Open Mic Part 12

Time to speed up the process!Ted

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Can anyone imagine Hillary and Nugent in a debate? 🙂

    • Anita, When I said yesterday that WE THE PEOPLE should be making the decisions for our own communities, not the Feds, that’s because the original intent of the Feds was clearly written in the Constitution. They have grown far beyond the allowed borders of the Constitution to the point they are out of control and have now morphed into the beginnings of tyranny. They were never intended to have the power they wield today. In fact, they were never intended to be a full time entity.

      Example, where does it say the Feds have power over pollution? It don’t, that would be a State issue, based on the Constitution. The EPA has become a job killing monster that should not exist. The same can be said of the Dept of Education and all of the alphabet agencies. Nowhere does it say they have any power over the health insurance industry either, but here we are.

      The Federal Government, as written, is responsible for less than 25 duties. do you think they have bypassed that number?

      • Your comment has nothing to do with my question. I don’t disagree with what you wrote here but it doesn’t answer the question. Let’s try again,

        G: I refuse my consent to be governed.
        A: Exactly what does that mean?

        • Good Morning 🙂

          As I see it, when a person VOTES, he/she is signing a permission slip to be governed by the person/entity for whom the vote is cast. By not voting in the Federal election, I’m not signing the permission slip, thus, removing my consent to be governed. I no longer consent to the immoral actions of the Federal government. Does that help?

          • I’m thinking that phrase means a whole lot more than what you want it to mean. Try that line on a cop. Research “sovereign citizen”. That’s what a cop is going to think, and you won’t get to pull that line on him. From the FBI site:

            Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.
            http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310
            The site gets more extreme than I think you would take it but the idea is still the same.

            • You are adding extremism where there is none 🙄 The removal of consent applies to the 536 corrupt politicians, not to any other aspect of our lives. I live within the laws and pay taxes (would like to fix the latter). If the next group of criminals decide to pass a law outlawing all guns, I will not comply. Do you see the difference?

              • Time for a different phrase then, because your phrase means what I posted.

              • How about, I’m just not playing their rigged game anymore 😉

              • Still a bunch of hot air. You can say that all you want but it doesn’t mean anything. You admit you live within the law..therefore you do consent.

              • NO Ma’am, you are applying my decision to the lower levels of government as well, which I have been clear is not the case. You are confused because you can’t separate the different levels of government. I no, I do not give my consent to the Feds, period.

              • Then tell me how you apply your words to reality. Does it mean you simply don’t agree with the Feds or is there some action attached to it?

              • For instance..the fed says you must have a catalytic converter on your vehicle. You don’t consent. Do you take the converter off your vehicle?

              • My decision means nothing to them. It means everything to ME. I will no longer accept the immoral corruption and illegal actions of an out of control government. I will not vote in a rigged election where the choices are controlled by the corrupt cartels called the DMC and GOP. They will NOT get my vote. If I have a chance, I will tell them so. Basically, I will not engage with the immoral by entertaining their illusion of choice. 😉

              • Anita, its pretty clear really.

                G will not vote. He says he has removed his consent, but this is an empty phrase. He will do absolutely nothing. He will continue to abide by federal law, he will continue to pay his taxes, etc. etc. etc.

                Sorry G, but that’s what it seems to me from reading your posts on the topic. If I’m wrong, please clarify and explain.

      • The original concept of the Confederation (the first USA) was a loosely associated Union of States where the local communities did make decisions about themselves – including exclusions of others.

        If, for argument, a community did ban “Mexicans” it would be “so what?”. The next county didn’t, so Mexicans would live there. Distance and scope of territory matters. If you didn’t like the decisions of democracy in this town, you went to the next town. Big deal.

        But you are right – when this concept becomes NATIONALIZED is where the problem becomes terrible.

        How does any reasoned man believe a person 2,000 miles away can make decisions on behalf of someone else? This is where tyranny explodes.

    • I would pay good money to see that.

      • That would be fun. Hillary wouldn’t do it, she’d get embarrassed, LOL 🙂

        • Hillary wouldn’t do that because doing so would diminish her and elevate him just by virtue of sharing the stage – it says that he’s a legitimate figure in American politics and it says that she’s willing to stand level with a known crackpot.

          She’s many things, but stupid isn’t one of them. I don’t think she’d see enough upside unless something changed dramatically.

  2. http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/us-navy-seals-on-power-grid-attack-a-carbon-copy-of-how-we-would-do-it_02192014

    As a prepper, somewhat, a long lasting power outage is my main concern and what I prep for.

  3. JAC / Black Flag:

    ::carrying over from Part 11::

    Bad things WILL happen if you open a border with a neighboring Nation where there is massive poverty.

    I think this is the key to the problem in what you’re saying.

    They have poverty. We are more wealthy.

    Therefore we will keep them out so we can keep the wealth.

    Opportunities for me, but not for you!

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

    Of course they do.

    If the government passed a law that you need to follow “USA rules” before you could have children, you’d (rightfully) call that fascism. It might be ILLEGAL, but that doesn’t mean you have “no right.” Governments cannot take or give human rights.

    The right of free physical mobility is a fundamental human right tied to the right of a person to pursue the exercise of his free will without infringing upon the rights of others.

    The fact that you don’t want him “competing for jobs” or “changing your culture” or “speaking a different language” or whatever is irrelevant. He has a RIGHT to compete for jobs. He has a RIGHT to his own culture. He has a RIGHT to his own language. You have no right to restrict him in these.

    I am simply explaining the reality as contrast to the silly notion that open borders is not big deal.

    I never said it wasn’t a big deal – it’s a HUGE deal. It would mean massive upheavals in politics, economics, culture, language, wealth, population, demographics, and more.

    But just because it would change things doesn’t make it ok to trample on people’s rights and deny them opportunities simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place.

    Getting rid of slavery was a huge deal in terms of politics, economics, culture, language, wealth, population, demographics, and more. Does that mean we should have left it intact?

    That we should just suck it up because humans should be able to go where they want when they want.

    That’s precisely what you should do: suck it up.

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

    When did “two wrongs make a right” become official SUFA policy? Did I miss a memo?

    • Just a question or two. While I have no issue with immigrants, is it a wise thing to have a system that allows immigrants who are known criminals/wanted, free access? I think that is what you are espousing 🙂

      • What do you do with criminals who are not immigrants?

        The thinking, Gman, is to apply “what do I do now…?” when addressing “your people” and apply that same thinking upon immigrants… because we are talking about people.

        Clarity is achieved once you stop labeling and categorizing people by birth. In mattes of “what should we do if…” is independent of the subject of immigration.

        Immigration in these matters is moot since the “what if’s” always equally apply to your “locals” too.

    • Mathius…..are you trying to punch buttons or do you actually believe this… “The right of free physical mobility is a fundamental human right tied to the right of a person to pursue the exercise of his free will without infringing upon the rights of others.The fact that you don’t want him “competing for jobs” or “changing your culture” or “speaking a different language” or whatever is irrelevant. He has a RIGHT to compete for jobs. He has a RIGHT to his own culture. He has a RIGHT to his own language. You have no right to restrict him in these.”

      • Sorry…let me be more explicit….as it is tied to the United States or do you feel that this is a fundamental right the world over.

      • Colonel,

        A little of column A, a little of column B.

        I do believe the right to mobility is a fundamental human right (world over, not explicit to the US), but couching it in the terms I did is specifically for JAC’s benefit as he is extremely conflicted in terms of his internal logic on the matter.

        You should not mistake my views for the “anarchist borders” a la Senor Flag. I think there should be a process. You should pass through a checkpoint. You should register your name. There may be certain restrictions on known criminals. Searches for (certain) prohibited items even.

        As regards your flu objection, I suspect that being legal, allowed to work better jobs, and gain access to better health care, and earning more (thus better nutrition) would probably put a dent in your statistics. I do not believe that the right of free mobility encompasses the right of freely spouting biohazards anymore than your right to fire a gun encompasses your ability to wander around town shooting randomly – if you are a danger to the health and wellbeing of others, then you are infringing on them. To that end, I could see my way clear to entry-quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, or basic health inspections as entry criteria. I’m not saying I’m in favor of these necessarily – but I’m open to the conversation at least.

        The challenge, of course, is to balance the two – the right of people to seek better opportunity with as few impediments as possible and the right of other people not to be infected by hoards of sick immigrants.

        But ask yourself this: if I have a cold and want to move next door to you, do you have a right to tell me that I can’t? Do you have a right to tell me I have to wait until I’m over my cold? Do you have a right to say I can move in, but only if I start taking antibiotics? Do you have the right to interfere at all? And does your right to “protect yourself” from my germs give you the right to interfere with my right to live on land I own?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I assure you my internal logic is NOT conflicted over this issue.

          There is a huge gulf between the IDEAL and the POSSIBLE or REASONABLE.

          If there are conflicts it is in your very argument made here again. Let them in and so they can have better “health care”. Yet if they come they will not make enough for good health care. So you will want to expand the Govt provided care even further. It will be NECESSARY to address the health issues. And the costs and negative impacts to the larger society will grow and grow.

          The need to extend and intensify the class warfare will grow and grow. After all, it will be the upper class that will have to support the new tax burden. Nobody else will be making enough to live and pay taxes.

          BF admits this weakness when he clearly stated that the “welfare” should be eliminated to prevent the disaster and to assure only those who are seeking a better life through work show up. Well what is the chance the welfare system is going to be dismantled???

          NONE, NADA, ZIP.

          So as long at those “Social Systems” remain in place then we must control the inflow of new people to this country. Both in terms of numbers and cultural backgrounds.

          There is no shortage of unskilled labor or trade skills in this country. These arguments that running out the ILLEGALs would bring the economy to a halt is pure FICTION.

          The vast majority of migrant workers are here LEGALLY. These are the farm workers and the people planting trees every spring.

          .

          • JAC,

            It is not a question between “reasonable” and “possible” and “ideal”.

            It is a question of principle.

            Where ever violence is used to solve a non-violent problem, massive, worse and far reaching implications and consequences appear.

            Because the provider of violence buys off its legitimizers with loot, it is no surprise it attracts more of itself – people who believe violence solves economic problems; that is “Free loaders”.

            The group of legitimizers who are profiting from this violence do not want to share this looting with others. “More for me if there are fewer to split the take”.

            To address this problem of freeloader immigration, you must address the problem, not merely the consequences.

            You are trying to solve the consequence without addressing the problem.
            Your solution is to build walls to stop other free loaders. Is this working? Of course not.

            Free money and wealth is the ultimate attractor of evil. The ROI of free money is nearly infinite. There is NO wall tall enough or thick enough to stem the tide.

            Look at history.

            The Berlin Wall was to keep people from leaving. Didn’t work.
            The American wall is to keep people from coming. Doesn’t work.

            It is you proposing a failed solution, not me

            The solution is to stop free loading. Period

            Instead of spending billions of dollars in building walls and lining them with guns; instead of you and your ilk spending millions of hours arguing for more walls and more guns; spend that time arguing for less free loading whilst at the same time saving billions of dollars and avoid the destruction of human freedom

            Because your ilk are so busy preventing people from exercising freedom, the scope of the tyranny expands because you supply the energy.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              My old friend, it is precisely about the ideal vs. realistic.

              Principles represents a conceptual IDEAL.

              If the existing condition is far from those principles and thus the ideal then the chances of catastrophic failure exist if we move to quickly or abruptly

              Unless of course collapse and chaos are your goal.

              Removing the welfare system today will cause chaos, rioting and possible collapse before the year is out.

              Opening the borders to anyone wanting to come in would have a similar affect, although it might take longer. After all, the Fed would have to start printing money to pay the benefits to keep the ghettos from taking over the landscape and to prevent state and local institutions from collapsing under the pressure.

              So yes, there is in fact a conflict that must be recognized. Changes are possible which move closer to the idea. Nobody here, including me has proposed STOPPING all immigration.

              That would be a step backward in my view. But opening the doors would be as well. That is if maintaining the United States is a consideration. I know in your mind that is not of concern.

              But in my mind it is. I still wish to Stand Up for America, not to burn it to the ground in hopes that the righteous will inherit the remains.

            • The ROI of free money is nearly infinite.

              Not “nearly.”

              • Mathius,

                “Nearly” – as there is still a cost. You have to move to the location and subject one’s self to all the turmoil to do so.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Well then its not “free” money if there’s a cost, now is it?

              • The money is free, though there is a cost to get it.

                No less than you get a “free” cookie if you visit Walmart. The cookie is free, though you had to use gas to drive there.

                There are other benefits of moving – such as leaving a violent local to a more peaceful one – the free money merely adds more benefits to such a leaving, hence, “free”.

          • JAC,

            So you claim that reducing the local freeloading isn’t going to happen.

            Yet, it is the absolute problem. YOUR problem will not go away (indeed, will continue to get worse) until freeloading is resolved.

            So, you are faced with these choices: continue building thicker and deadlier walls, which merely become a filter that weeds out the productive and then ONLY those motivated enough to deal with such will overcome this filter – the ever more violent and desperate people – the very people you thought you were building your deadly walls to stop

            or

            Tear down the wall – which removes this filter.

            Look, the free loading will come to an end, one way or another. It is unsustainable even without adding immigrants.

            Adding immigrants only moves the end day closer. Staving off the immigration will not save the day.

            You are merely wanting to delay dealing with the root problem until after you are dead and leave the problem in the hands of your children …. but a problem, then, so huge and massive it will probably overwhelm your kids to the edge of collapse of society itself.

            Because you do not want to deal with it now, you will leave a disaster for your kids.

            What a Dad!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              AT least I am engaged in trying to fix the system for my kids.

              As I suspected, you recognize the impact of Open Borders and welcome it because it will Crash the System faster.

              And what about the people killed and harmed in the ensuing riots? How is that looking out for the kids??

              Again, I have not proposed CLOSING the borders. I am against OPEN BORDERS where people are simple free to come and go as they please. At least at this time.

          • JAC

            “There is no shortage of unskilled labor or trade skills in this country. These arguments that running out the ILLEGALs would bring the economy to a halt is pure FICTION.”

            No, your claim is utterly false.

            If there was no “shortage”, then these jobs would be filled.

            They are not filled.

            What you are demanding is that the price paid for unskilled work must GO UP.

            Americans, raised on the idea they should be overpaid, do not do choose to this work as it doesn’t pay very much. If they took these jobs, the Mexicans would not have them.

            Running illegals out of the country would vacate these jobs.

            These jobs would still need to be done. Americans still need to eat.

            The price paid would rise – dramatically. Instead of $4/hr to pick veggies, it would be $20.

            Your food bill would rise 500%. The costs of almost all your goods would explode. This would utterly impoverish the nation.

            You are not thinking clearly here in economic terms.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              Argue against my entire statement, not just one line.

              I clearly stated that there is no shortage of labor. And I clearly stated that removing ILLEGAL would not collapse the system because most working here are LEGAL already.

              I am demanding nothing regarding wages by the way. I am simply stating the reality of how it works.

              So you seem to demand that the SUBSIDY of Labor Costs to Farmers and other Producers be continued. You fail to acknowledge that this is what is happening when you have unequal “migration” policies between nation states.

              • We could end the Free Loader stuff in one year and there will be no riots. All the hyperbole about welfare cannot end is rubbish. All government aid should come with a deadline. Tell the illegals that we currently have here that government aid will end in three months for non-citizens. Then tell the citizens that have been on assistance for more than 1 year, they have 12 months to get a job.

                Now, because govt has screwed stuff up so bad, the elderly are not included. Let’s start there 🙂

              • “I clearly stated that there is no shortage of labor. And I clearly stated that removing ILLEGAL would not collapse the system because most working here are LEGAL already.”

                No. It would collapse the system as illegal workers are obviously working. Further, they tend to work at jobs that no American wants to do – which is why they find these jobs.

                You are trying to make an economic argument with a political argument. If these jobs are not filled by cheap labor, they will be filled by expensive labor. The base cost of goods would rise dramatically and across the board.

                I demand nothing.

                The cost of subsidy is paid by taxes.
                If subsidy is ended, but taxes do not decrease, prices will rise.
                If taxes are decreased equally, prices will not rise.

                This has nothing to do with cheap labor. It is independent. With or without subsidy, the impact of cheap/expensive labor remains the same.

    • Here is one of my main beefs with uncontrolled immigration……HEALTH. Texas is seeing a dramatic increase in influenzas, chicken pox, measles, diptheria, typhus, polio, and TB.

      This increase DIRECTLY tied to immigrants.

      • I asked above, but I’ll reiterate here:

        How much of the health issue is intrinsic to immigrants themselves and how much is due to their poverty due to being ostracized from “legitimate” employment?

        That is, if they could work as anything other than day laborer being paid under the table, might they have better food (thus better nutrition), better health care (including preventative / vaccination and after the fact), paid sick days (so they can stay home when infectious instead of washing the dishes from which you eat, et cetera?

        In other words: if you allowed them to go “legitimate,” how much of the diseases might go away? Or are Mexicans just intrinsically sicker than Americans?

        • We will soon be in the same boat as Mexico when it comes to healthcare. Doctors are quitting, hospitals are closing and there will be fewer affordable options for people to get insurance after 2016. Employee paid healthcare will soon be like the dinosaurs, extinct.

          • That said nothing at all to address my question.

            • OK, try this. Cheap electricity means clean water which means better health. The Liberals are against cheap electricity.

              Poverty and bad health go hand in hand, cheap energy goes a long way to ending poverty. Open borders does not end poverty. Adding millions more to a healthcare industry that is already overwhelmed will do far more harm than good. Go tell Obama, we want cheap energy to help the poor become less poor and more healthy.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Health issues are intrinsic to the Immigrant. Because it is the health programs in their native country that are the controlling factor. So immigrants from various places pose different risks to public health.

          Just one more reason that immigration should be controlled and the numbers kept at a level where we can handle the health issues, background checks, etc.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Colonel, if I may ask – what are the nationalities of these infected people? From which countries to they originally come from to enter the US via Mexico?

    • Cheer Mathius, again.

      The trick, Mathius, is to use these arguments all the time – including upon yourself when you flip back into your Statist mindset on other subjects.

  4. Texas trying to take the lead in something but is being shut down……What is that you ask? Thank you for asking…..

    Muslims of America…..American citizen Muslims…openly buying land and creating compounds and openly calling themselves jihad warriors….wearing Muslim garb openly training wit AK 47’s. But they are peaceful….uh huh.

    We have been watching a compound very closely in Houston, Texas, and there has been one bombing associated with this group. There are over 20 sites in 20 states just like this one and there are bombing associated in those states with all of these sites…..widely reported until 2008….amazingly quiet since then. The FBI has even been told NOT TO INCLUDE them in reports to Congress. Well, Texas finally got a news report out on it through Fox news….none of the others would report it.

    Here is what is finally being reported again….CAIR ( Council on Islamic Muslim Relations ) openly supports Hamas and Muslims of America. this from a CAIR document found in Houston.” the use of violence to expand or preserve the reach of Islamic law is a central part of Islam, and can be an individual duty that transcends obligation to husbands, parents or governments.”…..this from what is termed Orthodox Islamist Clerics.

    Colorado finally raided one of their Muslim compounds and shut it down because of its growing influence and membership of over 500. Good for Colorado,,,,,California also closed one of theirs……but only closed it when it became public.

    What I want to ask New York is this…… You have one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country on assault weapons……YET….you enforce it upon law abiding citizens and do not enforce it in your own training camp in Hancock, New York…..where they are OPENLY training with ak47’s and using magazines of 30 or more rounds.

    Everyone gets upset about some National Guard unit practicing tactics and there are known operating Muslim training camps in the US….that are not even reported since 2008…and the bombings have escalated…..also not reported. I will give you examples…the following States have these training camps ; Marion AL, Baladullah CA, Oak Hill CA, San Diego CA, Trout Creek Pass CO, Buena Vista CO, Macon GA, Augusta GA, Mecca Circle-Baxley GA, Commerce GA, Jessup GA, Springfield MA, Hyattsville MD, Coldwater MI, Dearborn MI, Islamber NY, Hancock NY, Deposit NY, Talihina OK, Portland OR, Philadelphia PA, Holy Islamville SC, York SC, Dover TN, Houston TX, Red House VA, Roanoke VA, Fairfax VA, Meherrin VA, Onalska WA, Seattle WA, and Bethany WV.

    There have been 31 incidents of bombings, murders, and criminal activity associated with these sites since 2008.

    Just saying…………………………………..

    • Just saw that news report. What should be done?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      A clarification Colonel. The compound at Trout Creek Pass is outside Buena Vista CO (about 90 mins from where I live). There are not two compounds (one at Trout Creek Pass and one in Buena Vista) as you post appears to indicate.

      Noe the compound itself is on 101 acres and has not seen criminal activity associated with it since the early 90’s here in Colorado as far as I can tell. Further al-Fuqua is a Black Muslim sect.

      al-Fuqra, whose followers in the United States and Canada are predominantly Black Muslims. Several other al-Fuqra initiates had also trained in Pakistan as part of the effort to throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

      Founded in 1980 by a Pakistani mystic named Shiek Mubarik Ali Jilani, al-Fuqra was organized into independent terrorist cells. An avowed enemy of the Nation of Islam, al-Fuqra has been linked by U.S. officials to 17 homicides and 13 firebombings in the United States. Its targets were usually other minorities or rival Muslim leaders.

      (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/spring/the-swastika-and-the-crescent/strange)

      From the ADL pages (http://archive.adl.org/extremism/moa/al-fuqra.pdf) on al-Fuqra:

      1. The sect is an offshoot of orthodox African-American Muslims and has no connection to the Nation of Islam l ed by Louis Farrakhan.

      2. Al-Fuqra has focused on Hindu houses of worship and places of business for its acts of violence in North America.

      Also, this tidbit: Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil

      (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html)

      Now, I do not discount there have been violent criminal acts by a segment of Muslims (Americans), but they are dealt with by law enforcement and the criminal justice system as they should be. You can not keep them from owning land for compounds any more than you can the groups in the sects of the LDS from owning compounds. Until there is sufficient probable cause they have the same rights you do, to own land; to own guns; to defend their lands, etc. I am afraid I disagree with the tone of your post making it seem like we have a serious terrorist problem here within the US from Muslim terrorist groups. It isn’t as portrayed – at least here in Colorado.

      • The only one left is in Trout Creek…and it does have a couple of incidents tallied to its appearance. I am not saying that they do not have a right or whatever to be here…I do have a problem with the training that they are receiving. What I did not mention in this as it seems to inflame some…..there is a gated mosque in Arlington, Texas. If you want addresses I can give it to you….that have routine practices every week involving middle school children, dressed in “garb” practicing beheading drills.Middle schoolchildren…..you can actually see them practicing on mannequins…..I do not think that this is normal….but it is allowed.

        Here is what I have a problem with…..these organizations are funded by CAIR….I have a problem with that. I have a problem with the hypocrisy that allows a double standard. I name Colorado as one of those double standard states where there is a huge outcry about automatic weapons and size of magazines yet, Trout Creek has routinely been monitored with the presence of AK 47s and plenty of witnesses that hear the automatic weapon fire…..NOT semi. I also have good friends in Cripple Creek….I have been to Trout Creek…try to get in…you cannot. We were turned away.

        I am saying that these compounds are real. They have real training programs. They have automatic weapons and assault weapons in states that apparently practice a double standard. I have personally seen the Mosque in Arlington as has several thousand other people. This is not normal and bears monitoring.

        I abhor the double standard of the Obama administration ordering the FBI to not include these in any type of briefings. I abhor the news media for not reporting such things and then going hyper over a National Guard group.

        I do not trust the compounds at all…they are not training to stay in shape or for exercise. and I am glad that they are being monitored. This is not Islamophobia at all….it is common sense.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I do not trust the compounds at all…they are not training to stay in shape or for exercise.

          We could say that about ALL the different compounds of different groups Colonel. Whether it be the Muslims or the White Supremacists or whatever. But, in then end if there is no probable cause then action is unwarranted, even “monitoring” the compounds. It would be like the cops staying outside your place and monitoring your every move.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Also, why is monitoring acceptable? Is it because they might commit a crime or because there is disagreement with their political & religious philosophy?

    • Oh JC and the Boys! All those camps in GEORGIA!?! What a cockup!

      Although Georgia is fixing to greatly expand their concealed and open carry laws to allow us more access to public places. Seems to me we need to do more about Towelheads running around the Georgia mountains with Automatic weapons! Peaceful my old crippled butt!

  5. God, I hate getting up at the crack of dawn in my old age. 🙂

    • And the use of that term is very good….because not only ins there a crack of dawn….there is a considerable crack of joints.

    • I left you a wake up call on the last page..where you were glad you weren’t getting beat up over secure borders. 😉

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I saw that. A sucker punch. I guess I am going to have to alert my military and invade to punish you terrorists. Oh, wait……Michigan, never mind………….lol

  6. Here’s a good question. If the Republicrats win the Senate and keep the House in November, will they impeach Obama? I say, hell NO!

    • They’ll sure try. For everything under the sun.

      • I doubt it. The dems didn’t attempt to get rid of the Patriot Act, the repubs will do NOTHING. Obamacare is here to stay, as is every other Un-Constitutional law enacted in the last 14 years or so.

        • They’ll hit him for every scandal or “scandal” they can think of: Solyndra, F&F, Benghazi, drones, and more.

          Even if none of it has a chance of success, they’re going to try for the theater alone – “see! We’re trying to impeach the usurper!”

          And if they can make anything stick – at all – that’ll be hugely effective against who ever runs as the next blue shirt by weakening Obama as a campaigner (see my comments re Hillary/Bill below). I don’t think even the nutbags in congress are crazy enough to think they might actually boot Obama out of office (and even if they did, they’d still have to deal with Biden and, really, is that better or worse?).

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Likely JAC has the right of it, the R’s are too afraid of trying to impeach the first Black President. They would be excoriated over it for decades.

            • I don’t think it would stop them – at least some of them – from trying.

              I honestly believe they do not see color – they see political opportunity to impeach someone their base hates.

            • JAC doesn’t speak of the Rs very highly. Which makes me wonder how he thinks voting for them will change anything 🙄

              • Just A Citizen says:

                G

                There is a huge difference between the Generalized label R and a few individuals who happen to wear the R shirt.

                I have never proposed that anyone should vote for one team over the other. I have, however, expressed my opinion that the Blue team is far more destructive than the R team when it comes to freedom, liberty and justice. It is a mixed bag but in the past few decades I would have taken general R over general D.

                The reason is that the D’s are good at making “fundamental” changes that STICK for the long run. They understand the Public Choice Theory and play it to perfection.

              • I actually agree with your perception of the Repubs and Dems in general. My mother, who is 70, has always been a Democrat. The other day she said it’s not the same party is was 30 years ago and she is now a Libertarian. The Dems have been hijacked by progressives and the Rs are Neocon idiots that lack backbone. There are a few who actually seem to speak on behalf of the people, they are the cartels useful idiots.

              • I am not an R. I am a Conservative, although I find myself voting usually for the R’s. But that is only because there is usually no other choice.

                You G, choose not to vote at all. I can respect that because it is up to you, even though I disagree with it. My Representative, Tom Graves, is actually a conservative R the likes of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. But my district is a brand new one from the 2010 census, so he doesn’t have a lot of clout. But I understand, you know, you being a yankee and all, how your Reps are not as enlightened as our Southern ones are! 🙂

                Our Senators though, those two asshats need replacing! Establishment R’s, the both of them. We’re going to replace one this year though.

  7. I keep reading (in Blue-leaning sites) how the Republicans plan to bring up Monica Lewinsky if Hillary decides to run and how stupid it is to attack the wife of a man who cheated over the affair. They keep saying it’s a stupid anti-women move yada yada yada.

    Is it possible that I’m the only one on the planet who realizes the goal of this is to weaken BILL so that he is less effective in helping Hillary win? That is, the same way Bill was partially taken out of play in 2000 so that he couldn’t help Gore win – they’re just trying to take him off the board as he’s a hugely effective stumper.

    It has nothing to do with Hillary or attacking the victim or being anti-women, et cetera. It has everything to do with being politically calculating.

    • No…..the intent is taking Bill out of the equation… I feel the same

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I expect that is part, but so it tainting Hillary herself.

      One must remember HOW she handled herself all along the way regarding BILL.

      How she helped create the illusion of “vast right wing conspiracies” and how SHE personally was involved in assassinating and harassing the “victims” of BILL’s advances.

      She is a power hungry Witch from Hell. The sex scandals are simply one way to reveal that character.

      Unfortunately she and her minions were successful at getting the mushy brained to believed this was just about an affair. That the R’s were just imposing upon ground that was private.

      Most lefties still think Bill was impeached because of the sex itself.

      • Regardless of how she handled it – it’s not going to ever help them to attack HER for bein the victim of a cheating spouse and “handling it poorly.” That’s just not a winning strategy.

        Even if you manage to drag up persecuting Bill’s other “victims,” and the “vast right wing conspiracy,” the only thing you’re going to do is remind people that she was the victim of a cheating spouse.

        There’s zero upside there.

        The only upside is in neutralizing Bill.

        ———–

        Most lefties still think Bill was impeached because of the sex itself.

        Absolutely not. We think he was impeached because the right wanted to impeach him and this is the place where they managed to do it. If they hadn’t found this, they would have chased down “scandal” after “scandal” until they found something that would stick against the Teflon President.

        He was too popular. The economy was doing too well. He had to be brought down somehow, and this is just the tool they managed to use.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          LIke I said. The MUSH brains on the left have swallowed the propaganda.

          Much like the mush brains on the right who have swallowed the Obama is a Marxist crap.

          By the way, he was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. A crime, I might add, that was far greater than Nixon’s boys breaking into the Dem headquarters.

          Oh, and the SAME CRIME that caused Scooter Libby to be sent to prison over.

          I do not disagree that the Clintonistas won’t be able to play this against the R’s. So it will all depend on how and who raises the issues.

          Kathleen Willey’s interviews this week are very damaging to Hillary. But I doubt anyone on the left will listen. Even Willey admitted that a large number of people will vote for her because they think it will be “cool” to have the first Woman POTUS.

          She will get the same LACK of serious scrutiny that Obama got. She will waver her TITLES around as evidence of her skills. Actual skill will be irrelevant.

          Oh, I almost forgot. You started this by mentioning what you were following on the blue sites. Notice how they are spinning this as going after Hillary.

          Nobody has gone after Hillary on the infidelity issue. The few people who have discussed this that are political have all aimed it directly at BILL. Rand Paul did a good job of this, in my opinion. Because he turned it back on the accusation that R’s are waging a “war on women”.

          This is the type of response the R’s should have been throwing back all along. Unfortunately most of them are not capable of making the argument and sticking to it.

  8. Anita, down here 🙂

    Actually, I have taken the convertor off when it needed replaced 😉

    • Me too. 😉

    • If I understand correctly, the point of the cat is to mitigate pollution somehow, correct?

      Do you (A) not believe it works (B) not believe it’s worth mitigating pollution (C) just don’t care and would rather sell the platinum for scrap?

      • D) Too cheap to pay for a new one..straight pipe is much cheaper. 😉

      • None of the above. Back in my younger days, they were not made very well and needed replaced way more often than today, and they weren’t cheap. Remove, run a straight pipe where it once was and drive on. The Feds demanded the part be put on all new cars being built, not on older one’s back then.

  9. My brain doesn’t have room for all this Ukraine business. I hear about it on tv and my attention wanders. I can’t bring myself to read about it either. Can someone give me the cliff notes on it? Is someone trying to get us into another military action?

    • Cliff notes:

      Government is too cozy with Putin.

      People didn’t like that.

      People pushed back.

      Government pushed back harder.

      Riots.

      Government crackdown / martial law.

      Bigger riots.

      Lots and lots of Molotov cocktails.

      • Then our Sissy Boy in the Oval Office attempted to talk tough, and the world laughed for hours 😆

      • Excellent. Are we supposed to jump in now?

        • NO! It’s none of our business.

          • I’m going to listen up now…Ollie North will be on after the break with weather we should get involved. stand by

            • Don’t laugh..I took notes in the reply box:
              putin has been playing with our pres
              since obama, diplomatic disorder worldwide
              kerry sucked in syria and iran
              typical for far left admin
              cold war chess board
              Ukraine wants to be part of europe not Russia
              obama to medvedev need time til after election
              eu is in hands of putin
              oil lines going through ukraine to Russia
              putin will keep his uk puppets in line
              obama hasn’t the skill to lkeep up with Putin

              So sounds like bottom line it’s about oil and Ollie says Obama is farm league next to Putin. Anita says we should just not play.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              To me Ollie isn’t the best one to be opining on the subject. *ahem* something about Iran-Contra. He’s a hardcore hawkish right winger who has proven that anything done in the “interests of the US” is okay.

        • HELL NO!

          We just make things worse.

          • We will-then how exactly do you think open borders and God forbid a one world government would work?

            • V.H.

              How does freedom of speech “work”?
              How does freedom of anything “work”?

              You are asking “how does a man think” – that is, demanding a specific set of A,B,C,D leading to some fixed conclusion that then you want to measure such an outcome as “good/bad”.

              No.

              Freedom is the goal, not the means.

              • You may have to rephrase your response because I don’t understand your comment. I am simply pointing out something that I see as a contradiction.

                We should leave other countries alone, yet Matt thinks a one world government would work-when all it would do is increase interference in all countries and all cultures and totally destroy freedom.

              • Get Mathius to define what he thinks “one world government” means.

                As he expanded his point, it was to eliminate borders and wars, etc.

                His thinking on The “tax” thing and the “law” thing is still a major problem, though, as that would create the tyranny you fear

              • plainlyspoken says:

                VH, a one world government will work no better than say the US having only a federal government. People will still find ways of governing themselves locally, especially the farther away that they are from government centers of power. So a one world government is just an illusion that many cling to – at least it is in the current state of human affairs on this planet.

                Saying that then also means we (i.e. the USA) does not have any right to push its will onto another part of the world where we have no business being, unless of course our government wants to create some illusion of interfering for our “national security” just as it has in other times.

              • Mathius™ says:

                We should leave other countries alone

                Because our interference is externally imposed. We up the ante for people who can ill afford it. We escalate things. We do so with (frequently) an inadequate understanding of the local situation (culture / customs / religions / politics / et cetera). We like to ride in like a cowboy – guns blazing. And then, once we’ve reduced things to rubble, we get bored, declare victory, and leave behind a flattened country perfectly ripe for extremism.

                If we could kindly pull our heads out of our asses, I’d be willing to discuss intervention. But since we seem insistent on going with the Shock and Awe™ approach, I think I’ll pass, thank you very much.

                yet Matt thinks a one world government would work

                Mathius doesn’t know if it would work. What I know is this: first you stop the wars, then you figure everything else out. A one-world government means no trade barriers, universal currency, a single/uniform tax regime, no wars. Start there and then try to fix the rest of the issues.

                Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn’t. But for it to even have a prayer, a LOT of social change has to occur first. If you tried to institute one now, it would implode by this time tomorrow.

            • It wasn’t long ago that one world government and one world currency were subjects of conspiracy theory. Let this be a lesson about conspiracy theories, many come true 😉

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Only if our government wishes to run off on another folly of American interference in the world. If those in the Ukraine want to align with the EU then it is up to them alone to deal with the government ruling their nation, without US aid or interference.

  10. Anita, its pretty clear really.

    G will not vote. He says he has removed his consent, but this is an empty phrase. He will do absolutely nothing. He will continue to abide by federal law, he will continue to pay his taxes, etc. etc. etc.

    Sorry G, but that’s what it seems to me from reading your posts on the topic. If I’m wrong, please clarify and explain.

    Buck, Fairly correct. My vote means nothing to the Ruling Elite Class, because people will still vote, giving them legitimacy. Yes, I will abide by current laws and pay taxes. I’m not totally against taxes, but it would be nice if they could be used for legitimate purposes, not funding a study on fat lesbians 😉

  11. Is this about as stupid as it gets?

    Senate Democrats: Why Didn’t Someone Tell Us Obamacare Would Cut Medicare?

    The National Republican Senatorial Committee points out that North Carolina senator Kay Hagan and other vulnerable Senate Democrats are now whacking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid… for enacting changes required by Obamacare. Hey, Senator Hagan, if you want to blame someone, blame the foolish or dishonest lawmakers who voted for the law!

    Wait a minute, that’s you!

    In 2009, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) promised North Carolinians who depend on Medicare that she was going to “protect Medicare” and that they would “not see a drop in their Medicare coverage.”

    But in 2010 Kay Hagan voted to slash Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 56-42: R 0-40; D 54-2; I 2-0, 3/24/10, Hagan Voted Yea)

    In North Carolina 463,159 seniors depend on Medicare Advantage plans (28% of all Medicare enrollees).

    According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in North Carolina, seniors on Medicare Advantage plans experienced cost increases and benefit cuts of an estimated $50-60 per month as a result of this year’s 6 percent cut to the program due to ObamaCare.

    Now, as North Carolina seniors are being crushed under the weight of ObamaCare and as her own poll numbers plummet, Kay Hagan admits in a letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid that she cut Medicare for seniors after promising North Carolinians that they wouldn’t “see a drop in their Medicare coverage”

    Hagan’s letter reads: “We write to raise serious concerns about the Medicare Advantage (MA) 2015 rate notice and the impact further cuts may have on the millions of individuals enrolled in the program,” the senators write. “We are strongly committed to preserving the high quality health plan choices and benefits that our constituents receive through the MA program. Given the impact that payment policies could have on our constituents, we ask that you prioritize beneficiaries’ experience and minimize disruption in maintaining payment levels for 2015.”

  12. Thundersnow in Michigan right now. Just shoot me now. Sorry about the snow update Matt, I just had to rant.

  13. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Subject change…..saw a documentary last night called “Homo Sapien 1900” Very interesting about eugenics. It was a european production so it did go into much more detail than the policies in the US, but we were not excluded. It is amazing how many of the ideas and phrases used are still being used by progressives.

  14. For those who remember the two ladies who had their truck shot up (both only injured) by 8 LA cops during the Dorner manhunt, here is the end result:

    None of officers will be fired, or even suspended for failing to identify themselves as police or to ensure the car was indeed Dorner’s before opening fire. They will only be required to take a little more training.

    Read more at TLR: 8 L.A. officers won’t be punished for firing 103 times on two unarmed women | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/8-l-officers-wont-punished-firing-103-times-two-unarmed-women/#ixzz2tswyez00
    Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook

  15. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The State of Colorado’s tax revenue on the sale of recreational marijuana has far exceeded the amount estimated of the legalization initiative. This is the States proposed use of that revenue…..isn’t this a little like a dog chasing its tail?

    The spending plan included $45.5 million for youth use prevention, $40.4 million for substance abuse treatment and $12.4 million for public health.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Sounds great to me. What’s the problem?

      • Because most of that money will pad the pockets of the wealthy who will be selected to run the programs. The programs will accomplish nothing, which is their goal. It’s just wealth redistribution of a different form.

      • I think we should legalize all illegal drugs, for the record! 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          HUZZAH!

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I don’t see why not. Hell we legalize it and tax the hell out of it to pay for all the medical costs of those stupid enough to shove that crap into their bodies. If they die, just aids in reducing negative genes from the pool!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      That money won’t just be spent on marijuana prevention and substance abuse. And the medical costs to abuse should be paid for with money from the users of the wacky tobaccy.

      • I’m not understanding a lot of the misinformation about pot. It’s not addictive, despite what many say. Cigarettes are far more addicting than pot, I know from experience. When alcoholics quit drinking, they get the DTs. People who quite coffee get aftereffects. I don’t know anyone that smoked pot on a regular basis then quit, experiencing any ill effects at all.

        • Sing it Brotha’!!!

        • plainlyspoken says:

          It isn’t the addiction issue really. Pot smoking is no better for the human body than cigarette smoking in the long run. The other part of the issue is that, whether you care to believe it or not, pot is a gateway drug leading younger smokers into potential use of really damaging and addictive drugs. I spoke with enough drug users in my career to accept it is, as the huge majority of them started out “just smoking pot”.

          So there are drawbacks that many believe makes pot smoking “bad.” Personally I don’t care – just don’t let it interfere with my rights and we’ll get along just fine.

          • I was a pot smoker for years. I smoked it like cigarettes almost. But I didn’t drink. I did, however, do bigger drugs. A lot bigger. But I finally grew up and put away childish things. And after awhile I even quit smoking pot.

            That’s why I see nothing wrong with it but one thing. It most definitely is a motivation killer. If you want to do nothing with your life, just smoke dope. You won’t ever go anywhere or do anything, notwithstanding the fact that you cannot get a job while smoking it. Or at least not a good one.

            Other than that, I see no problem with it. People are going to do what they want. Prohibition proved that. If they WANT to do drugs, they will.

  16. Hitler would be so proud !

    Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

    But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

    A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

    If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/hitler-proud-paper-ct-calls-cops-jail-thousands-refusing-register-guns/#IUAIWBcXTFBoYOCb.99

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Immigration ………….. very interesting map.

    Look where all those whose “ancestors” were Americans live and where all those who were English live.

    For those wondering what that little speck of Irish is in Montana…………..Butte, Silver Bow County, home of the great Copper and Silver Mines.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Well that German fits in with where I live and where I am originally from. lol. No wonder I love sauerkraut so much. 🙂

  18. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    For those of you still inundated with winter weather. In spite of our rash of winter storms over the past several weeks, the Camellias are starting to bloom along with other spring flowers.

    • We haven’t seen our grass in two months. It raining now and above 32, maybe, just maybe, by tomorrow the grass will peak through 🙂

      • G!! Let’s blast Dale with snowballs! Ready, set, go!!! 👿

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          I did love the industrial size snow blower photo you posted…good business opportunity for Gman and his neighbors to invest in…..trimmed my hydrangeas today….buds are popping. Baltimore Orioles are poking around. NOAA says warmest January…

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Change Up………… this is fuuuuuunnnnnnny. Better than the stuff between 49er and Seahawk fans.

    http://t.foxsports.msn.com/olympics/winner-wins-beer-loser-keeps-bieber-usa-canada-hockey-stakes-have-never-been-higher

  20. @ Mathius……..you posted “In other words: if you allowed them to go “legitimate,” how much of the diseases might go away? Or are Mexicans just intrinsically sicker than Americans?”

    First your post, as most of them concerning this subject, needs to be amended. Illegal immigration is NOT tied to just Mexicans. It is tied to illegal immigrants of all types. There is a plethora of illegal crossings from Central America as well and from Eastern Europe as well.

    Here is what we encounter on the border.

    1) Immigrants from Mexico and Central/South America crossing while they are ill. I am NOT concerned why they are ill as you are. I do not care a tinker’s damn if their country does not have the process in place for medical. I only care that they are sick and trying to cross the border and they are carrying diseases which we have all but eradicated. THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS.

    2) I have absolutely no problem with an Ellis Island sort of thing. Enter through a recognized port of entry. If you are sick, you are quarantined. The fact that anyone is from an impoverished country is no business of mine. I do not care. If they wish to come here to better their health, their future, and abetter life….bully for them. Come on up here and do it legally and according to law…….OUR law.

    3) I do not believe for one moment that immigrants seek immediate health if sick with measles or chicken pox,,,,,I have not seen this to be true…..They go under ground and spread the illness….THAT means that they have NO RIGHT TO DO THIS….

    4) Allowing unchecked immigration is a national issue and can lead to epidemics….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Exactly.

      Such a policy infected an entire region, resulting in the Republic of Texas.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I asked this above, but you might have missed it:

      Colonel, if I may ask – what are the nationalities of these infected people? From which countries to they originally come from to enter the US via Mexico?

      I ask because I am interested in the demographics of the sick people.

      • Sorry, I thought that I answered it…..the demographics are not just Mexican….influenza’s, chicken pox, measles are primarily Mexican, polio, TB, typhus are primarily Central America’s ( Ecuador, Panama, Honduras are the main culprits ).

        Enclaves such as Costa Rica and Belize are primarily disease free of these types…

        Colombia ( South America ) has suddenly appeared on the scene but mainly the indigent Indians that have no immunizations and those than can get through Panama without being systematically killed. Colombians are legal to kill in Panama, so to speak. Nobody cares about them.

        • I forgot to mention that Eastern Europeans are constantly caught trying to cross the border and somehow this never gets reported…..most of them are criminals where eastern european countries empty their jail cells, immigrate them through La Paz ( Baja California ), Peurto Vallarta on the west coast, and Tampico on the East coast.

          • Black Flag® says:

            The best way to handle criminals is if they commit a crime where you live, you put them in jail.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Just curious..

              By what right?

              Can you elaborate how this works withing the Black Flag framework of moral anarchy?

              • Black Flag® says:

                Those that commit violence upon another undermine social order.
                Social order is fundamental to freedom.
                Those that commit violence must be removed from such a society.

  21. Can someone with more knowledge than I on this subject explain, preferably in simple terms? http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/02/17/soros-doubles-a-bearish-bet-on-the-sp-500-to-the-tune-of-1-3-billion/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      His purchase could have TWO different purposes.

      One is that he is using PUTS to reduce the risk of his Long positions. Which means he is betting things are going up but he is using the PUTS to insure himself against a move in the opposite direction.

      Second is that he is actually betting on a decline in the market.

      To my knowledge his “Long” positions have still not been disclosed per the reporting requirements. So we can’t tell if it is #1 or #2.

      A PUT option give you, the buyer, to put the stock onto the market at a specific price.

      The farther the current price is above that specific price the lower the value of the PUT option. As the stock price declines, the PUT becomes more valuable. When the price falls below the option price it is solid profit because it means you can sell your stock at the option strike price. Which would be higher than the market price.

      Does that help?

      • So, he’s betting 1.3 billion on the S&P going to crap, which of course will also involve the Dow going to crap. Do you think Soros is right?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          Not necessarily. That is only option 2.

          It could be option 1. That he is just buying insurance.

          This is a common practice. It reduces profits on the trade but reduces risk of losses.

          So he could actually be betting the S&P goes UP. WE DO NOT KNOW because we don’t know the volume of his Long positions on the S&P index.

          I would not bet against the likes of Soros but I would not necessarily assume he is right. He has lost a ton of money as well.

          What concerns me if this is a definitive position to the negative is WHAT information does he have to justify such a move. Guys like this have the “inside track” most of the time.

          He might be using his PUT purchase to scare people and move the market lower. Where he could buy the index at an artificially depressed value.

          • Thanks JAC, guess we will wait and see what happens. There are a LOT of people in the CT world talking about a severe economic problem (possible collapse) starting in the first 2 weeks of March. We shall see 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              The market is largely driven by big banks who are getting almost free money.

              As the cost of that money goes up their buying in the market will decline.

              So add that to the normal correction that is now about due and you can get a pretty good drop.

              But there is nothing on the short term horizon that is as bad as the housing bubble disaster.

              That will come more in the mid to long term.

              Remember, RECESSIONS have been running about every 7 to 9 years. Our last one was now 7 years ago.

              • What do you think of the insane derivative market?

              • It’s not insane.

                A derivative is any monetary contract – a loan, a deposit, insurance, etc.

                The mistake many people do is add these all together. You borrow $1000 to buy insurance, the insurance company invests it into a mortgage for some building.

                So goof then adds $1000 loan plus $10,000 insurance policy and the $100K mortgage and say “we now have $111,000 in outstanding derivatives backed by only $1000! Danger danger!”

                Makes no sense to do this.

              • I agree JAC, what a mess. getting away from the CT crowd, Ron Paul is predicting a “Black Swan” event in the very near future. What exactly is a “black swan” event?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              Derivatives…………you said it perfectly……………INSANE.

              And most folks don’t realize not much has changed since the collapse.

              Still spreading RISK around the world to infect others.

              Personally I would like to see two things happen.

              1. Separate commercial and investment banking. This means prohibiting commercial banks from “investing” depositors money.

              2. Force derivatives onto the open markets where banks will be forced to document and defend their valuations with “accurate records”.

              OR

              I wouldn’t mind seeing the damn things BANNED entirely. Stripping of pieces of paper and selling them for promises borders on fraud in my view.

              Almost like buying and selling Carbon Dioxide credits.

              • Spreading the risk is exactly what causes the bubble.
                Look, in all matters of risk avoidance, risk is eventually assumed by a party most unable to handle the risk. This is almost always the outcome since the guy at the end of the rope is the one holding the least amount of profit, but most of the primary risk.

                He assumes this risk because it is the only one he can buy (due to its price)

                Twiddling with laws about banking never fixes this.
                Freedom in banking fixes this.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I wouldn’t mind seeing the damn things BANNED entirely. Stripping of pieces of paper and selling them for promises borders on fraud in my view.

                No point in trying to ban them – people will just come up with more and more novel (and complex and hard to value!) derivatives. It’s like playing whack-a-mole, but each time you hit one, the next one is slightly worse.

                ——

                And now the fun one: who are you to tell me, private individual, owner of a company, what I can and cannot trade with another private individual?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            Black Swan events are something UNEXPECTED and completely out of the NORM.

            Game changers …………….. paradigm shifts…………………….

            Taken from the idea that we all expect Swans to be white. We see White Swans all our lives and we base our understanding and reaction to Swans based on them being white.

            Then one day you see a Black Swan…………. Your entire perception of reality and how you might react to it changes.

            Sticking with economy, envision a global jump to hyperinflation driven by the global race to devalue currency, in order to prop up markets.

            Such a collapse could change the OPINION or the “paradigm” over PRINTING money in a short order.

            It could create a massive change in Government Power structures, around the world.

            • To add to Ron Paul’s comments, whatever the Black swan event is, it will cause a huge drop in confidence in the US dollar. That combined with the QE money printing issue, the value of the dollar will plummet.

              Now, I know this means inflation (milk is expected to go way up soon), but can it lead to hyperinflation?

              • Gman,

                No.
                Black Swan events will cause the US dollar to increase in value in relation to other currencies.

                All global currencies are valued relative to each other, and in times of crisis, money people flood to the currency standard – the US$.

                Inflation is independent of this. Inflation occurs when there is a continuing increase in the money supply. Unlike other economic goods, money is not consumed by its use.

                When you use an apple (eating it), its gone – so a continuous supply of apples creates a measure of price stability. Money is not consumed by its trade, so a continuation of production of money creates an increase in the supply, hence, a drop in the price of money.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                China just sold billions and billions of the US debt the other day and are buying gold. I believe it was around 85B. Big investors are now shifting to a bear market and “shorting” stocks.

              • Who bought the debt?
                Who is selling the gold?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                Hyperinflation is not coming soon. Unless it is triggered by something we are unaware of. Which is the definition of Black Swan.

                So WHAT could be such an event. Something so major that the world’s financiers would suddenly SELL dollars for something else. The Fed is slowing their printing presses. So it cannot be another large INFUSION of money.

                What would trigger a HYPERINFLATIONARY spiral?? I simply do not see anything on the horizon. Although I do think the Global economy is on shakier ground than many would like us to believe. But that would be a RECESSION, which should not cause a collapse in “confidence in the dollar”.

                That leaves only a Bankruptcy or some form of default. OR…………..the sudden selling of Dollars on the market by someone holding a lot of dollars.

                I guess I will need to find Paul’s comments to get a better idea of what he is predicting.

                But let me remind you, he has been WRONG in his predictions before. Because he tries to assign TIME FRAMES to them. It is impossible to predict exactly WHEN the flit hits the shan. Because the power will do everything to prevent it. And you cannot accurately predict everything they will try or its outcome.

              • Thanks to all of you. Trying to talk about the economy is hard for many, because many don’t understand what the terminology means. Today, you guys helped in defining things that many don’t understand, in many ways, myself included. I’m always looking to learn more on the subject.

                JAC, Is the derivative issue becoming, or is, a bubble? Bubbles pop eventually. What problems would this cause?

                Feel free to take this to the bottom 🙂

  22. USA 2 Canada 2 going to a shootout (I think)

  23. Anita, this should help you with the mess in the Ukraine . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-20/ukraine-situation-explained-one-map

    • Ah, yeah, That map makes it easy to see why there are problems.

      • Re: Syria: They want Syria to run Natural gas pipelines to Europe.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Old news….that is the conflict. The gas will come from the emirites who own half of the gas fields that Iran taps into under the gulf. The pipeline will give a direct line to the EU because now they have to transport it by ship. The two groups most opposed to the pipeline and supporting Assad are who…..Russia and Iran. That will break their rice bowls. Russia has the EU by the short hairs on natural gas. Libya deep down was all about the now deceased colonel theatening the EU with shutting of the oil if they interfered with the him putting down the rebels. Which he had not done at all yet. UN resolution, goodbye Qaddafi.

  24. Winter isn’t done quite yet, more frigid temps on the way: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563877/Its-Polar-Vortex-set-return-weekend.html

  25. Piss on Markey and the rest of the gun grabbing buttholes in D.C.. They’ve already screwed us on Ammo by using the EPA to regulate lead producers out of business in the U.S. so that the ammo makers have import it.

    I am so sick and tired of the Government interfering with our 2nd Amendment RIGHT to bear arms!

  26. @Plainly, We had agreed on the conceal carry permit issue. I’m sure you would also be against gun registration as well?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      registration??????????? Oh, yes tomorrow I have to register my truck…..yep, can do. Lawnmower? Now that’s dumb, why would I want to register my lawnmower???????

      🙂

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Now imagine if they had been forced to learn English when they first arrived. Would the outcome have changed??

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/us/new-york-domestic-killing-warnings/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    • Makes you wonder where all the bleeding hearts for amnesty and no borders were when crap like this takes place doesn’t it? So much for certain people who shall remain nameless (Mathius, BF :-))) claim’s that they should not be required to learn English.

      Seems to me like if you go by that standard, you could at least do a decent job of interpreting for them. i.e, more tax dollars wasted.

      • Reb,
        So White Americans don’t kill women, huh?
        Cops always attend 911 calls from White Americans?

        Nonsense.

        To place “language” as an issue around this is misleading. It was a crime that was not dealt with appropriately. Period.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Blaming the victim is always an interesting phenomenon..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Yours is equal in offense as Mathius’.

          15 yards for you as well. Or I will defer to Justice Anita. Your choice.

          FACT: If she had been able to speak English there would have been no dropping of the ball due to “failure to interpret”.

          You can certainly argue we don’t know for sure. But the FACT will not change.

          Speaking the language would have removed the need to INTERPRET her written statement.

          • No.
            The crime occurred long before.

            And language is not an issue. The world has lots of languages and lots of people come and go everywhere. To make THIS the issue is a huge fallacy.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You know they are called Language BARRIERS for a reason.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I did not claim it was the root cause of the crime.

              Having a hard time with your reading comprehension today?

              I said the inability to speak English impacted the response time by the police. If an interpretation was not needed then they would have understood the content immediately.

              Very simple and FACTUAL.

              • So the whole world needs to speak one language?

                No. The issue was that the report, regardless of language, was not dealt with.

                If it was in English, and not dealt with, the outcome would be the same.

                Therefore, it was the failure to deal with the crime, not the language.

              • It seems to me that SOMEONE with the Police could have interpreted for the woman when she MADE the complaint. I mean, we know good and damn well someone in the Police force speaks Spanish. Being New York, probably a whole lot of somebodies.

                So exactly WHY was this woman allowed to write out a complaint in SPANISH when someone could have been brought in to interpret for her and write it down in ENGLISH, OR, BETTER YET, go do something about the murdering asswipe RIGHT THEN!

                I’ll tell you exactly why. Because to have done something reasonable like that or maybe requiring people to learn the language of an English speaking Nation would make too much sense.

                I am NOT blaming the victim! She was a victim of circumstance just like many in this Nation these days. And it’s true, that in this case I don’t believe it would have mattered what language she spoke because the Police did not immediately ACT.

                But the Liberal thinking on Illegals in this Country is so bassackwards it boggles the mind.

    • SKTrynoskySr says:

      Whole story sounds like crap to me. Half the NY force speaks Spanish. This was a straight domestic abuse case. That police report she filled out was filled out with the help of someone at the precinct. Who? What do the officers who took the report say? Did she want him arrested?

  28. SKTrynoskySr says:

    My two geopolitical cents.

    What is needed for the indefinite future are truly neutral states on the Russian border with the west. Suffice it to say that the Russians have always been paranoid of the West and have some good reason to be that way. Sending missiles to Poland, bringing the Ukraine into NATO are not particularly bright ideas.

    To this day I hear people still refer to Russia as the Soviet Union. This is an insult to both the government and the people. Yes, Putin is a bully but guess what? He is nothing compared to what happened before him. How anyone can expect a nation that has absolutely no experience with democracy who endured 83 years of totalitarian despotism to “turn around” and discover the fruits of true democracy literally overnight is missing a few cards from their deck.

    The Ukrainian people have been badly treated by the Soviets and the Russians before that but there are still strong ties. we should butt the hell out of this one and let things progress on their own. Forcing Russia into a corner and bullying them solves nothing in the long run.

    Just for the hell of it, anyone ever bother thinking what a mess of it Putin could have made if he started supplying the mujadeen in Afghanistan the way we were when the Soviets were there? I think the man deserves credit for not getting involved there and elsewhere where he could have laid numerous traps for us.

    Russia has to undo that 80 year history and cope with huge population losses to Communism as well as a totally broken and disheartened populace. leave them alone. Too bad the collapse did not happen under Reagan. He understood and would have extended the hand of friendship instead of extending the cold war mentality. Putin is there because we, by continuing the cold war, gave the Russian people no other alternative. You don’t kick a man when he is down unless you want to guarantee an enemy for life. George Marshall understood that too bad the lesson was lost.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      History shows us what Ukraine went through. The mass starvations caused by the commissar Kruschev forcing the population onto the collective. The Germans were welcomed when they initially invaded Russia. However after the Wehrmacht moved on, the SS made a hash of the goodwill.

    • Ukraine should split in two.

      Half the population have an cultural affinity with Russians, the other half has a cultural affinity with Poland and Europe. Ukraine, like other Stalin satellites were subject to forced immigration and deportation. Stalin’s hands still dominate the troubles for Russia (Chechen, Georgia, etc).

      • SKTrynoskySr says:

        Pretty much agree but do not want to see a civil war there. The whole G-damned thing can be laid at the feet of WW 1.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          One of the best history books I’ve ever read was titled “Paris 1919” It was written by the Great Grand Daughter, of Lloyd George. It was all about the Versailles Treaty process, as F!!!!!up as it was, country by countries affected and the consequences and continued issues that were ignored by the big 3.

          • One actually needs to go back to 1917 and the US entry into the war.

            But then, one has to go back to the Monroe doctrine, announcing intervention into foreign affairs, first in the Americas, then extended to include the Western Hemisphere.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And BOTH were once part of my Tribes empire.

        I am thinking the Cossacks may be distant relatives.

  29. @Plainly, RE: Pot.

    It is my opinion that Colorado is a beta test to determine several things. Will crime rates such as burglaries go down? Will it make people less safe? how much tax revenue can be made?

    Based on the tax question, I see the Feds legalizing it within 2 years.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      That’s fine. I don’t care as long as it doesn’t effect me or mine. If it does some pot smoker will have hell to pay!!

      • SKTrynoskySr says:

        I still think back to Jack Webb when he did Dragnet II in the late ’60’s. When asked about legalization, he commented, regarding traffic fatalities, “Isn’t alcohol bad enough?”

    • As long as Meth is out there, burglaries and thefts will never go down.

    • No single drug can be blamed for crime. It’s rather hard to honestly separate it out by drug. So whether up or down it will still exist.

      • You’re right there. I just know all the thefts that have taken place around my neighborhood have taken place mostly because of Meth. And it’s not just strangers, but even people’s family members, including in mine and from ME.

        They will steal you BLIND to get money for more Meth. And they don’t care where it comes from or how or who.

        Oh BTW, I left a message on Your Blog.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      More on Black Swan.

      Read the whole interview.. Quite interesting.

      http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/24/how-debt-ruins-systems

      • I will watch the video after dinner!

      • Isn’t DEBT a bubble as well?

        • Depends on whose is in debt. If it is you, it is huge. You don’t pay, you lose property.

          A country? Who will foreclose? Under what law?

          The US debt is more akin to you lending $50,000 to your wayward uncle with him promising to repay you.

          You saved that money for retirement or a vacation or a new house…whatever.

          But realize this. For you to have saved that money, you had to reduce your current consumption. You earned, say, $50,000 and saved $5,000 a year over the last years.

          You lived on $45,000. You appear “ok” living at that level.

          Now your uncle says “sorry, lost it all, can’t repay”. What happens to your lifestyle?

          Nothing. You lived on $45,000 for 10 years, and now, you still live on $45,000 a year.

          What is lost is your “dream” – your dream vacation, your dream retirement, your dream house … but all of that was merely a dream of “someday in the future” – it was never a reality.

          So all you lost was a dream.

          You will not lend to your uncle again, probably.
          You may reduce your living standard a bit more so to recapitalize your dream (save $10,000 a year instead of $5,000) – lowering your consumption a bit…. or you may not. You may work longer to recapitalize your dream – instead of retiring at 55, it will be at 65…

          But that’s all.

          But your uncle … well, that’s different. He’s pretty done for. Nobody will lend him money and he can’t buy all the luxuries he used to. He has a dramatic cut to his lifestyle – from “high life” to “low life” overnight. The bar and strip joints where he spent your fortune will be hurt too – he won’t be showing up anymore.

          So what is the truth out of this analogy.

          If you earn a living away from government, you will be just fine.
          If you depend on government for your living, you will not be fine.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          70% of the money invested in the stock market is borrowed money. Money borrowed at pretty much zero interest by the big investor groups. Stocks are trading a multiples of what their actual value should be. It will fail someday. But guys like Soros will be OK. They will have been long gone. The scene in “Trading Places” about the bet about “simulaneously getting rich while making you poor” The real savey investors are shorting and then buying HARD assets with cash.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          G

          BF’s is a good description.

          But lets cut to the chase. IF the US debt is not viewed as solid or good as it has been then people with do one of two things.

          1. Stop buying it all together. NOT very likely.

          2. Demand a HIGHER return on their investment. To compensate for higher risk.

          The devastation of #1 is obvious and immediate because the Fed has to roll over billions of debt each month to keep the Govt spending going. Which gets to BF’s Uncle above.

          #2 is not as drastic immediately but it will increase the INTEREST payments required to finance our debt. This will mean REDUCTIONS in Federal Spending to compensate, printing more money to cover the cost and/or increasing TAXES.

          A combination of all is the most likely. Which in combination create an even larger drag on the economy.

          Oh, as the interest rate on Treasury’s increases mom and pop will probably increase their purchase of Treasuries and Banks will have to raise savings rates as well.

          Good for savings and investment but bad for economic “consumption”. In the SHORT term.

          • 1) Increase taxes. Very unlikely. They are historical (non-war) highs. The history of taxes shows that above the current level, the population starts tax revolts; think TEA party on steroids.

            2) Agree on higher interest rates. Reduced lending, increase savings. I do not see this as a drag on the economy – an economy artificially accelerated by artificially cheap credit, but a proper correction to the normal business cycle of investment and lending.

            3) Agree on printing money. Inflation. But again, only to a point or the risk of killing the money becomes too high. The bankers will not let money die (as explained in the past, re: “Dark Winter” scenario).

            4) Agree on consumption will fall as savings rise. There will more deferred consumption and less present consumption.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              #4 is the reason for the “drag” mentioned in #2.

              Meddling has created an imbalance in favor of mostly “consumption” to keep the engine running.

              This is a Short Term issue, however. But one the politicians will use to justify more “stimulus”. Because they all believe Consumption is what drives the economy.

          • So, following through on this.

            If there is more deferred consumption, what consumption will be deferred and what will not?

            Hence, Jim Rogers is investing in food and energy…his “marry a cheap farmer who has an oil well”. People will always need to eat, and always need energy. Utility companies, Oil companies, food chains, Walmart.

            Deferred consumption – luxuries. Sell your timeshare vacation property.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Top three producers are by rank China, Australia and the US

    • Who trades the past debt of the US has no direct impact on the US.

      What has a direct impact is who is buying NEW debt. If there are few buyers here, it will have serious consequences.

      1) Interest must rise to attract buyers.
      or
      2) The Fed buys whatever unsold debt, risking inflation.

      N. Korea is selling gold to China in large amounts.
      Western banks are selling gold to China in large amounts.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        The only “event” I can imagine that would affect the dollar itself would be decoupling OIL.

        Your thoughts?

        • As long as the US, and the West, are the largest consumers of oil, this will be a distant, if ever, potential risk.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I agree on the probability. I was trying to think of an “event” that would drive down demand for the dollar itself. This “lack of confidence” as it was presented.

            This was the only thing I could come up with.

            • There is a massive lack of confidence in currency, no matter which one.

              Of that reverse beauty contest, though the contestants seem to be striving hard to be even more ugly, the US$ will probably remain the least ugly as it is the reserve currency.

              • Is it not possible that the Reserve Currency status could be lost?

              • To loss reserve status means another must take its place.

                Who would that be?
                China? Nope. Chinese authorities have massive exchange controls, which seriously limits its trade. Reserve currencies require easy and instant trade.

                Eruo? Nope. To be a reserve currency to replace the US$, it must be better fundamentally then the US$ – better stability, limited or no supply increase. Eruo is printing money as fast or more then the US.
                .

                No other currency has enough volume to even be considered. Say the Swiss Franc. If it became the reserve currency, the Swiss franc would suddenly skyrocket in value, making the Swiss unable to sell their goods into the world market – Swiss prices would skyrocket.

                CDN$. Right now, the Bank of Canada constantly reduces the CDN$ relative to the US$ so to maintain high exports – it cheapens Canadian goods. Suddenly this is reversed, the Canadian economy, which massively overproduces in terms of supplying Canadians (Canadian economy is based on exports to US) would collapse. Same with Japan.

                There is no viable replacement, hence, regardless of the abuse, the US$ will remain for the very long term the reserve currency.

              • Hence, a one world currency?

  30. Please note, there will be a new thread in the morning 🙂

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Some can ridicule Ayn Rand but they cannot deny the similarities between her story lines and the reality we find ourselves in today.

    “In one of the latest ploys to gain sympathy for raising the minimum wage, Obama administration officials are pretending that this will be uniformly good for every business. “Higher wages means higher loyalty and morale, which means higher productivity, which means a more profitable business,” says Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez in a recent op-ed arguing for Congress to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. “But we can’t wait for every employer to see the light,” says Perez, pretending that he needs to force businesses to pay higher wages for their own good. So, in other words, when it comes to wages, most business owners are not thinking about their bottom lines enough according to the Obama Administration.

    It is clearly not true that every business will be better off if it pays at least $10.10 per hour. Some businesses don’t have a need to reduce employee turnover and are better off spending the money elsewhere. Others may not be able to afford to pay higher wages. Dolores Riley is one such business owner. She owns and operates Gramma’s School House Childcare and Learning Center in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, employing 16 people. The State of New Jersey already forced her to spend an additional $10,000 to $15,000 in payroll expenses—which are now 80 percent of her operating income—by raising the state-wide minimum wage to $8.25 per hour. “This really scares me,” Riley tells the New York Times, adding, “I hope I don’t have to close.” What will happen to Riley if Congress raises the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour?

    Riley is just one example but there are countless restaurant owners, store owners, small manufacturing firm owners, and the like who will be squeezed if the government makes it illegal for them to continue to employ individuals for less than $10.10 per hour.

    If officials such as Perez want to raise the minimum wage, they should not turn a blind eye to the many entrepreneurs and business owners who will be saddled with a costly new burden by their policies.”

    The minimum wage issue has been around and that is not the focus of my comment. It is the rationalizations and Propaganda put out by the Administration at the top of the article. The comment that “we can’t wait for them all to be enlightened”.

    These ideas, concepts and arguments are coming from Political hacks and academic morons who have never had to make a payroll, let along produce anything of value to society.

    • Are there two sides of the next civil war being drawn up? Think of a history book a hundred years from now. A chapter entitled “The Second American Civil War” Socialists v Freedom Seekers !

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Bill Clinton is the scab on the puss filled sore of corruption in Govt. And his power hungry SPOUSE is the bandaid used to cover it all up.

    For those who would trade Clinton for the putz we have now, let me point out that this PUTZ is simply extending the practices put in place by Clinton. King William was not stinking moderate. He was a master of the shell game.

    He allowed his VP to DESTROY the entire Timber Industry in the WEST. And then flew in for a photo op declaring some great success and COMPROMISE to save everyone.

    The ass hats that screwed up Stimulus and the Health Care reform are all CLINTON people. Including some who came over from “Hill’s” staff when the Big O locked up the primary.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Another “You heard it here first at SUFA” revelation. I wonder why we are called by the media to make comments on current events given our “collective” record here? Oh never mind…….. read and enjoy.


    The Constitution Failed

    By Ryan McMaken

    Thursday, February 20th, 2014

    Constitution_of_the_United_States,_page_1If you’re still wondering if the US Constitution of 1787 failed to protect liberty, then just look around you. That scrap of parchment is an obvious failure. The US government is the hugest government in the world and meddles in the lives of its citizens (and people worldwide) in every way imaginable. The government accepts no limits on its power whatsoever. The president rules by decree.

    This isn’t done under some new constitution. This is all done under the 1787 one. Lots of liberty activists argue that the Supreme Court is just reading the document incorrectly, but one simply cannot deny that virtually everyone in government, as well as most of the general population, is perfectly fine with most of what government does today, and thinks it’s constitutional. If one can plausibly claim that the constitution authorizes most of what the US government does today, then the document’s language is obviously feeble, ineffective, and useless for the purposes of preserving liberty.

    Even among those “constitutionalist” types, many of whom are militarists, you’ll find plenty of support for unconstitutional measures such as a standing army, drug prohibition, and other government programs beloved by conservatives, but which are obviously not authorized by the enumerated powers of the constitution.

    Rothbard had this figured out a long time ago:

    From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on man’s rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing.

    At a recent meeting of Students for Liberty, John Stossel spoke to some students of Rothbard:

    Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, “Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now — so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it.”

    Stossel went on:

    That’s an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution’s “limited government” was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists, but anarchists — get rid of government completely.

    That idea sounds extreme to me, and to some libertarians at the conference — not to mention the few pro-big-government speakers, like movie director Oliver Stone. But I’m happy that students ask those sorts of questions rather than wondering which regulations to pass, what to tax and whom to censor for “insensitive” speech.

    UPDATE: A reader points out this statement from Lysander Spooner:

    But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

    • The people are screwed up, not the document. If every generation would have kept the government inline each time it strayed, we would be fine. I say get rid of government completely and set up a group of people who will manage certain aspects that would normally be a government function, such as the Navy and Post office. We can do much better WITHOUT leaders, but rather with a few who are just caretakers. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Yes the people are screwed up.

        BUT, the document is seriously flawed. Because it will only work in the hands of a population with the exact same values as those who wrote it. Except that even among them there were those who immediately started to undermine it. A. HAMILTON as a prime example.

      • Just a thought…

        What if there were a Constitutional Convention with the sole purpose of expanding on the bill of rights?

        For example: In ADDITION to the current second amendment, as currently written, underneath it, make a LONG list of things the government cannot do to interfere with the right to self defense.

        I suppose you COULD add to things such as the definition and managemet of militias

        They could not perceive of NSA spying back in the late 1700’s. Maybe the fourth amendment could use some elaboration and expansion as well.

        And the tenth? All of them?

        • Napolitano has a set of things he would change – worth noting.

          1) Change “We, the People” to “We, the States” throughout the document – the people should not have to interact with the Federal government at all, and as it was the States who organized the Federal government.

          2) Eliminate the 16th and 17th Amendments

          3) 2nd, remove the comma and return to the Jefferson’s orginal.
          As per the Constitution:
          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Jefferson:
          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          4) Clarify the Commerce Clause
          To regulate Trade of Goods with foreign Nations, and between the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

          • Not nearly enough in my book. Changes need to remove any chance of corruption by limiting power to a much greater extent. Toothless, for example 🙂

            • No document can prevent growth of government, even the Judge’s ideas would eventually be overrun.

              The paradox that cannot be solved:

              The entity that makes and enforces law will not make and enforce law upon itself.
              The devil will never wrap himself in his own rope with knots that he cannot untie.

          • Those are all good ideas.

            ” 3) 2nd, remove the comma and return to the Jefferson’s orginal.
            As per the Constitution:
            A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            Jefferson:
            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

            I will argue that the comma doesn’t so much matter when considering the logic. It is essentially inclusive of the why/how in how it is stated.

            The right of the people shall not be infringed.

            Why?

            …because it is necessary to securing a free state.

            How so?

            …with a well regulated militia.

            Who/what is the militia?

            …the people with a right to bear arms.

            • The first comma makes the statement nonsense.

              The double comma makes the statement in between a clarification, which can be removed, leaving:

              “A well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
              Ah, huh?

              The single comma makes the statement make sense:

              A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…

              …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

              • Look at it with no punctuation. It sounds a little more like ‘Yoda’, But it still says the same thing.

                A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

                The reasoning is clear regardless.

                It is saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. If it were about something besides a militia of the people who are armed, that part would have not been included. …nor would ‘militia’ be defined elsewhere.

                If you want to analyze it another way, we can say that the right of the people is a well regulated militia, which requires the right to bear arms, which serves a purpose of necessitating a free state.

                You can chop it up and over think it however you like. It is talking about The right to bear arms, a free state, and a militia with it’s shit together, …and it is connecting together with words like “necessary”, and in a context of a list of government limitations/parameters in recognition of rights.

                IMHO, the intent is clear, although simplified in relation to the current debacle…hence why I suggested above to add a list.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                You are making the same mistake as those on the left who try to split this hair.

                You cannot apply MODERN rules of grammar and punctuation to documents written in the 1700’s.

                Even all the documents written by scholars of the time don’t follow the same rules. Rules which were established later.

                Regardless of which version is used, it is the statement that “THE RIGHT……” Everything before that is really just flourish and moot to the issue.

                Unless of course your a left wing Progressive Law Professor. Then anything is possible because twisting truth to conform to your objective is all that matters.

              • Um, no.
                The grammar of the 1700’s is just fine.

    • I would say that I agree with G for the most part. I also think that the Government has been ALLOWED by the people to grow too big. As we have grown as a Nation, we have allowed ourselves to stray from the path that our founders envisioned. As government has grown, the people have placidly say back and watched without comment.

      This is most likely from the fact that our Liberty has been stolen from us a very small piece at a time. This Monstrosity we call the Federal Government, even State Government, has been growing for the past 230+ years. And in that time there have always been a few to warn the rest of what was going on. But MOST could not or would not see it.

      Now, a lot of people are just fine with the big fat monstrosity. To LIMIT it now would be to cut out ALL the Freebies they have come to depend on. Even we who still support the Constitution have no way to realize just what it would be like to abide strictly by the Constitution as written. Most Conservatives don’t realize that, if we did so, things like the Marriage question, gay rights, and a Standing Military would go by the boards. And in some ways, by todays standards, it would be a disaster of epic proportions.

      Imagine. No Standing Military. We would be overrun by the Muslims as fast as they could get here and then there would be freedom for NO ONE. Every other Nation also would be at our throats. I don’t know about anyone else here, but that doesn’t bear thinking on. Maybe, had we stayed out of everyone else’s business to begin with, but now?

      And Medicare and Social Security. What would the elderly do if it was suddenly taken away from them? Maybe if we hadn’t instituted it to START WITH?

      I have to agree with McMaken in SOME ways. The Constitution either failed itself, or we by God LET it fail by inaction. I would say more the latter.

      • Reb.

        The people did not “allow it”
        They wanted it.

        Once the people got a taste of “living off of another person’s wealth” – they loved it!

        Growth of government is absolute – no matter the form, once it begins handouts, the people always want more.

        If there is no apparent cost to a gain, you want that “deal’ again and again, and more of it.

        The end is always a collapse – where the victims of theft migrate to be benefactors of theft – and over time, there is less and less to steal. When the music stops, the benefactors, who long forgot where wealth comes from, have no recourse.

        Social disorder; revolution; re-start.

        The past has shown the re-start is just another “we haven’t tried this government yet” – which, like all before it, will follow the same course.

        Maybe one day we’ll learn.

  35. This will be a good idea if they can get it. At least it’s a start.

    http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0

  36. @ Gman………a one world currency? We have been a one word currency for a long time…if the dollar dies…..so goes the world.

%d bloggers like this: