Never Again, Again?

I would like to talk about the recent Ft. Hood shooting.  I hope I do this right and don’t come out looking for someone to blame.  Sadly, murder/suicide’s  are something that happens everywhere.  I don’t want to call them “normal” but people do go nuts and decide to blame others.  I think both the left & right are prone to use something like this to direct the narrative to fit their agenda.  Ex.

Woman with gun saves live again?  It’s true, but it’s also true they were MP’s or military police officers.  A point made, everyone except the MP’s are unarmed by policy set by our government.  A military base with thousands, even hundreds of thousands of firearms, but all safely locked away.  Thousands of soldiers trained in their use denied access when the need presents itself.  And this is after the first Ft. Hood shooting, when lessons were to be learned.  This is after the Naval Yard shooting.  And now everyone who hears this story wonders why this wasn’t prevented.  If we can’t make our military bases safe, what place in America can be safe?

Myself, I think safety is an illusion.  If someone snaps and decides to start killing others, you can’t stop them.  If you look them in the eye seconds before their rampage starts, what are they guilty of?  Looking pissed at the world or just you because you cut them off in heavy traffic?  We have a false sense of security because this madness is rare.  How many firearms are in America & how many gun owners?  What percentage use them illegally?  We are pretty safe.  But it’s safety in statistics, not personal safety.  You are unlikely to have an airplane fall on you.  You are unlikely to be shot.  There is no practical defense against an airplane falling on you.  There is a practical defense against getting shot.  Defend yourself.  It used to even be government approved.  My first thought after hearing he had PTSD was on the backlog at the VA being a factor.  I still think that  is a factor.  How many of us have courted a stroke after wasting hours waiting/arguing with some bureaucrat that doesn’t seem accountable to anyone?  Now imagine they are the ones that decide what & when you will receive medical care.  But, supposedly the suicides are linked to a different cause.

” The study, published online by The Journal of the American Medical Association, corroborates what many military medical experts have been saying for years: that the forces underlying the spike in military suicides are similar to those in the civilian world. They include mental illness, substance abuse, and financial and relationship problems.  “

Hmmm, this says to me that it’s all Obama’s fault!  (Joking)(but it’s true, Obama has made his opposition & supporters crazy)  But with the recession ending with a stagnant economy, record numbers added to welfare, a reduction in the # of people in the workforce, a 17% increase in food prices (substance abuse?  pot’s legal but costs 400% more?).  Heck, the real mystery is why so few are going off the edge!  But back to the shooting.  The accounts I’ve heard say he went to a couple different offices & then shot the unarmed men there.  He was stopped when he ran into an armed MP.  I think this defines the argument into two things.  Either every office & like gathering place needs & gets armed security or you have to allow non-LEO’s to be armed & to allow them to defend themselves.

To those injured or who have lost a loved one, my deepest sympathies and may God comfort you.



PS, John Lott has some things to say.  Media Matters & several other liberal org’s aren’t happy with him…



  1. And to all vet’s, I’m not a vet, so forgive any transgressions made on PTSD or other experienced only you who have served would have….

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Good subject LOI! I don’t hide my belief in the personal responsibility to protect oneself. When a law, where ever said law applies, denies a person that basic right, then those who made that law happen should be held responsible, just as much as the criminal, for knowingly denying good law abiding sane people the basic rights that are supposed to be protected by the very people who deny them. The insanity of NOT allowing concealed carry, unabated, by law abiding citizens , anywhere, should be a crime in this country. To me, that means that those who deny that right, are therefore responsible for the absolute protection of those on that property.

    But let’s face reality. A mall in the West side of town who denies concealed carry, then has a mass shooting with many deaths will never be held liable, because of to many Left Wing losers in government. The only way that will change is when the Left Wing losers start felling the pain of being a victim of their own idiotic decisions. That day will come, but at the hands and illegal guns of the very people who voted them into office. All of whom are jerks!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why people are totally stupid, start with the government indoctrination centers, WTF:

    • Thanks G!. I wanted to let some time pass. Sad thing, I haven’t followed this very closely. My wife & I were talking today & this came up, she had heard it was more about two men fighting who happened to be soldiers…. Hope I haven’t screwed up to many facts…

      As for you mall if/when there’s a shooting. It’s not the malls fault he chose their business to go postal at, nothing they could reasonably do to prevent unreasonable people from attacking their customers.. After all, don’t they have “security”? Careful there bub, don’t make them whip out their walkie talkie on you…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It’s all good! Where I live, there are no such restrictions in malls and such. There are also no shootings around here either. I don’t think people going off is just limited to cities, but apparently the results are quite different. You were quite correct on the Ft. Hood shooter, he saw a gun, it ended there. I would bet it would have never happened if CC was legal on base.

        I saw an albino doe Saturday. First one in this area ever that I have seen. What a beautiful animal. I will not shoot an albino doe, ever. That is just something that should be left alone and seen for it’s beauty!

        • I see a few places with the crossed out gun image. Most don’t make it too noticeable, where you won’t see it if you don’t look for it. I tend to not look at store windows, advertisements & such. More people watching and being aware of my surroundings.

          Cool thing to see, if it’s your property you might feed her up, increase her survival chances. But don’t talk about it locally, JimBobBillyJoe, etc will want that trophy. My in-law has started saying he’s killed all the hogs in the area because so many are showing interest. Nope, haven’t seen a thing lately…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Folks up here won’t kill an albino, due to Indian history. Brings ten years bad luck, LOL. She’ll be fine. I don’t really see any “no gun signs” up here. The hospital has them, but don’t enforce it, saying it’s for insurance reasons. Makes sense. My van windows are loaded with pro gun stickers, like about 20 of them now. Had a State cop ask me about Oathkeepers one day, he later became a member!

            Turkeys are seen daily now, saw another 30 or so Saturday, nice flock. Hoping to see some bear this year, I need an cool blanket! 🙂

  3. LOI…there is no excuse for not letting the military carry their weapons. This is a Bill Clinton era thing. We were allowed to carry them before he took office and he stopped it. Bush did not restart it and neither has Obama. Mp’s are fine and well trained but they are not everywhere and it takes time to respond. Many lives could have been saved and should have been. I also blame commanders for not pushing the agenda.

    Police Officers are not as well trained as soldiers and they carry their weapons in the office and off duty. The CIA, the FBI, even friggin’ IRS agents all carry weapons on and off duty. Why not the military. It is criminal.

    As to PTSD….,most soldiers that have been in combat have it. It is nothing of which to be ashamed. I have it and have had for years. I still have nightmares, although infrequent now and I still cannot sit with my back to a door. I notice all exits and means to escape every time I walk into somewhere. This is not paranoia…it is training and awareness. I carry a weapon every where I go…..except on base where we have to check them. It is ridiculous and it will continue to happen

    The blame is on the Pentagon and the politically appointed generals. They will not stand up against the POTUS or they will be fired. The military has become totally political now and that is a shame. When officers are afraid to stand up for their troops….you have a problem.

    Fort Hood was a tragedy the first time, the Navy Yard, and Fort Hood again. It will not stop.

    • Got into a film discussion the other day regarding the best DI portrayals on screen. Despite Lee Ermy’s excellent DI, I still feel that Jack Webb did it better and without profanity in the “DI”! As I was watching the 1957 Webb movie, I noted that he carried, on his class “B”s, the Colt Model 1911A1. I remember having a Captain from the 11th ARCAV in ’69 who was fond of carrying one around to impress the succession of ladies he brought on the base. Occasionally he would wear his leopard print dickie, his Aussie style boonie hat and once we saw him with a bandolier of M-60 ammo.

    • Have to wonder why Bush didn’t restore it? But Ft. Hood happened after his term…

  4. Live by the sword, die by the sword

    • Good morning, BF…..unfortunately… today’s world… without the sword and you will still die by one. Nothing has changed in thousands of years except the weaponry. You and I both know the real world….man will not leave man alone.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good day Black Flag, Your statement means many things to many people, but if a person is always in conflict with other people, it most certainly is correct. Most of us have guns that we use for hunting and shooting targets for fun. I live in a nice area of the country with little crime, yet, most carry a concealed handgun. There are no Wild west shootouts (like the Liberal’s think will happen when most people carry guns). Probably the most common use is to put down a deer after being struck by a car.

      But, like D13 said, we live in a violent world with violent people. One never knows when some nut will come along and decide to do harm to people. The recent incident in Detroit comes to mind where a child was hit by a pickup truck, the driver stops to render aid (as well as abide by law) and he is attacked by a gang of barbarians. Had he been armed, it’s possible that no violence would have occurred at all. Even a gang of thugs know better than to attack an armed man.

      For the record, I have two swords as well. just for looks 😉

      • Do not confuse a man who finds the need to use violence in order to resist it to be the same man who seeks to use violence as his career.

        • “Live by the sword, die by the sword”
          So like if I’m attacked by a Ninja, not a real one, but some lame @ss wannabe, and if he like runs into my sword that I was holding because I was cleaning it before hanging it back on my wall, because I just have it because I think it looks cool & chicks dig it, and well anyway, he charges me yelling & screaming and just runs into my sword….

          He was foaming at the mouth mad & gonna kill me with a sword. I killed him instead, with a sword. I live because of the sword….Now I gotta die by the sword? Why, I mean is this some freaking Ninja curse or something. What if I sell it on E-Bay? (kinda like to keep it to impress the chicks, what with the newspaper photo’s “Man kills sword wielding intruder with sword”! Man, it’s like babarama, but it’s not worth dying for, no chicks when your dead…unless your a Muslim or a Zombie, but I don’t want to go there….

          • Either you’re drunk or you need to get drunk quick 🙂

            • Just having a little fun…Sat. in a restaurant I heard ” I can’t Get no Satisfaction” playing overhead, sang by a woman…. Occurred to me, should have been sang by a woman from the start….

          • “Live by the sword, die by the sword”


            As always, if you make up a fantasy story, you get a fantasy conclusion.

            Where, in anything did I say, resemble anything about this fairy tale you propose?

            Do not pretend your make-believe nonsense represents an argument.

            • Well I thought I was making up a funny story, but OK, it’s a fantasy.

              But what does “Live by the sword, die by the sword” mean? That would depend on the individual. Each of us will probably have a slightly different thought on the meaning(s). To me, it would mean one who lives a violent life, usually initiating force against others will come to a violent ending. But is the same not true for those who take up arms to defend against violence? Do most LEO’s not expect or prepare for a violent incident, possibly their last? Most people that run into burning buildings expect to get burned.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The phrase has always meant what you first describe. A life of violence against others.

                To Live By is the key, not “to live” due to.

                Anyone claiming otherwise is ignoring the historical context. It is just word games for whatever reason.

  5. LOI unfortunately, I don’t have anything to add to your commentary except this: Three cheers to the FEMALE MP who took care of business at FT. Hood. Don’t mess with the Mama Grizzlies! (that was so I wouldn’t get in trouble for ignoring your topic 😉

    Colonel…update on the Egg hunt in Dearborn…Seems the Arab community and religious leaders are fit to be tied over this ONE LAWYER who’s child “said he felt uncomfortable about an egg hunt”.

    Leaders from Dearborn’s Arab-American community gathered at Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church Sunday morning, showing their support for what they call an event for the entire community that will include an egg hunt and relay race, among other things.

    Osama Siblani, local activist and publisher of the Arab American News, said he believes recent news reports of a furor over flyers being distributed at a public school in Dearborn for the church’s Eggstravaganza planned for Saturday did not reflect the feelings of the majority of the region’s 46,000 Arab Americans.

    “We’re here to support the church as Muslims and Arabs,” he said Sunday morning, standing outside the church’s rear entrance with leaders from the church and the Arab-American community. “We believe the church is doing the right thing bringing the community together, bringing our children together so we can understand each other and love each other.”

    Attorney Majed Moughni, who is Muslim and has two young children in Dearborn elementary schools, told the Free Press last week that his children were upset by receiving at school the flyer for Eggstravaganza, which includes images of eggs and a bunny. “My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools,’ ” Moughni had said.

    There is more at the link. You go Arab leaders! That’s the way it’s supposed to happen!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That is very good new Anita! It’s nice to see people getting along for a change!

      • Yes, indeed!

        VH, just saw your post on the previous page. Didn’t mean to steal your thunder, I have it covered here too 🙂

    • Oops, didn’t see this until after I posted mine. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      This is very TELLING:

      “We’re here to support the church as Muslims and Arabs,”

      • I’m listening…..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Should have at least stated “Arab-AMERICANS” but preferably Americans from the Muslim community.

          Remember some time back I commented that those from the middle east self identify First as Muslim then according to their Tribe. In this case Arab.

          When to they ever begin to identify as Americans??

          The actions they took regarding the egg hunt are great and should be commended. Evidence that many have looked for with respect to the Muslims actually doing something to show their “moderate” view.

          My comment is to the “identity” they select in viewing themselves. Much the same as those “Mexicans” who view themselves as Mexican first, second and last.

    • Sedgewick says:

      That’s awesome!

      It makes want to take back what I said on the last thread. I was under the impression there was an issue.

      Someone says the Muslims are aggravated with the Christians, when in reality, they’re just neighbors looking out for each other.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And what this attorney should have been doing, instead of making a public fuss over the issue, is explaining and – dare I say it – teaching his children about the differences in having an activity on property owned by a church and having a religious activity on the property. A teaching moment the parent failed to used to the betterment of the understanding of his children.

  6. gmanfortruth says:
  7. gmanfortruth says:

    On subject:

    Here’s the thing about liberalism, which is really cultural Marxism, euphemistically tagged “progressivism”: It’s never worked and it never will. It can’t. It’s a material impossibility. “Progressivism” can no more work than can one answer a nonsense question like, “How big is blue?” As with all similar such humanistic efforts to achieve a man-made earthly utopia, “progressivism” is a hopeless non-starter.

    Why? Because “progressivism” is utterly detached from reality. There’s truth, and then there’s “progressivism.” Central to every single “progressive” policy, without exception, is the fatally flawed denial of the existence of sin – of man’s fallen nature. There’s also a stupidly stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of moral absolutes. “Progressivism” is built upon a utopian, relativist house of cards; and when that house comes crashing down, the results are often deadly.

    This past Wednesday America witnessed liberalism’s deadly results first hand. A public policy that intentionally disarms American citizens – much less American soldiers – is a policy that creates a pond full of sitting ducks; this, whether we have a terrorist behind the trigger, or a government with designs on tyranny.


  8. gmanfortruth says:
    • Interesting read although at the end he seems to equate the NJ Bridge thing with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal and all the money poured into “alternative” energy companies that were failing even as the money started rolling in. Somehow this “equivalency” does not quite speak to me.

  9. Have you caught up to this letter? California college student has written a call to action letter on the rights of the students to party up and destroy the town. This stuff really gets me pissed. I’ve been saying this for at least 26 years since my daughter was born, and I’m going to rant some more. When the (bratty) kids were little, I said I wanted to slap their parents. Now they’re college age and I’d still like to slap the parents! College age kids theses days have parents my age. Bring it parents! It will be a fair fight.

    just as I am ready to post this, I see it on FOX 😉

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Several years ago there was a student take over of many buildings at UVM in Vermont demanding more diversity. This was at a time when the State was uniformly white. Very few “other” races resided in the state. This was a State University. It reflected the population. We used to say, you want diversity go to Columbia in NYC. Anyway, as long as it was peaceful and no destruction all was well, exercise your freedom of speech. As soon as the students started destroying the insides of the buildings the Governor called in the police, arrested said students and sent the “BILL” for the damages to the parents.
      The year I graduated school in 1970, there always was a traditional TP’ing of the school some days before graduation. In the morning before attending classes the seniors cleaned up the school. However, in 70, the school warned, do the party, but if anything other than the normal mess occured the police will be attending the party and arrests will be made. Anyway, several students were not happy with the normal blowout and proceeded to destroy the principles office, the theater and baseball field resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Each and every senior whether you were there or not was made to pay their allotted percentage of the damage before graduating. No payment, no graduation. Parents didn’t get involved or lawyers. there were 1200 seniors, do the math. The Student Body president was one arrested. His Father bailed him out but only after selling his beautifully restored classic MG for the price of the bail. His Father held the title for insurance purposes so he legitimately could sell it. The car was worth 10X what he sold it for as a lesson to his son for being where he should not have been. Lessoned learned, he grew up and became an advisor to Pres. Carter….take that any way you want. He really was an arrogant shit and got what he deserved.

      just in reading several after school parties resulting in massive police action throughout the nation, makes me think about how different the times are than the 60’s. Serious social upheaval and the Viet Nam war etc. It took a lot of provocation and destruction before the police took actions like they do today with just noise complaints. Do the police really look at the people as the enemy? Just think of what the reaction will be when there is social upheaval like the 60’s and early 70’s. It will make the shutdown of Boston look like a parade. 9/11 changed the world and the transistion of how the government views the people and the excuse to discard just about all our rights in the contract with the people called the constitution.

  10. What do we want or expect from our Commander-in-Chief? I don’t expect them to account for every life lost in service to our country. I do expect them to show remorse for the lives lost. But what I see in a narcissist more interested in fundraising. And this is for the mid-terms, so he’s raising money to play king maker. He is competing with his party’s candidates for campaign contributions. And doing so while paying lip service to those in uniform. He reminds me of the villain in “Despicable Me”, treating our soldiers like his disposable “minions”. I think part of the C-in-C’s job is to give praise when needed, to promote their morale. I think he has failed that job….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Me thinks you have done a disservice to the Villain and his Minions by your associating them with Mr. Obama.

      • You might be right, any seconds? Calls for a vote?
        In my defense, I think the actor (voice) is a flaming liberal. Could be deserved…

        • He has put a real damper on private pilots Wed and Thurs……..because the SOB…errr…..POTUS…..(freudian slip) is coming into the Austin, Houston, and Fort Hood area, there is a PRESIDENTIAL TFR (Temporary flight restriction) that has been put into place. This TFR is a cirlce around the areas preventing flights within a 30 mile radius….for all private aircraft ( business and personal ). In talking with the briefers, all commercial aircraft are prevented from taking of and landing while the jerk….errr….POTUS is on the tarmac.

          Add to this, that since his Air FOrce One cannot land at Fort Hood due to runway restrictions, there is another plane that is flying with his entourage that is carrying his helicopter and 4 limos. There will be a roving TFR while his damn helicopter is in the air.

          The ass needs to just stay away from Fort Hood…..don’t go away mad…just go away.

          Ok…I feel a little better now.

  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. gmanfortruth says:

    No matter what our kids and the new generation
    think about us,

    WE ARE AWESOME !!! and

    To Those of Us Born 1925 – 1975:

    TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930s, ’40s, ’50s, ’60s and ’70s!!

    First, we survived being born to mothers who may have smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

    They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn’t get tested for diabetes. Then, after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies In baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

    We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets,
    And, when we rode our bikes, we had base ball caps, not helmets, on our heads.

    As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes..

    Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

    We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

    We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.

    We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And we weren’t overweight.

    Because we were always outside playing…that’s why!

    We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. –And, we were OKAY.

    We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill,
    only to find out we forgot the brakes…after running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

    We did not have Play Stations, Nintendos and
    X- b oxes.
    There were:
    No video games,
    No 150 channels on
    No video movies or DVDs,
    No surround-sound or CDs,
    No cell phones,
    No personal computers,
    No Internet and No chat rooms.

    And we went outside and found them!
    We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits

    From those accidents. We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping-pong paddles, or just a bare hand and no one would call child services to report

    We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt and the worms did not live in us forever.

    We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, and-although we were told it would happen-we did not put out very many eyes.

    We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.

    Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.

    Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.

    Imagine that!!

    The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

    These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors ever.

    The past 50 to 85 years have seen an explosion of innovation and new ideas..

    We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it

    If YOU are one of those born between 1925-1970,

    Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn’t it

    The quote of the month
    By Jay Leno:

    “With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of
    control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the
    country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and
    terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take

    God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?”

    • Don’t forget playing with toy soldiers and blocks and tinker toys and Lincoln Logs…..toy guns that actually shot little plastic bullets with caps on the back for sound, cork guns and spud guns ( I remember mom getting really pissed when her potatoes had little holes in them from loading our spud guns )…bubble making machines with real soap and you could make bubbles that were a foot in diameter, watching tv with the lights out, wax bottles filled with sugar liquids, and double bubble gum, Boston baked beans and red hots. Taking SALTED peanuts and dropping them into your coke bottle….and tootsie roll pops.

      Now for the nostalgia types…..Hi Fidelity stereo with TWO…count em….TWO speakers. No surround sound…..making rubber band guns and slingshots that shot real BBs….THe Peacock on the first color TV that had only five colors and the advertisements were in color but the movies were not. The saturday double feature with a movie tone news reel AND a cartoon and you could stay and watch it over and over ( Best baby sitter there was ). Go to the movie at nine and watch a double feature and stay over to watch it again.

      Dad with a leather belt that was used when we stepped out of line….the vice principal and his paddle in school when we were disrespectful. Not allowed to go to Proms or school functions if you had failing grades and were not getting tutoring. Cursive, phonics, math, english (properly diagramed), spelling, and history were required subjects in elementary schools.

      And don’t forget…..8 track tapes that took up the entire back seat of your car.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I remember Colonel, oh yes I sure do. 🙂

      • Yes and our phone ring was 3 longs and 2 shorts. We were not allowed to use the phone except in a emergency, When we were taught to pick up the receiver, give it a crank and say “Hello Mary, we need help.”

        Ah, lest I forget there were chores to do. After school we gathered 500 eggs and fed the chickens, chased the drakes when they abused the hens, threw plums at the Zephyr when it passed, rode bikes over frozen puddles and slammed on the coaster brake….

        We built model airplanes and flew them. Did stunts and had dog fights. Crashed and had Viking funerals. We built electric motors using nails, built telegraphs, resurrected old radios and TVs.

        Later on we experimented with chemicals to make rocket fuel. Some went pfft and some when boom. We machined and cast parts for our rockets in shop class, tested the fuels in chemistry, ordered chemicals through the local drug store, and asked the FAA for air clearance when we launched.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Good video about 401k’s. I have said that some day the govt WILL take all retirement accounts and turn them into Treasuries. It’s already begun.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    More training the sheeple on giving up their 4th Amendment rights. What a crock of shit:

  15. dealing with this notion of conspiracies and authorities and what it seems to be coinciding with when Cap returned in the early sixties, and then suddenly ten years later there’s Watergate and he’s gone through the seventies. That’s interesting stuff to me. So we’re sort of pulling from all of those tales for this story. And like the first film was a Marvel superhero origin story masquerading as a World War II propaganda movie, this is a Marvel superhero sequel masquerading as a seventies political thriller.

    And then, frankly, all the stuff that’s happening now with the NSA and the news is just — it’s pretty amazing timing for us because that’s much of what Cap is. That’s the kind of thing Cap doesn’t particularly like — that our fake comic book organization and real life national security organization seem to be doing. Which, again, is always nice when your big, entertaining, fun movie can touch into some aspect of a grounded real world — no matter how crazy that real world may be.

    • Mother Jones writer Asawin Suebsaeng explained, “And though the film’s topical parts were all crafted prior to the NSA revelations, the directors say it’s no accident that data mining is a key element of the plot.” Joe Russo added, “It was all leading up to Snowden…It was all in the ether [already], it was all part of the zeitgeist.”

      The Mother Jones article concluded:

      But at the heart of the explosion and melee -filled film are the political themes, including targeted killing. “The question is where do you stop?” Joe says. “If there are 100 people we can kill to make us safer, do we do it? What if we find out there’s 1,000? What if we find out there’s 10,000? What if it’s a million? At what point do you stop?”

      Obama’s “kill list” drew chiding and worrying from the New York Times on May 29, 2012:

      Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

      In the Washington Times’s review of the new Captain America, Peter Suderman asserted, “…There’s a not-so-subtle political undercurrent, as the story essentially pits Captain America against a radically amped-up version of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance efforts.”

      Read more:

  16. gmanfortruth says:
  17. gmanfortruth says:

    They have crossed the “Red Line.” In the Declaration of Independence it was written,

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    We are at the same crossroads as faced by our Forefathers. There is no other way to look at it. When the list of grievances that drove them to pull the trigger is read, how have We not sunk to the same state?


  18. gmanfortruth says:
  19. As mentioned earlier, what would you do if to get medical treatment, you had to deal with faceless, uncaring bureaucrats? Before you answer, remember that it’s your only option. Deal with them or suffer. At the start of this one article says 22 soldiers commit suicide each day. But that’s half the number WAITING TO BE TREATED BY THE VA???

    With the Veterans Administration (VA) about to face hearings on Capitol Hill regarding preventable deaths in their system, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) released a report exposing the VA ha secretly paid $200 million to settle nearly 1000 wrongful deaths over the decade following 9/11. The VA settlements were broadly based with agreements signed in every state in America, except Alaska.

    The VA officials on April 9th will give sworn testimony regarding preventable deaths to the U.S. House of Representative Committee on VA Affairs. In response to Freedom of Information requests, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) uncovered VA cash payments averaging $150,000 were made for wrongful death claims to “nearly 1,000 grieving families, ranging from decorated Iraq War veterans who shot or hanged themselves after being turned away from mental health treatment, to Vietnam veterans whose cancerous tumors were identified but allowed to grow, to missed diagnoses, botched surgeries and fatal neglect of elderly veterans.”

    As I detailed in my 2013 report “VA Dangerous to Veterans”, Americans have always prioritized caring for the needs of military veterans since our founding as a nation. The Continental Congress of 1776 promised pensions for any disabled veteran of the Revolutionary War. Despite criticism about deficit spending over the last five years, there was universal bipartisan support in Congress for a 41% department-wide VA annual budget increase to $140 billion in 2013.

    That is why it seems depressing that the backlog doubled to over 900,000 for claims pending applications for disability and the number delayed over a year skyrocketed by 2,000%. But regardless of their abysmal performance, senior VA executives were still eligible to collect bonuses of 35% on top of what was deemed lavish pay and benefits.

    With 300,000 employees to provide service-related benefits, Congressional revelations confirmed last year that over the last four years delays for processing disability compensation and benefits were far longer than the 273 days the agency acknowledged. Inspection of VA internal data revealed to investigators that the waiting period for first-time claims was between 316 and 327 days.

    Despite huge funding increases, staffing levels at the 58 regional VA offices increased by less than 300 since September 2010, even as the volume of new claims dramatically increased. The average increase in delay for veterans filing first-time claims in America’s major population centers was twice the national average. Delays equaled 642 days in New York; 619 days in Los Angeles; and 542 days in Chicago. Veterans waiting more than a year for qualification to receive benefits grew from 11,000 in 2009 to 245,000 in December. The error rate for claims processing average 14% and an average of 53 veterans died each day while waiting to qualify.

  20. I see a lot of truth in this-Opinions
    The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays
    Think again.
    April 7 2014 9:04 AM
    Brendan Eich and the New Moral Majority

    By William Saletan

    Many self-styled liberals are celebrating Brendan Eich’s resignation as CEO of Mozilla. They say the company had every right to remove Eich for supporting a 2008 referendum campaign against gay marriage. It’s a matter of free enterprise and community standards, they argue.

    Here’s Michelangelo Signorile in the Huffington Post:

    None of this is about government censorship. It’s about a company based in Northern California which has many progressive employees, and which has a lot of progressives and young people among the user base of its Firefox browser, realizing its CEO’s world view was completely out of touch with the company’s—and America’s—values and vision for the future.

    Tim Teeman makes a similar case in the Daily Beast:

    Eich resigned presumably because he and his company figured the bad publicity they were getting from this, and the financial knock-on on their business, would be adversely affected by the revelation of his Prop 8 donation. … [E]ven a whiff of homophobia can be bad for business. … His prejudiced views are simply not those a company like Mozilla wants to be associated with.

    Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times agrees:

    What about Eich’s right to be CEO of Mozilla? He doesn’t have that right … [H]is personal views were at odds with community standards. Gay rights, including the right to marriage, have indisputably moved into the mainstream of American society, even more so in the communities from which Mozilla draws its employees, business partners and customers. … The tension between Eich’s personal views and corporate and community standards was going to be felt, whether subtly or overtly, in his dealings with employees, customers and business partners. We know this because it already had: protests roiled the staff, the online dating service OKCupid posted a letter on its website encouraging clients to use browsers other than Mozilla’s Firefox, and outside developers expressed dismay with Eich’s elevation.

    That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale.

    The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.

    Twelve years ago, Larry Lane, a former manager at a carpet company, testified before Congress about how he lost his job:

    In the late summer/early fall of 1998, an employee, one of the sales representatives that I supervised, learned that I was gay and “outed” me—that is, told a number of other direct reports in my Region that I was gay—without my knowledge. … [Two of them] informed one of their coworkers that they didn’t want to work for me … [They] told my supervisor that they could not trust me and said that I was secretive. … [M]y supervisor and his boss, the Vice President of Sales, placed me on probation and advised me that my “job was in jeopardy.” They explained that I was “hired to build the team in NY” and that based on feedback from “several of [my] people’” I was failing to get this “critical phase of [my] job done.” They … told me to return to New York and “reflect on what may be causing this dissension among my people.” … [Then they] fired me. When asked if this had anything to do with my performance or work ethic the Vice President of Sales stated, “Let’s just say you don’t fit” …

    Dissension. Building the team. Don’t fit. Sounds a lot like the case for removing Eich.

    Two months ago Wayne Shimer of Des Moines, Iowa, sued his former employer after he was fired from his job at a convenience store. According to Shimer’s lawsuit, the store manager found out Shimer was gay and told him not to act “feminine” because it would “make customers and co-workers uncomfortable.” Shimer’s attorney says the manager made clear that “she didn’t want his ‘feminine behavior’ to scare off the customers, and she was concerned that it may have some impact on some of the employees.”

    Scare off customers. Make co-workers uncomfortable. Does that ring a bell?

    In early February college football player Michael Sam became the first NFL draft prospect to affirm his homosexuality. Some NFL officials welcomed Sam’s statement, but others said it would hurt his draft prospects. “It’d chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room,” a player personnel assistant told Sports Illustrated. A general manager predicted that Sam wouldn’t be drafted at all:

    The question you will ask yourself, knowing your team, is, “How will drafting him affect your locker room?” And I am sorry to say where we are at this point in time, I think it’s going to affect most locker rooms. A lot of guys will be uncomfortable.

    The day before Sam came out, he was projected as the 90th pick on the CBS Sports draft board. By the next day, he was 20 picks lower. Now he’s 227th. Some of the drop has to do with doubts about his talent. But a lot of it has to do with what GMs describe as “the potential distraction of his presence—both in the media and the locker room.”

    Distraction. Uncomfortable. It’s the same old story.

    Losing your job for being gay is different from losing your job for opposing gay marriage. Unlike homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage is a choice, and it directly limits the rights of other people. But the rationales for getting rid of Eich bear a disturbing resemblance to the rationales for getting rid of gay managers and employees. He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.

    It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s liberals. Or, rather, it’s people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.

    • Kinda the point I have been waiting for anybody to make. If you substituted the “sin” everybody would be jumping on the bandwagon condemning the Mozilla corporate reaction. The equation of “homophobia” with being against gay “marriage” though is just plain stupid. While one may be “homophobic” whatever that is, one can be against gay “marriage” for a great many other reasons. It is all a matter of letting the other side control the language, wording and discussion.

      • I’ve been thinking about this since I read it this morning-I’m come to one conclusion-the differences between the left and the right on these issues that is important-isn’t that either side likes discrimination-it’s whether or not the government should have the right to jump in and proclaim what is and isn’t acceptable and enforce those personal views in law.

        • Sedgewick says:

          ” …isn’t that either side likes discrimination-it’s whether or not the government should have the right to jump in and proclaim what is and isn’t acceptable and enforce those personal views in law. ”


          The whole gay marriage thing isn’t really even about homosexuality, and arguably isn’t about religion either, but rather the inadequacy, dysfunction and failure of law.

          Gay marriage only makes a good example to demonstrate this point because it is a messy issue. Religious values that work for some/many, are used as a justification to deny others their place in society.

          Just for perspective, replace all the language of gay marriage with things like adulterers, polygamist or swingers instead of homosexuals.

          Apply it to other things as well. Replace marriage with other licensing, and homosexuals with idolators and bearers of false witness.

          Would you deny a business or building permit because the business promotes ‘false idols’?

          Would you revoke spouses their insurance or tax ‘benefits’ because one of them had an extramarital affair?

          If John and Jane doe invite another woman into their bedroom once a month while their children are at gramma’s for the weekend, are that considered homosexuals or polygamists? Should they have their tax break taken from them?

          Should low-riders and custom hot-rods be outlawed because they are idolatrous?

          Should the media be penalized by law when they report something inaccurately, when they bear false witness?

          • Sedgewick,

            I refuse to be drawn into the argument anymore other than to say there was a reason why marriage under the law became that of one man to one woman. The argument you spell out above is an excellent argument for polygamy.

            There are some things, codified over centuries in law, done for the common good. That they have a religious component merely argues that the founders, practitioners of “religion” got there first. I am not even getting into divine inspiration or revelation but taking religion as a sociological phenomena designed by man, if you will, to keep people from routinely killing each other (bad for society, that).

            Stretch your mind and look at other things that we today are told that society should not judge nor look down on. How many times have you seen the young man or woman trotted out, successful in life or school, raised by a single mother? Hell the entire Oprah network is based on it. Yet you know and I know that this is the exception to the rule.The stats prove it. Single Moms have less education, less money, less job opportunity, and yet their kids follow in their footsteps. Yet, we, those of us who can see this as easily as the nose on our face, are told to shut the F*** up. We don’t know what we are talking about and are either racists or worse judgmental. .

            Just yesterday someone sent this to me. There are holes in the narrative big enough to drive trucks , very big trucks, through. I can almost write a counter argument between the lines and yet this is the “accepted” view held by the enlightened and being shoved down everyone else’s throat.


            The very first article I came up with on Google when I checked for African American single parent households puts the lie to the smiley face above and was produced, perhaps on a different day or when they were on different meds by the same type of enlightened folks. .


            There is a schizophrenia out there among people who have way too much education and absolutely no common sense. The social contract is being shattered around us while the boomers and their successors just keep up with the “don’t mean nothin” mantra regarding the achievements of the last six thousand years of human history (special emphasis on Western history). I was raised and educated in the State of NY whose motto, “Excelsior” was something my parents and teachers took to heart. “Ever upwards” is not well served by falling backwards. Time will of course tell but the lives destroyed in the interim will lamented by the very few who can think. One can only hope for divine justice in the end. Of course these days, I have to listen to preachers of the conventional religions tell me that God is too good to send anyone to hell. Can’t win!

            • You will get no argument from me SK-I was a little shocked when I read Sedgewick’s interpretation of my comment-I will have to keep working on my communication skills.

            • Religion does not exist to stop men from killing one another – it exists as a means to control men.

              Religion, arguably, has killed more men than any other reason – Cain was religious, remember?

              The “common good” is not improved by interfering with the choices of other men by quips of religion. Common good is improved by peaceful relationships, regardless of the sex of the participants.

              To argue that interfering with the peaceful relationships of others – called marriage – is utterly upside down to the cause of the common good.

              • I agree, part of that control is not to kill each other. That the religious message has been “perverted” from time to time is undeniable. Cain broke the “rule” by killing Abel and the punishment was there for all to see. Don’t drag marriage into the equation. Nobody I know will kill you if you participate in a “gay” marriage in the name of my religion. We will be sorry for you , pray for you, hope that you come to your senses, and not acknowledge the “marriage” but we will not kill you. I am not responsible though for the religion of peace and love and solutions they might suggest.

              • Black Flag® says:

                “I agree, part of that control is not to kill each other.”

                Absolutely not true. It is control, period.

                Religions have no problem killing others not of their religion – see Moses, et al.

                Religious messages have not been perverted. They are perverted – dictates upon others, whom to kill and whom to not kill, whom to steal from and whom not to steal.

                Moses comes from the mountain with the words “Thou shalt not kill” and do you know the next thing he did? He order Joshua to slaughter all the men, women, babies, the old and the young” of the Amalekites.

                So don’t pander religion as a moral source. It ain’t.

            • Yes, the lack of two parent families is a dearth upon social order. Without a doubt, the preponderance of black single mothers is destroying the black segment of society.

              Worse, the trend is also increasing with white lower class society as well – and the consequences will be the same.

              It is a consequence of the welfare state – the fathers, who were traditionally the providers of the needs of the family, have been replaced by the State as the providers of the needs of a family. With little surprise, the redundant component is excised.

              Unmarried fathers have no need to be responsible for their offspring – the State takes care of that. Without that taming responsibility, a feral, rogue segment of society grows.

              The solution is not to attack “who marries who” but to attack the State.

              • It is not just lower class white women. It is considered acceptable in White Society for well off, older white women to have a child out of wedlock. Who needs a man? Unfortunately, the child does.

                You see, once you open the door, start making excuses, legitimize things that should not be legitimized, then you have a problem. There is no closing that door short of a bloody and painful revolution.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Yes. Such things tend to creep up the social classes – from poor blacks to middle class blacks to poor whites to middle class whites and onward.

                It is not an argument of legitimizing such things.

                It is absolutely political economics. It has nothing to do with “right or wrong” or “acceptable or unacceptable”.

                It’s growth is directly the consequence of the welfare state and nothing else. Throughout history out of wedlock children were a feature of the rich class – they could afford it. You rarely heard of such in “public discourse” regarding the poor or middle class, but it was a regular feature of the upper class – including “mistresses”.

                With the economics of fatherhood being replaced by the economics of the State, there is no resistance to the creation of bastards – figuratively and specific.

            • Nature has placed certain burdens on the sexes to propagate the species.

              Men have an abundance of economic capability but an incomplete ability to propagate his genes. No man truly knows if a child born is his….

              Women have a dearth of economic capability but a overabundance of ability to propagate her genes. All mothers know the child born is theirs.

              A contract ensues – a trade of economic excess of men for the assurance that the child born carries the genes of the male.

              For the woman, a trade for that assurance for the needs and wants she cannot provide herself or her children. A pregnant mother with babe at breast cannot hunt for food very well.

              This is where “marriage” arose.

              BUT IT IS A CONTRACT – a trade of wants and needs of two parties.

              By understanding it is a CONTRACT removes the discourse of ‘same-sex’ vs ‘two-sex’ context of modern marriage.

              • So, which one of those “men” will bear the child under the “contract” or which one of the two women will provide the other half of the genetic material. Now, I am absolutely certain that within a few short years they will succeed in science in implanting an egg into a male who, barring a transplant and a widening of his pelvis will be able to carry a baby but not to term. I also remember reading an interesting SF story some fifty years ago called “World Without Men” regarding the use of female genetic material to fertilize an egg. So, the “contract” without scientific intervention does not carry over.

                Anyone can make a contract and perhaps they should, you just can’t call it a marriage. I am not 100% sure if “gay” marriage qualifies as an oxymoron but it is pretty damn close.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Ever hear of adoption?

                Further, I said “primary” – not “exclusive”. There are other parts of a marriage contract as well – such as supporting the spouse.

                You can call it marriage. You merely put blinders on in an attempt to discredit what you do not agree.

    • “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Some interesting weather/climate updates for today:

    Arctic Sea Ice, though now below the maximum for the year, actually INCREASED over the past week (we are now into the part of the year where the Arctic Sea Ice is supposed to be melting for the Spring/Summer).
    Although increases in sea ice area and extent are not unheard of this time of year, it is still somewhat unusual.

    All told, Arctic Sea Ice is still about 600,000 square kilometers below “normal” with normal being the 1981-2010 average value. Earlier this year, Arctic Sea Ice was over 1,000,000 square kilometers below normal, so as you can see, although we had a “low” maximum value this Spring, melt is not occurring at a fast rate, and we did not have any melt at all this past week, as, indeed, ice area and extent INCREASED over the past week.

    Down in the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic Sea Ice has past minimum (it hit minimum back on March 15th or so), and since then, Antarctic Sea Ice area and extent have been INCREASING at a record rate. Antarctic Sea Ice is SO FAR ABOVE NORMAL that it is above 2 standard deviations above normal, at nearly 1,300,000 square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL.

    So, totaling things up, GLOBAL SEA ICE is nearly 700,000 square kilometers above normal for this date.

    No “sea ice death spirals” to be had anywhere….

    Meanwhile, here in Indianapolis, the weather is supposed to be pleasant but with more rain than normal for the remainder of this week; however, the extended forecast is calling for highs in the low 30’s with a chance of snow on April 15th and 16th, so I guess Winter is not completely over for my area as of yet…

    There is a 50% chance of an El Nino forming this year and into the early part of next year, but I suspect if one does form it will be somewhat weak, since the PDO is now negative, which favors weak El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, so possible El Nino formation and just how warm the water in that region of the tropics gets will be worth following.

    The current global temperature for March is a meager +0.17C above “normal”, which is the same as the February anomaly was, and depending on which temperature data set you use, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” whatsoever in the past 14 years to 17 years 7 months. Regardless, no one born this century has seen any “global warming” whatsoever.

  22. Sedgewick says:
  23. Sedgewick says:

    Provided all necessary tools and supplies, seeds and livestock, similar to a Noah’s ark situation, if you were to take a list of people such as Jesus and Mohammed, David, Solomon, Buddha, all the apostles and prophets, gurus and ascended masters, popes, ministers, people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King, Anton Levey, and whatever other influential religious leaders and/or legends or persons of interest throughout history, …and you were to drop them off somewhere like Fiji, …what would happen?

  24. plainlyspoken says:

    Update on the state of plainlyspoken.

    I am out of the hospital and now at home finishing up my recovery from pancreatitis. I had to have my gallbladder removed and begin a series of followup appointments with my surgeon and PCP. I still have discomfort from the pancreatitis and am sore from surgery.

    This is one of the lucid moments where I feel clear headed enough to comment. 🙂

    I have a couple of other issues to bring up with my docs as a result of the two CT’s I had – both of which piss me off greatly at my cardiologist – who will be replaced with someone new.

    But I am here, alive and still opinionated and will comment when my brain is clear enough. :0

  25. Attorney General Eric Holder sees a day where gun owners wear bracelets that communicate with the gun, allowing only the gun owner to use the weapon.

    Holder told a House appropriations committee that the Department of Justice has spoken with technology experts who are exploring ways to restrict the use of guns to their legal owners, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

    “By making [guns safer] either through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon,” Holder reportedly said Friday. “It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis.”

    Fox News reports the Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for gun safety for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. That would include $2 million for gun safety technology grants.

    Read Latest Breaking News from

    **** this, of course, will never work however, it is an interesting approach to get $380 milion to be diverted elsewhere.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Eric Holder can suck my shotgun barrel 😀

    • Of course then we would have to confiscate all the “stupid” guns to make us safer. Soldiers, Federal agents and Cops first!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        SK, been reading a lot about NY State and folks not complying with the SAFE Act. Plus, Cops won’t enforce it in many areas, comments?

        • Well, like Conn. People are smart enough not to register fearing (correctly) that what happened in NYC will happen Statewide. Does not really solve the problem though. NJ banned the AR-15 and M-1 carbine over 20 years ago. Mine stayed here for a long time and then went to my cousins house in PA. Problem is I have not visited them in over 5 years, shot them for at least that long. When Bob dies, I can’t expect to leave them there so, if I live longer, I guess I have to sell them. If he survives me then he sells them. Folks in NY and Conn. will have the same problem unless they use them on private land. We had a scare here in NJ that the State Police were going to the private ranges, observing who had banned guns and then radio their buddies at the exits. Never saw it happen or heard about it happening but I can see it as a very real possibility.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I do understand your position, because it has been done over two decades. You abided by the law, I commend you for that! However, I do believe the law is quite illegal, let me explain. Assault weapons, EG…AR 15’s aren’t really anything different than my Marlin .22 ! I could build an exact copy, in any caliber to look exactly like one and be equally as deadly. You know this of course, so the laws aren’t designed to really keep guns from people, just those that look like “military” guns. Politicians are totally ignorant about guns and people, they simply want CONTROL.

            Once everyone figures that out, they are done!

  26. For your enjoyment:

    Americans have recently been hit with some of the largest premium increases in years, according to a Morgan Stanley survey of insurance brokers.

    The investment bank’s April survey of 148 brokers found that this quarter, the average premium increase for customers renewing an insurance plan is 12 percent in the small group market and 11 percent in the individual market, according to Forbes’ Scott Gottlieb.

    The hikes — the largest in the past three years, according to Morgan Stanley’s quarterly reports — are “largely due to changes under the [Affordable Care Act],” analysts concluded. Rates have been growing increasingly fast throughout all of 2013, after a period of drops in 2012.

    While insurers were hiking premiums since 2012 by smaller amounts, the lead-up to the Obamacare’s launch has seen the average rate at which premiums are growing fourfold.

    The small group market saw a jump from a growth rate of close to 3 percent during Morgan Stanley’s September 2013 survey to just above 6 percent three months later in December — the month before a surge of Obamacare regulations hit insurance companies.

    Over the next three months, the rate doubled again to the current average small growth premium growth rate of 12 percent.

    Individual policies saw a much starker jump after the Obamacare exchanges launched, in anticipation of the health care law going live in 2014. Morgan Stanley’s September 2013 survey, like the previous three quarters, found a fairly constant growth rate around 2 percent — but in December, the rate had shot up to above 9 percent.

    Morgan Stanley’s results echo what consumers are already seeing: the Affordable Care Act’s intensive regulation of the insurance market is driving health care premiums up strikingly.

    The survey found that premium increases are due to several specific Obamacare policies. The most talked about may be the new benefits all insurance plans are required to offer and excise taxes targeted at insurers themselves, Forbes reports.

    But there are two other big contributors to the rise in costs. Age restrictions on premiums prevent the insurer from charging older customers who cost more to cover a higher premium — hiking the costs for young and healthy people disproportionately. Commercial underwriting restrictions also bump up insurers’ costs and are reflected in premiums.

    Read more:

    ******Interesting….and I thought that this was not supposed to happen…I guess it falls in line with…..”if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.”

  27. gmanfortruth says:
  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Mass STABBING at High School near Pittsburgh PA. 20 hurt, 4 serious. More to come

    • Been seeing and reading this. Came to SUFA just to ask you about the killer knives in your neck of the woods.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Probably came from a family that teaches heir kids about the proper use of guns, but seemingly forgot about those deadly knives. Only time will tell till this all gets figured out. A case of bullying maybe? On SSRI’s? Much to learn.

        I recently purchased a new knife, first in quite awhile, but couldn’t pass it up. It’s a .50 cal bullet made into a switch blade. It’s rather shiny and not to good for concealing, but it’s different for sure. 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          And, NO, I do not think students should carry concealed, LOL. This school had a cop on duty, luckily, it was a knife involved and not guns, because the death toll would be horrendous. The cop would not have been able to do much, if anything to stop it. However, I do think that more employees should carry concealed (with extra training, much like what the military and cops receive) AS PART OF THEIR DUTIES. I also think the “no gun zone” signs should be replaced with signs that explain that employees are armed and will use lethal force if anyone tries to harm the children. This will serve a s a great deterent.

    • Kids saw “Kill BIll” too many times.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    It has taken a while but the Nevada Governor finally got his “spin doctors” to write up a press commentary or two that captures the real issues linked to the Nevada Rancher.

    I suspect this will start the ball rolling in getting the BLM to tone things down. If not the Governor should send in the National Guard to open the STATE highways and Right of Ways and push the BLM crappots back to town.

    “Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R.) voiced his concern about so-called “First Amendment Areas,” designated locations set up by the BLM where citizens can protest the removal.

    “Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” he said in a statement Tuesday.

    “To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately,” he said. “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

    Sandoval also said his office has received numerous complaints about the BLM’s conduct, including road closures and “other disturbances.”

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Ah yes, more on the growing wealth gap. At least this academic is looking to the actual cause. He just missed the primary catalyst………….inflation as Govt policy.

    Simple understanding………….. The wealthy are MORE able to protect their wealth from the rot of inflation. Because they have MORE investment choices. Fed policy to keep rates LOW are contributing to the growing gap.

    But in a world of Inflation by Policy this author and all others have NOT articulated WHY anyone should actually care about this wealth gap or that future wealth will be predominantly inherited.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Well stated summary of the Progressive Politics that dominate the USA today.

  32. You will rarely hear me say this….

    Way to go Wolverines!

    We Spartan fans learned during March Madness of a young girl, 8, who has a rare form of cancer. Spartan Adreian Payne met her on a hospital visit and they became close friends. So close, Payne welcomed her on the ladder to cut the net down at the Big Ten title game. She was also in attendance, right next to Payne, at the senior banquet after the season ended. Lacey lost her battle last night. Back to the Wolverines: Hail Michigan for this ….

    RIP little Spartan Lacey Holsworth 😦

  33. Sedgewick says:

    Marriage can typically be defined by three aspects of human culture and behavior.

    1 – There is the idea of men and women joining to become permanent mates and create families as a matter of our natural function and behavior. This has been happening since before there was even a word for it.

    2 – There is the religious definition that recognizes the spiritual aspects of such a union between man and woman as defined by our nature and as approved by gods.

    3 – Then there is the legal aspects that primarily deal with economic issues concerning taxes and insurance, child custody and financial support, and various social/civil benefits, etc.

    Marriage can be defined by any one of these exclusive of the other two, without coming into conflict. When you begin to analyze combinations of these is when you see the apparent conflict. It is between the religious and legal definitions and the subsequent effects on society.

    People have been adulterers and polygamists and homosexuals for as long as they have been mating and creating families. If you accept the natural definition as your legal basis, you must recognize and allow for such.

    Not everyone believes gays, swingers and adulterers are wrong or abominations. But law applies to all in a given geographical area. Thus if you define legal marriage by religion, you force it upon others of differing faiths, therefore violating their 1st amendment rights to religious freedom, expression and self determination.

    It comes down to law vs religion. Either you take law out of marriage, or religion out of law.

    First amendment says religious freedom protects/allows for gays and polygamists. Either you take religious values out of law, or compromise the first amendment.

    Religion gives way to law.

    Law says Gays and polygamist ‘win’. Law loses legitimacy in the eyes of the ‘majority’.

    Minding your own business does not require any of the above such bullshit. The whole thing is silly to me. Who cares about other people’s private sex lives anyway?

    • Sedgewick says:


      ” CONGRESS can make no law…”

      So long as long as it isn’t put before Congress, it does not violate the first amendment.

      • Sedgewick says:


        If you argue that the tenth amendment protects state rights to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, it opens yet another can of worms with legal precedence.

        And how does ” ,and to the people ” fit in?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The Constitution CLEARLY did nothing to interfere with the STATE’s authority to establish a religion or prohibit the exercise thereof.

          The people fit in just fine as over time they passed State Constitutional amendments that abolished the few State Churches or other obvious involvements.

          • Sedgewick says:

            If, per the constitution, the powers are reserved to the states to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, this would mean the first amendment has no value beyond that of state authority.

            It suggests federal authority to protect the free exercise of religion is nullified against the state.

            So, based on your statement, you are suggesting it is legal for a state to punish someone based upon religious values?

            • I don’t know, you guys just drive me nuts sometimes. Hey! This is some sudden new right that nobody ever discovered before? Using the logic that I see kicked around on this issue gravity could be declared illegal under the ADA!

              When the first case was brought, it should have been thrown out of court. It makes NO sense. We are playing with the meanings of language and words. That is the kind of crap that went on in Stalinist Russia and we were warned about by Orwell.

              Flag and I did this dance sometime back. I think we sort of both agreed that you could have a legal contract, a legal union but call it something other than marriage because, regardless of who writes the dictionary, the word has always had a specific meaning.

              • Black Flag® says:

                “Flag and I did this dance sometime back. I think we sort of both agreed that you could have a legal contract, a legal union but call it something other than marriage because, regardless of who writes the dictionary, the word has always had a specific meaning.”

                Let’s be clear.

                I said that everything the LAW provides to “dual sex” couples can be created by legal contract for “same sex” couples. It does not require a LEGAL (government) license to achieve these ends.

                Government does NOT define marriage. The participants define marriage, period.

                If a couple says “we are married”, they are – regardless of what you or some government declares otherwise.

                Whether you =foolishly= assign your behavior differently to people depending on a government piece of paper is a fault of your own errant belief system.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” I don’t know, you guys just drive me nuts sometimes.”

                That’s the idea. 😉

                “Hey! This is some sudden new right that nobody ever discovered before?”

                If you mean ‘gay rights’, I would posit no such right exists. ‘Gay’ is just a way to classify sexual practices. People who consider it something that affords them special privilege are full of shit.

                ” Using the logic that I see kicked around on this issue gravity could be declared illegal under the ADA! ”

                (If such a place existed) …What prevents Adam and Steve and Jane and Jenny go to a place with no laws and interbreed and have orgies and refer to themselves as collectively married?


                Why cannot Adam and Steve and Jane and Jenny go to a place with no laws and interbreed and have orgies and have a religious representative deem them as collectively married as approved by god?

                It depends on which religion.

                Why cannot Adam and Steve and Jane and Jenny go interbreed and have orgies and receive recognition by government and subsequent civil benefits?

                It depends on which government.


                Because some governments in some places do not recognize it as marriage.


                Because some governments define it as only between a man and a woman.


                Because the people who vote in those places demand representatives who will represent their values that do not allow such marriages.

                Why? What values?

                Those which suggest it is wrong and unnatural for people of the same sex to have a life together and call it marriage.


                Because that is what their god says.

                ” When the first case was brought, it should have been thrown out of court. It makes NO sense. We are playing with the meanings of language and words. That is the kind of crap that went on in Stalinist Russia and we were warned about by Orwell. ”

                I respectfully disagree that it is simply semantics, but rather that it strikes at the very core of the principles of law.

                If the law is based upon religion, it is forced religion by proxy and upon all within said jurisdiction. It is clearly an example of the basic definition of theocracy…which is in contrast to the very principles in which the USA was developed upon.

                It also, (as demonstrated above with JAC and I) brings into question how governing authority is delegated.

                Like I said, …it is a mess.

                ” Flag and I did this dance sometime back. I think we sort of both agreed that you could have a legal contract, a legal union but call it something other than marriage because, regardless of who writes the dictionary, the word has always had a specific meaning. ”

                That sounds more like a rationalized answer in the interest of political correctness.

                Civil unions can still be an ‘abomination’.

                Can heterosexuals and polygamists have a civil union without being ‘married’?

              • Black Flag® says:

                They do and they call it marriage, thus, it is.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Segewick, I have debated this issue over and over. The Left’s argument can be equally given to Pedophiles as to Gays. I really don’t care what other people do, none of my business. It’s easy to claim religious superiority on the issue, but then that puts people in the same bucket as Muslims and their claim to superiority. Which would make Pedophilia legal under Muslim religion.

                My stance is to let people live as they choose, as long as they do not pretend to have any superiority over me. Once one decides to force their views upon me, they have violated my rights. That’ means war!

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” I really don’t care what other people do, none of my business. ”

                ” My stance is to let people live as they choose, as long as they do not pretend to have any superiority over me. ”

                I agree. I don’t care what people do.

                I am not married. I do not have children. I have nothing close to any wealth or assets. I have no reasons or expectations or hope of ever enjoying such things. I am not gay, nor do I have any special connection or affinity for or to the gay community. I am not a statist. I do not claim association to any government or organizations. I do not claim or associate with any particular religion or god. I have nothing invested, no personal stake in the USA, Earth or life in general, and thus no reason to care one way or the other about much of anything. For all intents and purposes, I am just another insignificant brick in the wall, a walking dead man waiting to complete the process.

                In the meantime, I figure I will entertain myself with messy discussions like these.


              • Black Flag® says:

                Are you older then 50 years?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The State’s already had this power when the Constitution was ratified.

              And yes, the restrictions on Govt power described in the First Amendment applied ONLY to Congress and the Federal Govt.

              Lets not forget the Bill of Rights was passed as the one and only promise ever made and kept by the elite in order to get States’ to ratify the Constitution. The various Articles were borrowed from other State Constitutions.

              Not all States had State sponsored or sanctioned churches. But a few did. Virginia was one of them. Which, given Jefferson’s influence in VA, shows the fallacy of the “strict separation” doctrine we have been taught.

              It is not until long after this period that the Courts started imposing the Bill of Rights upon the States.

              Let me remind you that Utah “punishes” those who claim Polygamy as part of their “Mormon” religion.

    • Black Flag® says:

      1. This is not marriage. It is a coupling for the purpose of procreation. All animals do this, but by no measure do we declare such couplings a “marriage”.

      2. Religion – as it desires to control people – utilized its power to decide who and who not should marry for RELIGIONS control purposes and nothing else.

      3. Marriage is nothing but a contract – an agreement between parties to organize a relationship which promotes the welfare of the family unit – primarily, the children.

      • Sedgewick says:

        Okay. Sure. Thank you.

        Now, how do you apply that to the legal basis for defining marriage?

        If nature and religion have no real legitimacy concerning marriage, then marriage is nothing but a legal contract and can apply to almost anyone under virtually any circumstances that didn’t otherwise break the law.

        So, you can ‘buy’ a dozen prostitutes under contract of X amount of years and call it marriage?

        • Black Flag® says:

          Marriage is not a legal argument. Whatever “legal” thing you conceive around it is utterly irrelevant.

          Laws for/against marriage between racists and religions do not make “marriage” non-existent. Neither do laws for/against “same sex” marriages. Marriage is beyond law, though law does try to enforce itself – often violently – in preventing such unions.

          It is a CONTRACT – no adjective. It is an agreement between parties and no law is necessary.

          • Black Flag® says:

            *races (not racists)

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” Whatever “legal” thing you conceive around it is utterly irrelevant. ”

            I do not personally assign any such legal parameters to how I define marriage. I define marriage irrespective of law and/or religion, …or paper.

            ” It is a CONTRACT – no adjective. It is an agreement between parties and no law is necessary.”

            This is your definition of marriage.

            I concur with the word “agreement”.

            • Black Flag® says:

              That is what a “contract” is – an agreement of performance quid pro quo.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Black Flag

        You cannot create authority to gain access to Govt benefits via a Contract of Marriage.

        That requires STATE recognition.

        Therein lies the one fault in your argument and what I think is part of the issue for many Gay folks howling about “equal rights”.

        • Black Flag® says:

          “You cannot create authority to gain access to Govt benefits via a Contract of Marriage.”


          There is no gov’t benefit that exists for married couple that cannot be achieved by contract with the market.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Special treatment under TAX law cannot be achieved via contract with the market.

            Married people pay lower personal taxes than those not married, well those not “sanctified” by Govt.

            • Black Flag® says:

              Absolutely it can. There is no tax benefit that cannot be achieved by other means of tax planning – in fact, BETTER.

              It is a trap to believe that using the “marriage” tax benefit is a benefit. It actually is the path of least resistance that when chosen, avoids REAL tax avoidance processes that would provide a near-zero tax rate.

              Because it is a tick in the box, the work to do better is avoided.

        • Black Flag® says:

          I agree – if you wish to avail yourself of gov’t goodies, you have to abide by gov’t demands.

          If you are not getting the gov’t goodies you want, you apply political pressure to achieve them.

          This rule and these tactics are nothing about “gay” vs “marriage” – it is merely politics. You would not claim that those who seek some other gov’t benefit are “howling”.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            YES, it is politics. But I disagree that it is not about gay vs marriage. I think it is very much about gay and marriage for many doing the howling.

            You should know me well enough by now to know I would claim ANYONE trying to use Politics to seek UNEARNED benefits via Govt as HOWLING.

            • Black Flag® says:

              “You should know me well enough by now….”

              That is true.

              I retract my last sentence.

              You are absolutely consistent in “howling” at the “howlers” demanding unearned benefits.

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Day! Some thoughts on today’s subjects:

    !..The Stabbing in the Pa school was done by a 16 year old, who warned his target the night before. Target didn’t go to school today. Per local news, no one should perish, which is great news. Several questions remain, was the kid bullied? Was he on SSRI’s? Or both? He is in custody, the story will come out soon. Let’s all be glad that no one died! However, this is also the future…..

    2. College students being violent all over the country! BRATS! This is our education system, as controlled by the Feds. Think WE NEED a change?

    3. Marriage: it’s a religious issue. The term may have been perverted because government became involved with a “marriage license”. The “license” is a legal contract. Marriage is a religious ceremony. It only matters to those who it matters too! Going before a Judge and being “married” for legal reasons is not the same as having a ceremony in a Church conducted by a chosen Man or Woman of the Cloth is a much different thing. Separate the TWO, and the problems go away!

    4. The issue in Nevada with the Bundy Family will require much research to understand things, I have done that and support the farmer! The Feds are out of control, PERIOD!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A nice note: Pork prices are fixing to explode. Thought you’d like to know!

    • Black Flag® says:

      Marriage is not a religious issue. Atheists get married.

      Marriage is a contract between the participants assigning responsibilities to each for the establishment of a family unit.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, that’s what I’m trying to say. Marriage, done within religion is between two people, and they follow said religion. That should be all that is said about the issue.

        You make a great point, if Atheists can get married, which is not a religious event, then what exactly is all the BS about Gays getting married? It is between TWO people and that should be the end of the discussion. WHO the TWO people are is no one’s business!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Because Atheists as well as everyone else must get a STATE issued Marriage License in order to get the FREE COOKIES.

          • Black Flag® says:

            Perhaps, but getting free cookies does not define marriage.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              As I posted a couple weeks ago, Govt did not DEFINE marriage.

              It simply set up a set of requirements to get Govt to “Sanctify” the marriage.

              That may seem nitpicky but it is critical to understand the relationship between the Common Law or Human “Definition” which has never changed, and the role of various “authorities” to use their “magic wand” to gain influence over marriage.

              To be clear………….I agree that marriage is defined by Humans irrespective of Religion or Govt.

              What we now have, however, is Govt enforcing a “new definition” that violates thousands upon thousand of years of accepted human meaning.

              Those pushing this agenda will never understand that conflict because they are buried up to their eye brows in their BELIEF in the Righteous Supremacy of Govt LAW.

              I find it so ironic that those who decry religion in defense of their collectivist and “progressive” ideas never realize they are no different in their “Whimsical” beliefs. They have simply substituted Govt for God.

              • Black Flag® says:

                But you assume the “old traditional” was correct. Indeed, most people do not understand marriage at all.

                For the vast majority of human history, marriage was a means to unify diverse families and create a peace between warring entities or unify people in response to a greater threat.

                The concept of a love marriage is actually Victorian. Love relationships never needed marriage – they just “were”.

                The roots of “marriage” all reach back to the exchange between economic capacity for children. Since this created a “family unit”, marriage expanded and then became dominate in establishing “families” and a means to determine inheritance of property.

                This is still the dominate component – creation of “family” and inheritance rights.

                But nothing of marriage – including the creation of a family unit for the benefit of children – exceeds “gay marriage”; all aspects still apply.

                It is social mental retardation that makes one group declare that they are exclusive in such organization and insist another group is excluded when the reason and the desired consequences are the same for both groups.

              • I agree with you.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Been listening to an interview with Mr. Bundy in Nevada. Smart man and well versed in the law. The FEDs are WRONG and should be shot on sight! Just my opinion! 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        From what I hear, Mr. Bundy will be on Hannity at 10pm EST on FOX, for those interested.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Mr. Bundy’s view of the law is Bull Shit. There is reason the Courts have ruled against him.

        The date of the BLM’s creation is irrelevant to HIS claims. The date of US GOVT acquisition of the territory and what said Federal Govt did with that land is the ONLY legal issue.

        And for the record, the Govt left the land in Govt Ownership for the most part. The Govt later passed laws creating the BLM to manage these lands. It later passed more laws giving the BLM an “environmental and multiple use mission”. And of course requiring the BLM to meet all Clean Water, Clean Air and Endangered Species laws.

        Bundy’s claim is based on old concepts of “prescriptive” rights. But NO Court has recognized these rights relative to grazing on public lands. And more recently they have even overturned such rights regarding water use. See the Klamath Basin litigation.

        This is why Bundy is not getting the HUGE support he should get. WRONG issue to take this type of stand. You can’t get people who know the laws to risk anything when they know he is WRONG.

        Now, that does not mean the BLM should not have its ass handed to it via Congressional and State action if needed. The ACTION by the BLM is OVERKILL as usual.

        I want you to notice who is cheering this whole thing on with the most enthusiasm. It is the Environmental Groups. These are the same groups who worked with the Clinton/Gore administration to get laws passed that CREATED the Law Enforcement runaway in these land mgt agencies.

        It has taken some time but now the reason for that support is more clear. The LE people are NOT SUPERVISED by their local agency bosses. They are enforcing the laws as THEY see it and as told by bosses. But their actions or reactions are NOT controlled by the local Govt officials.

        So when the day comes that the Greenies want us all JAILED they will have the INDEPENDENT Law Enforcement power to make it happen.

        These types of stand offs and SWAT responses rarely happened when the local Agency officials were in charge of the Law Enforcement within their areas of responsibility.

        • Black Flag® says:

          “These types of stand offs and SWAT responses rarely happened when the local Agency officials were in charge of the Law Enforcement within their areas of responsibility.”

          Absolutely correct.

          Since local “peacekeepers” benefit from the peace they keep, they are more apt to choose less violent means of keeping the peace. This man harmed no other human being, thus, the use of overt and overwhelming violence is obscene.

          The only real way to use such evil violence on non-violent men is by the demand of people who will be immune to the consequences of this violence – men who are far far away from those consequences.

          The outcome of this matter will not bode well for the locals. No one benefits from the presence of a “foreign” army. The remains of this matter will institute a state of fear in the locals, a combative mentality upon all.

          Worse, it gives credibility to extremists of all types – those that will violently oppose government and those that champion it. Both sides can point to this event to augment their positions.

          When extremists on both sides can equally point to the same event to their benefit, peace and freedom loses big time.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Well said my pirate friend. Well said.

            I will add only one thing.

            There are not that many “locals” left thanks to past actions by the Fed Govt over its resource management policies.

            So the impact to the “locals” will be harsh but for only a VERY FEW total number of people.

            When the BLM tried this before it started the Sagebrush Rebellion. This time you cannot hardly hear those standing against the undo show of Force.

            Boiling Frog theory in practice.

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    The University of Hawaii has sponsored a project in which they have analyzed the number of people who have been murdered by their government. The term that the University of Hawaii uses to describe this action is democide (i.e. death by government). The number totals a staggering 262,000,000 people have been murdered by their government between the years to 1900-1987

    What else does people need to know about the democrats and those who support gun control?

    • Black Flag® says:

      Government is the largest killer of human beings – exceeding the death by “water” for the first time in human history in the 20th century.

      *Death by water – floods, tsunamis, hurricanes. Traditional mass killer of mankind … not anymore…..

      • Yup, and there is a whole big theory I am working on regarding how that led to the current mess(es).

        It seems that around 1900, at the turn of the century, most intellectuals felt the world had reached a point of knowledge and sophistication that would result in the dawn of a new age. A new enlightenment if you will. Europe and America were leading the way in science and in social science too. The progressives were pretty much ensconced in the “civilized” world and were in the process of bringing the benefits of civilization to the less fortunate.

        Then there was this shooting thing in Sarajevo exactly 100 years ago. The world went mad for the next four years. The social order was totally destroyed. Four years of unprecedented bloodshed led to grievances still reverberating today. That led to Versailles where another “progressive” American president was shown the rank amateur he really was by the “big boys” of Europe. The seeds were set for 1939 to 1945 and beyond.

        After another 120 million or so dead, everybody finally got worn out. I would postulate that the net result of 1900-2000 was to destroy hope, universally. It certainly destroyed this feeling that progress was a naturally occurring thing. If people were still adding to the Bible which perhaps they should be, one could see where hubris led the human race in that century. I think that we are in the beginnings of a new dark Age. Reason has been overtaken by magic. Look at entertainment, Zombies and Vampires, conspiracy theories about lost airplanes, the new religion of environmentalism with a strong likelihood that those who don’t worship at its altar will wind up little better than early Christians did.

        I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable, amateur historian on the WW 1 era but I am constantly learning new things about the period. last week I received VFW magazine with an article on Vera Cruz. I urge all of you to read it. It is an almost totally unknown aspect of American History which will be a slam-dunk to Charlie, maybe Black Flag and a few others. Those of us who like to play connect-the-dots can see why, a few years later, Pancho Villa crossed the border, killed some Americans, fled back to Mexico and led that rocket scientist Wilson to invade Mexico. Sorta also explains why the Mexicans are not particularly fond of us today too.,+1914%3A+%E2%80%98An+Affair+Of+Honor%E2%80%99/1648695/0/article.html

  36. gmanfortruth says:
  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. Just A Citizen says:

    MARRIAGE has ONE and ONLY one context or basis.

    That is HUMAN Common Law. The “Definition” has existed for thousands of years and has NOT CHANGED with either Religious or Govt intervention in the institution.

    This is why the whole issue of “rights” and “govt sponsorship” is so flawed. NO GOVT law has ever DEFINED marriage until recently. And that was done in order to preserve thousands of years of accepted and understood meaning among billions of Human Beings. Thanks to some radical activist judges who have no care at all for “common law” concepts.

    Which, by the way, is the source of many of our problems with Govt today.

    Religions and Govts came to a point where they wanted to “sanctify” marriage for some reason only known to them. But it obviously was used to try and dictate who could or could not get the Sanctification desired by those getting married. Here is BF’s flaw in individual judgment at work. Those humans who allowed the Church or Govt to start dictating who would get Sanctified should have simply told them to go to hell.

    Now fast forward. There are TWO issues wrapped up in the modern debate.

    One is the desire by Homosexuals to have EVERYONE Sanctify their unions as being the SAME as those Marriages defined by Humans for Eons. Sorry, but not me. I will not comply with this desire and will continue to oppose this argument.

    Second is the desire to access the same Govt benefits that heterosexual couples have. This could have been addressed by Civil Union laws. But notice that the GLBT community rejected this idea. They want MARRIAGE REDEFINED BY GOVT LAW. They are all about GOVT LAW. They cannot handle Common Law or Natural Law.

    On the second issue I agree with their desire for equal access. But that is because I support all CITIZENS having equal treatment under the law when it comes to administration of benefits and privileges. Even though I disagree with the SCOTUS application of this against the States, I agree with the concept of “equality under the law”. Because THAT IS the definition of JUSTICE.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    For those who continue to vote for corruption, ie, the least of two evils, for President:

  40. Thought you might like to know, since it was discussed above, on the rancher that has been in the news in Nevada…Nellis AFB is now the Hq for the government. The government has blocked off all roads into and out of the area in dispute, there has been a temporary flight restriction over that area which effectively closes down the only private flight corridor between Las Vegas and Reno. You are forced over the mountain range into California to get to Reno.There are now TWO blackhawk helicopters on station at Nellis AFB with two MILITARY special forces teams ready to air assault. This is in addition to approximately 200 Federal Agents on post around this “disputed area”. and their support units……

    I wonder if this qualifies as over kill…..

    • They’re going to scare the cows and dry them up!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Overkill is an understatement. Colonel, do you know anything about grazing cattle on Federal lands? I haven’t had much time to sit behind the computer this week.

      • We know enough to stay off Federal and public lands. However, I am familiar with the concept a little because the public has a right to graze livestock on military reservations, free of charge, provided they understand and sign indemnity agreements.

        A great example is Fort Hood, Texas. It is so large that Highway 36 ( named for the 36th Infantry Division ) runs through the boundaries. However, you know when you are on the reservation and you know when you are off the reservation. There are signs along the highway warning of soldiers, war games, and heavy vehicles ( ie. tanks,etc ) and that the Federal Government is not liable for accidents concerning same.

        There are several ranchers that bring their cattle to Fort Hood to graze them free of charge. It is a win for Fort Hood because it keeps the grasses down and the fire danger down and it is good for the ranchers….however, the ranchers take a risk. There is no compensation for lost, maimed, or dead cattle. The cattle will wander out onto firing ranges ( tank ranges and IFV ranges, artillery ranges ) and are sometimes blown apart……sometimes accidental….sometimes not. Also, there are areas of unexploded ordinance ( duds ) that the cattle will step on or ranchers might run over. That is a risk that they take. It does not happen often but it has happened. The locals know where the danger areas are and they also know that during heavy training periods, tanks and APC’s and IFV’s will come busting through the brush and scrub oak without warning. I have actually seen a brand new pick up truck literally flattened because it was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        This is the extent of my knowledge other than our family has considered public range before but the risk in some areas is too great. Easy pickings for rustlers. However, this area on Nevada…….nobody goes out there. I have flown over this exact area in Clark County before. It is only good for one thing….cattle, snakes, and sand. West of Las Vegas in Clark County is public land where wild horses and burros graze in numbers more significant than the cattle….thousands of head….and the Desert Tortoise seems to live there just fine

        This is not a situation of the government protecting anything. This is a situation of an out of control government. This family has been using this land since the 1800’s….long before BLM was around. I am with the family on this one.

        • By the way…….I was trying to be sarcastic in my overkill statement.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I’m with the family also. Overkill? When video shows snipers pointing guns at the small group of protestors, overkill is quite the proper word, LOL 😀

  41. More on Obama care………since the inception of the exchanges……..more doctors than ever are now collecting the deductibles in advance of treatment. Some have already been doing that but since Medicare costs has been increased to the recipient under part B, the doctors are demanding the deductibles up front before accepting Medicare and Exchange health policies.

    When questioned, the AMA simply stated that since deductibles are going to increase by 40 %, there is no guarantee that the recipient will pay. Since it is anticipated most of the signups are going to only take out policies when needed and then default on them and there is no provision in the ACA that stops this……money will be demanded up front. In addition, the AMA also said that if Medicare continues to be cut….doctors have the right and will start to refuse Medicare and Medicaid.

    So, it appears that the old school of deductibles accruing…..that is no longer the concept of the future.

    Concierge services are taking off big time….wonder when the government will make those illegal..

    And finally… many of you have seen your new tax bill this year? Shocking…isnt it.

  42. There are many segments to this. This report has cajones.

  43. Black Flag® says:

    Baltic Dry Collapses To Worst Start To A Year On Record

  44. gmanfortruth says:
  45. JAC……you close to Portland? If so, are you going to be there in August?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Moving to Coeur d’Alene first of June.

      But will be back in Portland area last week of July, first week of August.

      You coming to Portland for something??

      • Yep……son and I coming to the world championship disc golf invitational…..we accumulated enough points to qualify.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          When is this event?

          Vision of Colonel walking around, throwing a Frisbie at a post…………… something does not compute.

          Are you going to bring your REAL golf gear along on the trip?

          • Actually, throwing at a basket….I suggest you try it. Much tougher than you think. My son and I play the professional circuit.

            The dates in Portland are August 8th thru August 16th. We play at Blue Lake Park, Milo McIver State Park, Pier PArk, McCormick Park, and Trojan Park. It is a large event with players from all over the world. Pretty good prize money but mainly it is something that my son and I can do together.

            However, I do have the “round ball” equipment and I never leave home without it……usually. My spousal unit and I are coming to Reno to bowl in the National Championships in June,,,,planning a flight to Portland to play those courses before the big tournament.

      • I don’t know why you would want to move to Idaho, in the mountains, on a lake with some of the most beautiful scenery ever…..the land of conservatism.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Actually I don’t. I want to return to Montana. CdA is a “compromise” of sorts. Closer to kids and other family but not as far away from my “home range”.

  46. Keep an eye on Dallas ISD…….the issue of Home Rule. It is a direct challenge to State and Federal Government on the education of children.

  47. Just A Citizen says:


    Grazing on Federal lands. Re: BLM and National Forests/National Grasslands.

    Grazing on these federal lands is “allowed” by PERMIT. However, the granting of these permits has an “historical” difference than many other uses on Fed lands. Such as timber harvest. When the Govt set up the permit system they tried to accommodate existing ranches in the area.

    So existing ranches were given the chance to get a PERMIT for a specific area that was the same or close to their traditional grazing under the Open Range concept that existed prior to the “regulatory” concept.

    These permits are subject to the rules established by the Govt. This includes the number of cattle, sheep, horses, that are allowed on the range as well as the season of use and length of use.

    Permits are usually issued in AUM’s, which are Animal Unit Months. A cow with fresh calf is an AUM, a bull is an AUM and a yearling is an AUM.

    Along with numbers and timing the permit can also include restrictions on WHERE grazing may occur during certain periods within a season. The range is divided into “pastures” via improvements like fences and water troughs/pit tanks.

    The Federal permits take into account the “home range” of the ranch which holds the grazing PERMIT. That is the number of cattle the home ranch can sustain. The days of running thousands of cows on Federal Land with a ranch that can only handle 50 cows are gone. It was a game played at one time.

    The FEES for grazing rights have been controlled by Congress and are a source of constant agitation among the Environmentalists and their Democratic Party supporters. Western Congressmen keep them low, which ticks off the greenies and eastern Dems. It is viewed as a subsidy by them, because grazing rights on private lands cost much more. However, as I explained to Todd a few years back, private and public grazing are NOT comparable for the most part. So price comparisons are difficult.

    The land in question was ALWAYS under Federal ownership and control. That is as soon as the Indians/Mexicans/French/Spanish/Russians etc signed it over via treaty.

    Over time the Fed Govt/Congress gave away some of these lands via homesteading. Some was sold. The private ranches located within the vast Federal ownership are mostly from the homestead era.

    As time has passed and citizen concern for the environment increased, and as Greenie lobbying power ticked up, the Congress moved to place these Federal Lands under greater “management control”. By law they are ALL subject to those laws such as Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Wild Horse and Burro Act, etc. I think it is FLPMA that governs BLM lands but cannot remember the actual title at the moment. But National Forests are managed under different “authorizing” laws than BLM or other lands administered by the Dept. of Interior. Which includes the BLM as well as US Fish and Wildlife, and Park Service.

    Until the 1970’s the DOI lands, especially the BLM lands, were not managed under the “multiple use concepts” which had applied to National Forest lands since 1907. The flurry of environmental laws passed in the 1960’s and 1970’s changed all that. BLM lands are not required to be managed according to these other laws. This set up an inevitable CONFLICT between ranchers and the BLM. And due to the BLM’s different heritage and culture, they did not handle the transition very well. Thus arose the Sagebrush Rebellion in the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

    So now as it relates to Mr. Bundy and Nevada. His arguments are Bull Shit as it relates to grazing rights, and his supposed prescriptive rights. This does not address the right or wrong of the BLM’s decision to cancel ALL grazing in the area for the tortoise. Only the issue of his “right” to graze there or that the State of Nevada actually has jurisdiction over that land.

    Like it or not, these are the laws that have existed since the mid 1800’s when the WEST was settled and started carving out States. We live under an entirely different system than the original 13 States and their neighbors east of the mighty Mississippi River. We live under the rule of the Federal Landlord who still OWNS and Controls the MAJORITY of the land within our States. The private land within those states was also OWNED by the Feds at one time.

    Now there is one caveat to all this. That is the Spanish Land Grants that existed prior to US Control. These were blown off initially but law suits over time re-established some old country ownership. These lands would be located primarily in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. I know of none in Nevada.

    The fact that Mr. Bundy’s family grazed the valley prior to the BLM being established is irrelevant. Just as those living on National Forests, grazing there or logging there prior to establishment of the US Forest Service was irrelevant. They were moved OFF the land or put under some PERMIT system anyway. So this argument of Mr. Bundy was settled way back when and his is WRONG.

    Now that is a summary of the Federal lands and grazing permits. On this Mr. Bundy is full of the bulldookey. However, on the issue of BLM Arrogance, overreach, overkill, etc, etc., Mr. Bundy and the critics are correct. The BLM has its collective head up its backside. They have had a grudge to pick with ranchers in Nevada ever since the Sagebrush Rebellion. I am guessing some of their managers are feeling emboldened given the Administration’s sympathy. And of course the threat of lawsuit by the Greenies if they don’t get Mr. Bundy’s cows off the range.

    Over the past 20 plus years the Federal agencies have pushed harder and harder against traditional uses on Federal lands. Reducing or eliminating grazing, reducing timber harvest, and even taking Water Rights away from ranchers and farmers. The more they push the greater the push back. In the old days this would be expected but nobody would over react.

    That is not the case today. If you even hint at some show of “opposition” that a Fed could perceive as a “threat” you will get the type of reaction we now see in southern Nevada.

    As Flag pointed out yesterday, this foments the paranoia among the conspiracy/anarchist crowd. One of them will then act out, like bombing a Ranger Office or shooting an officer. The Feds respond Ten Fold the next time.

    We are witnessing an ESCALATION of hostilities which reflects the disdain many in the Fed Govt have for the citizenry. They are out of control in my view. They are the Hegemonic power and the only way for things to settle is for them to take the initiative and reduce the conflict. But they will NOT do this until Congress SLAPS them upside the head.

%d bloggers like this: