March 2014

Early Warning: The Continuing Need for National Defense

Brian T. Kennedy

President, The Claremont Institute

BRIAN T. KENNEDY is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has directed the Institute’s Golden State Center in Sacramento and its National Security Project. A member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense and co-author of Shariah: The Threat to America, his articles on national security affairs and public policy issues have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Investor’s Business Daily.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on March 4, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Harold Rood, a professor of international relations at Claremont McKenna College who died in 2011, was not as well known as he was influential. A soldier in Patton’s army in World War II, he taught his students that war is permanent to the human condition, and that in war it is better to win, for no one ever had to accommodate a loser. America will always have enemies, he told them, and those enemies will forever be planning and expending resources to place themselves in a position to defeat us. It would be nice if it was otherwise, he was fond of saying, but it is not otherwise. It is the way the world was.

During the Cold War, Dr. Rood would demonstrate in his classes–often by reading stacks of clippings from newspapers from around the world—that the leaders of the Soviet Union understood the world in these stark terms, and that they acted consistently on that basis. He would also lecture on technology, from German steel production before 1914, to the state of Japanese fighter aircraft before 1941, and even, curiously, to maps of America’s electrical transmission lines and power plants. It was important, he thought, to understand the strengths and vulnerabilities of a nation. His classes served as an antidote for students who had grown up in post-war America—a much needed antidote, because citizens of free nations in peacetime do not historically think in such terms. We today, and our elected leaders—in whose hands we place the responsibility for national defense—are in urgent need of such an antidote, because the U.S. is increasingly and dangerously vulnerable, and our elected leaders appear oblivious.

One would think the attack on September 11, 2001, would have awakened Americans for the foreseeable future to the need to prepare for unexpected dangers. Surprisingly, its effect was short-lived. Two relatively recent attacks show the problem. The first I’ll discuss took place on April 16, 2013, on an electric-transmission substation owned by Pacific Gas & Electric in California. One reason it did not get much notice was that the other—the Boston Marathon bombing that killed or injured 260 people—had occurred the day before.

The San Jose Attack

Last April 16, just outside of San Jose, California, a group of terrorists or soldiers, operating on American soil, attacked the Metcalf transmission substation in a military action aimed at disabling a part of America’s electrical infrastructure. The operation began at 1:00 a.m., when the attackers cut underground fiber optic cables, disabling communications and security systems. Thirty minutes later, using high-powered rifles, they began a 20-minute assault on the substation’s extra-large transformer and the cooling system that supports it. Police arrived at 1:50, but the shooters disappeared into the night. To this day there is no trace of them.

John Wellinghoff, then chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would call this attack “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving [America’s electrical] grid that has ever occurred.” Obviously it was a professional operation by skilled marksmen—estimates of the number of gunmen range from two to six—with training in reconnaissance, stealth, and evasion. That the plan went undetected, the casings from the spent shells bore no fingerprints, and the perpetrators have not been caught, suggests a high degree of intelligence. Damage to the facility forced electricity to be rerouted to maintain the integrity of power transmission to the Silicon Valley, and repairs took several months.

The political response to the attack ranged from an immediate dismissal by the FBI of the idea that it was a terrorist act—puzzling given its sophistication and its proximity in time to the Boston bombing—to recognition by a bipartisan but small group of U.S. Senators and Representatives that defending America’s electrical grid is an urgent priority. Although there are over 100,000 transformers of all sizes throughout the grid, the destruction of less than two dozen key large transformers—which weigh hundreds of tons, are transported on special rail cars, and are mostly produced in Korea—would cause a catastrophic failure that would blackout the United States. Such is the vulnerability of the system.

America’s electrical grid is vulnerable not only to San Jose-style attacks, but to an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack—a nuclear explosion in the high atmosphere, creating an electro-magnetic pulse that destroys electrical wiring and hardware across the affected area. Such an explosion placed over the center of the U.S. could destroy the infrastructure that distributes electricity to consumers and industrial users in every state except Alaska and Hawaii. This phenomenon has been well understood since the 1960s, and Cold War–era nuclear strategy assumed that a nuclear attack on population centers would be accompanied by an EMP attack in order to disable an enemy’s command and control system.

As a side note, it has recently been discovered that a massive solar storm could cause similar damage—although probably less extensive. Scientists estimate that such storms, called Coronal Mass Ejections, strike the earth every 150 to 300 years. Since the advent of electricity we have not experienced this type of event, which means we are in the window—indeed, it is believed that such a storm just missed Earth last July. At a 2013 conference to assess such risks, analysts from Lloyds of London concluded that “the total US population at risk of extended power outage from a [Coronal Mass Ejection] is between 20 to 40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years.”

Why is it important to be thinking about the possibility of terrorists waging coordinated San Jose-style attacks on large transformers—maybe the San Jose attack was a practice run, after all—or of an EMP attack, or of a solar storm of the kind just described? What we know from work performed in the 1990s by a Congressionally-mandated EMP Commission is that without electricity, the U.S. has the industrial infrastructure to provide for only 30 million of its over 300 million citizens. If an EMP attack occurred right now, the lights in this room would go off and most of us would be walking home, since many cars and gas pumps would be disabled. Our cell phones and iPads are likely to turn on, but not our computers and laptops—and in any case, cellular networks and the Internet will have likely been destroyed. Those of us able to reach home would have no lights or refrigeration. Most water is pumped electronically as well. So we would have only the food and bottled water we have stored in our houses—normally about three days worth. Our ability to communicate, to travel, to operate hospitals, to provide water and other necessities, would be lacking. The great majority of us would die from lack of food and water, or from diseases associated with lack of sanitation, medicine, and temperature control—not to mention social breakdown and the absence of civil authority. For good measure, there would be no good way to prevent our nuclear power plants from melting down, since as we saw at Fukishima they require electric power to cool their reactors.

Given the potentially devastating consequences of failing to defend our sophisticated but vulnerable electrical grid, citizens might well wonder how it is that our government, which doesn’t bat an eye at spending billions of dollars on the most frivolous and wasteful projects, fails year after year to do so. The explanation goes deeper than America’s physical vulnerability—it goes to our intellectual vulnerability. Which brings me to the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Boston Attack

Immigrant brothers Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev—the former a student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the latter a sometime recipient of taxpayer largesse in the form of welfare—appear to have read an Internet publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—likely the creation of the late American-born imam and al Qaeda commander Anwar Al’Awlaki—called Inspire. It was there that they came across an illustrated article on “how to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.” Each and every issue of this publication seeks to inspire action against America as Islam’s number one enemy. Last spring it contained a piece by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Commander Qassim Ar-Reimy, which read in part:

O American nation, indeed, your security is not achieved by despoiling other nations’ security or by attacking and oppressing them . . . . Do you dare think that after all this you will be salvaged and feel secure? Nay! Instead, everyday you will be hit by the unexpected and your leaders can repel nothing! Hence, blame none but yourselves. Gulp the bitterness of war, death, destruction and insecurity as other oppressed humans do.

O American nation, did the war end with the killing of Sheikh Usama bin Laden (may Allah accept him) like your leaders lied unto you? The Boston events . . . indicate that . . . operations against you has taken a path which can be controlled not. Because making these bombs has become in everyone’s hand reach. They have this way and a bit of thinking, choosing a location which will damage your economy and terrify your hearts, thence you will pray for woes and destruction.

The automatic response whenever one brings up the Boston bombing, or any domestic attack or attempted attack inspired by Islam, is that there are many patriotic American Muslims who do not read the Koran literally and who abhor such violence. This is true. But here are some facts: We have today between five and ten million Muslims in the United States; and in surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center, 21 percent of these Muslims find suicide bombing acceptable and five percent have a favorable view of al Qaeda. That may be a low percentage, but five percent of five to ten million is a lot of people. Often these Muslims are radicalized by foreign agents such as the publishers of Inspire—as well, it must be said, as by the ideological left in our schools and in Hollywood, who tirelessly and tiresomely portray America as an oppressive country with a tradition of exploiting its minorities at home and third world peoples abroad. In any case, such a large and disaffected population presents a real problem in a free society such as ours, which is based on ideas like religious freedom and individual rights. We must hold firm to these ideas, which are the source of our greatness. But we must not be blind to the presence of those who seek to destroy us by taking advantage of our freedom.

Above all, we ought to speak the truth: When Army medical officer Nidal Hasan was charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” for instance, he should have been charged with terrorism or combat-related murder, and not with “workplace violence,” the euphemism preferred by the Army and the Defense Department.

The leaders of Iran—a nation that possesses advanced ballistic missiles and either already has nuclear warheads, as some Soviet defectors believe, or is in the process of building them—do not themselves mince words. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, has recently said: “America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic, and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists.” After 30 years of sponsoring attacks on America with impunity—from the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in 1983 to the 9/11 attack, prior to which some of the hijackers received their final pre-flight training in Iran—Iran’s leaders see no reason to stop now. For America’s part, we say that we will not let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, but we engage in negotiations that will let them do so by subterfuge—and we look the other way as China and Russia aid them, cutting our defense budget as we go.

What Is To Be Done

There are clear practical steps to be taken to address America’s physical vulnerabilities. The first step in protecting our electrical grid is simply to build fences around the substations to hide the large transformers. This modestly priced step has been proposed by the former head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but has yet to be acted upon.

Second, there are workable proposals to harden the grid against damage from an extreme solar storm. The Secure High-Voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage (or SHIELD) Act has been introduced by Arizona Congressman Trent Franks. The cost would be less than a billion dollars—a drop in the bucket in an economy of over $16 trillion. Yet the bill remains in committee.

Third, the threat of an EMP attack—the consequences of which could be even more terrible—requires a ballistic missile defense of a kind well within our capability that could stop not only a ship-launched attack from Iran, but a missile launched by China or Russia as well. The Obama administration opposes missile defense in principle, thinking it destabilizing. As a result, we are purposefully kept vulnerable, by our own government, to nuclear blackmail or attack by Russia and China and by their surrogate Iran. This is reprehensible, and missile defense should become a major political issue until our government acts.

As for the threat of domestic terrorism by Jihadists living in this country as citizens and as legal and illegal aliens, the Muslim Brotherhood—which has made it their goal, as stated in their main operational documents, to “destroy [America’s] miserable house from within”—should be declared a terrorist organization both here and abroad. Its affiliates such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America should be disbanded, and their activities made illegal. Today these groups not only take advantage of the protection of our laws to work toward our destruction, but are officially recognized as representatives of American Muslims by officials in the White House, at the FBI, and elsewhere. At the same time, we should institute an educational program of assimilation, teaching immigrants the virtues of the American creed of equal rights, civil and religious liberty, and the rule of law under the Constitution.

Here is Abraham Lincoln in a speech in 1838:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

As a nation of freemen today, we are courting suicide by ignoring clear and present dangers. Our elected representatives have eyes but do not see, and they have ears but do not hear. We must awaken ourselves, and then awaken them, before it is too late.

Copyright © 2014 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.



  1. A friend shared this with me & stirred my curiosity. Looking forward to hearing what SUFA thinks.

  2. Black Flag® says:

    The threat to internal security always rises from the discontentment of rule.

    A rise in threats only comes as a RESPONSE to the rise of overt government control imposing its will over the will of the individuals.

    70,000 new laws are passed EVERY YEAR in the US. No one is innocent anymore. Everyone, every day, is breaking some law.

    As such, the law enforcement is then allowed to be administrated by mere wish. Anyone can be arrested at any time for irrelevant things so to force a level of complacency and sheepishness. Dare not piss of an incompetent low-level government bureaucrat no matter how weird and bizarrely he interferes in a man’s life; he can call on this law enforcement and make any man’s life hell.This gives rises to more and more people who will resist – even when the law is clear (Bundy).

    But the ratchet effect is relentless. As more law makes more criminals and more resistance, more calls for more laws is the only answer offered. Nothing else is considered. Hence, the problems will only get worse and worse in this matter.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    The inevitable will come, period. The term “terrorist” has been perverted by the Left Wing so bad, your Momma could be considered one, which is absolute bullshit. Is the threat against the power grid real? Yes, very much so. But it won’t come from any freedom loving honest people, it will either be natural, a foreign attack, or government sponsored. There is no other option. Unless a small group of idiots do something dumb, which is highly doubtful, the treat to the grid is easy to figure out. If it happens (just like every other disaster/mass murder) it will blamed on those LESS likely to actually do it, and later proven to be Left Wingers or foreigners, or a natural event.

    Keep your bullets loaded and your scopes on target! 🙂

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Sedgewick says:

    April 21, 2014 at 10:50 pm (Edit)

    There is no question of the value of freedom, and indeed, someone needs to ‘fight’ for it.

    I was thinking more in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Is trying to get through to a hand full of people on a thread somewhere going to make enough of a difference? Is it fast enough? Will it suffice?

    I posit that it is grossly insufficient, thus a wasted effort.

    You either need to shake the whole world up to provoke abrupt change, or kill almost everyone and start new.

    The latter is not our place. We’re only ordinary men. The former is futile?

    Why bother?

    WE wait for the weight of the government to crush itself. Society will go batshit crazy and there will be cities on fire. We sit back and weight till they are worn out and tired, swoop in, finish off the Progressives and start a new. Simple plan. “D

  5. @ Charlie……………….ok Charlie… have lost me on the Koch Brothers. Your arguments mean nothing to me until you throw in George Soros and Tom Steyer. Idecided to do a little research and looked at Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Tom Steyer…..AND their connections to Harry Reid. Very interesting find.

    Koch Brothers – given to conservative causes and politicians over the last 6 years……384 million dollars.

    George Soros – given to liberal causes and politicians over the last 6 years….411 million dollars.

    Tom Steyer – given to liberal causes and politicians over the last 6 years…494 million and that is NOT counting the 100 million promised to Democrats this year on the promise of stalling the pipe line which has now happened.

    Warren Buffet – given to liberal causes and politicians over the last 6 years….234 million dollars.

    Ok…..I have read your ravings against the Koch brothers but nothing said against the others……the most blatant being Tom Steyer who promised 100 million to the democratic paraty IF and ONLY IF…Obama shelved the keystone pipeline…..WHY? Because it is his trucks that would haul the oil from Canada instead of the pipeline. So…it got shelved again and the Democratic party gets its 100 million.

    Soros has ownership in dozens of “green technologies” that do not work……..but somehow seems to get billions from the US……

    Oh, and I might mention that Tom Steyer is a hedgefund manager…you know, the types that you despise yet funny how you do not mention him.

    Our government is bought and paid for and Obama is no exception….neither is Harry Reid of Nevada…..who is tied directly to Tom Steyer and Soros on green energy crapola and who manages a significant portion of his millions.

    • Just saw this, BF. I have no problem including any and all of those who own the government with their dollars (earned off the backs of others) … not a problem at all. 🙂

      • Toto and Obama, too 🙂

      • Sorry, Colonel, I thought it was BF … same answer though … the 1% own the government and therefore enslaves us all (however they want, whenever they want) … FACT of life today in America … we are a third-world nation.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Your solution, government ownership by a mob, would devolve to an oligarchy all the same – as all Communist nations show.

          It is no surprise.

          With violent power, it’s optimum use is in concentrated hands.

          Distributed violence, by definition, is small compared to the rest combined, hence a small threat – concentrated power is larger compared to the rest combined, hence a larger threat – hence, violent power is morphed to concentrate as its effectiveness over larger numbers increases.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Somehow, our corrupt government, owned by the 1% will magically transform into some Utopia when we change the name of government to Communism or Socialism, also still run by the 1%. Strange how idiots think 😉

            • Idiots don’t think … your cue, G. Say something bright now.

              In the meantime, what say the flag wavers now?

              • Of course idiots think, they – like you – merely think irrationally most of the time.

                Gman is right.

                It is far easier to seize a government under an oligarchy of Socialism then of Mercantilism.
                The latter claims control of violent power by DICTATES of Idealism, merely getting enough people to agree to the idea, the power seekers easily control the means of concentrated violence. (See Russia, China, et al)

                A mercantilism control of violent power is gained by EXCHANGE – bribery. He must bribe people to achieve their agreement to a mercantilist control (see USA, Western Europe). When the money runs out, so down goes the mercantilist.

                Not until the IDEA runs out, usually after a massive collapse and deaths of millions, does the Socialist oligarchy get reduced – but even then, their infection merely plays host to the new owner, who usually only brings a small change to the same idea in a claim the small change will fix the problem of the former regime.

          • Hence, you speak nonsense once again. Third World dictatorships used the Army (not numbers) … IN fact, it was numbers that overthrew those they could (i.e., CUBA) … try again.

            • Charlie, your brain is wired backwards.

              What do you think an army is, other than a concentration of violent power?
              What do you think a command of an army is, other than even greater concentration of violent power?

              You are a fellow with ideas that merely float around in your head untethered of reason.

  6. Sed:
    “I was thinking more in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Is trying to get through to a hand full of people on a thread somewhere going to make enough of a difference? Is it fast enough? Will it suffice?”

    First, you lead with ideas, then all things take care of themselves.

    You need not kill anyone nor demand an abrupt change. It is not necessary.

    The first concept of broad-based human rights came from Jesuit monks in Spain in the mid-1600’s who merely posited this thought:

    “If all men are God’s children, do not all men share God’s mercy?” in pointing out the deprivations on the natives that the Spanish were exercising, and that all men where created equal, including those natives.

    It took nearly another 300 years to end slavery in the West, but end it did.

    It is the leading with ideas that makes change last, not force nor “effort”.
    Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come

    Men’s minds -filled with junk and rote- take a long time to be cleaned up.

    The steady, consistent, coherent message of freedom is necessary until men slowly “get it” themselves.

    • The action you seek is you. Do not ask other men to do, do it yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world, and the world will follow.

      So don’t ask for efficiency and effectiveness. Ask “what am I doing for me”?

      You don’t want government, don’t feed it by your action.

      Avoid it, don’t use it unless utterly necessary – choose another option, even it may be more costly personally to you.

      I did not marry by government.
      I do not take government goodies.
      I do not take government contracts.
      I do not take government medicine.
      I do not call government police.
      I do not ask for government to do anything for me.

      Not easy by any measure, but I do not feed the evil to the absolute degree I possibly can avoid.

    • Mencken’s November 2, 1936, article – published on the eve of the national election pitting incumbent president F.D.R. against challenger Alf Landon – “The Choice Tomorrow”:

      For people in the mass soon grow used to anything, including even being swindled. There comes a time when the patter of the quack becomes as natural and as indubitable to their ears as the texts of Holy Writ, and when that time comes it is a dreadful job debamboozling them.

      • “For people in the mass soon grow used to anything, including even being swindled.”

        Bailouts under Bush & Obama … no shit.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Global Warming — err… Climate Change springs to mind!

        • All men are created equal.
          America is a democracy.
          Work hard and advance.
          America is the greatest country on the planet.
          Anyone can get ahead in America.
          3 for 5 and 6 for a quarter.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            All men are created equal (in the eyes of the Creator); however all have different talents.
            America is a representative republic which has been corrupted into a “democracy” of sorts.
            Work hard and advance.
            America was the greatest country on the planet at one time.
            Anyone who puts forth the effort can get ahead in America although not as easily as in the past.

            • What he said!

              Charlie, I remember 3 for 5 from back in the day..that was the price for joints. 🙂 What is 6 for a quarter?

              • All men are created equal (in the eyes of the Creator); however all have different talents.

                That may work out great for you, when you get to heaven. In the meantime, people are treated unequally across the board by a constitution that is supposed to protect them. FACT. And for those of us who think you’re pissing into the wind with a “creator”, no thanks.

                America is a representative republic which has been corrupted into a “democracy” of sorts.

                America was founded by the rich and is for the rich, end of story.

                Work hard and advance.

                Gigantic crock of shit.

                America was the greatest country on the planet at one time.

                Yeah, when other nations didn’t question American hegemony and were either in cahoots for their own benefit or its victim. Even BF will agree with that.

                Anyone who puts forth the effort can get ahead in America although not as easily as in the past.

                Another GIGANTIC crock of shit.

                Anita, my love … I was kidding around with an old Groucho Marx saying. I don’t think it means much of anything.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Charlie, if you think that many things about America are a GIGANTIC CROCK OF SHIT, please, by all means, try living somewhere else. You will quickly see the difference, regardless of where else you go.

                I am not by any means saying America is perfect. It is far from it, and getting farther from it by the minute; however, it still remains one of the few places in the world where if you work hard, plan, and do the right thing, you do actually have the opportunity to get ahead. That just ain’t so in the vast majority of other places….

                However, try living somewhere else for about 5 to 10 years and keep us updated on how much farther ahead you get compared to those of us who stay here… it will make an interesting study!

  7. Good article-I sometimes believe that our society has decided that it’s more important to be nice and not offend anyone to the point of leaving us vulnerable.

    • vulnerable? Are you serious, VH? If we had any more muscle, we wouldn’t be able to move. Why not strike everyone else while they’re sleeping and get it over with? 🙂

    • Glad you liked it V.H.. Seems like an impressive school. When I have time, I plan to look at some back issues. The author is an expert & hit on simple, but real threats. Personally, I think we would survive the electrical grid issues but his suggestions are simple, no-brainers that should be implemented. I noticed a transformer sub-station the other day & thought how easy it would be to for someone to destroy.

      “the destruction of less than two dozen key large transformers—which weigh hundreds of tons, are transported on special rail cars, and are mostly produced in Korea—would cause a catastrophic failure that would blackout the United States”

      Protecting a couple dozen sites is doable. Would be great training for all those Rambo want-a-bees like the BLM, homeland, etc…

      Boston is another thing. We need to change our mindset.

      • The protection of these transformers more then done now is really a waste of money.

        First, if they were so vulnerable, why hasn’t there been a coordinated attack on them? A lot more easier, and doesn’t cost the perpetrators lives like, say, 911.

        One reason is the same reason why in the wars in parts of the world do not destroy cellular towers. It’s not because the towers are so well fortified – its because belligerents need the towers to communicate for themselves. Same here, bad guys need electricity too.

        There is no group that wants to destroy the people of the United States. There are many who want to destroy the current mindset of the United States – the military industrial complex.

        It does no enemy of the US good to see the US economically destroyed. Every nation and people on the world do depend on the economic power of the US.

        What is wanted by American’s enemies is a end to it military hegemony.

        The power stations are really under no threat.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I feel the biggest threat to the power grid, would come from a natural event such as a solar storm or just bad weather hitting just the right places at the right time. A coordinated attack in an attempt to take down the grid would be almost impossible.

        • Respectfully Flag, I disagree. I think there are at least a million Muslim extremists that would joyfully take their own lives to deal the US a substantial blow. I don’t see the regional transformers as much of a threat. Could they get thirty or so armed & trained teams into the US & to the targets & coordinate a simultaneous attack? Maybe… Doubtful, but maybe. I also think the impact is overstated. There would be regions that suffered, especially California, but most of the country (flyover country) would only be inconvenienced. But even so, upping security at a few dozen sites is prudent & reasonable. Any attempt to do so at 100,000 sites is pushing fear for an agenda & will lead to that bunker mentality you mention…

      • The next thing that happens when you start “protecting” these things that really are not under any threat except in some strange mental excerise is that you start creating a “bunker” mentality.

        Suddenly, key sites in the US have National Guards, a tank, heavy machine guns guarding them. Everywhere you go, you see these emplacements guarding “key” infrastructure.

        What do you think this will do to the minds of the people themselves, where everywhere, they are living under arms?

        Well, there must be a real enemy close by, and everyone is under suspicion.

        Society will begin to degrade and crumble under such constant vigilance and pressure, especially when there is but the most minor threat, if even that, in reality.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You are quite correct. Last thing I want to see is the Police State on display worse than it is now.

        • I agree. Also think he has identified “threats” that deserve attention, but on a one to ten scale are near the bottom. So what, these are easily done with no impact on the top threats.

          So what is the top threat to the US & what should we do to protect ourselves?

          • The top threat to the US right now is not military…it is twofold….economics being the main threat.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              And the top threat to our economics is the Federal Government. At 17 trillion in debt, things won’t last forever. They are trying to take land, spying, attacking people at will and basically ignoring the laws we do have. Don’t prepare for an emergency, your a terrorist, don’t by ammo, your a terrorist, don’t use cash, your a terrorist, Blah, blah, blah. The #1 domestic terrorist’s that threaten this nation are in Washington D.C. They call themselves the Federal Government and they AIN’T here to help 😀

          • The greatest threat to the United States is the government of the United States.

            Its continued expansion, locally and abroad, raises the violence at home and abroad, creating conditions that result in the unthinking masses to demand more government action.

        • This is particularly true. Even when the National Guard deploys for summertime training and the convoys hit the roads… really scares people now days.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    Gotta love the idiocy of the Democrats in NY (sorry Mathius, not intended towards you):

  9. gmanfortruth says:
  10. BLM is trying a power grab in Texas on the Red River…..keep watching it. You will soon see how to handle the Feds. They are claiming that since the Red River is the defined boundary with Oklahoma….and the Red keeps changing its banks from time to time, that the lad “under” the river is actually controlled by the BLM… which, of course, Texas says no. Yesterday…..BLM was met at a rancher’s gate with weapons. The State attorney General has also said…..Texas will not recognize an order from a Washington Federal Judge. It is going to be interesting.

    @ Gman and BF….since the two of you have discussed this before…..military commanders will not take part in BLM land seizures or attempts at land seizures and will not deploy forces against land owners…even if martial law is declared by the POTUS.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have been following D13. Glad to see the Texas AG show some testicles. I don’t see the military doing to much for Obama on anything.

    • Been following this too. Thinking to myself D13 and his buddies got this. Pass the popcorn.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      military commanders will not take part in BLM land seizures or attempts at land seizures and will not deploy forces against land owners…even if martial law is declared by the POTUS.

      I find this hard to accept Colonel. If US military (not National Guard or State Guard) refuse to carry out the orders of the government, then that means the military commanders (and their troops) are telling the US Government that the power of our society in vested only in the military – not the constitutionally mandated civilian leadership over the military. Refusal to act makes these commanders and their troops rogues, acting unlawfully.

      The fact that they may be ordered to act against the citizenry is not to be, and has never been, refused under the concept of our US military. One needs to just look at the Civil War and the acts of the military against citizens of the US in both the Union and the Confederacy.

      So, I find this premise to be unsupportable. Those commanders refusing would, and should, be removed from command. While I detest the idea of military force deployed against the citizenry, I detest more a rogue military deciding and telling our civil authority what orders will or won’t be followed and acting on their own authority. That type of action does nothing more than to embolden that very military to enact their own power authority over the US.

      • Their oath is to uphold the constitution, not the president or government. It is hoped & even expected they will refuse orders they think are illegal. If it proves they were correct, they are vindicated. If they are wrong, the consequences are harsh.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Yes, that is true. The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief and all military members swear to follow the orders (Or lawful orders) of those appointed over them, to include the President.

          Commanders do not have the option of anything more than a “gut” check on whether an order is lawful or not. Those “gut” checks do not constitute the determination of a lawful or unlawful order. Commanders would be, and should be, relieved immediately on refusing to follow the order given (and rightfully so), placed under house arrest and their court-martial will determine the right or wrong of their action.

          Further, too many assign an attitude to military personnel (“they will never do it”) without giving ANY consideration to the personality of the individual. There are just as many troops and commanders inside the military who are no more aligned to the ideals you hope they have than Charlie is to capitalism. They fall on the spectrum just like any of us. Their uniform does not suddenly impart some righteousness of honor in their mind that would automatically have them siding against lawfully constituted authority. The US military is made up of men and women, all with their own thoughts and beliefs. Don’t believe that their uniform automatically makes them side with your view.

          But, you all can hope I suppose. Should it happen that the US military is deployed against the populace and DO act, well then I wonder where you will place the blame for those troops & their commander following the orders issued to them?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I may be reading wrong, so if so, then I apologize now, LOL 🙂

            NO, no military person, regardless of rank, must follow an illegal order, EVER. We have highly educated people that are put in position of power and leadership, but they too, are still subject to the same rule. Posse Comintatus (sp) is still law in this country. Our military should NEVER take arms against those who pay their salaries, EVER. At worst, they should eliminate the criminal government that has invaded this country and pretend to rule. WE don’t have rulers, nor should we ever accept any. The military is to protect the people, not the government.

            • The key….is martial law. Martial law, Plainly……..that is the key. It cannot be ordered at the whim of the POTUS nor Congress. They do NOT have that power….yet. And, you are also incorrect on one other thing. All officers,that go to War College and Command and Control classes, which is now required for field grade, are taught the Constitution…especially when it concerns that citizenry of the US and private enterprise and personal property. That is why you see BLM agents conducting the raids, recently. The BLM can use Federal facilities for staging grounds but cannot order troops to do anything at all….and, local commanders DO HAVE the authority and the right to refuse to allow Federal military posts or bases as staging grounds for the FBI, BLM or any other civilian law enforcement.

              A case in point is the Waco and Davidians debacle….even though they were armed to the teeth with land mines, automatic weapons, and hand grenades. The civilian authorities wanted to use National Guard units to help and it was lawfully declined. ( Martial Law was not in place.) The FBI wanted to use military tanks and armored personnel carriers to breach the compound. Again, it was denied….lawfully. The only thing that the National Guard did was allow the FBI to use a tank retriever ( M88 ) to breach the compound, The military even refused, lawfully so intelligence units to be used to breach the compound. I know this for fact because I was there….not at Waco…but associated and part of the meetings held. I was a commander at the time of an armored tank Battalion in Texas. The commander that allowed the use of military assets and let the FBI have a tank retriever was relieved of his command immediately after the breach….and rightfully so. He was relieved because he did not follow procedure. He allowed the unauthorized use of military equipment.

              We are given the right and opportunity to decipher a lawful and legal order. We, as officers, are NOT required to follow any order deemed illegal and may, legally decline to follow such orders Now, as to the ramifications of this action…..that remains to be seen. But, as concerning my personal position, which I have made clear on here several times….contrary to popular belief, orders are NOT followed blindly. The days of instant and unquestioned obedience are over. They have been over for a long time.

              The POTUS, as a Commander in Chief, does NOT have carte blanche to order martial law Martial Law can only be declared with the vote of Congress and the Senate……EXCEPT in the States where a governor can declare martial law in a natural disaster without the approval of the POTUS nor the administration.

              Please understand that the State Guard ( militia ) are NOT under the authority of the POTUS at any time…..NEVER, But, in retrospect, their commissions and non commissioned ranks are not Federally recognized. The State National Guard DOES have Federal recognition. HOwever, a National Guard unit cannot be activated by the POTUS without the direct approval of the Governor of that State…unless……….there is a formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. Any National Guard unit that has been deployed to Iraq or Kuwait or Afghanistan was done so with the implicit permission of the Governor AND THE COMMANDER OF THAT UNIT. The Governor does NOT have the total power to order a unit to war in the absence of a formal declaration. Likewise, without a formal declaration of martial law….the same applies to local conditions. I, personally do not know of any officer that would order the seizure of lands or personal property at the whim of the BLM or any civilian agency. And I do not know of any officer, including me, that would order nor deploy troops in a civilian matter on the whims of the POTUS without the formal declaration through Congress of martial law. Then and only then, would we be constitutionally bound to follow it. I also suggest that most would not, The military today is smart and well educated. No longer can you go into the military without at least a high school certification and no longer can you be an officer without a college education and demonstrate total and complete mastery of the English language. No longer can you obtain senior military command and control (field grade) without an advanced education….meaning a masters degree or higher.

              Now, taking G mans position, no officer nor military unit would move against the government of any State nor Washington DC. So, removing a sitting civilian from power would be considered a coup and I do not see that happening.

              Also, remember this…..No Federal Court nor SCOTUS can order or authorize martial law not can they order military units into action. So, a Federal Court order is NOT ENFORCEABLE by the military. Not at anytime. Any military commander that follows a Federal or State court Order will be relieved of his command on the spot….and should be,

              Consequently, and as a result of our training, we would not be relieved of command for refusing to follow what WE, as a commander sees, as an unlawful order. This flexibility also allows for military officers to not be used as a tool for civilian authority against its own lands and people.

              • So that’s why all these federal agencies are being armed-so they can ignore State rights. They are creating their own little armies, which aren’t covered by the normal rules that apply to the military or the police. Hell, maybe that coup has already happened!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Well said D13! I’m guessing there is some law that allows for Congress to declare Martial Law. As I see the Constitution, they can only suspend Habeus Corpus. Can you expand on where the Martial Law authority comes from?

              • Sorry, I over simplified it. From the pages of Command and Control and War College…….”martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. ”

                Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President’s imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.”

                In the cases of the martial law being implemented in the past in the United States, it was always to stop violence of mobs and gangs that the civilian authority could not stop or national disasters….and of course the Civil War and the War of 1812.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Good day Colonel, hope all is well.

                First, let me say, where did I say anything about martial law? I did not. There are sufficient examples of military forces being used in civil issues in the United States without the imposition of martial law – this is what I am commenting about in that aspect. Martial law, as you pointed out, suspend civil authority – yet, the military has been used while civil authority was still operational.

                Just for example consider the use of US Army troops (commanded by Gen Douglas MacArthur) against the Bonus Army in Washington DC in 1932 (

                Or we can look at the internment of Japanese in the US during WW@. This was done without martial law. on February 19, 1942, allowed authorized military commanders to designate “military areas” at their discretion, “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” These “exclusion zones,” unlike the “alien enemy” roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen. (

                Those are two simple examples, but they support the point. I know well, as ex-military myself (granted only as an NCO), the rules and requirements about following only lawful orders. Yet, I am trying to say to all of you that the orders given can be shown as lawful by simple actions of te government, forcing commanders to act against the US populace.

                I am also trying to point out that you and others seem to impart some righteous honor on EVERY member of the military and PRESUME to think they would NEVER act against the populace. I point out, with examples, that you are wrong. You HOPE they won’t, but that presumes all of them agree with your views and not those of the government authority. That is a faulty, unsupportable presumption to make – as I have shown (and there are plenty of other examples).

                So, I say to all of you again – it is possible and you have no way to guarantee the officers and troops under their command will refuse to execute the orders given them. I, at least, recognize the possibility that they damn well may do exactly as they are ordered, regardless of whether the order is later found to be lawful or not.

                Hopefully this makes my position clearer?

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Democrat policy success in reality (not Obama’s fairytales)

    Georgia insurers received more than 220,000 applications for health coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s exchange as of the official federal deadline of March 31, state officials said Wednesday.

    Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, though, said premiums have been received for only 107,581 of those policies, which cover 149,465 people.

    “Many Georgians completed the application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage,” Hudgens said in a statement Wednesday.

  12. @BF “Gman is right”

    Now you’re REALLY talking like an insane person. He mimicks you, and is equally as wrong, except he’s a moron. 🙂

  13. Just to keep the pot stirring and drop another hand grenade in.

    As the old man once said so poignantly, “you can do any damn stupid thing you want to just don’t inflict it on a kid.”

    • Sedgewick says:

      And what do you suppose society should do to protect children from being raised in ‘alternative’ families?

    • Why is this a problem? It’s about time we accept that even Hillary the Goldwater girl Clinton can be right once in a while … it does take a village.

    • The truth is that adoption in the United States is too expensive, and many heterosexual couples find the costs prohibitive, so they are priced out of the market by gay couples, who have much higher incomes and are, 100% of the time, forced to take babies from other people since they cannot conceive them on their own. In fact, gay adopters have such an insatiable desire to parlay their high incomes into cash-for-kids that they waged a war against Catholic Charities adoption centers, going as far as forcing many such agencies to shut down as punishment for not giving gay couples other people’s abandoned children.

      The dirty secret about gay adoption is that most often when homosexual couples adopt, one of their pair is the biological parent. Usually the child comes from a former heterosexual relationship that broke down. So when they “adopt,” they typically have to put a bunch of people through the mud fight that my dear friend Janna endured: they have to drag the opposite-sex parent to family court, strip him or her of custody, and then force the poor little kid to submit to the parental authority of a new, sometimes creepy, person who’s sleeping with a biological parent and very likely caused the breakup of that child’s original family.

      That’s the real-life adoption story that doesn’t make for great gay headlines. Gay adoption has unfortunate but ineluctable ties to divorce. In fact, by encouraging gay adoption so much, we are encouraging a whole new generation of homewreckers – gays who want to be parents and figure out that the cheapest way to do it is to seduce someone of the same sex who is currently in a rocky marriage with children.

  14. plainlyspoken says:


  15. Start at 26:40 or so for the Ayn Rand stuff … gotta love Hitchens.

    • Gotta love their confusion and hypocrisy.

      “THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control.”

      Then says who ACTUALLY they want to control those people’s lives….

      “Socialism is not mere Fgovernment ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

      Either the government owns it, or workers control the means of production owned by someone else, and my neighbors tell me what to do in my own home.

      Evil to its core.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie given name is Monica Lewinsky, he’s been there and done that 🙂

        • Oh, illiterate one, I think you were trying to write: Charlie’s given name is …

          but you’re a moron so we let it go … over and over and over again … (smiley face, MF’er) …

      • As opposed to private capital telling you what to do … you’re very confused, BF … very confused … so unsure of yourself, you claim to opt for anarchy, yet accept rule by a 1% … hell, you’re all for it. So, either you’re confused as to who you want to run your life and/or you’re preference is for wealth to run it over having no more than an equal say. You need to change the crack in your pipe, sir.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Private capital does not tell me what to do, Charlie. That is your confusion.

          You think that when you make a deal or trade, the other side is telling you what to do????

          If you do not like the trade, you don’t trade. If you do the trade, you want the other guy has for what you don’t want of yours.

          But only the bizarre brain thinks “I want what you have, but I want to keep what I have, so give your stuff to me!!”

          I accept no such thing – I, like you, suffer it. You just can’t learn what is and what is not “capitalism”, primarily because it undermines your socialism terribly. So you convoluted NOT-capitalism to be “capitalism”.

    • Dunno, seems to me it is not a particularly “new” idea as they advertise. Where tried before, it tends to break down in a hurry.

  16. Watch the fireworks down here……in Texas on the Oklahoma border. A US land grab to say that state borders are subject to Federal jurisdiction… ain’t gonna fly. Not only has the governor and the AG of Texas say that it aint gonna happen, the ranchers have gone on National TV saying to bring plenty of firepower….you will need it, I can guarantee you that we will mobilize a thousand armed people over night and we will stand down the Feds.

    In addition, the Captain of the Texas Rangers and the Captain of the Department of Public Safety of Texas has also said…we will not aid the Federal government in any attempt to take personal land and property, We defy the authority of the Feds.

    Woooooooweeee….gonna be fun.

  17. Well, isn’t this just great-this has never been specifically about Bundy-it is about much larger issues-and one has to wonder just how Bundy got onto this topic in the first place-but I assume Bundy’s stupidity has just stopped the real conversation and we will talk only about racism.

    Cliven Bundy Under Fire for ‘Negro’ Comments, Wondering Whether Blacks Would Be ‘Better Off as Slaves, Picking Cotton’
    Apr. 24, 2014 9:36am Becket Adams

    Rancher Cliven Bundy pulls in a rope while on horseback at a protest area near Bunkerville, Nev. Wednesday, April 16, 2014. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher) AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher

    Rancher Cliven Bundy pulls in a rope while on horseback at a protest area near Bunkerville, Nev. Wednesday, April 16, 2014. (AP)

    Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has come under heavy fire for reportedly making racially charged remarks about “the Negro” and whether blacks might be “better off as slaves, picking cotton.”

    The New York Times first reported the controversial comments.

    “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy said, according to the Times, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”

    “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he continued. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

    Lawmakers who have in the past voiced their support for the rancher, including Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), quickly distanced themselves from the comments.

    “Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” Heller’s spokesman told the Times in an email.

    Paul’s spokesman said in a statement to Business Insider: “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”

    Bundy, Paul and Heller did not immediately respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Old ranchers have an interesting world view, for sure. The main point about blacks on welfare having less freedom is not offensive, it’s basically true. While cotton picking isn’t the answer, the reality in many inner cities and places in the South, less freedom and welfare go together. Race doesn’t matter.

      I’ve heard much worse. Who cares?

      • We now have a media that doesn’t really cover the story-they go for gotcha moments-well Bundy gave them one. And Now that is all you will be hearing about this issue. Whether or not Bundy is racist has nothing to do with whether or not so much State land should be managed by the federal government. Or whether or not the federal government is managing the land correctly. Or whether or not the environmental laws are so over the top that people simply can’t survive abiding by them. Or whether or not the politicians and the people who manage all this land are using this trust to get themselves rich off the destruction of people like farmers, loggers, and ranchers. And that’s without looking at the loss of private property rights that are also caused by environmental laws.

        • VH – you’re absolutely right: Whether or not Bundy is a racist has nothing to do with the issues. But you ignore another key point — whether or not so much state land SHOULD be managed by the federal government (or whether or not such land is being managed correctly, etc. etc. etc.) has nothing to do with Bundy’s obligation and refusal to pay the grazing fees.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, there is much more that is not being told. I’m on the road and will add more later. In the meantime, the Feds could just place a lean on his estate. Since they haven’t, maybe they don’t have the legal standing afterall

            • Feds don’t have to wait until he dies to collect; they can (and I believe did) obtain a court order and levy his assets now.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I could be wrong, I have read nothing about asset seizure or any action of that nature. Considering that he used the land for 13 years between any court action and without permission, that could pose another issue for the Feds.

                It’s not over yet and I hope Harry Reid gets nailed to the wall for his part

              • From another article: “The rancher hasn’t paid the BLM’s grazing fees since 1993, and a federal judge first ordered him to remove his cattle from the land in 1998. In July [of last year I believe], another judge said the BLM could remove his cattle if it was still on public land by the end of August.”

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, much history on this. I believe Rosa Parks was also ordered th the back of the bus. 🙂

              • And that has what to do with anything?

          • I will agree that Bundy is legally obligated to pay the fees-I won’t agree that his not doing so has nothing to do with the issues.

            First- I wonder how many of us have stated “this isn’t fair, we should all not pay our taxes” But we don’t do it-because we don’t want to be the one who loses everything and possibly goes to jail. So when a man stands up and does so- for a good reason-I for one can’t help but respect him -especially when I am aware that he and his family will be destroyed because they MUST be destroyed or the government might have to actually listen to the people if they don’t shut any disobedience down.

            Second-all those ideas that Slate is putting at the feet of the KKK, etc. also came from our Founders-we have the right to rise up against a tyrannical government-yes, this idea can be abused-but so can the argument that we all must follow the law-is that follow the law no matter what, no matter how unfair they are? There is a balance here somewhere between being law abiding citizens without becoming governmental whipping dogs. So when is it okay and when is it not-Hard question to answer.

            • True, this raises some tricky questions. But at least to me this one is a no-brainer. You are not talking about someone whose rights are being trampled by the government with no legal recourse.

              The federal government owns the land in question. What if it was a PRIVATE landowner allowing him to graze subject to certain restrictions? Would you still support Bundy’s refusal to pay for decades because he believes the restrictions/fees being imposed by the private landowner are too severe?? Or would you now support the private landowner in taking action to (i) recover outstanding fees owed and (ii) kick Bundy off his land?

              • “You are not talking about someone whose rights are being trampled by the government with no legal recourse.” This I need to think about.

                I agree that Bundy has legal recourse-I’ve just not sure not signing the agreement and paying the fees would help his case or hurt it-he is making a stance against the government based on the unfairness of the law-but the law is still the law -so not sure how much recourse one has based on unfair. I also must point out that in order to get a permit, notice a permit not a contract, a permit -so I wonder if there are any limits on how often the government can change the rules. I don’t know if you read it or not but an article was posted by a former rancher, I believe, went back and looked for it but gave up after awhile. It pointed out that they have to sign agreements to get the permits-so signing this agreement would legally commit him to follow the rules that he was disagreeing with. So paying the fees was attached to signing something he had no intention of following, which would make him even more legally required to pay them. It was also pointed out that there was also an agreement about water rights that were tied to how many cattle you grazed-so if you followed the rules you would be in danger of losing your water rights. Now I don’t know how much of this article is true but it makes me want more information, before I decide whether or not I think he should have paid the fees.

              • I meant signing the agreement and paying the fees wouldn’t help his case.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Look what happened to the Occupy crowd. Peppers prayed and treated like dogs. Look what happened to the Bundy’s , they got their property back. The difference in the two is quite clear, one took the shit, one didnt

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I agree totally. 😉

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One of the key premises of this article (which I actually read a few days before it appeared here) is that the US does indeed still have many enemies, and to think otherwise is foolish.

    Regardless of the reasons why we have these enemies, the sad fact is that we do have them, and regardless of what we do from here on out, we will still have them for GENERATIONS.

    Even if we took BF’s advice and played nice with everyone else and left everyone else alone, the hatreds that currently exist would continue to exist for many, many years to come. After centuries of time to develop these enemies, “playing nice” isn’t going to change anything in the short-run. It would take a bare minimum of a century of “playing nice” before some of these hatreds even began to dissipate, which means there would still be threats to us for more than a century, even if we started behaving ourselves.

    Of course, that assumes that other people/nations eventually change their behavior based upon our change in behavior, and that is only an assumption!

    • Well said Peter! I don’t think the transformers are a primary target. But then, how many people thought someone would attack major buildings with planes full of people a few years ago? Flag is right that we need to avoid a bunker mentality, but I still see the need to guard where it’s practical on significant risks. A major water supply is a scary, but I don’t know what they could use that would not be neutralized by the chlorine (unless cutting the chlorine is part of the plan). Slow acting to get the most victims…. Of course, the like bombs for the fear factor.

  19. Sedgewick says:

    March 3, 1877 Congress passes Desert Lands Act, allowing citizens to buy up to 640 acres of public land if the land is brought under cultivation.

    1946 Congress forms the Bureau of Land Management by combining two existing agencies, the Grazing Service, established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands, and the General Land Office, created in 1812 to oversee disposal of federal lands.

    1954 The Bundy family of Southern Nevada seeks BLM approval to graze livestock on a section of federal land called the “Bunkerville Allotment” along the Virgin River.

    1966 The Bundy family seeks approval of six grazing agreements with the BLM, agreements that could be terminated by the agency after due notice in writing because of default or violation.

    Early 1990s BLM develops plans to protect the desert tortoise on federal lands in Southern Nevada. Tells Bundy permission to graze his cattle on public lands would depend on tortoise sitings.

    March 1993 Bundy stops paying fees for grazing rights.

    July 13, 1993 BLM sends Bundy a trespass notice on lands now deemed illegal for grazing.

    January 24, 1994 Bundy throws away a BLM order to remove cattle that was left on his dashboard.

    February 1994 Bundy pays grazing fees to Clark County. County returns check, citing lack of jurisdiction.

    1995 BLM issues more trespass notices. Bundy challenges the agency’s authority.

    1997 Bundy rejects BLM’s invitation to meet.

    — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

    On October 31, 1864, Nevada became a state and assumed jurisdiction of the land in question.

    I would argue that from that point on, Nevada is the ruling legal authority of the Bundy Ranch, and the federal government is subject to Nevada law in regard to land usage, contracts and disputes.

    The federal government owns the land, but does not have legal authority over Nevada. It is no different than any other land owner. There is no special authority over Nevada on the part of the federal government, only regulations as to best manage it’s land.

    Bureau of Land Management has no special authority, and must go through the state of Nevada to address this issue.

    What does Nevada state law say? Does it give authority to the federal government?

  20. Sedgewick says:

    April 24, 1820 Congress passes the Land Act of 1820, lowering cost of public land purchases and requiring full payment at the time of purchase.

    Prior to 1848 Congress establishes additional laws governing transfer of land from public to private ownership.

    July 24, 1847 Brigham Young leads first company of Mormon pioneers into the Salt Lake Valley, beginning the settlement of communities throughout the Great Basin. At the time, the territory was part of Mexico.

    February 1848 United States signs the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the war with Mexico. The federal government takes possession of all land in the West that was claimed by Mexico, including the present states of Nevada and Utah.

    1847-1869 Land ownership in the Mormon “State of Deseret,” later named the Utah Territory, is governed by the Utah Territorial Assembly. The federal government unsuccessfully attempts to impose national land laws on the territory.

    1855 Congress directs president to appoint a surveyor general for the Utah Territory. The surveyor is directed to survey lands in the territory in preparation for sale.

    July 1855 The surveyor general arrives in Salt Lake City and begins his survey, starting at one corner of Temple Square. Conflicts with the territorial government cause the surveyor to abandon his post in 1857. His successors recommend the federal government should not attempt any more surveys in the Utah Territory.

    1862 Congress passes Homestead Act, providing opportunity for citizens to claim public land as their own if the land is cultivated and improved.

    July 14, 1862 Congress begins adding land to the Nevada Territory, cutting away the western edge of the Utah Territory.

    February 24, 1863 Congress creates Arizona Territory, splitting if off from the New Mexico Territory. The tip of what is now Southern Nevada was in the New Mexico Territory.

    October 31, 1864 Nevada Territory is admitted to the Union as the 36th state. The original state boundaries do not include current Clark County.

    1865 Brigham Young sends 45 church members to settle the Muddy Mission along the Virgin and Muddy rivers in what is now Clark County. Among settlements were St. Thomas, Bunkerville and Mesquite.

    May 5, 1866 Nevada’s eastern boundary is moved farther east, taking more land from the Utah Territory.

    January 18, 1867 Congress transfers the northwestern corner of the Arizona Territory to Nevada, including what is now Clark County.

    Conflicts between the federal and Utah territorial governments keep the issue of land ownership on hold until 1868. Meanwhile, Congress carves away large portions of the Utah Territory, adding them to neighboring territories and states, including Nevada and New Mexico.

    1869 The government establishes the first General Land Office in Salt Lake City to begin selling lands in the public domain. After an individual completes the requirements for a land entry, his case file is sent to Washington, D.C. This office confirms everything is in order and issues a patent (official land title) transferring the rights of land ownership from the government to the person.

    January 4, 1896 Congress admits Utah as the 45th state.

    March 3, 1877 Congress passes Desert Lands Act, allowing citizens to buy up to 640 acres of public land if the land is brought under cultivation.

    1946 Congress forms the Bureau of Land Management by combining two existing agencies, the Grazing Service, established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands, and the General Land Office, created in 1812 to oversee disposal of federal lands.

    1954 The Bundy family of Southern Nevada seeks BLM approval to graze livestock on a section of federal land called the “Bunkerville Allotment” along the Virgin River.

    1966 The Bundy family seeks approval of six grazing agreements with the BLM, agreements that could be terminated by the agency after due notice in writing because of default or violation.

    Early 1990s BLM develops plans to protect the desert tortoise on federal lands in Southern Nevada. Tells Bundy permission to graze his cattle on public lands would depend on tortoise sitings.

    March 1993 Bundy stops paying fees for grazing rights.
    July 13, 1993 BLM sends Bundy a trespass notice on lands now deemed illegal for grazing.

    January 24, 1994 Bundy throws away a BLM order to remove cattle that was left on his dashboard.

    February 1994 Bundy pays grazing fees to Clark County. County returns check, citing lack of jurisdiction.

    1995 BLM issues more trespass notices. Bundy challenges the agency’s authority.

    1997 Bundy rejects BLM’s invitation to meet.

    November 3, 1998 U.S. District Court for Nevada orders Bundy to remove his livestock from the Bunkerville allotment of federal land before Nov. 3, 1998. He also is ordered to pay trespass damages to the government.

    April 2008 BLM notifies Bundy that if he doesn’t remove his livestock and fencing from public lands, the government would do it and charge him the costs.

    May 2008 May 2008: Bundy tells BLM he will do whatever is necessary to protect his “unalienable forage, water and access rights.”

    June 8, 2011 BLM sends trespass notice to Bundy.

    July 2011 BLM notifies Bundy his livestock continues to graze on federal land and the cattle may be impounded and sold.

    April 2012 Department of Interior offers to gather and ship the cattle for sale, with Bundy getting the money. Bundy rejects the offer.

    2013 BLM officials say they would not use their impound authority because of concern the situation could escalate.

    July 9, 2013 U.S. District Court for Nevada finds that Bundy not only has failed to comply with the court’s 1998 order to remove cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment, but that he also is now grazing livestock on “a broad swath of additional public lands” without approval.

    The court further finds that Bundy has caused “irreparable harm” by allowing his cattle to damage the public lands.

    Bundy argues that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. U.S. District Judge Lloyd George notes that in the 1998 ruling the court found that “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

    The court rejects Bundy’s motion to dismiss the case and permanently enjoins him from trespassing on the public lands in question. He is given 45 days to remove his livestock. If he fails to comply, the government is authorized to seize and remove his cattle.

    September 2013 BLM sends Bundy a list of his cattle seen on public lands. He is billed almost $330,000 in trespassing and investigation fee.

    October 8, 2013 U.S. District Court for Nevada finds that in spite of its July order, Bundy continues to graze his cattle illegally on public lands. The court also states that Bundy’s objections to the government’s actions are “without merit.”

    U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks gives the government authority to enforce the July order and permanently prohibits Bundy from trespassing on the former Bunkerville Allotment.

    March 19, 2014 Bureau of Land Management issues notice of intent to remove “unauthorized livestock” from 13 specific allotments in Clark County.

    March 27, 2014 The Department of the Interior through the BLM publishes notice in the Federal Register of the planned temporary closure of certain public lands in Southern Nevada to allow the impoundment of livestock grazing illegally on the lands.

    April 5, 2014 BLM begins impoundment and removal of Bundy’s livestock from public lands as authorized in two U.S. District court orders.

    April 12, 2014 With armed Bundy supporters massing near Bunkerville, BLM Director Neil Kornze announces decision to conclude the gathering of cattle from federal lands and to return corralled cattle to the rancher.

    • Sedgewick says:

      Early 1990s BLM develops plans to protect the desert tortoise on federal lands in Southern Nevada. Tells Bundy permission to graze his cattle on public lands would depend on tortoise sitings.

      March 1993 Bundy stops paying fees for grazing rights.

      July 13, 1993 BLM sends Bundy a trespass notice on lands now deemed illegal for grazing.

      — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

      The above excerpt from the timeline is where I see that it all could have been avoided. It all started over a conflict of interest with turtles. What could have been a cooperative effort has turned into a forceful dispute.

      What if, instead of running him off, and in exchange for his taxes/land fees, he was given the option to accommodate turtles with such things like re-routing fencing, reorganize acres/preserve X number of acres for them? …build a turtle oasis or something.

      …or maybe have him send an annual turtle report/study by mail, or send a scientist[s] to his ranch to set it up for him and maybe periodically stop by. Give him whatever equipment he needs. There could even be participation with local high schools or colleges where students camp out for a couple of weekends a year, hunt turtles and collect data.

      It seems that would be much easier, and without force. The legal argument appears to work against the Bundys.

      • “The legal argument appears to work against the Bundys” — I have an issue with this statement; the legal argument is CLEARLY against the Bundys.

        This boils down, in its simplest form, to a landowner (albeit the federal government) setting the rules for another’s use of its land.

        • Sedgewick says:

          I don’t disagree.

          What appears to me is clear to you because you are a lawyer and I am not. I don’t even like law. I’m just being analytical, using law as a framework.

          You read my answer; work with each other instead of against each other; reorganize to accommodate turtles.

          I can see why the guy would be pissed off though. The law is forcefully prioritizing turtles over humans and livestock. It started when the BLM told him his land use/livelihood depended on whether or not he was bothering turtles.

          How would you like it if you were given notice that you may have to move out of a suburban neighborhood because your neighborhood is a convenient stop for migrating geese? Would you continue to pay taxes if you thought you may have to pack up and leave the following year? How much time money and effort does it take to switch homes?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Sed, The turtles were fine until the government began killing them up north. It’s all a great big lie so Harry Reid and his sissy crooked son can fill their pockets. This is all bullshit that some FEDS like Harry Reid should be jailed for, or better yet hanged in public!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Just a hint, I’m an angry white man over this, screw the FEDs, they corrupt to the core! If I could have been there, I would have, loaded to the hilt and on a horse!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, I wish I had more time today to chat about this. Had a post surgery visit to the VA in Pittsburgh, that screws a whole day away. I do believe that currently, the laws are against Bundy. I’m not seeing it by the actions of the Feds now, however, which leads me in the direction that they may not have the authority they claim.

          First, I don’t think that the Feds can legally own the land in question, based on the Constitution Article 1 Section 8. Just my opinion as I’m not an attorney or a crooked politician 😀

          I have chosen my side long ago and stand firm! The BLM stopped providing the services they were being paid (called grazing fees) to provide. Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, are all targets now, why? Is our govt really worried about a few million when they are 17 trillion in debt? The fees are bullshit, the reason for them ended, so should the payments. I stand firm with the Ranchers! I believe history will also be on my side!

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” The BLM stopped providing the services they were being paid (called grazing fees) to provide. ”

            This is a fair legal argument in my (unprofessional) opinion. Breech of contract?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              There is much more:

              Why The Other Ranchers Support Cliven Bundy

              A statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner- a fellow rancher from Nevada.

              There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

              • Ah, there it is-thanks G. Did you read this Buck-this is the article I was talking about but couldn’t find.

            • How, specifically, did the federal government stop providing thecservices they were paid to provide?

              As the landowner, they have the right to establish the conditions and fees for the use od the land. It doesn’t matter that those conditions/fees have changed over time.

              I’ll ask again — where would you stand if this was a private landowner setting the terms of Bundys use??

              • Since you asked me this first and I failed to answer-I will answer it now-I probably would side with the private owner against Bundy. But government ownership isn’t the same as government owed or rather owned by the people. Bundy and other ranchers have worked these lands from the beginning-they didn’t freely enter into these contracts with the government-the government just said this is the way it’s gonna be-we don’t care if you’ve invested years into building your ranch-just do as you are told. WE are changing the rules and if they are so restrictive that you are destroyed or have to walk away from years of work and money that you invested in these areas -tough. I also think way to much power is given to unelected official in all these agencies to take many liberties in there interpretation of laws passed. And now they have their own personal little armies to enforce their decrees.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                You are exactly correct V! Buck probably only gets his info from the MSM, and they suck. They will never tell the whole story. You are correct, 50+ other ranchers were put out of business by the BLM since 1993. I also don’t believe the Feds should own as much of the many Western states that they do, and the Constitution seems to agree 🙂

              • The private owner would take his case to a court of jurisdiction, receive a judgement …

                As Bundy already agreed, if a local judgement was obtained, enforced by local law enforcement, he would abide and retreat.

                You, as the private landowner, would seek address with such a local system, get the sheriff to enforce it, and live would proceed.

                If you sent in your goon squad to enforce your claim on me, you bet you’d see my goon squad enforcing me against you.

                Follow the common rules, even if you are the BIG BAD FED.

        • But let’s measure how a REAL person, not the government, finds himself when a squatter invades.

          This fellow avails himself of the process, and the government confounds him.

          The Feds do not like to play by the same rules they force upon the People. Maybe if they did, they’d fix the process.

          • gmanfortruth says:
            • Hohoho!

              And yet, so many here cannot understand how free men create social order without cops and courts.

              Amazing how the feeble courts and dumbfounded cops produced nothing, yet, a few vets on motorcycles, abiding by non-violence, suddenly solved the problem, including -voluntarily- fixing the physical damage the miserable cretins did.

              Yet, people cannot believe that free men can organize themselves effectively and coherently – a bunch of guys across the country self-organize to re-mediate and repair the property to its rightful owner.

            • Murphy's Law says:

              That is just frickin’ AWESOME! LOVE our veterans!!!


            • In NYC, if a squatter stays thirty days, he becomes a tenant and the owner must use the courts to evict in a holdover proceeding. Minimum elapsed time from filing, six months. While the squatter can be someone who moves in off the street as was done in Florida the more likely event is that a tenant vacates without telling the owner and either sells the apartment (if he is rent regulated) or allows someone else to move in. Since we are talking large buildings or large property owners it is sometimes hard to keep track. If the squatter then pays rent under the former tenant’s name, it may go on for months when discovered. The owner then must refuse all rent payments and do a holdover proceeding. If the owner has a dummy for a staff person and the squatter sends in a payment in his own name which is accepted, then the owner has just legalized him! It will take at least a year to get him out, no rent can be accepted (acceptance of rent implies acceptance of tenancy). If the illegal tenant is discovered less than 30 days into occupancy and the owner can prove it to the satisfaction of the Police, they have the option to arrest them. Generally for PR reasons, unless it’s a crack den, the cops decline.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    VH and ALL, Left Wing Lying Bastards do it again. Cliven Bundy’s REAL Statement. Why can’t the Left wing tell the damn truth instead of making up shit. Lying MFers!

    • Unfortunately, I am using a computer that doesn’t have speakers-so I can’t listen to this right now.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It is clear that Bundy is no racist when his complete comments are not edited to fit the Left Wing lies. This is typical Left Wing actions, can’t prove Bundy is breaking any laws so they need to attack his integrity. Those who do this are LOSERS.

        • I listened. Found it very convenient that they left out the part about him praising Mexicans, their work ethic and family life. He found it superior to most whites. What a racist!

          O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg went after him last night for his “racism”. Interesting, last week they were all over “Media Matters” for their lies and distortions. Yesterday they took the lies and distortions as gospel.

          The problem I fear is attention span perhaps even ADHD. I’m doing a back and forth with Charlie on Facebook right now over the Bundy tape. He, O’Reilly and Goldberg, all seem incapable of listening to the long version of anything. I’m also re-visiting Malcolm X’s speeches because of a C-Span broadcast Tuesday of an interview he gave at USC in October of ’63. Malcolm would have “gotten it”. Hell, if he drank, I think he might have sat down over a beer with Bundy.

          • ” I think he might have sat down over a beer with Bundy.”

            Yes, Stephen, you sometimes feel as though you’re the ultimate white man’s representative for blacks everywhere. What he said was as obvious as his skin color. If you need to transcribe his language, maybe you’re the one not “getting it”?

        • Her we go-just in case theirs someone else who can’t listen to the video-

          Unedited Tape of Bundy Emerges, Sheds Light on ‘Racist’ Remarks

          A new, unedited version of comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has emerged, and it sheds some light on the context of his remarks, universally condemned on Thursday as horrifically racist.

          The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad — and his use of “negro” and “colored” considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) — he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.

          In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence.

          … and so what I’ve testified to you — I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

          We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

          Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and “we sure don’t want to go back.”

          Here are the heavily quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.

          Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

          And because they were basically on government subsidy — so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

          You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom — they got less family life, and their happiness — you could see it in their faces — they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips — so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

          But Bundy went on after saying that — and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.

          Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

          Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

          So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that “we sure don’t want to go back.” As always, there’s more to the story than what the New York Times says.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Long gone are the days when the Press was considered an honest profession. The Liberal’s have mostly taken over that entity and now, there is no integrity in the MSM, what so ever. Alex Jones has more integrity in his pinky than MSMBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, NYT, Wash Post etc have combined. As long as people like Charlie fall for their BS, the world will continue to dissolve into tyranny.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Considered an honest profession???? When???? just think of Hearst newspapers and the Yellow press. The NYT was not particularly honest in writing about the “Wilmington” riots. Articles made up from whole cloth and helped usher in the Jim Crow Laws in NC.

          • Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

            I’m sure his use of the word Negro is meant as innocent, but (seriously) has he not picked up a paper since the 60’s? And no wonder Stephen likes this guy. He too is a teller of anecdotes that are supposed to supplant all other empirical research/knowledge. He said, therefore it was (and applies to all “negros”). Oy vey …

            And because they were basically on government subsidy — so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
            And this has all been researched, right? White abortion rates? “They put” their young men in jail … no, actually, white police do that for “them.” (see racial sentencing disparities) and here’s some abortion information: Why of course they’d be better off picking cotton! Who would ever think they wouldn’t be? How you spin those words other than what they are (ignorant racism), I don’t know … but leave it to wingies, they’ll always find a way.

            You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom — they got less family life, and their happiness — you could see it in their faces — they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips — so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
            I’ll say it again … oy vey …

            • gmanfortruth says:


              YOU are the true racist Charlie. Just like all the Liberals who have to LIE to feed people like you who believe their BS. An old man saying negro is nothing, an old man calling you a white nigger would be spot on 😀

              • Yeah, but those with balls wouldn’t do on the Internet, would they?

                How often were you dropped on your ignorant head, G?

              • Like I said, YOUR hero …

              • Wow, this just says it all-doesn’t it-especially that last line and this one “I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects” . Hell, even leftist are starting to find out that being PC is hard-and if you stumble and use words they don’t like or don’t qualify every remark, you’re in for a lot of persecution by these oh so tolerant people.

                “Keyes said that was evident.

                “I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”

                Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.

                “I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.

                “Now it’s racist to point it out.”


            • On abortion by race.


              Still ignoring the Mexican comments?

  22. I wondered why it was so important to get Bundy out, that they would actually arrive loaded for bear, after 20 years of letting this slide-figure Bundy must of not been hurting the turtle or this would have come to a head a long time ago-now I know-solar energy. Anybody believe that if Bundy had paid the fees and cut his herd anything happening today would be any different-they simply would of used some other reason to make him and everybody else leave-because they want this land for another purpose.

    BLM Designated 50 million Acres Open for Solar Development in Nevada
    Bunkerville and Bundy Ranch open for ‘applications’
    Some of the cattle that were rounded up by the Bureau of Land Management

    Some of the cattle that were rounded up by the Bureau of Land Management / AP

    BY: Elizabeth Harrington
    April 24, 2014 12:05 pm

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designated over 50 million acres of public land available for solar development in Nevada, including nearly all of Bunkerville, the home of the Bundy Ranch.

    A map of “Proposed Solar Energy Zones” prepared by the federal agency in 2010 revealed that the government deemed over 70 percent of Nevada open to applications to lease public lands for solar projects.

    According to the document, 9.6 million acres were available for applications through the “Solar Development Program,” and an additional 40.8 million acres were available, though no action had been taken. The accessible land totals 50.4 million acres, or 71.7 percent of Nevada, which spans 70.3 million acres.

    President Barack Obama has prioritized using public lands for green energy projects.

    “When President Obama took office, there were no solar projects permitted on public lands,” the Interior Department said in July 2012, announcing a “roadmap” for the development of more than a dozen solar plants. “Since 2009, Interior has approved 17 utility-scale solar energy projects that, when built, will produce nearly 5,900 megawatts of energy—enough to power approximately 1.8 million American homes.”

    “Thanks to steps already taken by this administration, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar have doubled since the president took office,” they said.

    The administration said that over 19 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM have “excellent solar energy potential” in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah.

    The Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) map preceded the final “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” (PEIS) for solar development in six southwestern states in 2012, which outlined an “initial set” of 17 projects on 285,000 acres of public lands.

    BLM spokesman Craig Leff said there is “no connection” between the impoundment of Bundy’s cattle and solar energy development in Nevada.

    “The gather was based on recent court orders,” Leff told the Washington Free Beacon. “Most recently, in 2013, in two separate orders, the U.S. District Court of Nevada directed Mr. Bundy to remove his trespass cattle within 45 days, and authorized the United States to impound his cattle.”

    The dispute between Bundy and the BLM dates back to 1993, over his refusal to pay grazing fees and a third of the Gold Butte area being designated for protection of the desert tortoise five years later.

    The most recent court orders occurred in July and October 2013. On March 19, the BLM issued a “Notice of Intent to Impound Unauthorized Livestock” grazing on BLM and NPS lands, and the roundup began on April 5.

    The agency was forced to call the impound off one week later due to “escalating tensions,” after bringing in hundreds of armed officials, which resulted in heated confrontations between the BLM and the Bundy family.

    The BLM said that livestock grazing “threatens” the Gold Butte area, where the Bundys ranch lies, in a report for an environmental mitigation strategy for one solar project underway just outside of Las Vegas.

    “The resource values found in the Gold Butte [Area of Critical Environmental Concern] ACEC are threatened by: unauthorized activities, including off-road vehicle use, illegal dumping, and trespass livestock grazing; wildfire; and weed infestation,” according to the report, which was released in March.

    The solar project, the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), will occupy 15,649 acres 15 miles northeast of Las Vegas, roughly 60 miles south of Bunkerville.

    In preparation for the mitigation strategy report for Dry Lake, the BLM held four workshops, which featured a presentation by Brightsource Energy, a politically connected solar company that received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department for a solar farm in California.

    Brightsource CEO John Woolard has visited the White House 10 times since Obama took office, and held a fundraiser and donated $2,400 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) in 2010.

    The “Redefining Mitigation: Solar Industry View” presentation was delivered by Clay Jensen of Brightsource on Aug. 29, 2012. Jensen discussed mitigation efforts for “maximizing land efficiency” and “minimizing footprint.”

    Another presentation, by Michael Dwyer of the BLM, on an action plan for Dry Lake referenced the 1992 book Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future by Donella H. Meadows. Dwyer is the project manager for the Dry Lake zone.

    The book’s premise is: “If the world settles for two children per couple and the per capita income of South Korea, we can avoid collapse and find an equilibrium at 7.7 billion people through 2100.”

    Another solar project was proposed just north of the Bundy Ranch, in Lincoln County.

    The East Mormon Mountain SEZ, which would have been built on 8,968 acres just 13 miles northwest of Bunkerville, was eliminated in the 2012 final environmental impact statement because of “visual impacts” of a solar plant on the landscape of the Mormon Mountains.

    The proposed project was also canceled due to concerns that the Gourd Springs grazing allotment, located just north of Clark County, would be reduced by 9.1 percent.

    The allotment was “previously reduced” by 38,262 acres, or 40 percent, in September 2000 to protect the desert tortoise.

    “Because the SEZ would occupy the best grazing land in the allotment, it is likely that the grazing operation would become economically infeasible and all 3,458 AUMs currently authorized would be lost,” the BLM said.

    However, environmentalist groups pushed for the solar project to go ahead as planned.

    The Wilderness Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club–Toiyabe Chapter, and others supported the project.

    While no solar projects have yet been approved on public land near the Bundy ranch, John Hinderaker, a lawyer and author of the Powerline blog, has argued that the administration prioritizes green energy projects over public land ranchers. Bundy is the last rancher in Clark County, and only three ranchers remain in all of Southern Nevada.

    “It is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored,” Hinderaker wrote. “The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans.”

    “Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights,” he wrote. “It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.”

    When asked by the Free Beacon whether land ranched by the Bundys could be used for solar developments in the future, BLM spokesman Leff did not respond.

    Cliven Bundy’s racist comments reported by the New York Times on Wednesday, have now alienated his supporters and were denounced by Sen. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) and others who were concerned about how the BLM handled the operation.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, I posted much of this the day before the BLM was pushed out of town. But, once again the Golden Rule to govt action, follow the money. Harry Reid has his greedy little thieving fingers all over this.

      • Yes, I think your right-I suppose people will start to care as someone on here said a few days ago-sorry can’t remember who-when they manage to destroy all the food producing industries and food becomes hard to come by.

        I just don’t get it-why do they want to destroy people and jobs-are we supposed to become dependent on other countries to supply us with these basic necessities like food and wood.

  23. The South … losers since 1865 … (smiley face) …

  24. Hitchens and Rand agree on at least 1 thing (thank God?) …

    • It is not that atheism is moral – no more than claiming “Peter Pan does not exist” is moral.

      It is a non-sequitur argument.

      It is that religious beliefs, of themselves, are not rational. Being irrational does not determine morals.

      But ALL irrational belief systems, when enforced by violence, are immoral. The immorality is not the belief, but the violence.

      This is why your “socialist” dreamworld is evil. Not because you believe in the irrational system of socialism, but because you proclaim it is right to enforce your irrational belief by violence upon free men.

      Same as most (all?) religions.

      • What is your argument here BF-it sounds as if you believe one has the right to force their view of rational on everyone else? Like you are anyone else can be the authority on what is rational-this doesn’t sound like an argument based on freedom to me.

  25. This is where Charlie (and he is not alone here, by the way) always miss the mark.

    The physical economy — the world of actual goods and services — looks radically different from the symbolic economy [that is, the economy reckoned in monetary values such as prices, incomes, and GDP].

    Measured by practically any physical metric, from the quality of the food we eat to the health care we receive to the cars we drive and the houses we live in, Americans are not only wildly rich, but radically richer than we were 30 years ago, to say nothing of 50 or 75 years ago.

    And so is much of the rest of the world.

    That such progress is largely invisible to us is part of the genius of capitalism — and it is intricately bound up with why, under the system based on selfishness, avarice, and greed, such a socialism, we do such a remarkably good job taking care of one another, while systems based on sharing and common property turn into miserable, hungry prison camps.

    We treat the physical results of capitalism as though they were an inevitability.

    In 1955, no captain of industry, prince, or potentate could buy a car as good as a Toyota Camry, to say nothing of a 2014 Mustang, the quintessential American Everyman’s car.

    But who notices the marvel that is a Toyota Camry?

    In the 1980s, no chairman of the board, president, or prime minister could buy a computer as good as the cheapest one for sale today at Best Buy. In the 1950s, American millionaires did not have access to the quality and variety of food consumed by Americans of relatively modest means today, and the average middle-class household spent a much larger share of its income buying far inferior groceries.

    Between 1973 and 2008, the average size of an American house increased by more than 50 percent, even as the average number of people living in it declined.

    Things like swimming pools and air conditioning went from being extravagances for tycoons and movie stars to being common or near-universal.

    In his heyday, Howard Hughes didn’t have as good a television as you do, and the children of millionaires for generations died from diseases that for your children are at most an inconvenience.

    As the first 199,746 or so years of human history show, there is no force of nature ensuring that radical material progress happens as it has for the past 250 years. Technological progress does not drive capitalism; capitalism drives technological progress — and most other kinds of progress, too.

    For example, The Nation yesterday published a hilariously illiterate essay by Raúl Carrillo, who is a graduate student at Columbia, a Harvard graduate, and an organizer of something called the Modern Money Network, “an interdisciplinary educational initiative for understanding money, finance, law, and the economy.”

    All three of those institutions should be embarrassed. Mr. Carrillo is the sort of man who thinks that 40 pieces of candy can be divided and recombined in such a way as to arrive at a number greater than 40.

    His essay, “Your Government Owes You a Job,” argues that the federal government should create a guaranteed-job program, “becoming our employer of last resort.” Mr. Carrillo’s middle-school-quality prose must be read to be appreciated — “Would jobs for all skyrocket wages and prices, spurring inflation? Such unfounded belief holds the jobless hostage to hysteria” — but his thinking is positively elementary. It does, however, almost perfectly sum up the symbolism-over-literal-substance progressive worldview: “You need dollars to eat,” he writes, “and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.”

    But you do not need dollars to eat. You need food to eat.

    Politics is parasitic.

    Even at its best, it produces no goods of its own; it has only that which it takes from what others produce.

    For about 200,000 years, human beings produced almost nothing — the per capita economic-output curve is nearly flat from the appearance of the first homo sap. until the appearance of Jethro Tull and Eli Whitney. But we’ve had politicians since before Hammurabi, but we didn’t escape the shadow of famine until a few thousand years later when somebody discovered that the wars fought over dividing up the harvest could be prevented by making that harvest bigger — and then figuring out how to get that done.

    Politics is a footnote — the inventory in your local Walmart should be the headline.

    • Man, I’m incoherent typing lately….

      Rephrase here:
      That such progress is largely invisible to us is part of the genius of capitalism — and it is intricately bound up with why, under the system based on selfishness, avarice, and greed, such as CAPITALISM, we do such a remarkably good job taking care of one another, while systems based on sharing and common property, such as SOCIALISM, turn into miserable, hungry prison camps.

  26. gmanfortruth says:
  27. Economics
    Greens Are Reds

    And Republicans need to prove it to voters.

    By Stephen Moore – From the May 2014 issue

    I would like to modestly propose that it is time for conservatives to combat the most economically dangerous and statist movement in the world today, and it is not socialism. It is the modern-day green movement, which is not run by people who primarily want to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink clean, or safeguard endangered species like tigers and bald eagles, or prevent urban blight—every sane person is for those things. Its guiding principle is instead to impede economic growth, material progress, and capitalism.

    As the saying goes, green is the new red. The environmental movement has been hijacked by those who worship the created and not the creator. They regard industrialization as retrograde, resource extraction as evil, and human beings as net destroyers of the planet. I remember several years ago reading an article by a prominent environmentalist who said Earth’s greatest problem is that mankind has no natural predator. In other words, it is a global curse that human beings sit atop the food chain.

    Just in February, leading environmental groups held a rally against liquid-natural gas terminals and the Keystone XL pipeline, both of which are necessary to export natural gas. Groups like the Environmental Defense Fund argue out loud that America would be better off keeping its resources buried in the ground, even though the shale gas revolution has done more to reduce U.S. carbon emissions than all of the windmills built since the Middle Ages.

    The greens are, in short, against almost all forms of electric power, except those that are prohibitively expensive. They are against oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro, which together account about 90 percent of our electric power production. They want wind and solar energy, which produce about 3 percent of our electricity and aren’t even green. We’d have to pave over entire states and vast stretches of desert with solar panels to produce enough electricity to power our $18 trillion economy. We’d have to drop windmills—whose blades already Cuisinart more than 83,000 hunting birds, such as falcons and eagles, every year—on every hill, plain, and coastline. The entire wilderness would be industrialized with these inefficient contraptions.

    But somehow it’s “cool” to be green. Half of Fortune 100 companies advertise how green they are, because executives think it makes them “good corporate citizens.” Even the oil and gas companies, such as Chevron and BP, polish their images, talking about anything but oil and gas. Instead of defending their product, which provides the power that makes everything else—cell phones, microwaves, automobiles, hell, all of modernity—possible, they blush and look the other way. Maybe they should start warning Americans, especially young ones, about what could happen if the green lunatics get their way, when rolling blackouts make the lights and iPods go dark.

    They’re not likely to do this, which is why conservatives should do it for them. In reality, green is not cool; green is retrograde. The greatest empowering, life-saving, and prosperity-creating invention perhaps of all time, electric power, is a blessing, not an evil. Saying otherwise is the rhetoric of lunatics and dingbats. Enviros often hold rallies asking Americans to turn off all their electric appliances and gadgets for an hour. Sure. Fine. But they’ll never abstain from those crucial devices for longer—say, a day, or a week, or a month.

    So how can we awaken Americans to the insanity of modern greens? The best line of attack might be to expose them as power-grabbing elitists, whose policies would do grievous harm to the poor and disadvantaged that they pretend to care about. Let me explain: The dirty little secret of the modern environmental movement is that it has become a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—from carbon taxes, to renewable energy standards, to crushing regulations on coal plants—would impose high costs on the people who can least afford to pay the green tab.

    A Pew Research Center poll released in March offered further confirmation of this truth. It found that only two major voting groups oppose the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline: Democrats who make more than $100,000 annually and Dems with a college or advanced degree. The latter group opposes the pipeline by a 51-35 percent margin—further evidence that a Ph.D. is negatively associated with economic common sense. Keystone won’t benefit millionaires or university professors much. Lower electric utility costs and hiring from the oil and gas drilling bonanza throughout North America hasn’t materially affected their lives. Few lawyers or community organizers will ever deign to stoop so low as to take one of these blue-collar jobs.

    This is a huge and problematic fault line inside the usually unified Democratic Party. For working-class, hardhat Democrats, a construction project that would create about 5,000 jobs with salaries of $70,000 or more, reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and cut our trade deficit is close to being a no-brainer. Among Americans outside the White House and the headquarters of the Environmental Defense Fund, supporters of the pipeline outnumber opponents by more than two to one. One study found that the natural gas boom has saved low-income families more than $4 billion a year in utility and heating costs. For the financially pinched poor and middle class, drilling is a godsend—and they want more of it.

    One wonders whether wealthy liberals even understand that the green diktats they favor regressive taxes on the poor. Do they care? Environmentalists used to fantasize that their policy mandates would lead to “green jobs” for working men and women, but that bubble popped awfully fast. Just ask the Germans, who are ditching expensive green wind and solar projects as fast as they can to save their flagging economy.

    The Left’s opposition to domestic energy production in America—and more broadly, a carbon-based industrial economy—offers conservatives and Republicans a once-in-a-generation opportunity to win back the old Reagan Democrat swing voters, perhaps for the long haul. These are middle-class, blue-collar workers who care about their families and their jobs, not the snail darter or the prairie chicken. They have no interest in closing down steel plants and coal mines and oil operations just to send all these jobs to India, Russia, and China. The jobs that the greens are trying to outsource are their jobs. What Nancy Pelosi and her Sierra Club friends don’t understand is that after five years of Obama’s green “investments” and nearly 20 million unemployed or underemployed, most Americans are much more interested in saving their jobs than the planet.

    Republicans need to connect the dots for middle-class voters: The greatest threat to their livelihood is radical environmentalism. Blue-collar Americans should reject the green agenda. The job they save may be their own

    • There is no doubt this is the case.

      The collectivists arguments were devastated by the fall of the Soviet Union and the expose of the massive abuses and slaughter of the Soviets and China and…and…and…

      They absolutely infiltrated the environmental movement – who were generally opposed to human development that caused human issues (air pollution) – to twist the argument into a collectivist, anti-free market, anti-development and anti-capitalist movement.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        You stole my response…..After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was asked where did all the communists go…..they went into the “Green Movement” I don’t remember who said this but it was in the 90’s.

    • But asking government to fix this – Republicans – is a waste of time. They, too, want an increase in government control, and the perverted cause of environmentalism (“..more laws!…”) suits this aim.

    • Not the first time I have heard this. Old saying: These people are like watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside”.

      It also substitutes for a religion with the movement adopting the old pre-historical “Earth Mother” thing. Who says society can’t go into reverse at light speed?

      • We’ve talked about all this -but how many industries have been or are being destroyed based on environmental laws? How many groups of people have had their livelihood taken away and basically given to another country? Look at the EPA and all their regulations they are trying to pass that effect private ownership based on water.

        It won’t be long before my cartoon I posted comes true-they will own most of the land in all the states.

        Off the top of my head-there’s Steal, Logging, ranchers, farmers, coal mines, all energy industries-hell the only industry they seem to want to save is the auto industry. And they are busy passing regulations to destroy it too. And they complain about companies sending jobs to foreign countries and they cause most or all of it.

  28. plainlyspoken says:

    I open and read the comments on SUFA in my email just now and as much as I might want to respond to some of them, I just can’t work up the energy.

    A bit over 3 hours ago my wife and I had one of our beloved dogs euthanized. He was 11 and we got him from the animal shelter last August. He was almost completely blind, toothless, deaf and unwanted when we adopted him. He also exhibited signs of dementia.

    Over the past couple of days his behavior changed and at the vet today we were told his liver was starting to fail him and there was no treatment that would cure him. He was in pain and would only get worse, so we did what was needed to end his suffering.

    Losing him today just makes the rest of the issues in the world miniscule. His loss was monumental by comparison.

  29. On the bright side:

    (GMan and BF …I already know what you’re going say…so save it and let me just enjoy this 😉 )

  30. Interesting if you consider this was “aimed” away from earth. Think of someone not close to you firing a shotgun away from you. Just a “bang”. The closer it is aimed at you, the louder the noise. There is no defense. Our “safety” is in statistics, the odds against getting hit are so high as to be zero. But, like with a hand grenade, close counts…

    • I don’t know whether to say WOW! or uh oh-or maybe both are appropriate 🙂

      • I’d go with wow. All the talk about global warming that only looks at greenhouse gasses misses the elephant in the room/house/yard. It’s too massive to fit in the room. The sun is our source of heat. Just looking at it and putting it & earth in perspective forces you to realize it’s the dominate force in our solar system. Earth weather? Overwhelmed by the sun’s fart….

  31. I know I am harping on this -but I get so tired of every issue be argued so narrowly in the media. Bundy may have become the face of this fight but it is about Larger issue’s. But the media will not allow you to broaden the focus and this is intentional IMO. It must remain focused on this one man and his character and actions. This is, in my view, simply away of causing the people to lose before the fight even begins. They simply don’t want to look at the whole picture and the far reaching effects of these policies.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      V, my suggestion is to get away from the MSM and go alternative. Alternative is far more honest and don’t try to “make” news. Most of the media are Left Wing rags anyway, totally useless in real life. They live in their little fairytale world with Charlie and his fellow race pimps. Think back to 2002, were you a racist then? Today, according to the Democrats and their lockstep idiots, you are one today, just like me. Cherish this moment, because you are living in a time when Revolution/civil war can begin any moment. It can be avoided, but not likely, Left Wingers for the most part are too stupid get it, Buck and Mathius not included.

      I recently got a Twitter account, I’m blown away by the hatred of the Left and the Feds. It’s coming, they will be destroyed, just not sure when. 🙂

      • I am interested in knowing why so many reporters are liberal?

        • Because they are taught in liberal schools.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I have a more complex theory. “Liberalism” used to include those who had a healthy suspicion and even dislike for POWER hungry and corrupt Govt. When I attended University many of the “activist” or “do gooder” types from High School enrolled in “Journalism”.

          They wanted to help expose the corruption of Power. Once enrolled in the “Liberal Arts” they were inundated with the latest in Progressive rather than Liberal thinking.

          To this day they consider themselves Liberal because they really do not understand what “liberal” means anymore. They just know it is way cooler to be FOR progress rather than against it. And of course there is the impact of Group Think and Peer Pressure.

          Journalism, like so many professions is very “cliquish” and if you stray from the path you can be ostracized from your “tribe”.

  32. Just A Citizen says:


    Re the video you posted about how wolves changed the rivers of Yellowstone.

    Vide= A load of crap. Propaganda put out by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition which is a UN Agenda 21 linked organization.

    The moron narrating didn’t even acknowledge that the animals in the video were ELK, not deer. And Elk do not eat the same forage as deer.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    I remember working at a hospital during the “Swine Flu Epidemic” and wondering why we had no patients with the swine flu. Many workers were in a tiff over getting the vaccine. I didn’t get one as I don’t take any flu vaccines. Now, the truth is out, there was no swine flu epidemic, it was all a big lie.

    So here, once again, is the key question and answer from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

    JON RAPPOPORT: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

    SHARYL ATTKISSON: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

    Do you get it? Attkisson is saying that, while at CBS, she had made Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, and came up with evidence that the CDC had been lying about Swine Flu from the early days. They knew that almost all the purported cases had no kind of flu at all.

    But they buried that knowledge. They continued to frighten the public and insist on the use of an experimental flu vaccine.

    How anyone can have an inkling of faith and trust in the Federal Government?

  34. April 27, 2014
    One of the Biggest Fat Cats in America is the BLM
    Victor Keith

    Amid the circus that is the Bundy Ranch standoff is the much more important and revealing story surrounding a previously little-noticed agency called the Bureau of Land Management.

    Even observers who believed that Cliven Bundy did not have a legal leg to stand on regarding his claims that he did not owe grazing fees for his cattle to the BLM were curious as to the reason behind the heavy-handed response to Bundy’s recalcitrance. The move ostensibly was to remove Bundy’s cattle from public lands, where they were illegally grazing. Even though every federal agency these days, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Education, feels the need to have its own SWAT team, 200 federal agents with assault rifles and dogs seems an inappropriate way to conduct a roundup.

    Upon closer examination, the reason for the importance to the BLM of establishing its authority may entail much more than the revenue from grazing fees.

    For starters, the Department of the Interior’s semi-annual report to Congress in 2013 noted that the federal government has effectively controlled the market for helium for almost a century. The BLM provides about 40 percent of the nation’s helium and 30 percent of the world market. The BLM’s current helium inventory is valued at around 1 billion dollars. Needless to say, as a controller of 30 percent of the world supply, the BLM is a market-maker.

    Then there is the revenue from mineral sales. The Department of the Interior inspector general report from March 2014 reports that the BLM is operating a 17-million-dollar-a-year business in minerals. The report also points out that BLM mismanagement cost the government some $846,000 due to overlooked contract adjustments.

    The real prize, however, is coal. The BLM controls some 40 percent of the national coal supply and collects more than 1 billion dollars a year in bonus and royalty revenues. In 2012 alone, they collected a record 2.4 billion dollars. There is great incentive for the federal government to put as many private coal producers as possible out of business. It also shows why cattle ranchers are being inexorably driven off their lands by governmental policies. The federal government has a much more lucrative plan for those lands that does not involve private property owners.

    None of this is a secret, and the yearly revenues are openly posted on the internet. Yet, despite the income pouring into the BLM, President Obama is requesting a 1.1-billion-dollar appropriation for 2015 for an agency whose revenues are five times its operating costs.

    Rather than focusing on the inane racial comments or questionable legal arguments of an elderly and unsophisticated rancher, the media would be doing the public a better service by asking why the federal government is in the natural resource business instead of public land maintenance, as the name of the Bureau of Land Management implies.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Another example of how people with an agenda can take facts and create a false or MISLEADING narrative.

      If only all these people crying conspiracy and power abuse would look up the laws that CONGRESS passed which govern public land management.

      That is where the conflict lies, not with the land management agency itself.

      Not that corruption cannot occur within a Federal Agency. After all, the United States Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture because of the corruption that existed in the Dept. of Interior in the early 1900’s.

      But this is not about maximizing revenues from resource extraction nor is the BLM a “market maker” in anything. They may hold the majority source but they certainly do not control the price.

      • Your gonna have to explain those last 2 statements for me to understand. ” The real prize, however, is coal. The BLM controls some 40 percent of the national coal supply and collects more than 1 billion dollars a year in bonus and royalty revenues.” What are royalty revenues?

        And how can someone have control of 40 persent of anything and not effect prices?

        And if they are not maximizing revenue from a particular source, say grazing cattle-are they not destroying revenue in grazing cattle because they believe they can get more income for solar?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          First of all the BLM’s “control” of 40% is solely due to its responsibility to manage the natural resources on FEDERAL Lands under its jurisdiction. Something entirely controlled by Congress.

          “Royalty revenues” are fees paid as a percentage of the value of the resource removed over a certain period. Usually annually. Many oil companies pay “royalties” to land owners who they secured “rights” from to drill and extract oil/gas.

          I do not know the particulars of the royalty arrangements. It should be fairly easy to find on the net. Again, Congress dictates the policy parameters for leasing use of Federal Resources. Whether that be grazing fees, or the number of mineral leases issued over a period of time.

          Most of the “leases” for minerals, oil and gas have “deadlines” for extraction. This is to prevent Companies from buying up leases and then just sitting on them.

          Leases are AUCTIONED off to the private sector. So the PRICE is set by the market place. Not the BLM. Except in times of poor demand. Then the federal agencies usually have a “minimum” price they will accept for the lease. Except for “grazing fees”. These are controlled “politically” by Congress in a constant tug of war between resource use groups and environmental groups.

          I am criticizing the article because the author is trying to create the impression the BLM is controlling prices to Increase Revenue or “Maximize Revenue”. I assure you that NOBODY in the land management agencies shares the opinion they should “maximize revenues”. It is NOT their charter. Well there are some, but they are not in charge.

          While the BLM controls 40% of the supply the amount of supply available for extraction from BLM managed lands is determined far more by politics than prices. While prices can be political, such as during recessions. Nixon tried to spur the housing market by flooding the market with Federal Timber. The effort failed and only caused the Fed. Govt to LOSE money on sales of timber that would have brought far more income in the next decade.

          I am rambling a bit here so let me summarize this way. The BLM is not “making a market” in coal or any other resource. The agency’s IMPACT on prices is only due to its policies on issuing leases for extraction or use of those resources. These policies are mostly controlled by Congress.

          And this is why WESTERN Congressmen have wielded a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of power in Congress over the past hundred years. Westerners send people back to D.C. to make sure the extraction policies remain friendly. Eventually the Western Congressmen have seniority and wind up chairing all the important committees controlling Natural Resource use on Federal Lands.

          As for the cattle vs. solar issue, this is also “political” and not revenue based. The Greenies want Solar and they have had basic control of the agencies since Clinton. And they have a sympathetic Democratic Party in majority control. Especially Harry Reid.

          This is why the BLM suddenly started exploring Solar Leases. It is not about Revenue, but about pushing an environmental agenda of Solar Energy production.

          The Mercantilists or Crony Capitalists have simply seized upon the opportunity the dopey Progressives are providing them. Note that in the Solar market there was not a developed industry. Progressives are using Federal Land policy to CREATE new industry and markets. This is how you get the corruption like Reid’s cozy relationship with Chinese companies for leases on land that Reid helped get released for permits.

          Other resources have established industry and markets. So the “leasing” or “issuing of permits” is usually done by competitive bidding. In the case of Solar I seriously question whether there is adequate competition to establish “Fair Market Value” in the sense of other resources.

          Good grief, I have gone way over board. Two weeks off has caused my mind to run to fast.

          So V, I will shut up and wait for more questions. I will try to me more concise from now on.

          Happy Sunday, by the way.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Question for you on this issue.

          As a tax payer do you want the Govt agencies managing YOUR land to maximize the Revenue from those lands?

          Do you want Fair Market Value for the resources extracted from YOUR lands?

          • To the first question, yes and no, I don’t want the focus to be on maximizing revenue for the government and certainly not for the maximizing of revenue for the politicians. But yes, in the sense that the cost of leasing the land should be different for different purposes. I asked about royalties because I don’t think the government should get a percentage of profits-I think that encourages the crap that’s going on.

            Not sure I really understand the second question. I don’t think the government should be using the public lands for anything except parks and such-any type of profit producing use should be done by private individuals or companies that pay the government a fee to use the land. Though I think that fee should be going to state governments not the federal.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The second question is about the VALUE of the resources the govt issues permits to use.

              The govt leases or sells these to private companies. So the agency is selling or leasing YOUR resources to a private enterprise supposedly on your behalf. So what you think should happen is in fact what is happening. The only issue is the PRICE you think you should receive for those resources sold on your behalf.

              Fair Market Value is what willing buyers and sellers would arrive at for a price for such resources.

              The current system is supposedly based on reaching FMV, but many studies have show this to be a fallacy. Again, because political policies in the short term often override longer term policies of meeting FMV.

              State Govt’s also get “royalites” for coal/gas/oil extracted from State Owned lands. In the west these were lands conveyed to the States by Congress as part of statehood. Most States require these lands maximize revenue for the Schools and in some cased roads of the State. We call them School Sections.

              • I still question royalties based on a percentage of profits. However they are set up-it isn’t working out too well -and people are getting rich out of managing these lands and they are having an effect on industries-and they are hurting innocent people-but the main question is how we fix it.

              • Pretty easy. Those that provide the value in turning dirt into a resource get the profit.

            • ” I don’t think the government should be using the public lands for anything except parks and such-any type of profit producing use should be done by private individuals or companies that pay the government a fee to use the land”


              Why do you believe the government is better at maintaining parks then private individuals?

              • It’s not that I think government is better at managing parks. I simply think there needs to be some sort of societal mechanism to determine where these parks are going to be.

              • What’s wrong with the free market? Like anything of human value, a market exists.

              • Maybe-I feel like I would need a history lesson on how parks and such came to be, to make a decision-but it is hard to believe that free markets would put parks as a priority enough to establish them everywhere-and I would fear the loss of ir-replacable/sp treasures if profit was placed first -but that is just an assumption.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    So our Govt, the Administration and many of the Dems, are howling about the potential environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline.

    While we are moving Coal and Oil to terminals by RAIL. Trains that follow along and right next to the Columbia River. A river that supports the largest salmon and steelhead runs in the US and feeds the metropolis of Vancouver/Portland, along with many other towns along the way. Not to mention the irrigation projects for orchards, vineyards etc.

    These are the longest trains I have seen since childhood. Yesterday there were empty coal trains returning east and full oil trains headed down river.

    For some reason I cannot post the link to the story. Google Oil exports in Oregon and then Coal exports Oregon for various source stories.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    It has been some time since I had to do any home improvement projects. Specifically those requiring refinishing and painting.

    This past week I found something on the various strippers, stains and varnishes I purchased.

    A WARNING LABEL, which is obviously required by law. Though I have not found the law yet.

    Now legally mandated WARNING LABELS fall under the authority of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce as well as the Govts’ supposed responsibility to look after public safety.

    So a WARNING LABEL on cigarettes and other products that may be harmful to your health.

    But the WARNING LABELS I found had NOTHING to do with the safety of the product itself.

    They were warnings against the hazard of removing old paint or building materials which might contain lead, thus creating lead dust which is harmful. And of course notifying the purchaser of said varnish that they must comply with Federal Laws regarding disposal of lead contaminated materials.

    So where did Congress or the agency responsible get the AUTHORITY to require by law that private enterprises carry Federal ADVERTISING for the GENERAL PUBLIC on their products?????

    Buck the Wala…………….care to weigh in on this one????

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

    I know they will not understand or even take the time to consider this, but it is a good summation of the rebuttal to the Charlie’s of the world regarding “income inequality”.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Since our modern economy and thus our REVOLUTIONARY Standard of Living depend on inexpensive energy, why would we EXPORT our energy to other nations in the world?

    WHY would we fall for the fallacy of using OUR energy as a weapon to destabilize Russia??

    What happens when we exhaust our less expensive supplies and Russia still has hers?? What happens when we harvest all our inexpensive timber and Canada still has hers??

    What happens when we mine all the easy to reach minerals and the rest of the world has theirs???

    • Energy and resources are fungible. It moves to where the value is highest.

    • The big thing on US energy is we are dangerously underpowered. Major blackouts were just barely staved off. But the utility companies are continuing to shut down coal power plants that cannot meet the new EPA requirements. Many are not being replaced with alternate power means…SO reduced capacity. Winter allows some offsets, natural gas & heating oil for heat. Summer has higher demand without as much available offsets. Obama’s EPA has forced us off coal power & to wait for wind/solar to provide, and at the same time, sell our coal to China…..

      “US domestic demand for coal will probably decrease from the current 44 percent of US electrical production to as low as 22 percent within the next 20 years, according to some analysts. Demand in the U.S. is dropping primarily due to new natural gas reserve discoveries and Clean Air Act regulations.

      In contrast, demand for coal is rapidly rising in Asia. U.S. coal exports to China surged from 2009 to 2010, jumping from 387,000 tons (January-September) to over 4 million tons the following year. Demand for US coking and steam coal also grew rapidly in Japan, India, and South Korea. Industry forecasters anticipate a “30-year super cycle in global coal markets.” U.S. companies hope to cash in on the market and dramatically increase coal exports, especially from the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana through ports on the US west coast. [5]

      U.S. coal exports rose 49 percent during the first quarter of 2011 compared to the previous quarter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration”

%d bloggers like this: