    You cannot see nor avoid clear air turbulence. It is a phenomenon. We cannot see it…..we always fly with the knowledge that it is there. ALWAYS…..keep your seat belt buckled and avoid catastrophe as being slammed in the bulkheads or fuselage of flying aircraft.

    Turning off the seat belt sign is not a signal that it is safe. It allows you to go to the rest room if necessary…..nothing more.

    • And why aren’t we allowed to use our electronics on take-off/landing?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        electron turbulence.

        Also unseen and also potentially deadly.

        • So you’re telling me that I I can bring down a (conservatively) $700mm with a Kindle?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            YES. That is the concern.

            Which they never realized was broadcasting to the world how to bring down airliners via remote electronic jamming devices.

            I understand that the restrictions on using laptops, phones, etc have been lifted or relaxed.

      • Cause your beloved (by you) Big Brother says you can’t. Just do what your told and smile about someone holding your hand through life. 🙂

      • Mathius….the main reason today is for safety. Most objects flying around the cabin happen on takeoffs and landings.

        However, years ago, the avionics in most aircraft could not filter out electromagnetic interference…especially with cell phones. It would affect the readings in what is termed a glass cockpit. Today, with the advent of the new G1000’s, the filters are in place. There is not much chance any longer of affecting electronic readouts.

  9. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is close to finalizing a rule requiring calorie labels on vending machines and at restaurants and “similar retail food establishments.” Proposed in 2011, the regulations stem from the Affordable Care Act and are designed to combat obesity by helping consumers make healthier choices.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/198602-lawmakers-o-cares-menu-labeling-regs-go-too-far#ixzz2tmjvlZGT

    Sure, cause the large majority will read the nutritional info in order to decide which bacon double cheese heart attack they want to eat!

    • Does it hurt? Isn’t it a good thing that people are given more information? If they decline to make an informed decision, that’s their prerogative, but at least this gives them the choice, no?

      Sometimes its not so obvious – I’ve seen plenty of 3k calorie “salads” which I might have otherwise ordered as a healthy option.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Make the labeling VOLUNTARY.

        If we have laws protecting the product safety we do not need laws compelling labels.

        Eliminate the mandate and CUT the funds to run it from the Federal Budget.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          There are so many “Informational” mandated items on a label today, the print has become so small you can’t read it anyway. Much less the instructions on the use of the product. Only option left is to increase the size of the packaging.

      • Nope, never said it did. But, it seems to me if you are being healthy in your eating habits you wouldn’t be in a junk food joint anyway.

        I would estimate that 90% will ignore it anyway – just my opinion of course. Besides it’s just more big government that you are so in love with. 😉

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The net result of all this “activist” law to improve any health issue or injustice has been a society that is unhealtier.

  10. Washington and Wisconsin Pass Anti-Drone Laws

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/washington-and-wisconsin-pass-anti-drone-laws

    And do we think the feds would really care about these laws if they choose to use drones in these States?

    • Federal law supersedes state law. If the federal law permits flying above said states, then there’s jack the states can do about it.

      • Yep, no doubt that is the stance the feds and the lawyers would take. Yet, it would be nice to see the States exercise their ability to deny the feds. Personally I’m fine with the damn things being shot down.

        • 1. They have no “ability to deny the feds.”

          2. Good luck shooting those things down – I’m pretty sure they’re designed to be hard to kill.

          3. You should be very careful shooting up in the air – what goes up must come down and what comes down can come down on some innocent bystander’s head. See page 4.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        # 10, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Federal Law does not supercede State law, unless delegated. The Federal government is usurping its authority by claiming primacy in “ALL” law. If that was the case why don’t we save a ton of money and abolish all State governments and let the Fed run everything and enforce all laws.

        # 14 Section 1.
        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        This is a general comment to nobody in particular except I want to stress the last sentence. “EQUAL” protection of the law. When a law is enforced or not by limitations resources, or by political agendas of the District Attorney’s or the DOJ or just the fact that they feel they can WIN against the accused, or making a point, this is not equal protection. This is arbitrary application of the law. Any law so administered should be abolished.

  11. Mathius, LOL. Actually, bankers are under attack in a similar manner. Those who know too much and ain’t part of the Ruling Elite Class are offing themselves (or so the story says). One simple hack attack on JP Morgan that shuts down SNAP cards for a few weeks is all it would take to roll in the “Police State”. Cities would burn within days of a hack attack.

    Maybe a hack on the electric grid? That would really do the job. Something is in the air and it smells like skunk 🙂

  12. Watch out D13! If y’all ain’t careful you’ll be a Democratic State. Whether you really wanted to be or not. 🙂 (I put a smiley face but I don’t really think it’s at all funny)

    http://www.teaparty.org/okeefe-busts-illegal-voter-scheme-turn-texas-blue-35066/

    • Yup.. we’ve been watching Texas slowly turn purple for a while.

      It’s going to be cute when it flips. How do the Red Shirts ever win the Presidency when we control CA/NT/TX/New England?

      Shouldn’t be too long now.. BWA HA HA HA HA!

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Mathius….What I derive from your posts is that you really do not wish to live in a democratic republic. But rather a dictatorship where everyone does as they are told without question, where all decisions or made by someone else concerning your well being, because obviously people are to stupid to make those decisions on their own.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Our society has become the most moribound country in the world. Since our government is trying to legislate all contingencies of behavior by LAW in the attempt to make the outcome the same for everyone. People are not a semiconductor where an electronic signal input will mean a consistant output. Humans are totally unpredictable in their behavior and will eventually revolt against attempts to do so. It just takes time.

        • Now now, Dale. I don’t especially love democracy democratic republic, but I do agree that it’s the best of the available options.

          That doesn’t mean I can’t sit back and enjoy watching the political right self-destruct in real-time.

          Humans are totally unpredictable in their behavior and will eventually revolt against attempts to do so.

          Humans are morons who will behave erratically as individuals. As a group, they are a mindless herd who will – bleatingly – play follow-the-leader right off the nearest cliff-face.

          If they ever do get around to revolting in the US, they’ll replace the current government with another comparable over-bearing Big Brother who they will bitch and moan about under they get around to overthrowing that one as well, waxing nostalgic the whole time about the “good old days” which never existed outside of their fever-dreams of the halcyon days of their carefree youths in middle America.

          MEET THE NEW BOSS!
          SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Actually your wrong on the claim that the good ol’ days never actually existed.

            They did exist. Maybe the changes were inevitable, maybe they were forced on us.

            Either way, that does not negate the reality of how much more freedom we used to have compared to today.

            • Who is “we,” Tanto?

              Is “we” native Americans?
              Is “we” children in sweat shops?
              Is “we” African Americans?
              Is “we” women who couldn’t vote?
              Is “we” non-land owners?
              Is “we” non-Christians?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes, all of the above.

                You reveal your typical left wing brain when you try to lump people by race and ethnicity.

                Blacks in the south did not have the same experience as blacks in other places. Native Americans actually had greater freedom in the good ol’ days of my youth than they do today. Because now they are even more tied to the Govt.

                I also notice that you have to retreat to the turn of the LAST two centuries to try and make your point. Yet when we who are alive speak of the good ol’ days, we are speaking of the last 80 years or less.

          • Mathius, Not all of want the same old thing if this group of criminals are finally and forcibly removed from office. There will be trials and verdicts and justice for these politicians, on both side of the isle. Liberals will never control the people, period. You should get used to that thought, because as they continue to deny the guaranteed rights written in the Bill of Rights, those who are already fed up with the BS in DC, will eventually grow to a point we can’t be stopped, and then ALL Liberals will pay a heavy price for being so stupid 🙂

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Then you even distrust yourself to make decisions for yourself and family. Do you go to your neighborhood committee to ask permission to live your life. Group think will lead to group failure in all cases in time. In business, I had found the Japanese were extremely easy to beat once you learned their culture.

      • You apparently missed the point of the article. What is going on in TX is ILLEGAL. Some Democratic assholes, and I say this word because there is no better word for them, are usurping the will of the people of TX by illegal means.

        TX, as best I see, is not in ANY danger of being purple, since their state runs too damn good under Red State principles and limited government. Why in the crap would they want to go to your unworkable, impossible to live under, big government, liberal horsedookey?????

        • What is also apparent is that they are resorting to these tactics because in their minds, it’s the only way to get Wendy Davis elected as Governor.

          They’re wrong of course. Texas will NEVER elect that Liberal lying Moron as Governor. After all, all the States aren’t like the whole U.S.!

        • Tick Tock, my friend. Tick Tock. Time is running out for Red Texas.

          And, yes, perhaps you might have an eentsy weentsy little problem with illegal immigration down there. But I’ll tell you what: it’s wrong that the US makes it so hard to migrate. We need them. They want to work here, but more to the point, you and I (and, by proxy, our government) have no right whatsoever to tell an independent free human being that he can and cannot live where he chooses.

          If he can find employment and he can find housing, who are you to tell him that he can’t move into your neighborhood?

          This is one of the places Black Flag and I see eye-to-eye.. It’s not your right to tell a stranger that he can’t cross some imaginary line on a map “because you say so.” It might be legal – but it’s not right.

          If I told you that you need my permission in order to move to somewhere freer and with more opportunity, you’d call that tyranny.

          • Get over it already. The fact stands that we have immigration laws as does every other country on the planet. I don’t think anyone at SUFA has a problem with legal immigrants.

            • No, I don’t think I will get over it, thank you.

              “I’m sorry, but you had the misfortune to be born in place X, therefore we’re going to hog all the goodies over here and not share with you unless you sneak – and then we’ll let you be a kind of 3rd class citizen with no rights and serve only in menial labor roles that I don’t want.”

              Because Freedom™!

              Seriously, whatever happened to “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”

              HAHHAHA HAHAHA NOPE! You were born on the wrong side of the imaginary line, so STAY OUT! AND LEARN ENGLISH!

              as does every other country on the planet.

              Didn’t your mother ever teach you that “everyone else is doing it” is not justification for taking wrong action?

              • Mathius, while I agree with a free border philosophy, I think we need to take care of our own Legal Citizens first, then start bringing in immigrants. I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with tax dollars being spent on those who chose not to respect our laws. We have some 44 million getting govt aid just to eat, that’s a big problem that needs fixed BEFORE we bring in another 11 million citizens, who have already proven they won’t abide by our laws. And yes, learn English, that is our most used language. They need to accept our way of life, not bring what they fled and try and shove it down our throat.

                The whole immigration LIE is about votes for an already corrupt system. Wake Up!

              • Cheers for Mathius.

                Immigration “laws” are utterly evil and perverse – to prevent human beings from seeking opportunity.

                The REAL reason these laws exist is not to protect “culture”, etc. – does anyone really think a few Mexicans undermines the “culture” of the US? If the US culture is that fragile, it really does need to be changed.

                The REAL reason is to prevent job competition and artificially keep wages high. If there is a shortage of vegetable pickers, the price of vegetable pickers will go up.

                The irony – the immigrants almost always assume jobs that “Americans” do not want anyway.

                Few Americans want to pick vegetables and no American wants higher prices for their food and vegetables.

                So these same superficial thinking people want cheap food … yet want to create wages high by prevent low/unskilled labor entering the country.

                The refrain “these immigrants steal American jobs!” – jobs that few Americans want….. very strange….

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Yeah…just try and gain citizenship to Mexico, or Japan etc. Many years ago immigration was not open to all at any time. The embassies would have skills or needs that were in demand in the US. The visa was granted on those needs. I will not to into the gross immigration laws of the 20’s because we are still suffering the affects.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I would not. Not if that involved moving to another COUNTRY as in NATION STATE.

            Who are we to declare? We are AMERICANS, CITIZENS of the United States of America. WE get to decide. Not the people standing on the other side of the line. We have that RIGHT by the international and HUMAN concept of National Sovereignty.

            And Mathius, if you think that all those who sneak in came here because they want to work, you need to wake up to what is going on in your old home state.

            Many do come for the work, but they are not here to become Americans. They just want the money and the ability to go back and forth at THEIR leisure.

            Now lets address your OBVIOUS contradiction in values where in you assume the Anarchist view of borders then turn around and support CENTRALIZED FEDERAL CONTROL of government function.

            • We are AMERICANS, CITIZENS of the United States of America.

              Nonsense. You are JAC, citizen of JAC.

              I am Mathius, citizen of Mathius.

              I live on a plot of land located within the imaginary lines surrounding a hypothetical entity called the United States. I neither own nor exercise ownership rights over other lands.

              Jose is a free human being and a citizen of Jose. If I want to sell him my land and he wants to live on that land, then who is JAC to interfere? What? Because collectively you’ve decided that you have a “government” which somehow has the right to interfere with a private transaction between to private human beings that’s none of anyone else’s business?

              Nope, sorry, not buying it.

              And Mathius, if you think that all those who sneak in came here because they want to work, you need to wake up to what is going on in your old home state.

              Work takes many definitions.

              But let’s say simply this: they came here to pursue their own happiness and a chance for a better life.

              And you, and others, have decided that – due to the misfortune of the location of their birth – they do not have the right to pursue their happiness here.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                One cannot be a citizen of ones self.

                No more than the united states can be a citizen or a nation state of itself.

                Clean up your concepts.

              • You can be a citizen of one’s self.
                “Citizen” is just a concept.

                It begin with defining who was a slave and who was not:

                “The person was defined and represented through his actions upon things; in the course of time, the term property came to mean, first, the defining characteristic of a human or other being; second, the relation which a person had with a thing; and third, the thing defined as the possession of some person.”

                The corner stone was ” equality under the law”.

                A self-citizen holds upon himself the same demands he holds upon others. “What you cannot do, I cannot do; What I can do, you can do”

              • I am a free and independent human being with the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to mobility. If I can buy land in Paraguay, I have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to live on MY land in Paraguay. Full Stop.

                If Jose has the ability to buy land in East Texas, Jose has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to live on HIS land in East Texas.

                And not you.. And not I.. And not Barrack Hussain Obama.. And not the Pope, himself, have an iota of ground to stand upon to intervene.

                That fact that there are a lot of “you” which, collectively, consistent the United States citizenry does not change the fact that you STILL do not have an iota of ground to stand upon in denying Jose HIS RIGHT to live on HIS LAND.

                You place far too much value on the importance of imaginary lines drawn arbitrarily on maps.

            • Now lets address your OBVIOUS contradiction in values where in you assume the Anarchist view of borders then turn around and support CENTRALIZED FEDERAL CONTROL of government function.

              Isn’t it fun?

              Ok, once again: I believe that the roll of the government is to regulate interactions between individuals and non-participatory third parties (generally speaking). So if I want to, say, hire a prostitute, that’s my business and hers – so Uncle Sam has no right to interfere. If I want to stab a hobo in an alleyway, that’s Uncle Sam’s business because the hobo didn’t ask to be stabbed (if he did, then Sam should butt out).

            • “Many do come for the work, but they are not here to become Americans. They just want the money and the ability to go back and forth at THEIR leisure.”

              Gasp! What a sin! To do want they wish with the wealth they earn! Such a crime!

              Ban these people!

              • Seriously, Flag. I just don’t understand the mindset.

                Well, I guess I do: goodies for me, but not for you.

                I’d love to see a nationwide one-week strike of all “illegal” immigrant workers. Just one week and watch the country grind to a screetching halt.

                I mean, sure, it would devastate the economy, but at least people would learn a valuable lesson.

          • Who brought up illegal immigration? Methinks you don’t read very closely. What I said was: ” What is going on in TX is ILLEGAL. Some Democratic assholes, and I say this word because there is no better word for them, are usurping the will of the people of TX by illegal means.” This was a political statement about the Democratic Vote Stealers in TX, not illegal aliens.

            However, on that note, I could give a crap about the Mexicans and where they want to live. I have some Mexican friends, including one High School girl I love like a daughter. My only problem now is if they come up here and want to change our government to be more like theirs. If they want to live in America, speak our language and live by our Laws, or rather INTEGRATE into American society, I have no problem with that.

            • If they want to live in America, speak our language and live by our Laws

              How’s your Navajo?

              Did you know that before it was forcibly suppressed during WWI, German was the second most common language in the United States?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                And just as with all other immigrant languages that were NOT outlawed, they all converted to English and adopted key American cultural values.

                I wonder what your real motivation is Mathius. You know full well that the Democratic party’s love with immigration is just about maintaining political power. Yet you fall for this Anarchist theory of national borders.

                You seem to relish in the prospect it could upset the Redness of Texas. So in affect you hope that the culture and lifestyles of others be destroyed by a massive immigration of people with different values. Why??

                You claim the left is equally screwed up yet you cheer for the Red team to fail.

                Who has REALLY posed the greatest threat to individual liberty these past few decades? I see little difference, yet you cheer against the Red team. Why??

                Oh and by the way. I heard the same predictions about the death of Republicans in Idaho years ago when the Californians migrated by the thousands to the Gem State.

                Didn’t work out quite like the Jackass’s thought it would.

              • You, as usual, miss the point. They must integrate into American Society. THIS AIN”T MEXICO!

                They, like everyone else in this nation, need to learn to speak ENGLISH. Because this isn’t a Spanish speaking nation, even though we ARE turning like a Banana Republic. We Americans should not be forced to learn Spanish. We should not have to have Spanish Language signage.

                The illegals can have their own communities, because we all do. And they can keep their culture, even though the White folks can’t without being accused of being Racist. America should just no have to, nor need to, change our Nation to suit them.

              • I wonder what your real motivation is Mathius.

                My “real motivation” is to not interfere with the rights of free human beings where not absolutely necessary to do so.

                You seem to relish in the prospect it could upset the Redness of Texas. So in affect you hope that the culture and lifestyles of others be destroyed by a massive immigration of people with different values. Why??

                Just a side benefit.

                A bonus, if you will.

                You claim the left is equally screwed up yet you cheer for the Red team to fail.

                I don’t seem to recall ever saying the left is equally screwed up. They’re definitely screwed up – but far less so than the Red Shirts.

              • Rebel,

                Because this isn’t a Spanish speaking nation

                But neither is it officially an English speaking nation either.

                I’d like for you to point to me in the founding documents where it says the bit about English as a a national language. Or perhaps in some federal law somewhere? Or a Supreme Court Case perhaps?

                Just because the culture is a certain way at a certain point in time does not mean that it is permanently fixed in perpetuity.

                Fashions change. Names change. Technology changes. Culture changes. Demographics change. Language changes.

                And if you don’t believe that, I’d like to point out to you that the “English” we speak is a far cry from the “English” they spoke during the American Revolution. And it is a far cry from the “English” of Shakespeare and Beowulf. And it is a far cry from the “English” of 2100.

                Things change – get over it.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                WWI under the great progressive leader Wilson deprived the citizens of more rights than will be readily admitted to. I am a decendant of immigrants. German, Polish, French, Lithuanian, Russian, English, Austrian (Great Grand Parents) They all kept their originally spelled names. How far one went through school by WWI determined subsequently the spelling of the surname. I personally never heard anyone of them speak their native language. Their only comment would be “we are americans” not wherever they came from. By stories I do know my Father spoke German until he went to school in the 30’s. His Grandfather was a minister that preached in German. During WWII FBI agents sat in the back of the church to insure he never spoke seditious material. Everyone of my relatives became citizens as soon as possible upon entering the country. My Mother would harass any of us who married or dated anyone who had resided here for any appreciable amount of time and did not naturalize. Nephew married a girl who was here over 20 years before applying for citizenship.

    • That is ok…..what is unseen is the Hispanics that are increasingly turning conservative. here. Up to 30% now….the other thing…….picture ID’s….still have to have them and they must coincide with past voter rolls and residence. We shall see….we shall see.

    • There isn’t any voter fraud going on, just ask a Liberal, they’ll tell ya 🙄

  13. Here’s a couple of articles all the gun control proponents will just love to keep handy:

    Calling on Leaders to Repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/repeal-stand-your-ground_b_4804323.html)

    Why Stand Your Ground Laws Must Be Repealed, in One Infuriating Graph (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-wade/stand-your-ground-race_b_4809081.html)

    Reverend Sharpton’s has holes in his argument in my opinion. If the jury couldn’t convict on first degree murder it may well be the law & justice system that caused the problem. Could it possibly be that the State Attorney overcharged the offense? Why the jury couldn’t reach a verdict isn’t the issue as jury deliberations don’t have to be explained by them. Unless of course we want juries to be required to justify their action or inaction on a charge?

    In the second article she wants to blame it all on racism, which Sharpton brings up too with the statement, “It has allowed an individual’s ingrained biases to potentially be protected under the law, no matter who gets hurt in the process.”

    But, in their opinions the laws for “stand your ground” are the real culprit they say. I guess they think it’s better for everyone to be a victim than to punish the few who misuse laws to justify their actions. Lets not bother fixing the problems with the criminal justice system it seems.

  14. This piece on North Korean and it’s murderously oppressive regime:

    About North Korea: ‘We Can’t Say We Didn’t Know’ — So Will China Continue to Block Defectors? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/about-n-korea-we-cant-say_b_4808532.html)

    I focus on this statement for our “border security” proponents:

    China, in the report, was accused of forced repatriation (refoulement) of migrants and defectors, who were then imprisoned,(/i>

    Seems to me it’s okay to have “secure borders” and immigration controls until a government is being evil in it’s decision.

    Not to mention that what occurs inside North Korea is outside our control – rightfully so too.

    Maybe an international coalition of countries should invade to destroy the North Korean government and free the peoples of North Korea? Hell, fits right in with our war philosophy doesn’t it?

  15. @ Mathius

    I’m sorry……”3. You should be very careful shooting up in the air – what goes up must come down and what comes down can come down on some innocent bystander’s head.”

    This implies that you miss the target…..where does this happen?

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Remember when I explained how the Obama election MACHINE was being interfaced with the Executive function in order to aid in implementing White House policy?

    Where here is a perfect example of how the two are linked:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/us/proven-models-break-down-in-search-for-the-uninsured.html?hp&_r=0

    This is the MACHINE that Obamatons control and the Clintonistas want to get their hands on.

  17. There are only a few touchstones that truly test those that claim “Freedom” is important.

    You can easily find the members of the group “Freedom for me but not for you” by testing these touchstones.

    One such touchstone is immigration.

    • What does this say about me, then?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Your the same walking contradiction you were last year. Just getting better at expressing “certain” principles on your freedom side.

        • Nonsense! I just as lousy at expressing principles of freedom as ever!

          (PS: I’d like to point out that BF and I had our first pro-free-immigration conversation years ago – this is nothing new).

    • I totally believe that anyone who wants to live and WORK in the USA should have and exercise the right to do so. Where I draw the line is those who want to come for government cookies and rely on said cookies for survival. The door should be open, but get a job.

      • Gman,

        Then your complaint should not be upon the man seeking the opportunity, but upon the government who offers unearned wealth.

        It is absolutely true that some immigrants come to enjoy the unearned wealth provided by government – but guess what? LOTS OF “LOCALLY” BORN PEOPLE DO THE SAME THING!

        But, strangely, where is the complaint or the refrain “we should deport all those on welfare!”

        • Then your complaint should not be upon the man seeking the opportunity, but upon the government who offers unearned wealth.

          DING DING DING DING DING DING!

          “we should deport all those on welfare!”

          That I would love to see. Talk about political suicide! Of many, I can just imagine it now.. all those good “small government” folks screaming about makers and takers (deport the takers!!) until they suddenly realize that the list of “takers” includes medicare and food stamps and then… woops. Silence.

          • or the Holy Grail …. Old Age Security!

          • Wrong Mathius! I have no problem with the elderly, period. They paid INOT Medicare and continue to do so each month, so it’s not TAKING as you claim, that’s Left Wing Bullshit and you know it! I also don’t mind my tax dollars helping the elderly have better choices of food.

            • Whoops. LOL That would be INTO

            • No, no, no, no they didn’t.

              They paid for medicare for the CURRENT RETIREES. That money is spent and gone. Poof.

              What they’re receiving in MY money from MY paycheck.

              Because someone “stole” from them does not mean that their decision to “steal from me” is somehow getting their own money back, because it’s not. If someone steals your TV and you then steal one from a store, you’re still a thief, are you not? Even though you’re just getting back to where you were before the theft, that doesn’t make it right, does it?

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The more programs the government creates for “YOU” the more they are going to take in the way of taxes and consequently you are then less likely able to take care of yourself, therefore justifying more programs etc etc etc. just a vicious circle

            • Gman,
              It is absolutely and utterly a “taking” – they take a magnitude more out then put in. They are truly stealing from the children.

              It is an intellectual tornado that is created to say “well, that’s ok, ’cause my kids will eventually “take” too….” by stealing from their kids and so on….

              One day, sir, this Ponzi scheme crashes and those kids lose everything and bear the suffering and consequences that they did not cause.

              The truth, sir, (as it is part of your screen name) is that it is stealing from your future children and hiding behind an evil rationalization to do it.

        • I do not believe deportation is the answer. And yes, I have an issue with the governments offering these free cookies, because I don’t want to have my earnings stolen and given to those who will not work! That’s my biggest issue. With both illegal immigrants and US citizens, the lazy MFers. 🙂 If people are here to work, fine, join the picnic. I’ve been welcomed in other countries, I have no problem doing the same.

          • Again the touchstone of Freedom (or not Freedom).

            You claim for yourself (and your “friends”) that you will not grant to others.

            • How am I denying freedom, because I choose not to pay for others freedom? I have no obligation to do so, and choose not to, VIA, government directive 😉 If I choose to have a immigrant live in my home and I pay his/her way until they get on their feet, that’s my choice. It should not be dictated to me by government, correct?

              • For the record, we have a pretty good immigrant population from most everywhere around here. They are just as nice as any natural born American and work their butt’s off. I have the utmost respect for these people and call one my friend 🙂 He’s a fairly close neighbor and is a great person.

              • No one is asking you to pay for anyone.

                But it is you who presented the GOVERNMENT goodies argument – this is not you paying for anything. You are forced to submit your wealth to government who ITSELF chooses the winners and losers of that deal.

                It is utterly wrong to have a concept that claims “I am paying for “X” because government taxes me”. The correct concept is “Government taxes me”. PERIOD.

                What government does or does not do is irrelevant after that.

          • Ah! I get it now.

            Two wrongs make a right!

            Is that it? Did I get it?

  18. More on “Citizen”

    Citizenship meant having rights to have possessions, immunities, expectations.

    “free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law’s protection, a citizen of such and such a legal community, of such and such a legal standing”.

    As I operate upon my own law, I am my own citizen.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    So interesting to see BF, Mathius and Gman all aligned with the values and ideas of the Council of Foreign Relations and the One World Govt crowd.

    I often wonder why ya’ll rant against these entities which you seem to agree with so often on key issues. Like sovereignty of Nation States, immigration and commerce.

    • I don’t rant against the One World Government.

      I like the idea.

      • Mathius! Bad Boy!

        Go sit in the corner with JAC.

        • Nope. You’re not the boss of me!

          Take agreement where you can get it, non?

          • Mathius, when I lived overseas in a foreign nation, I had to learn Their language to communicate as much as possible. Why shouldn’t we ask the same of those who come to America? English is the most spoken language, our guests and new members of our society should do as I had to do., learn the local language. I might add, that Spanish has many dialects, which was a real pain in the ass, but I managed 🙂

            • Yeah Mat! ‘Splain that! Mexico speaks Mexican Spanish. Spaniards speak Spanish Spanish. Guatemalans speak 3 or 4 different dialects of Spanish AND Indio. Panamanians, Columbians, and Argentines all speak different dialects of Spanish. So which one of all of those exactly are we Americans supposed to learn?

              Now let’s take the Germans of Herr Albrecht’s lineage. There are 4 or 5 different dialects of German also. And let’s not forget: English! There’s English English and American English. Are we all supposed to learn Cockney too?

              No thank you. I’ll just stick to the language of the Nation I live in. Which is Southern American English. (It was hard enough to learn that) 🙂

      • Impossible, friend Mathius……this is not one world and never will be.

        • Of course it is.

          We’re a lot more similar than we are different.

          The world is not nearly as big as it once was – and it’s getting smaller all the time.

          • Hmmmm………widely traveled person…….I sure do not see it that way…..we do breathe the same type of air, I suppose…..more polluted in other places than here…but it is air….that is something similar…..cultures will never combine…..they will always clash….in my opinion of course……

            ***** FREE DPM!!

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Just ask people in the EU how they like being ruled by UNELECTED officials.

    • JAC! Bad Boy!

      To argue for freedom FROM government interference does not become an argument for GLOBAL government interference.

      Go sit in the corner for 10 minutes and contemplate your error.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        You are the one with thinking errors, so I suggest you come join me. The Kentucky Bourbon is served with two ice cubes……….

        Govt has and will continue to exist for some time. To propose “open borders” and destruction of “national boundaries” can fall ONLY into one result. It supports the efforts of the CFR and One World Govt crowd.

        The notion of One World NOT Govt is probably Centuries away. If it is ever possible at all.

        We are individual sovereigns, but we are also a “group” animal. The Anarchist philosophy misses the second part badly.

        • First of all, free movement of people does NOT lead to “World Government” – exactly the opposite.

          People do tend to migrate to “like culture”, not the opposite. Free movement of people will, therefore, tend to dissolve centralization, not increase it.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          As large as the Roman empire was and allegedly ruled by the emperor and one “world government”. The phrase “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” comes to mind. Rarely did any local governance issue, religion etc ever reach the level of Rome. Don’t pay taxes or rebel that was a different issue, but generally territories were left alone to govern themselves. The people close to the emperor were always at risk because they were within arms reach of the whims of the Caesar.

    • JAC, are you NUTS? I don’t want any government (that has power over the people), period. I don’t need them, they need me, I have removed my consent and will never consent to be ruled by any entity! 👿 I agree with BF, go stand in the corner, HEHE!

  20. @ Mathius……..ok free man…..go to Paraguay…..buy your land….tell me how you fared. Better yet, as I have experience in Mexico…..go to Mexico and buy your land…..tell me how you fared.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    One reason why there should be restrictions on IMMIGRATION.

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/archives/newsarch/tejano.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      There are around 35 million Mexicans living on less than $5.00 per DAY.

      Your left wing friends wish to raise the minimum wage in the USA.

      Now lets just consider what the affect of your open border policy would look like over the next two years.

      I’m sure the migration would ONLY affect those “jobs” that Americans DO NOT WANT. I am sure there would not be massive Ghettos and migrant camps created all over the country.

      I am sure everything would work out just fine.

      • I’m sure the migration would ONLY affect those “jobs” that Americans DO NOT WANT.

        I’m sure that it wouldn’t.

        But why shouldn’t the best candidate get the job?

        If I Jose can do a better job, why shouldn’t I hire Jose?

        You’re being anti-competition and that’s fundamentally anti-capitalist. And that confuses me.

        But, if I’m understanding your argument it’s this: Bad things might happen if we allow increased competition so we should interfere with their rights.

        Did I get that right?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Bad things WILL happen if you open a border with a neighboring Nation where there is massive poverty. You think the poverty and strain on the social fabric is bad now along the southern border states, just imagine another ten to twenty million people moving here in about a two year time frame.

          To argue that the Govt should establish a MINIMUM WAGE and then argue to open borders because people should be free to compete for work is a CONTRADICTION in core principles.

          Oh, and they have NO RIGHT to enter or live in the USA without following USA rules for immigration.

          I am not using bad things to rationalize impacting their “desire” to move. I am simply explaining the reality as contrast to the silly notion that open borders is not big deal. That we should just suck it up because humans should be able to go where they want when they want.

          Well that is not the world we live in. And I am not going to support UNILATERALY disarming the USA for the cause.

          If others wish to join us and enter into TREATIES that OPEN migration and commerce between nations, then I am supportive.

          Otherwise, those living In Mexico who want to come here, should expect noting more than what the Americans can expect from Mexico.

      • http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/

        First, only a minority would possibly consider uprooting themselves to move. It is not a trivial decision.

        Second, IF government largess was not in place, only those in search for real opportunity would move. And why would you not want this again?

        The productivity gains in the country would be huge – enriching YOU.

    • Ah, ye olde immigration debate. At least it isn’t me getting beat up today by the secure the borders crowd. 😉

  22. Under our current situation, I support these State Amendments, however, I don’t need anyone to tell me I have a Right to hunt or fish, if I need the food. Hungry people should never need a license to feed their families.

  23. For the last 600 years, there have been six different global reserve currencies controlled by world superpowers. The latest – the U.S. dollar – has dominated world currency for over 80 years. The alarming fact is, global reserve currencies have collapsed every 80-90 years for the last six centuries! What does this mean for America and the dominance of the U.S. dollar? Based on recent evidence and long-standing historical trends, experts predict the imminent collapse of the U.S. dollar! What’s more alarming? Many Americans aren’t yet doing the one thing that will save their savings & retirement from U.S. dollar collapse.
    http://www.wholesaledirectmetals.com/index.php/gold-blog/607-experts-predict-imminent-collapse-of-us-dollar/?cid=LastResistanceSponsored

    History anyone?

  24. Good News for all! A new agency called the Federal Police Agency, run by the DHS, will begin, in the big cities, riding around in govt owned vehicles with cameras taking pictures of license plates! Why? Welcome to the USSA, the newest Police State on the planet! Be proud, we let this shit happen and most people don’t really care, because their too damn stupid to get it!

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      In an August 5, 2002 speech prior to the creation of the DHS in November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush stated: “We’re fighting…to secure freedom in the homeland”.

      Huh?

      Seems to me the government actually feels the people are the enemy and we have seen an erosion of freedom not the opposite. His quote unless it was a freudian slip should have been, “we are fighting to insure freedom in the homeland”

      • He knew what he was saying, period! Other very famous Heads of State used similar language when referring to their country when addressing the people. Those terms were, Fatherland and Motherland. You know the history 😦

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          I was talking about “to secure” freedom in our country. Not the use of the term homeland, or fatherland or motherland etc. It sounds like the government has declared war on we the people, which they have, to give us freedom that we never had.

  25. As we here at SUFA approach 200 replies on this thread, expect a new thread in the morning. That is my benchmark for continuance 🙂

  26. Well I’ll just get this in tonight. I got back from my Son’s ball game earlier. He went 3 for 5 with a double and a walk off single hitting the game winner in the bottom of the 8th to win 7 to 6. He pitches at tomorrow nights game which is away. So JAC, tomorrow nights update will be late.

  27. ARRRRGH! We started this Country with two thoughts Freedom and United WE Stand. Now we have the “greater good ” and “equality”, both ideas lead to evil. It’s the mind set people-that has changed. And it’s the people and the changing of this original healthy mind set, not the government that has gotten us where we are.

%d bloggers like this: