Open Mic Part 24

thHGKO53TSTime for a new thread!



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. gmanfortruth says:

    D13, Dale would like your email address to ask for info on the job fair you mentioned yesterday. With your permission, I will send it to him. 🙂

    • Charlie…..I have absolutely NO problem with equating automobiles to weapons…….ANYTHING used improperly is a weapon. A knife, a car, a gun, a hammer, a jet aircraft, a spear, a brick, a rock…..a box cutter…………………………………… name it.

      To try to say that guns should be outlawed because they were designed to kill is the most ludicrous statement ever made…..even you know this……although, I am not a Jon Stewart fan…I have seen some of his clips and they are funny…..but not to be taken seriously.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        This is how the Left has to push their agenda, Comedy Central, because no one believes anything coming from the mouths of Liberal politicians anymore. Not to mention they are losing the battle miserably 😀

        • The “Left” is crushing the right … day by day … over and over again … just ask BF … he knows that (whether he agrees it’s good or not) … your side is losing big time … just another inconvenient truth 🙂

          • Yes, the Left is growing – to the endarkenment of society.

            The entitlement age, where one can demand goods and services without earning, slowly eats away at core of society to a point where the do-nothing consumers overwhelm the ability of the earners to provide.

            Since incentives matter, doing nothing and getting something will grow vs. doing something and losing it will shrink. Doing-nothing grows, doing-something shrinks – until little is done. With millions of demanding mouths and begging hands threatening, who after generations have long lost the understanding of earning, chaos and confusion and violence will be the outcome as these lost souls consume each other.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Your correct, the useless eaters are growing, to the eventual detriment of a future generation , if it don’t begin with the ones living now. Sadly, parasites with degraded minds approve of theses actions. You can medicate the mentally ill, but you can’t fix stupid 😉

            • Just so long as you agree, BF … that was my point (whether you like it or not–that they left is winning) … it is, for whatever reason. I like to think it’s common sense, but that’s asking a lot.

              • It is senseless for society – utterly. It ends in a bloody implosion of desperate people who have no idea how to recover.

                And, it is probably unstoppable at this point. The constituency of the envious, unearning but demanding masses grows since there is no incentive against them, whereas the incentive to earn diminishes daily.

                Today, almost every American gets a handout of some sort – some subsidy for something. No one is willing to surrender their subsidy to stop the decline, but demands others surrender theirs, which equally they refuse to do.

                It is ratcheting spiral downward, ever increasing demand for unearned goods without respite as the incentive to surrender one’s own subsidy is viewed as a loss without gain, whereas demanding more subsidy is viewed as a gain without cost.

        • gmanfortruth says:
      • Where in that video, Colonel, did Jon Stewart even “imply” that guns should be “outlawed” … you’re exaggerating, Colonel .. and I’m surprised at you. 🙂

  3. .

  4. Now, let me see if I have this straight………When the Justice Department has an internal investigation that says there is no wrong doing, it is ok. When Homeland Security has an internal investigation that says there is no wrong doing, it is ok. When the State Department has its own internal investigation and says there is no wrong doing, it is ok. When the IRS has its own internal investigation and says that there is no wrong doing, it is ok.

    When the Governor of New Jersey has its own internal investigation and it says everything is ok………………………….there is an uproar.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………and we are supposed to take all of this seriously.

    • Sorta like a story on Twitchy yesterday. Rep Yee was busted for his gun running scam. The right is cheering, since the left are eating their own. Not so fast, they say. They’re holding the dirt on the right til just before the elections, dirt collected by way of NSA. Good, let it all come out. Seems like every day more and more are waking up to the shinanigans of everyone in DC.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is typical left Wing media, just like the Liberal politicians, their completely full of bulldookie 🙂 (I’m being careful not to offend Mathius or Buck here)

      • I’m being careful not to offend Mathius or Buck here

        Good idea. We’re easily offended.

  5. Liberal to Conservative: Conservatives only care about the rich and not the poor.

    Conservative to Liberal: Conservatives donate 30% more to charity than Liberals..

    Liberal to Conservative: Racist.

  6. gmanfortruth says:
  7. gmanfortruth says:


    10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever
    I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.

    9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a
    gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at
    15% isn’t.

    8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
    of spending the money I earn than I would.

    7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody
    is offended by it.

    6. I vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I
    know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers
    and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get
    police to your home in order to identify your body after a home

    5. I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies
    being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

    4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free
    health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take
    away Social Security from those who paid into it.

    3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be
    allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give
    the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party
    sees fit.

    2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
    Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get
    their agendas past the voters.

    .And the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it’s better to pay
    $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it
    might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish here in America. We
    don’t care about the beetles, gophers or fish in those other countries.

  8. charlieopera says:
    March 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    @Life … “.The US still has the best military in the world.” Probably, but big deal. In a war against another superpower, do you really believe it would be settled on the ground? Any nation possessing nuclear weapons would probably use them when threatened with surrender … we go to war with Russia, we can kiss our asses goodbye (which is a VERY good reason not to go to war with Russia or anybody else possessing nuclear weapons) … and I’m sure they think the same thing. I doubt they’ll try to invade Cuba … or Florida … or Mexico .. and for the same reasons.


    I believe you made some false statements, whether to bash the US, our military or us getting involved in a stupid conflict or some other reason. I think saying we would get our @ss handed to us is simply wrong. It starts with a false premiss, as much of the talk around this has been.
    ex. Putin invaded because Obama is a weak president.
    Putin invaded because he wanted the territory. He also invaded Georgia under Bush.

    So if we look at this from a strictly military perspective, could the US force Russia out?
    Yes. Is it in any way worthwhile to us? Very doubtful. Would loss of life be high? Absolutely. But, we could fight them & retake the territory. Would not make us a “winner”.
    Russia would lose lives, face & financially. But the bottom line, what would we gain? Zero.

    And it is unlikely Russia would use nukes or that the US would. Just like in the cold war, conventional warfare can be waged on other people territory without the need to escalate.
    India & Pakistan have fought a couple such while being nuclear powers without starting WW3.

    Thankfully Obama learned something from Syria, you don’t make threats you are not willing to back. A “red line” either means something or it’s just empty words.

    I keep saying Europe & NATO should be the lead actors on this issue. It’s their neighborhood being threatened, not ours. And I suspect it’s economics that is the real power being used, not military. Europe is dependent on Russia for gas & oil. Russia has & will us it to force them into accepting their will. Which is why most of them want the US to step up & play the bad guy…. They are in a bad bargaining position & want someone else to take the hit.

    • Putin invaded because he wanted the territory. He also invaded Georgia under Bush.

      I agree. Where did I not agree with this?

      So if we look at this from a strictly military perspective, could the US force Russia out? Yes.

      Baloney. We could no more force them to remove themselves from the Ukraine than they could get us to remove ourselves from New York.

      Is it in any way worthwhile to us? Very doubtful. Would loss of life be high? Absolutely. But, we could fight them & retake the territory. Would not make us a “winner”.

      See above. It couldn’t be done. We’d lose that war (as they’d lose trying to take NY).

      Russia would lose lives, face & financially. But the bottom line, what would we gain? Zero.
      Baloney. You have no way of knowing that … and history teaches us the opposite (if we can point to anything).

      And it is unlikely Russia would use nukes or that the US would. Just like in the cold war, conventional warfare can be waged on other people territory without the need to escalate.

      Baloney. The cold war and real war and two VERY different things. Here you must be kidding.

      India & Pakistan have fought a couple such while being nuclear powers without starting WW3.

      Really? What was gained? What was lost? And don’t forget they’re geographical neighbors (not across the world from one another).

      Thankfully Obama learned something from Syria, you don’t make threats you are not willing to back. A “red line” either means something or it’s just empty words.

      Yes, thankfully.

      I keep saying Europe & NATO should be the lead actors on this issue. It’s their neighborhood being threatened, not ours. And I suspect it’s economics that is the real power being used, not military. Europe is dependent on Russia for gas & oil. Russia has & will us it to force them into accepting their will. Which is why most of them want the US to step up & play the bad guy…. They are in a bad bargaining position & want someone else to take the hit.

      NATO can do nothing either. And they won’t. Not militarily. Nor should they. It’s what happens when superpower take what they want. And no nation did as much as we did (regarding taking what we want).

      • “Baloney. We could no more force them to remove themselves from the Ukraine than they could get us to remove ourselves from New York.”

        Well the thing is they are in Crimea right now, massing troops on the Ukrainian border. So my earlier post, would the Ukraine’s welcome us as they are preparing to try & fight Russia by themselves? Russia took 160+ Ukrainian military bases from Crima. Seems likely they might have more military assets in the Ukraine & appear willing to fight.

        But hey, that’s just my opinion & I’m not qualified to be any arm chair general. I can read & add some numbers & on paper we should be able. You are entitled to think I’m full of it. I think that about many of your comments…

        “NATO can do nothing either. ” (Can’t? Any proof NATO is not a significant military organization? Or is this just you throwing out BS)
        And they won’t. ( kinda agree with ya here)
        Not militarily. (that’s like their only trick, shoot or blow things up)
        Nor should they. ( You may be right here, but what is you reason they should not act?)
        It’s what happens when superpower(s) take what they want. (Well there’s supposed to be these international laws that prevent wars & such, but then there’s the UN & why do we waste our money supporting that corrupt parasite?)
        And no nation did as much as we did (regarding taking what we want).” ( And here’s where you start your hate America before all others spiel. We have our sins. Name those you find most offensive. Is Japan or Germany US vassal states or possessions? S. Korea? Iraq? Kuwait?)

        It’s funny Charlie, we can agree the US has no need to involve ourselves in this except voicing our disapproval. Add to that the very vocal right wing deserves scorn & ridicule for goading action & fanning the flames. But you reason we should not get involved is we would get our @ss kicked? Is that you morality? Stand up for the little guy or a lady in distress but only if you out weigh the other guy by a hundred pounds? You do what’s right because it’s right. Most especially, you do what’s right for you. You don’t risk making your wife a widow over two brothers scuffling. In the scale of world conflicts, where does this tip out at? Bigger than Syria? Georgia? Sorry, but this is the media trying to sell another war

        • Black Flag® says:

          NATO cannot do anything but defend itself, and even that will require nukes.

          Russia and her reserves can muster over 200 divisions in 30 days, and another 100 divisions a few months later.

          NATO could bring to bear maybe 70, if you bring in France.

          • Actually, with the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia lost about 60 divisions….but…they can muster about 190-210 within 45 days…..

            NATO is much weaker and cannot defend itself without nukes… BF says….and NATO is for defense only and originated for the Fulda Gap and nothing has changed since then.

      • Note that the Russkies did not stay in Georgia. As I remember it we encouraged the Georgians to poke a stick in the Bear’s eye. bear did not like that. Bear more than growled and left. bear left a DMZ to discourage more poking. Bush shut his yap. US encouraged the Ukraine to poke the bear’s other eye. Bear did more than growl. bear took back what he never should have given away. Bear is establishing a DMZ to discourage more poking. At the rate the US is going we could re-establish the entire Russian empire in thirty or so years.

        For those interested in a ground war with Russia, besides the Hitler model, there is the Napoleon model. Anybody think we would be better at supplying cold weather gear to our troops on time than we were on supplying up-armored humvees when they were needed? Also, re-visit the classic John Milius movie, “Red Dawn”, just put the US in the role of the Russians/Cubans though. “Wolverines” win, hands down.

    • It is absolutely erroneous to believe the US – who have to ship all men and material by ship and plane – could defeat Russia, who is indigenous on the continent. US couldn’t defeat Iraq nor Afghanistan for this very reason and you think it could defeat Russia in Russia? hohohohohoho!

      • Thank you, BF … we agree.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        To add to what Flag said, I’m not to sure our troops would fight for Obama, at least not with their hearts in it. That’s not a good thing, especially with tired troops who are fed up with the stupid stuff of the last 13 years. That would be my biggest reason. With fresh troops, we might push them back to their own borders, but we wouldn’t in any way defeat them on their own turf.

        • Damn G!, siding with Flag & Charlie…How could you???
          You have a point that troop moral would be very low. Americans like to think they are the good guys & need a popular war. So are we saving Europe & the free world? No, just a small former Russian possession with Russian as the national language from Russia? Hmmm, and as Commander-in-Chief, senator against the surge before he was for the surge & where’s his idiots guide to fighting nice wars??? I can see us getting spanked, but not because our military isn’t capable.

          • LOI, you’re taking this much too hard (patriotism) … nobody is saying our military isn’t capable … we’re saying we’d be asking way too much of them to cross a planet and win an unwinnable war …

            And G almost always sides with BF (or JAC) … he needs to lean on someone …

            Now, I have to go home and watch The Diamond Collar with my son and his girlfriend … good show … especially if you’re an animal lover.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            We do have a very powerful military, for sure. Could we remove Russia from the Ukraine? Possibly. That’s where I think it ends, unless Russia decides it truly wants Ukraine, then they will take it. As Flag say’s, they have a great advantage, along with what would turn out to be the Russian citizens support. They, like most of the world, are tired of the American Empire. Let’s all step back and see the truth, we are going to war soon. Turkey wants to kill it’s own people to have an excuse for war with Syria for God’s sake. Our govt idiots are no damn better.

            Let’s hope we have enough military commanders who will tell the criminals in DC to go to hell, and then help them get on the bus 🙂

            • Black Flag® says:

              Not one bit.
              Russia is right next door, whereas no one else of any military strength is….

              Russia would obliterate any opposing force by sheer weight of numbers.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I wouldn’t send our troops over there if I were in charge, period. It’s the EU’s problem, not ours.

            • G!

              You guys are forgetting our ultra secret military force. OK, we won’t send in the Army, Air Force or Marines. We will send our most heavily armed agents, the EPA, IRS & Homeland Security with all those billions of rounds of ammo they been buying… And here we all thought Obama was clueless. At least history will recognize his brilliance…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                LOL, the way the EPA works, they could shut down Russia and China! The global warmers would be slapped down and be wearing the official NK haircut if they had the courage (which they don’t) to go shoot their mouths off.

                We don’r need any more wars, but we may get pushed in that direction, for all the wrong reasons. Obama is trying to destroy this country, in my mind. A false flag blaming Russia, (like they tried with Syria with the chems), would inflame the useless eaters. Remember, Obama just mentioned a nuke in Manhattan, people who know things tend to give things away by accident (or on purpose as a warning to his friends). They failed at Charleston, time for NYC. Lets see what happens now!

          • Black Flag® says:

            Put 300 in the wrong place, no matter who they are, they will be wiped out.

      • Flagster,

        I think the US/NATO is still mostly intact as when the cold war ended. If so, it was intended to defeat any invasion attempts by the USSR. The USSR is defunct, NATO is not. How many bases does the US maintain in Europe? How many just in Germany? And when you compare the numbers, it’s hard to imagine the US losing. (I’ll address that to G!Man)

        Modern battlefield tactics start with establishing air superiority, which is how we are geared.
        They have more tanks, but how would they fare to our choppers & planes?

        • Black Flag® says:

          You, like most Americans, simply have no grasp to the size and power of Russia, nor any consideration of the logistic difference between rail and road vs ship and plane.

          • And he should consider (agreeing with BF again here) what occurred in WWII when Russia was totally unprepared for Hitler’s (a neighbor’s) not so surprise assault and had a tremendous advantage … until the winter … Russia literally moved its industry across the land to set up to fight another day. We wouldn’t have a chance winning there (on the ground) anymore than they (Russia) would have a chance winning here (in Coney island, say) …

            • Black Flag® says:

              At least Charlie is a better strategist then economist.

              Exactly. For the same reason, North America is unconquerable.

      • The US could not defeat Russia in Asia territory….not without nukes.

  9. @Anita: See, I’m not so bad … 🙂

  10. gmanfortruth says:
  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. @Colonel (again) Where in that video, Colonel, did Jon Stewart even “imply” that guns should be “outlawed” … you’re exaggerating, Colonel .. and I’m surprised at you. 🙂

    he was drawing analogies to driving laws/regulations which have proved to be better for society (i.e., less deaths from drunk drivers, for one thing) … and it was an indirect response to jesse Ventura’s attempt to draw an anology to no longer making Ford cars because they were used as weapons by drunks (ignoring the fact they are not ALWAYS used intentionally by drunks to kill someone) …

    • I did not say that Jon Stewart said that, now did I. I read the transcripts…it was an interview that he conducted some time ago with Ventura….but the implication was there.

      • oops…an interview that Ventura made the analogy.,..not HIS interview with him…sorry.

        But, it is fact….so let us draw a comparison…………there are an estimated 270-285 million guns in the US. There is an estimated 245 million passenger vehicles in the US.

        The leading cause of death was motor vehicle, the second leading cause of death was poisoning, and the third was gun deaths.

        So…..extrapolating…..if you took every gun away, theoretically it would save 31,076 lives. If you took every car away, it would save 34,080 lives, and if you outlawed all household chemicals and plants… would save 33,940 lives….

        So… seems perfectly reasonable to me to start with the highest……when you take away all the cars and household chemicals and plants….then you can have my guns.

        If you leave a gun in the drawer, it does not shoot….leave a car in the garage, it does not kill, buy no poisonous plants or chemicals… does not kill……….but..put humans in charge….and you have deaths.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    @Anita, Got a great order from the cooking link I provided you. 11 bucks went a long way, including a 5 drawer dehydrator and several more cookbooks. An Aqua Cooker (perfect for fresh veggies) and more. Really good stuff, I hope you take advantage. 🙂

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    With the ongoing globalization of education under UN and Obama administration guidance, Americans are at a crossroads. One alternative is putting a stop to it all now, withdrawing from Common Core, rejecting unconstitutional federal bribes and mandates, and restoring proper education to promote a well-educated citizenry capable of critical thinking and maintaining liberty. The other option, as globalist voices have made clear, is a “green” economy — and everything that radical vision entails. Choose wisely.

  16. “It is ratcheting spiral downward, ever increasing demand for unearned goods without respite as the incentive to surrender one’s own subsidy is viewed as a loss without gain, whereas demanding more subsidy is viewed as a gain without cost.”

    If that’s the case, how is it possible that the wealth of the 1% grows by such leaps and bounds? Serious question. How is it possible, if so much is free, for the 1%’s capital to grow and grow and grow (the great gap in income equality)?

    • Black Flag® says:

      Because, like the lower classes below them, demand subsidy to their risk – their losses are covered, their gains embraced.

      Income inequality is irrelevant. The size of your wallet does not determine the size of mine.

      • Because, like the lower classes below them, demand subsidy to their risk – their losses are covered, their gains embraced.
        True that …. But to the extent of their growth? I’m not so sure.
        Income inequality is irrelevant. The size of your wallet does not determine the size of mine.
        Income inequality is very relevant. It’s what keeps those with the bigger wallets in power (not their “efforts” nor their “industry”) … income inequality is the result of those bigger wallets.

        • Black Flag® says:

          They are closer to the evil power of government – hence, they get the lion’s share of evil’s take.

          It is utterly not relevant. Your wallet size does NOT determine mine. Period.

          • “They are closer to the evil power of government – hence, they get the lion’s share of evil’s take.”

            Agree wholeheartedly … in fact, they are the government … but where I disagree is in the assumption that without some form of government, it would be any different? In a capitalist system (and I know you don’t believe this is a capitalist system, yet cannot show me one you claim would work) … your wallet size DOES, IN FACT, determine mine. double period ..

            • Black Flag® says:

              Of course.
              Without legitimization of such violence, it would be criminal, not legal.

              Utter babbling. Your wallet has never mattered to mine – ever.

              • Personally, probably not. My wallet has certainly mattered to others (whether fatter or thinner) … it’s the essence of all third world countries (what we’ve become) … Have to head home … watch the show tonight … if you’re an animal lover, you’ll enjoy it.

              • Black Flag® says:

                It may matter to your family, but not me or anyone else. You rich or poor makes no difference to me.

                Poor countries are also those that have little or no capitalism.

    • I think part of it is because more people are deciding not to work. There is enough government assistance that they are opting to be poor & lazy. I see this on nearly a daily basis, someone ask for a job, agree to take it, then never show up, or work a couple hours & walk off…Tax season you see several workers start missing for days, weeks or even months. Then you hear they got a big refund check. And after they have blown all their money, they come back begging for another chance, promising to work normal hours…It used to be we would hire 10 people to get two decent workers. I think it’s closer to 20-25 now. You can say it might be me/us, that our business fails to treat employees right to attract good workers. Maybe so, but I know a dozen other businesses with the same problem. I talk to people from all across the country who say they have the same problem.
      So on the bottom end, people are not working & therefore the poverty level is expanding.

      On the other end, the wealthy have invested. Wal Mart has admitted that the EBT cards are a major source of revenue. So Wal Mart makes money off the poor. Bad/evil Wal Mart? Don’t people shop there because they have the lowest prices? Low prices are important because food prices have jumped 17%? Ten dollars buys you eight dollars of goods now.
      This hurts the poor. The wealthy own Wal Mart stock. Wal Mart & all their other investments still profit. Their wealth grows. The Fed’s QE policies have devalued our currency, which is reflected in the rise of food prices. Obama has not been able to raise what is paid to the poor, he has instead enticed more people to join the entitlement programs.

  17. @all … hey, politics aside … evil aside … tonight is a marathon show about animal rescue that a good friend of mine is the star of … a former mob enforcer turned animal rescuer … check it out on the OWN network (8 p.m – 11 p.m. eastern time) …

  18. gmanfortruth says:

  19. Just some strategic observations from an old Colonel who knows nothing:

    Is Russia really interested in the Ukraine.?
    Are the troops that are there really just a military exercise?

    History has shown that military exercises, by any country, are over within 15 to 30 days.
    Military exercises DO NOT place strategic resources on front lines as the Russians have done. Military exercises DO NOT stockpile spare parts on the front line as Russia has done. Military exercises do not use shock troops ( the Spetz and airborne troops ) in exercises that exceed 5,000 troops…the Russians have moved 34,000 of their top line shock troops to the Ukraine border backed with tanks….Military exercises do not erect hundreds of camouflaged acres of logistical supplies that are specifically designed for a blitz type of movement. Military exercises do not stockpile 2.4 million gallons of water. Military exercises do not line up pointed in one direction and move anti jamming equipment and 65% of air assets to bases within 150 miles of any border. Military exercises do not have 90% of their air transport aircraft on strip alert. Military exercises do not reposition communication satellites. Military exercises do not restrict TV and radio coverage. Military exercises do not use smoke screens to mask satellite observation.

    Even during the old “Red Flag” days at the height of he cold war, neither the US nor the old Soviet Union activated more than 5% of any command for exercises and the exercises never lasted more than 15 days….

    and lastly, military exercises do reposition airborne and shock troops to the borders of other countries in the magnitude of same…..

    Putin is on record as saying that the old Soviet Union disintegrating was a mistake and a horror… the past, when military exercises were scheduled, there was ALWAYS a corresponding counter exercise to show readiness……there is none. Putin is an old guard KGB Colonel that wants it back together, He has been quite vocal about that.

    I am not saying anything…..just putting facts out there for consideration.

    Is this a warning to Europe on sanctions? The only way to prevent war is to NOT put sanctions in place? Hmmm.

  20. Eric Margolis

    War fever is in the air. Fifty thousand Russian troops and armor are massed on Ukraine’s eastern border. Europe and Washington worry that the reborn Red Army may sweep west across Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics – even into Poland.

    The West is suffering from a bad case of Cold War chills.

    Not only are the Western powers worried, they are discovering that they likely lack the means to stop possible Russian incursions into what was the former Soviet Empire.

    They should not be at all surprised that Russia is again showing signs of life.

    Frederick the Great, the renowned Prussian warrior-king, warned: “he who tried to defend everything, defends nothing.”

    Every young officers should have Great Fredrick’s words tattooed on his right hand. Soon after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a small number of strategists, this analyst included, warned NATO, “do not move east. It’s a bridge too far.”

    Soviet chairman Mikhail Gorbachev had agreed to let rebellious East Germany escape Soviet control – but in exchange for NATO’s vow not to push east in previously Soviet dominated areas of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The US and NATO agreed, then quickly broke their pledge.

    NATO’s advance into Eastern Europe, the Baltic and the Caucasus – not to mention former Soviet Central Asia – that brought the US-led alliance right up to Russia’s borders. US anti- missile systems were scheduled to go into Poland, close to Russian territory. New US bases were set up in Bulgaria, Romania and Central Asia.

    Unsubtle US efforts to bring ex-Russian Ukraine and the vital Sevastopol naval base in Crimea under NATO control – no doubt to punish Russia for supporting Syria and Iran – proved the last straw for the Kremlin.

    Talking tough is easy. Defending Eastern Europe from a possible Russian invasion will not be. The main problem is that while US/NATO guarantees have been advanced to Russia’s sensitive borders, their military capabilities have not. In short, commitment without capability.

    Russia’s military could take over the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in an afternoon. Sizeable portions of their populations are ethnic Russians.

    NATO is not deployed or equipped to go to war over Ukraine: its troops are far to the west, without supply systems or air cover. Besides, European powers, aside from the little Nazis in Denmark and Ukraine’s nationalists, want no part of war with Russia – that’s left to the war hawks safely at home in Washington.

    The barrage of trade sanctions Washington is imposed on Russia is an act of pre-war. We should remember that US sanctions imposed on Japan in 1941 that led Tokyo to attack the Western powers.

    During the Cold War, the US had some 400,000 troops in Europe, 800 warplanes and potent naval forces. Today, the US has only 43,000 troops left in Europe: two combat brigades and the rest air force and logistics personnel. The old days when the Soviet Union had 50,000 tanks pointed at Western Europe are long gone, but Russia’s modernized armed forces still pack punch.

    Meanwhile, the US has scattered forces all over the globe in what Frederick the Great would call an effort to defend everything. Most notably, US troops have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq, then Kuwait, and many home. America’s strongest divisions are now guarding Kansas and Texas instead of German’s Fulda Gap and Hanover.

    America’s military power has been dissipated in little colonial wars, just as Britain’s were in the 19th century. When British imperial troops had to face real German soldiers, they were slaughtered. Similarly, the US military, reconfigured after Vietnam to wage guerilla wars, is in no shape today to face the grandsons of the once mighty Red Army.

    Cautious, patient Vlad Putin is not about to invade Poland. The real danger is what would happen if the ethnic Russian inhabitants of the Baltic states, Ukraine and Moldova rise up and demand reunification with Mother Russia?

    Would Russia go to their aid? Would Europe and the US be ready to risk nuclear war for obscure places like Luhansk, Kharkov, Chisinau or Kaunus?

    In Ukraine and Crimea we are now seeing the results of overly aggressive Western geopolitics. Russia was woefully underestimated. A crisis between nuclear-armed powers should never have been allowed to occur. It’s sheer madness.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have zero faith in the current POTUS to do the right thing, which is shut up and mind his business. His approval ratings suck, he needs something to change that. I’m listening to HIS words, “I’m worried about a nuke in Manhattan”. “I’m really good at killing people” (proudly stated I might add). These are words of a psychopath that could blow up Manhattan with a false flag attack to do several things, one would be to retaliate and bring up his stats, the other, continues my previous feelings that he be planning on a longer term than the limits allow. I hope for “none of the above” but I don’t trust him to not do something that costs thousands, if not millions of lives. This would fall right in line with all the other famous murderers like Hitler, Stalin etc.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Washington is the government that invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies. Washington is the government that financed and organized the overthrow of the Libyan and Honduran governments and that is currently attempting to do the same thing to Syria and Venezuela. Washington is the government that attacks with drones and bombs populations in the sovereign countries of Pakistan and Yemen. Washington is the government that has troops all over Africa. Washington is the government that has surrounded Russia, China, and Iran with military bases. It is this warmongering collection of Washington war criminals that now asserts that it is standing up for international ideals against Russia.

    It would not surprise me if Obama’s goals are war, and a big one, involving nukes. He is sick enough to act with such stupidity just to make his narcistic ideals come true in his own twisted mind.

    • Not one bit.

      The power elite’s mindset changed dramatically post-WW2.

      Throughout all human history to that point, the power elite have almost always been excluded from the costs of war, and only suffered consequences when their populations have revolted – such a rare case, we highlight them in bold letters in history.

      But post-WW2 and the nuke age, the power elite are now absolutely mingled with the population destruction. A nuke has no range limitation. It is not bullets killing cannon fodder a 1,000 miles away, but utter annihilation of cities and indiscriminate masses of people.

      More so, the power elite are the targets of nuke strikes.

      Nothing more unnerves a call to war then the threat of nuclear war – not because you may or may not die, but because the power elite will probably be annihilated with you.

      MAD, incredibly, works.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” MAD, incredibly, works. ”

        …Unless MAD is the goal.

        “works” for whom, and how so?

        • Works for/against the Eastern/Western power blocks. Russia has come back as a power thru trade. US & China’s strength comes thru trade & the profits to our economies. We all spend a portion of that on military. Any nuclear war would devastate all our economies. I think the only possible gainers to a nuclear war might be third world countries & Islam. Some of them might think the vacuum left from such a war would allow them to become dominate in the world….

      • It works…assuming that all are equal in their deployments….however, in this world of computers….when detection is made…counter measures are automatically triggered. Mutually Assured Destruction….actually does work.

        Want to destroy Russia….it is really pretty easy. Take the next three years and do the following……: Release all Federal Lands to shale production. Go to Europe and teach them how to do shale oil production. The reserves in USA and Europe combined will destroy almost completely the Russian and OPEC economies in the energy department. Energy independence will kill Russia……and OPEC.

        • Call Russia’s bluff on waging war in Europe….they will not do what Japan did…..MAD will see to that.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Seems to me that Russia holds four aces to NATO’s full house. If Putin is going to do it, now is the time. What is stopping him, the threat of nukes? The MAD MFer’s in charge aren’t quite sane Ya know?

            • It does not matter to me what Russia does to the Ukraine….but, as John Wayne once said….when a feller gets used to goring oxen….it is just a matter of time until yours gets gored…I believe that.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Yeah, but it is the US doing the goring of the other bulls – it is expected Russia would draw the line somewhere.

          • The war in the pacific was inevitable. Japan would have continued expanding its empire until it eventually would have come into conflict with the western powers. The embargoes just accelerated it.

            Col., I agree that MAD works as long as rational people are in charge. Unfortunately we have one giant ego steering our ship. The Russians are chess players. Obama plays spades. He is out of his league. I hope/pray it does not come down to a game of chicken because we will lose with our current leadership.

            On the energy issue, I agree fully. Our ace in the hole is a strong economy that does not depend on the outside world for key resources. We have self-imposed limits on our ability to extract them. CA is an example. We import aggregate when we have a mountain range of stone, we import timber when we have thousands of acres burning up each year and rusting saw mills, we have rare earths, gold and other precious metals we will not mine, we have oil in abundance but will not pump it….

            • Yep, it is arguable but Japan had more imperialistic design than the USA had…..if they had just left Hawaii alone…..they could have had the whole South Pacific and all of SE Asia firmly in grasp….but coming eastward…..was not the thing to do.

              Yes, the Russians play chess and are really good at it……Obama……well, he tries to go nello with the ace of spades…….

        • LOVE ITI! D13 for President! Would also be the best way to fight terrorism. All those oil princes would not have millions to blow for their amusement…

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Very interesting stuff for the economy folks:

    Why would a commentator be totally censured?

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    The video in this article goes back a year or two, but it is classic stupidity. And a reason why our Federal government has gotten equally as stupid.

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    From Putin’s own mouth:

    • gmanfortruth says:
      • gmanfortruth says:

        Flagster, Amuse a crazy friend and share your thoughts on this 🙂

      • I do not think anybody will take Rubles.

        • I actually wonder if it would work. The West is so delinked from reality when it comes to money and the value thereof, who is to say what exactly constitutes an economy today. We know they have gold and gold resources. We know they have oil and gas up the kazoo. They have no compunction about exploiting either. What’s an EPAski?

          Since our economy and that of Western Europe is based mostly on hype rather than tangible assets, why can’t they do the same? I can never resist the analogy to the “Tulip Frenzy” in Holland. It is so because you believe it to be so.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I think that Americans have been brainwashed into serious overconfidence. I just don’t think the rest of the world has such confidence and are waiting for a currency that’s backed by something other than psychobabble.

            • gmanfortruth says:
            • I think that Americans have been brainwashed into serious overconfidence.


              This is a symptom of a pervasive flaw in our entire culture. Every kid gets a trophy for participating, everyone is told they can grow up to be President, no one is ever told that they aren’t smart enough or just don’t have what it takes. They play games where there are no losers, everyone wins.

              I’ll tell you that, in my high school, there were increasing levels of difficulty for classes for the better students and the weaker students – my year, the valedictorian was a 4.0 who took all hard classes with me.. but she shared the podium with an idiot who took all easy classes (seriously – “English” class taught them senior year about the silent k in knife) and he also got a 4.0. My brother-in-law has a nearly identical story (although he was the valedictorian and almost refused to participate out of offense at having to share with a dunce).

              There is a serious flaw in our society, and our overconfidence spills over into ever facet.

              And our overconfidence in USA #1’s almighty dollar is just another symptom.

        • Colonel. If they are exchangeable for Gold or Silver, I’ll take ’em.

          • They aren’t. There are exchange controls on the Ruble and the Yuan, making them unsuitable for most international business exchange.


              Basically, you want any currency that ISN’T on this list:


              This won’t mean much to many of you, but some (like BF) will find it quite humorous amusing:
              I once had the following conversation with a gentleman at Citi:
              Citi: I see that your NDF position is expiring. Please tell me where you would like me to deliver.
              Me: …
              Citi: …
              Me: …
              Citi: …
              Me: it’s an NDF…
              Citi: …
              Me: …
              Citi: …
              Me: An NDF is a Non-Deliverable Forward.
              Citi: …
              Me: You can’t deliver a non-deliverable forward.
              Citi: So where should I deliver them.
              Me: You can’t deliver them. That’s the point here.
              Citi: But it’s settling.
              Me: Yes, but you still can’t deliver them. There isn’t a bank on the planet that will allow you to wire me an NDF settlement in local currency.
              Citi: …
              Me: …
              Citi: So where do you want these Rubbles.
              Me: I want you to turn the Rubbles into dollars and send me dollars.
              Citi: But I have Rubbles.
              Me: No you don’t.
              Citi: Yes, I do – from your settling trade.
              Me: No, you do not.
              Citi: …
              Me: …
              Citi: …
              Me: …
              Citi: …
              Me: Tell you what, here’s our address. You can mail me them in a package care of Mathius.

              I never did get that package..

  25. D13 – Any contacts for tickets for next weekend?


    • The final four of what?

      • The final four is Russia in one corner playing chess with countries, Iran play hide the nuke, and China play checkers for all the marbles while we play spades with no face cards.

      • Final Four in basketball….lol….had to look it up. I do not follow basketball…hmmm….I also looked up what tickets were going for….$780 on average……for basketball. Interesting. I do remember something called basketball in college and that it competed with football for the bucks… won.

        Actually, I know about March Madness and college basketball….just do not follow it nor like it. Very boring sport like football is becoming. Texans are really into ice hockey since the Stars came here……at least you can still hit someone, knock some teeth out, get and give concussions….you know,,,,contact sports that really have contact. Powder Puff pro ball is becoming blase’.

        Now, to your question….I do not have contacts that can get you in for free….I can get you scalped tickets since scalping in Texas is legal….but they are big bucks.

    • Way to go Wisconsin! Sadly, my Spartans and the Wolverines weren’t up to the task yesterday. At least I didn’t waste the beautiful day yesterday. First time outside this year..nice long walk around town, yard cleanup, ribs on the grill, bonfire..even Sparty losing didn’t ruin the nice day.

      Badgers v Wildcats now. Go Badgers!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        WE had snow Saturday night and yesterday was in the low 30’s. Today much better, sunny and 50, tomorrow 60 🙂

        • Bummer for you. Saturday it was still too chilly to get out. Yesterday was a loooong time coming. 50+ again today, and I’ll be finishing some jobs out there for sure. Get out and enjoy it, G. Awesome attitude adjuster.

  26. gmanfortruth says:
    • Murphy's Law says:

      Wow. I certainly couldn’t have said it better, and in only about 5 minutes.


  27. gmanfortruth says:

    Somewhere near the middle of this film, the subject turned to Climate Change and Bill Gates. You remember Gates, the Government was suing to force his company to be split up, until he joined the Council on Foreign Relations, which made the lawsuit go away magically.

    Anyway, at the TED TALKS in 2010, the subject of how to stop CO2 from continuing it’s onslaught (what a MFing joke these clowns are), he showed a Equation and part of that equation was people. He explained the current population of 7.7 million and then said this ‘ QUOTE ” Through new VACCINES and HEALTHCARE and REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, we can REDUCE that (population) by 10 to 15 percent” (emphasis mine).

    I know what I heard and read, and it seems to me that population REDUCTION is a result of those things mentioned in his quote. How nice! Note to Charlie, Climate Change is not about the environment at all, it’s about control, theft and eugenics. Although I don’t expect you to agree or understand. 🙂

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Seven Hard Truths Liberals Just Don’t Want To Hear

    Hard Truth Number 1: If you are a liberal who really believes that your liberal heroes actually believe in liberalism, you are a sucker and a fool. Maybe even foolish enough to let your daughter take a drive with one across a bridge.

    Hard Truth Number 2 concerns the minimum wage and the delusion that labor should be valued not between those who provide it and those who pay for it, but by you based upon your own subjective notion of “fairness.” The hard truth is that you are worth precisely what an employer will pay for you, and nothing more.

    Hard Truth Number 3: If you need government to set you a “living wage,” it’s because you have failed to make yourself worth a living wage. A higher minimum wage is merely a subsidy to ensure you don’t have to put in the effort necessary to earn what you want. I’m unclear why your failure to work hard, gain skills and not do the stupid things that lead a 30 year old to be making minimum wage morally compels me to give you my money.

    Hard Truth Number 4: You shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them. A corollary to this self-evident concept is that you shouldn’t have sex unless you can pay for your own birth control. Those of us who don’t choose to live lives of chaos should not have to be taxed money from our kids so the government can give it to your kids because you are too lazy, stupid and/or drug-addled to support them yourself.

    Hard Truth Number 5: Liberalism depends on a huge number of Americans being losers who can’t support themselves. Broken or nonexistent families are the root of most of society’s pathologies, and they are also essential to the Democrat demographic model. The party’s very existence depends on there being a pool of serfs desperate for handouts distributed by Democrat overlords. If 90% of Americans were self-sufficient and refused to trade their dignity for a few scraps in the form of various welfare payouts, there would be no modern Democrat Party.

    Hard Truth Number 6: Your biggest problem is you. Now, a lot of people resent this truth – they say it’s “blaming the victim.” But most of the time, the purported “victim” is to blame. Did you drop out of school? Choose to use drugs? Have a couple kids with a couple losers? See, if so, you aren’t a victim of circumstance. A victim of circumstance is someone struck by lightning or attacked by a gang of thugs in a Democrat-run city. You’re a recipient of consequences.

    Hard Truth Number 7: This can’t go on.

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    @Mathius, You say ” And our overconfidence in USA #1′s almighty dollar is just another symptom.”

    Considering your professional position, this seems telling. What are the birdies saying in your neck of the money woods?

    • (ladies should avert their eyes)

      What are the birdies saying in your neck of the money woods?

      That the US dollar is a steaming shitpile, but that it’s still the least steaming shitpile available. The Yuan is so full of BS (and the Chinese economy is so full of lies) that no one would seriously consider it a viable alternative. Same with the Rubble. The Euro is too unstable thanks to the PIIGS – the whole thing could go kaput in a weekend. So who does that leave you with? I suppose we could try to switch to a gold standard, but that’s just not a really viable option in the present reality. So you have to use something.. what choice do you have?

      Meanwhile, this is a few years old, but still hilarious:

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Well done………….LMAO……

        Where are they going to get the money? Right!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        YES, quite funny! 😀

        That the US dollar is a steaming shitpile, but that it’s still the least steaming shitpile available.

        I agree, and quite like our Federal elections! You get SHIT to ELECT. because you don’t really get to SELECT. 😉

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    A leaked conversation between Turkey’s intelligence chief and the war room reveals plot to create a casus belli for war with Syria by using ISIL, an alQaeda offshoot, to threaten a turkish shrine Suleiman Shah Tomb. Turkey has blocked youtube in order to cover up the leaks. Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed the recording of planning for a military incursion into Syria adding that a ‘network of treason’ was responsible for leak. Part two of the leaked conversation implicates John Kerry US secretary of state in the plot.

    This has the entire conversation transcripts. This my friends, is what the Central governments have become in our world. The rich and powerful start the wars that the poor end up fighting and dying over. If this doesn’t show you how evil the Elite Ruling Class truly is, you will never be convinced.

  31. Now, I would like to give everyone a chance for some input here…..on Wendy Davis. There is a huge debate coming up on gun control. There is a town hall issue coming up in Fort Worth and Dallas and, as a representative for a 14,000 member veterans group ( and growing )…I have a better than average chance of sitting on the town hall discussion representing the pro gun side.

    We had an interesting topic on this blog come up when Charlie posted a Jon Stewart clip. What I would like to do,if we can keep from the sniping at each other, is get a true leftist perspective on this issue. I do not need anyone to quote statistics because I have them. What I want is personal feelings and why. Allow me to start because I intend on bringing up this very issue….and again, my chances are very good at being at the table on the town hall.

    First, as I posted, the top three leading death issues (notwithstanding health issues) in the US are cars, poison, and guns….in that order. When you go to the FBI actual statistics, I was very surprised. Not included in one of the research areas that I went to was the number of falls that resulted in deaths… out numbered gun deaths by a two to one margin.I was surprised.

    I had an interesting discussion with a liberal the other day on this subject. I used the analogy of a gun in the home, cleaning detergents in the kitchen, and a car in the garage. I tried to keep it simple. ( I can now add the ladder ) but for this discussion, I will not.

    The main argument that I got from the young lady was that cars are necessary to drive kids to school, to get groceries, to go to the doctor and that makes it a different subject. She went on to say that guns are not necessary for anything except killing people. She said that comparing cars and guns, regardless of the number of deaths is an unfair comparison. One is of necessity and, therefore, worth the risk. My retort was that we are not assessing risk, we are assessing deaths and the fact is that there are more deaths while operating a motor vehicle and that if you wish to assess risk…..there is a far greater risk of vehicle deaths because of the number of miles driven than there is of a loaded weapon sitting out in the open.

    My second point is going to be to assess the infant death rate concerning guns, poisoning, and cars. Again, the infant rate in vehicle deaths and poisonings is fifteen times the infant death rate with guns, and that includes mass shootings at schools.

    My third point is from the FBI which shows that the murder rate using weapons other than guns out numbers the murder rates using guns. For example, the homicide rate using clubs and knives far outpaced the number of gun deaths. ( this from talking personally to the FBI and the City of Fort Worth Police Department ).

    So, we put a gun on the table, household products under the sink, and a car in the garage. Would someone please argue why there is a difference? If you outlaw one, why not the others if you assess risks as well as actual.

    Please keep the discussion civil and no name calling. I am genuinely interested as this is going to be a campaign issue in Texas, of all places.

    • I’d just like to throw something out to you sir. Came from a C-Span guest (a black conservative) two weeks ago. His point is that we must stop allowing the left to set the agenda in words of their choice.

      Regarding Amendment 2. Think about this for a moment. The left argues that the amendment protects the Military, National Guard, State Guard, Army Reserve etc. to keep and bear arms not the individual. THIS IS AN INSANE ARGUMENT on its face. Why an amendment to protect the military? Without their arms, they would not be a military at all. So, the business about claiming well regulated militia refers to the organized military is pure unadulterated BS. Being drawn into that argument is playing into their hands and letting them set the agenda.

      next time someone brings that up in a conversation, try to turn it back by asking, “Why do you think the founders wanted to protect the Army? What was the need for that?”. Folks, that I think is an unanswerable question and only an idiot would try. .

    • I remember once hearing Sen. Kennedy argue that if we could save one child’s life, just one child by banning guns we ought to. I’ve always tried to counter that that with anything from roller skates to 5 gallon compound buckets. Regarding cars, well, we should do away with all this suburban housing, bring back the density of the old cities where children could walk, certainly not bicycle, to school and a grocery store would be on every corner. If only one, just one child’s life could be saved by doing this, it would be well worth it. Who the hell needs cleaning products anyway? Plain old soap and water should be good enough. Got a clog in your pipe, call a plumber, preferably licensed and unionized.

    • Back when the second amendment was written guns were a part of everyday life, now some people might be able to live their whole life without needing one-this has made people forget that guns are still needed for survival-unfortunately if the people who have forgotten get their way-the day they need that gun they may not have one.

      Let’s see, I must take my child to school-I must stop the person who just broke into my house from killing my child-hmmm. I wonder which is really more important.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, I held back my comments until I could think them over and not just jump up and go all knee jerk, even though that what I’m gonna say might seem like, LOL.

      First. as you said, the 2nd Amendment is not up for negotiations. Then why even give her a floor to speak on? She can’t dream of fulfilling any promise of gun control to her constituents, period. So attempting to do so would make her a LIAR, again.

      Statistically speaking, all that should be brought up is the gun crime rates in the Democratic cities with the most restrictive gun control laws. Chicago comes to mind and what a horrible failure that Democratic policies truly are.

      Just some thoughts! 🙂

      • This is true, Gman…..but I will not run the show…..all that anti gun nits do is bring up how many deaths are caused by an inanimate object…..and disregard the rest.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Had a police shooting about a block or two away on Friday night. At least it was not a continuation of the theme shown here all together to many times. The police stopped a guy late at night who was riding a bike. No light, maybe? The person started running away, the police followed in pursuit on foot. The person, turned and shot one officer in the face, and the other in the leg. The officer with the leg wound shot and killed the assailant. The officer with the head shot died today. The witnesses quessed that the “suspect” didn’t want to get caught with the gun, he was not suppose to have. Just released from prison in Florida, but had several felony arrests since the 90’s and prison time. The officer who died, had just started on the force, and was a Marine Corp. reservist. spent and survived 2 tours in Afghanistan only to be shot and killed here.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Sir…I found the report that showed 31K deaths by firearms in 2010. I cross checked the “homicide” by firearms with the FBI statistics for 2010. The FBI statistics showed only 8874 where the report stated 11015. The biggest bulk of the 31K was suicide of just under 20K for the year of 2010. Roughly double the rate of either report.
          Australia has one of the toughest gun control laws going in the world. Their suicide rate did not decrease with the gun ownership restrictions. The suicider just chose a different method.
          My opinion to your open question, is that the progressives or whoever truly believe the Constitution is just an obstacle and just getting in the way of things that they believe need to be done for our own well-being. Since Wilson, there have been continual references to the Constitution as an obsolete contract with the people and should reflect the changing times by being a “living” document. The whole idea of the Constitution was it can be changed, but not on a whim and must be passed by super majority of the people. Not an easy thing to do. Case in point the ACA. If it is a “RIGHT” to have affordable healthcare, then take the time to sell it as an ammendment. Then it will be a right. Unfortunately the opposite number of people disagree with the ACA as a right and could never be passed as an ammendment. So political and parlimentary tricks were utilized besides just outright lying. And were backed up by the equally politicized SCOTUS. Unfortunately the same tactics are being used to “Infringe” on the second ammendment to the Constitution.
          Or let’s take one more debated issue here. 329K legal abortions in the US in 2010. Thats 10X any amount of deaths by firearm. Especially when contraception is readily available literally for the asking and I believe far less traumatic to use than to resort to an abortion. Just think of the dent that would have been made in the 15K HIV deaths in 2010 if safe sex was practiced amongst consenting adults who are not monogamous. Yes I do know that there are other means to contract HIV, like dirty needles, transfusions etc, but much rarer.

          • Thanks Dale….and you are finding what I am when it comes to reporting statistics. I actually went to the FBI HQ in Dallas and they were very willing to talk with me and show me the actual reports. What I found very interesting is how cherry picked the numbers are when reported on BOTH sides of the media.

            But what I did find was that guns are not the problem that people are bringing out. I then checked with the trauma center at our Tarrant County ( Fort Worth ) hospital and the Dallas county hospital and got the figures on falls and poisonings and traffic accidents. Every single category outnumbered the homicide and accidental shootings by a 2 and 3 to 1 margin. Throw in heart attacks and health and guns are far down the list.

            The lady, Wendy Davis, that is running for governor is going to put gun control and abortions in her platform. She made a direct statement yesterday that comparing deaths from guns and “incidents” of abortion are not comparable and should not be thought of the same. However, a news reported DID ask her……Why do you refer to abortion victims as “incidents” and you refer to gun victims as deaths…..and her retort was…..see, there is an example of improper reporting….twisting my words. TO WHICH, the reporter asked….then, maam, please tell me the difference between aborting a fetus, which is a death, and a homicide victim, which is a death……………to which she gave a classic answer……….”well, if you cannot see the difference, I certainly am not going to waste time to explain it.”

            And this woman wants to be governor.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              The difference which is self evident to her is that a fetus is not a person but an IT, much like a wart that at will can be removed. If I was a businessman and I looked at trying to solve the reasons for death. I’d make a pareto chart ranking from most to least. I’d spend my assets on those items that give me, pardon the pun, a bigger bang for the buck. Death as you say by firearms would be way down on the list. Death is not the issue, “CONTROL” is. It is easy to control the population when the only people that have guns is the State. The latest surveys on trust and being suspicious of your fellow citizen is at an all time low. For any number of reason. There is an old adage “Divide and Conquer”. When everybody is divided for some reason it is hard to band together into a large enough group to affect the State. Look at how the former DHS secretary tried to paint the veterans of the M/E wars. Made them look like wacked out psychos. Enough said this morning.

            • Was looking for this. I’m sure that stats can be attacked but the “homicides” include gang violence as do the number of “youths” who die by gun violence.


              While comparing US suicides to japan is pointless, cultural differences being what they are, comparing the US suicide rate to Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries is a better match. They have a lot of gun control and a lot of suicide.

              • Guns are, at the end of the day, a tool. A means to an end.

                Suicide is independent of the means by which that suicide is achieved. Sure, it might be easier to pull a trigger than, say, jump off a bridge, but it’s sort of meaningless to fault the tool in the case of suicides.

                For this reason, I have always argued that the “death totals” for guns should exclude suicide. Similarly, it should (if it doesn’t already) exclude anything ruled “justifiable homicide (ie, self defense, etc).

                I think it’s disingenuous to inflate the number of deaths like this.

              • Good for you!

                Another interesting thing as you jump around in the statistics world. Whenever you see numbers on out of control cities like DC, Chicago, Detroit, both the left and right will argue it is because of the easy availability (in the hands of bad folks) or the lack of easy availability of guns (in the hands of the good folks.) What they seem to miss (on purpose?) is that NYC used to lead the pack with 2,000 + murders per year. Now NYC was always, since 1912, hard on guns and is just as hard and not harder on them now as it was in 1988 yet the murder rate has plummeted.

                One must ask why? Answer: law enforcement and better policing! But of course, this suits neither side’s purpose.

                Where the government does not do its job,, private firearms ownership is not just the answer but a necessity. Where it does do the job, guns become not so necessary.

              • Answer: law enforcement and better policing!

                That’s only half the answer.

                The other half is socio-economic.

                Poor and un-educated people get involved in gangs and drug trafficking. People with opportunities and education less so.

                Say what you want, but NY has far better education and opportunities than, say, Detroit. Far from perfect, of course, but still miles better.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Absolutely wrong.

                The poor do not get into gangs.

                Those who have a belief in entitlements get into gangs. The poor work hard not to be poor – but those that believe others owe them a living, but are disappointed with the lifestyle tend toward gangs.

                You will not solve gangs by giving them more welfare – you create worse. You create an economy of money-for-nothing in the hands of people who do nothing, who then tend to go to drugs to relieve them of their self-imposed boredom and droll life..

              • Where it does do the job, guns become not so necessary.

                Might I be able to persuade you to go a step further..

                “Where [government] does do the job [of law enforcement], [private legal ownership of] guns becomes <strike not so necessary a potential source of more trouble than it’s worth in the form of accidents and lost/stolen weapons.”

                Even if you don’t agree, might you concede the possibility that the above is correct?

              • Black Flag® says:

                But that never works.

                When the power of violence in concentrated into the hands of the few, with the rest disarmed, it will be no mystery that those few use their arms to enslave the many.

                When violent power is broadly distributed, such enslavement is near impossible.

              • Chicken and egg, cart before the horse? I would say that things got better in NYC because crime went down. Certainly Real Estate value went through the roof, the place became VERY desirable again. Jersey City improved for the same reasons. Basics have not changed that much over the past twenty-five years but when you stop worrying about your safety you have more time to devote to worrying about (and solving) your other problems.

                I think that the DeBlasio mayoralty will either fail or begin the failure of the city because lessons have been forgotten and the new generation in NYC does not have a memory of the total unmitigated chaos of the ’70’s and ’80’s. There is an independent Civilian Complaint Review Board in place (which the PD fought against) and an Internal Affairs division within the NYPD and the Mayor adds an IG? And the IG just happens to be a Civil Rights lawyer? Wouldn’t want to be a cop now.

                You make an excellent point which I have thought about. However, history tells us that everything is cyclical. It also tells us that once something has been given up (a right) it is almost impossible to get it back. Despite Supreme Court rulings on softening the DC and Chicago gun bans, Chicago, in particular, still keeps throwing up new and more devious restrictions in an effort to prevent private ownership. Most interesting recently is the ban on firearms dealerships within the city. The city now wants you to go outside the city to buy and yet the city for over 40 years has claimed that part, a big part, of its problem comes from dealerships outside the city and outside their control/supervision!

                Do I think that the possibility exists? certainly but then again, nothing is set in concrete. Once bad things get out of hand again, what then? Accidents per 100,000 have continued to fall for the past 50 years if not more and stolen guns while an issue are not a major issue. I can still remember when cases disappeared from the Police Property Clerks office along with a whole bunch of dope, when they broke into the Ft. Dix armory and made off with a couple hundred weapons and when a load of Glocks destined for a PD disappeared from JFK airport.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The fact that suicides do not receed when firearms are taken out of the equation and another method is used. That is why I use the FBI stats and they show roughly 8-9 thousand homicides by firearms of all types on average in the US. That is miniscual compared to deaths caused by medical errors annually in the US. But addressing that problem will mean tackling two of the most powerful lobbies in the US. The NRA is an amateur group compared to the AMA and the Bar Association.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                When the cops and politicains get bored, then THEY become the problem (Politicians have always been bored, LOL). Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are a huge deterrent to those who want to do evil, period. Even in the areas that have the least crime, it stays that type of area because of the deterrent. Guns are a tool, that can be used in the same way anything else can be used, good or evil. 😀

    • Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or “the right of the people” peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Amendment II

      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.

      Amendment IV

      “The right of the people” to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      The same words “the right of the people” appear in the 1st, 2nd & 4th amendments. No one would argue that the first and fourth amendment rights do not belong to and apply to individuals. Why then would the framers intend the same words in the second amendment to apply to the people in aggregate as an organized, regulated militia?

      • And then there is the Texas answer……in liberal enclave Austin…….the flag flying in front of the capitol at the rotunda…….the canon with the words…come and take it.

  32. How Unborn Babies Become ‘Clinical Waste’
    Jeff Jacoby | Mar 30, 2014

    Jonathan Swift was being satirical when he penned his “modest proposal” that destitute Irish parents alleviate their financial woes by selling their children as delicacies for rich landowners. He assured his readers that 1-year-olds are delicious, “whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.”

    That was satire circa 1729. Imagine what Swift at his most scathing would write today — say, a 21st-century “modest proposal” to use unborn fetuses for renewable energy.

    But this — from a prominent story last week in The Telegraph, a British newspaper — wasn’t satire:

    “The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found. Ten [National Health Service] trusts have admitted burning fetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat. . . . At least 15,500 fetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ discovered.”

    At Addenbrooke’s, a hospital in Cambridge, England, the fetuses from 797 miscarriages and abortions were burned in a facility designed to generate electricity and heat. Releases given to the women by the hospital had specified only that the remains would be “cremated.” Elsewhere, according to the Channel 4 broadcast that broke the story, hospital staff were more candid. After suffering a miscarriage, 35-year-old Cathryn Hurley recalled in an interview, she asked the nurse what would happen to the baby she had just lost. She was told it would be incinerated with the rest of the day’s clinical waste.

    “That was really difficult to hear,” said Hurley, her voice trembling. “Because to me, it wasn’t the day’s waste. It was my baby. It would have been nice to have some kind of choice about it — to, kind of, mark that baby’s life — and there was nothing within the hospital that gave us that opportunity.”

    The exposé set off a furor, and British officials quickly condemned the practice. Clearly, the thought of burning unborn babies to heat hospitals horrifies many people. But just as clearly it doesn’t horrify everyone, or there would have been no scandal to expose.

    An Addenbrooke’s spokesman told the Daily Mail that the hospital used to dispose of fetal remains in dignity at the Cambridge City Crematorium. It decided to switch to its own main incinerator — the same one it uses to burn trash and recover energy — when the crematorium raised its prices. Hospital managers were facing budgetary pressures, and needed to be “careful with the use of limited resources.”

    From a strictly utilitarian point of view, why not? Not only did the hospital save £18.50 per cremation, it helped cut energy costs as well. It doesn’t make any difference to the fetus how it’s disposed of. Why should it make a difference to us?

    The answer used to be self-evident: Human beings are more than mere flesh, more than just one organism among all other organisms. Death doesn’t transform us into “clinical waste,” suitable for recycling or fueling an industrial heating system. Human beings have moral agency; that is what elevates us above every other creature. It is why human rights are intrinsic and universal, it is why human life must be treated with dignity — and why human remains must be handled with dignity when we die. And yes, it’s why even the remains of an unborn baby should be treated respectfully.

    But we live a dehumanizing age. Our culture makes it easy to scoff at the quaint notion that in every human being is a spark of something divine. It requires a determined pushback not to grow jaded or callous, or to let human exceptionalism be reduced to little more than market value or a bundle of appetites. The renowned Princeton philosopher Peter Singer was asked a few years ago to identify a value today that will vanish within the next few decades. His answer: “The sanctity of life.” He looked forward to the day when only a handful of eccentrics will “defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.” That, in Singer’s view, will mark an advance. The same influential thinker argues that there is nothing inherently wrong with breeding children in order to harvest their organs, or with permitting disabled infants to be killed for up to a month after birth.

    Anything can be rationalized, including the money-saving convenience of heating hospitals with dead fetuses. Our humaneness is rarely more than a thin veneer, and it takes less effort than most of us realize to peel it off, releasing the barbarism beneath.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, much like the Lefts desire for gun control, there is only one option to achieve both, anti-abortion and anti-guns, that would be an Amendment to the US Constitution. Nothing else will fix anything involving those two issues, ever. In your shoes, you need a new Amendment, so get to work, nothing else will really matter. Much like the gun grabbers, all the babble will achieve nothing, they too need an Amendment. I would give yours a better chance than theirs, if it means anything. 🙂

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It’s a label that has stuck for decades, and you’re hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

    But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

    The richest: New York’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan’s Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

    Per capita income in Maloney’s district is $75,479. That’s more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

    Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That’s about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

    Democrats say the “party of the rich” label is more about policies than constituents.

    During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, “We’re not the party of the rich. We’re the party of the people who want to get rich.”

    The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

    “My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

  34. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Couldn”t help but log a comment.

    Today apparently is the anniversary of the “Civil Rights Act” of 1964. Listened to a commentary on NPR. I believe the conventional wisdom has it that the Republican party was against this “Democratic” bill. As it turns out a Republican Senator is the one who worked all the deals that enabled it to pass, who was a staunch civil rights activist and had family roots back to the abolishionist “Party of Lincoln” days. When the vote went to the Senate and House, there were a greater percentage of Republicans who voted for the bill in both houses than Democrats.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good to see your still dropping by. Yes it is something to watch the Dems claim that THEY passed Civil Rights then claim that Reagan was elected by “converting” all the “Southern Democrats” who were of course just a bunch of racists mad over the Civil Rights Act.

      Credibility is not a Democratic Party strong point.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        And the Dems keep trying to change history! Even Mathius has said he believes the BS that’s been spewed about the past in the Liberal run indoctrination centers, AKA, public schools and colleges.

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    I didn’t know it was football season. I see the Eagles beat the Texans today 14 to 10.

    Oh wait…………… that was the Phillies over the Rangers. Maybe those two teams should have looked into some “pitching” help in the off season.

    • Pitching?????/There is supposed to be pitching????? Don’t you find it ironic, since the Rangers got rid of Nolan Ryan…..they have not won. He was a believer in pitching and it got hem to the world series twice…..of course, he was a pitcher…..but since he got cross wise with them on drafting…..he has now gone to be with his son at Houston….be interesting to see what happens there.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    The SUPER RICH are getting even richer than the Just Plain Rich. That is the 0.1% are now making over $6million per year, on average. Oh my, Oh me. The article I read made sure to mention how many Bankers, Financiers, Stock Brokers, Managers, Ex. Officers etc comprised the 0.1%. But they never mentioned anyone else. So I thought the following table of Baseball Salaries for 2013 would be interesting.

    Wonder why these people never get mentioned? Or how about the other jocks or those Hollywood types?

  37. Dallas< Texas….. today……a man walks into a restaurant and walks up to the cashier, pulls out a pistola and demands the money. There were only three patrons at the time…one elderly man with a cane, and two others. So, what happens,….the elderly man gets up walks directly to the would be robber and smashed the hell out of him, making him drop the weapon and run from the restaurant while at the same time, one of the others took a cell phone picture while the other one called 911….you gotta love Texas…..

    Fortunately for the would be robber,none of the three were armed….

    and what are the talk show pundits saying…..including Fox news……..

    They are chiding the man with the cane for being stupid and confronting the robber. One hundred percent of the pundits are saying how wrong it was to confront the robber saying that they would not do that….they could have been killed. Poor robber….got smacked by a cane. When the old man was asked why he did it…..his answer was…..every time you turn your head to a crime and do nothing about it…..all you do is encourage more crime. He went on to say, I am sick and tired of this generation doing nothing…..some one needs to.

    He is probably a veteran but no one asked..

  38. Interesting fact by the Rand Corporation….They are widely considered pretty accurate, I believe. ( Not sure about this, tho )

    Obama today claimed 7.1 million people signed up. ( I think everyone on here, the left included,knows that is bogus, but let us go with it anyway ). Obama claimed that 40 million people were without insurance……and Obamacare was going to solve this…….

    apparently the real numbers are…….only 1.6 million people that previously had NO insurance have signed up and of that…only 858,000 have actually paid. They counted in the signup, people that already had insurance that Obamacare destroyed and a widening of medicaid….in other words.,,,,,,only 858,000 that had no insurance previously have signed up and paid.

%d bloggers like this: