VA scandal: Obama administration seeking identities of whistleblowers


By Jim Kouri  June 16, 2014 

A well-respected, non-partisan watchdog group, currently probing the allegations of misconduct and malfeasance at healthcare facilities run by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department, is refusing to comply with a federal subpoena on Friday ordering the group to reveal the identities of—and information provided by— whistleblowers.



The subpoena demands that the Inside-the-Beltway Project on Government Oversight (POGO) turn over any and all documents and identities POGO received from federal official, rank-and-file employees, and others who had complained to POGO about distressing activities occurring at VA medical facilities. The whistleblowers were assured that their complaints would be kept secret and they would remain anonymous.

According to POGO, the material they received regarding the VA had been digitally encrypted in order to protect confidentiality.

Officials from POGO, a nonprofit group that earned awards this month from the Society of Professional Journalists for investigative and business reporting, refused to comply with the order by the VA’s inspector general to turn over the files, POGO spokesman Joe Newman said.



  1. All tyrannies require most of its actions to be secret and outside the view of the People.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The same could be said of any sausage manufacturer.

      • Not true.

        In your regard, it is because you do not want to know how sausage is made so to save your appetite. If you wanted to, you can go see it at anytime.

        The opposite is true for tyranny.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Hey, while I’m here… do robots celebrate Father’s Day? If so, happy (belated) Father’s Day to you.

  2. gmanfortruth says:


  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Speaking out under this administration is a jail sentence. Obama has proven beyond any doubts how evil governments are. He is also the most lawless President in my lifetime. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to admit I voted for him, for anything.

  4. Lo and behold…..missing e mails right in the middle….sorta like the Nixon tapes……IRS says….I dunno………it is coincidence that the only missing emails are Lerner’s communiques with the White House……

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That’s called “hiding things because your guilty “. If one is not guilty , the stuff would be there. However, a good computer person could still find them if allowed to look.

  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. Back to Baghdad. It’s deja vu all over again.


      The US are the cars between the Sunni tornado and the Shiite tornado.

      Hey, does anyone care to know what the Sunni and Shiite are killing each other over.

      When Mohammed died, there was a fight over succession.
      Shiite believe it should be based on heredity – go to one of his son’s believing that Mohammed’s loins were pure and sinless, hence his sons.

      Sunni believe it should be based on an honored leader of the community by vote, that no man is immune to sin and corruption by mere birth.

      That’s it.

      Just like the Christian’s slaughter of each over who should be Pope, Islam is as insane in the slaughter over such a detail.

      • Yep…..and the Kurds will sit idly by until the aftermath……

      • Forgive me for adding to this. I know that some will not look back so I will try to add something.

        If the Prophet Mohammed had arranged a successor before his death in 632, the Islamic landscape could have turned out differently, however the Prophet’s fledging Islamic community disintegrated just 30 years after his death. The majority of Muslims joined a group that later became known as the Sunnis. A second group consisted of followers of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed and It is the “Shi’ at Ali,” the party of Ali from which the Shiites originated. Up to this day, the Shiites remain in the minority, accounting for between 10 to 15 percent of the more than 1.6 billion Muslims.

        As BF posted, the debate about the rightful successor of Prophet Mohammed initially focused on the four “rightly guided” caliphs, agreed on by a majority vote. In the meantime, followers of Ali believed the Prophet’s successor should come from Mohammed’s family.

        To exacerbate this political rivalry, The followers of Ali argued that God himself had appointed Ali as the successor, that Mohammed had this succession recorded in writing before his death BUT that the Sunni erased it from the Koran.

        To this day, the Koran forgery charge has not been withdrawn. Now, taking it forward, Ali was ambitious and bothered by not being able to succeed as the Prophet’s successor. Finally, in 656, he was appointed the fourth and last legitimate caliph. His reign lasted just five years – until he was ASSASSINATED.

        In Damascus, the newly forming center of Islamic power, the Umayyads had the say, while Ali followers secured supremacy in the frontier province of what is now Iraq. In 680 Ali’s youngest son, Hussein, was elected counter-caliph. That same year, he was murdered by the Umayyads and buried in Karbala. With that, the foundation was laid for the permanent division between the Sunni and Shiites as well as the martyrdom cult in Shia Islam.
        And a smattering of more history and the reasons for conflict now….”The current political conflicts in the Islamic world are often religiously charged and show the some of the traditional conflicts between Sunnah and Shia. There are many examples, such as the civil wars in Syria and Iraq or the long-simmering conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the only country where Shia is the state religion.

        Worldwide, there are about 1.6 billion Muslims, of whom between 85 and 90 percent are estimated to be Sunnis. No exact numbers exist because many countries have no surveys of religious affiliation. Moreover, Shiites are not always willing to disclose their religious affiliation in a non-Shiite environment.

        Countries from North Africa to the Sahara are mostly if not entirely Sunni. The same is true for Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Bangladesh. Syria and the Palestine regions, too, are largely Sunni.

        Iran is the only country where Shia is the state religion. The majority of the population in Iraq and Bahrain is also Shiite. About one third of Lebanon’s population is Shiite. Notable Shiite populations also exist in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan and Syria.”
        I did not want to infringe on BF’s simple explanation but hopefully some will try to understand the bitter fighting in that region. It has been going on since 600 and will likely continue. ANY interference by Western nations or empire building actually UNITE the Shiites and Sunni’s. Left alone, they will fight each other. Always have….always will.

  7. Sedgewick says:

    Will someone please tell these legal-tards what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means.–finance.html

    • Hi SED…this is only going to work in states that make it a requirement to register a weapon….in Texas, registration is not a requirement…..come down here. After the initial background check that says you are a good guy…..there is no further checking or registration. Buy a weapon and give it away or sell it if you want. It is untraceable. I read the whole ruling and it only applies to the state…not to the anything else.
      A Federal background check is NOT registration.

      • Sedgewick says:

        Hi Colonel,

        In terms of gun laws, I live in a place very similar to Texas.

        …Not that I recognize gun laws anyway. I’ll buy what I want and do with it what I choose, and no local state or federal government has anything to say to me about it. If anyone intends to forcefully get into my personal business regarding my rightfully earned property, they should prepare to die.

        Regardless, you have a natural inalienable right to self defense by any and all available and/or necessary means.

        Gun regulations are absolute bullshit…all of them.


        • gmanfortruth says:

          Beyond buying a gun for a felon (and that needs changed as well, to violent felon) or someone who is mentally ill, it’s not the govt’s business in any form. So Sedg, I mostly agree with your statements. 🙂

          • “Beyond buying a gun for a felon (and that needs changed as well, to violent felon) or someone who is mentally ill, it’s not the govt’s business in any form.”

            So you agree with this law and the court’s holding then?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Buck, I don’t like any Federal gun laws. I think they are clearly unconstitutional. Restrictions for felons and the mentally ill should be a State issue, under the 10th Amendment.

              That said , I wouldn’t think the mentally I’ll need any guns to play with. Feinstein is another kind of issue all together, due to stupid laws. 🙂

              • Sedgewick says:

                So, the feds can’t violate the right to defense, but states can?

                Does the right to defense not apply when encountering violent and/or crazy people?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The Constitution covers the Feds, States also have a Constitution . In Pa, it says, ” the right to bear arms for personal defense an defense of the State shall not be questioned”

                Fairly clear snd laws now uphold this rather well. Please consider I’m looking at this from a Constitutional point. I do agree that the right to self defense can’t be regulated by any govt. I also believe that as a law abiding citizen, I can own whatever firearm I choose. There is no BAN on automatics, but requires a license, which I disagree with licensing and have stated so

            • G — You say that you believe that “Beyond buying a gun for a felon (and that needs changed as well, to violent felon) or someone who is mentally ill, it’s not the govt’s business in any form.”

              Yet you are against any regulation in any form as unconstitutional. So how do you propose we deal with felons and the mentally ill buying guns??

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” So how do you propose we deal with felons and the mentally ill buying guns?? ”

                …let them buy guns. Buy guns and wait for them to attack you, …then shoot them.

              • Sed, that sounds like something Flag would say. The other day, the armed citizen got in the way of those two LV loonies, one got behind his back. I’d rather try to eliminate or at least reduce the likelihood of that possibility before it happens.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That was quite rare. I like the being responsible part of life . If more people were armed , the nuts wouldn’t kill as much , and we’d have a lot less felons . 😉

              • Then, SK, you imprison yourself, because you too can be argued as a “potential” threat before you act.

                That’s the problem with your thinking – you believe what you impose upon others will NOT be imposed upon you – but it ALWAYS is.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Good question ! 🙂

                First, it starts with the individual States, who have the authority, depending on their Constitution. States can change their laws by vote, the Fefs changing the constitution is x long snd lengthy process .

                It’s not up to Congress, this is quite clear with the words “shall not be infringed”.. There is no “except”. That’s why there is a 10th and 14th Amendment. 🙂

              • And how do you envision states doing this? What about the states that decide not to? What about the states with similarly worded clauses in their state constitutions?

                If you believe the gov’t has a real compelling interest to prohibit felons and the mentally ill from buying guns (or having guns bought by a third party on their behalf), then how do you propose doing this if you also believe it would be unconstitutional for the gov’t (both feds and many states) to do so? How do you square this away?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Easy, personal responsibility , people need to quit letting their govt protect them , because it’s not the gob td job, other than invasion.

              • Easy, Buck, when you have a consistent principle – a concept you utterly do not have.

                When an ACTION warrants a REACTION.

                A crazy man with a knife does not automatically make his use of a knife a danger.

                It is THE USE of his knife that defines the danger, not the man.

              • How does “personal responsibility” address the issue at hand?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, when people get the message that the Government is NOT responsible to protect them, they will protect themselves. That will end most crime in America. Until then, we have what we have. Remove the government, crime will die a death faster than any “war on drugs” could ever dream of! 🙂

              • You’re not answering the question.

                On the one hand you seem to agree with the proposition that the govt has an interest in keeping guns away from certain individuals, yet on the other you come down against any govt regulation. You then call for personal responsibility as the ‘solution’. Forgive me if I’m confused by your position and solution.

              • Buck,

                So, here you argue consistency – a thing you have not even a drop about.

                One makes and enforces law (which is an act of violence) upon initiations of violence. Simple.

                You seem to believe either one makes law against all things, otherwise law cannot exist.

              • Buck,

                What is your principle to decide when and if legislation should exist?
                Based on your make-believe and fantasy or on reality?

                You want to make law based on make-believe, thinking it will stop reality.

                You do not comprehend that it is reality that makes reality. You make laws against ACTION not pretend thinking.

                But as you have no root principle, you wander in the weeds lost.

              • *ONE must make laws against ACTION not pretend thinking. You want to make laws on pretend thinking believing it will change reality into a consequence of your desire. IT NEVER DOES.

                It does not because make-believe is magical thinking. No magic exists. Thus, the consequence you desire CANNOT exist.

                Deal with reality, Buck, and you will get infinitely better results then magic.

    • This is how the idiots in the world hurt us all. The ruling does not affect a “gift”. I had given my son a “gift” rifle for Christmas that I bought under my own name. I expected nothing in return. We live in the same state and he meets the requirements here which are more stringent than the federal.

      This instance technically involves a “sale” or something that even I can can see as a sale. Another more detailed article I read indicated that the nephew purchased the gun because he was eligible for a discount due to his status. The uncle was not eligible for the discount so they conspired to obtain the savings (some savings!) through a little charade.

      What they did was not terribly different from what the bad guys routinely do. Not being a lawyer, I can see how interpreting this particular case as not being a violation would be setting some sort of precedent. Now the question is had the buyer taken it to the range a few times, used the gun for his own purposes, THEN sold it to uncle Toonoose, would this have constituted a straw purchase? I think not.

      Does the house attorney want to chime in?

      • In my most humble and non legal reading… appears that the ruling applied to the conspiracy to avoid. You can gift….and you can go to any other state that does not require registration and still do it. There is no Federal Registration that I am aware of…..I have bought and sold several weapons in the last 10 years….my only requirement is a background check. But that is useless because in the background check,,,,there is no reference to the type of weapon or registration numbers……just social and driver’s license to make sure you are a good guy. This ruling really means nothing. No one is going to pay attention to it anyway.

      • This case was an easy call.

        It doesn’t matter that Congress chose not to regulate the secondary market nor gift market.

        • What does not matter, counselor?

          • Rather….why?

            • Are you arguing that if Congress chooses to regulate one issue they must necessarily also regulate other related issues?

              • I’m a little lost here. Straw purchasers are the bane of lawful gun owners in this country. Time after time we see that the guns were purchased by a person with a clean record, out of state, then smuggled and sold in places like the Bronx. Of course that is a felony if the Feds choose to prosecute (mostly they don’t) as it is a felony to cross state lines with handguns.

                Straw purchases are against the law and are regulated.

                My personal feelings are that they could halve firearms murders in six months if they applied zero tolerance. We know it can be done because it was done in NY City. Not by any new even more draconian law (because the killers were not legal owners to begin with) but by strict enforcement and punishment other than the usual slap on the wrist.

              • Sorry SK – not following you – what are you lost about?

                Part of the case involved why Congress regulated here but not there (there being the secondary market and gifts) — my argument (along with the Court’s) is that this is completely irrelevant. Congress does not need to regulate all gun markets; it can choose to regulate just the primary.

              • Are we in agreement that straw purchases are regulated?

              • I don’t know the ins and outs of its regulation. But yea, in theory there is some regulation of straw purchases – as this case demonstrates.

              • OK, good.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Yes, an easy case. YET the SCOTUS FAILS once again.

          Their reasoning does not match up with the case before them. The law makes LEGAL purchase of guns ILLEGAL based on whether you sell or give the gun to someone else.

          If that person is also a “LEGAL” buyer the sale is still ILLEGAL.

          That is bad law and the argument presented by Kagen is a justification to overturn any RIGHT. That being The law allowed LEO to go on a fishing expedition.

          • No, the reasoning precisely matches the case before them.

            There is a law making it a crime to knowingly provide false information. The buyer provided false information. Done!

            It doesn’t matter that the actual buyer was allowed to buy. The nominal buyer still broke the law by knowingly providing false information.

            • But you -again- use violence on a non-violent problem to solve a non-violent problem.

              Lying is not a crime – though despicable.

              The market and free society deals with these issues naturally and morally. They use “ostracization.” – no one trusts them, so no one trades with them. No violence,no guns, no courts are necessary.

              When you use violence to correct a non-violent problem, the solution ALWAYS creates worse problems then the one you seek to solve.

              • BF – once again you are avoiding the question entirely in favor of a completely different discussion.

              • Buck,

                Of course not.

                You want me to entertain your make-believe fantasy world. Sorry, I do not live in a fantasy.

                I live with principles. You do not.

                You have no measure by which to judge your ideas. It is an field, then, filled with merely irrational emotionalism and magical thinking.

                Provide your principles (don’t worry, I know you won’t)

              • You’re correct, I’m not going to answer and allow you once again to hijack and change the parameters of discussion to suit your liking.

              • It is not a hijack whatsoever, it is core.

                Without any principle to measure your action, no matter the topic, and no matter the action, except by sheer luck, YOU WILL ALWAYS make a serious error.

                Living by sheer luck is the path to absolute doom.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You are repeating the SCOTUS error.

              The issue is one of Constitutionality. You and Keagan are claiming that the law does not allow the man to lie, thus he broke the law. But the law is ILLEGAL in itself.

              BECAUSE it makes an otherwise Constitutional Right and illegal act;

              To justify this egregious decision Keagan rationalized it by using the convenience of LE investigations.

              What an absolute load of confused thinking.

              • Please explain your reasoning as to why the law is unconstitutional — are you saying the law itself is unconstitutional or that it is unconstitutional as applied to this particular fact pattern?

              • “You and Keagan are claiming that the law does not allow the man to lie”

                It is an absolutely Constitutional -and human- right to lie.

  8. Sedgewick says:
  9. @ BF…..let’s talk Kurds for a second…..the Sunnis and Shia normally leave them alone… their own region. Other than being great fighters…..why do you think that is?

    • Sort of answers my question of the other day. Seems to me that the state if it were anywhere near as serious as it claims to be, it would resurrect that old Deputizing thing. So I guess Gov. Perry is just another whining gov’t b—-. If the Federales want to start something, fine. Hell, then I’ll take a vacation and volunteer if the Colonel will put me up.

  10. IRS tells GOP committee: We’ve lost e-mails from six more employees involved in scandal
    posted at 1:21 pm on June 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

    And all of them, apparently, were lost in computer crashes. That’s novel. Normally, when an agency doesn’t want to comply with a document request, it simply lies by claiming that no such document exists.

    I’ll spare you a click and Voxsplain this one right here: Clearly the answer is to increase the IRS’s budget, so that they can afford more reliable PCs.

    Seriously, though, who’s getting fired?

    It’s not just Lois Lerner’s e-mails. The Internal Revenue Service says it can’t produce e-mails from six more employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups, according to two Republicans investigating the scandal.

    The IRS told Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp and subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany that computer crashes resulted in additional lost e-mails, including from Nikole Flax, the chief of staff to former IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who was fired in the wake of the targeting scandal.

    The revelation about Lerner’s e-mails rekindled the scandal and today’s news has further inflamed Republicans. Camp and Boustany are now demanding a special prosecutor to investigate “every angle” of the targeting. They expressed particular outrage that the agency has known since February that it would not be able to produce the e-mails requested by the committee yet did not apprise the committee of that fact, and they charged in a statement that the IRS is attempting to “cover up the fact that it convenient lost key documents in the investigation.”

    Show of hands: When was the last time your computer crashed so hard that important data — e-mails, specifically — were lost and couldn’t be retrieved? I’ve used PCs and Macs every day for the past eight years, for 12 hours a day or more during weekdays, and I can’t remember experiencing something like that. It’s an “Internet 2001″ problem, not “Internet 2011,” especially given how cheap and ubiquitous back-up drives are today — and yet it happened to the IRS, apparently, no fewer than seven times, as recently as three years ago. And by the way, why are IRS e-mails being saved locally to employees’ hard drives instead of to a central server, a la e-mail programs like Gmail? The agency is required by statute to preserve records; the easiest way to do that for e-mail would be to store everything in a central cloud. Why doesn’t the IRS do that?

    Or … do they? Here’s what Bryan Preston found out when he spoke to a former IRS IT specialist about the agency’s protocols:

    “These environments were required by federal regulations to be redundant and recoverable,” the former IRS IT worker says. “The recoverability requirements were put into place for exactly the reasons we see today.” Disposal of records outside the statutory standards requires permission in writing.

    He says that the IRS uses Microsoft Outlook/Exchange systems, which are backed up using Symantec NetBackup…

    The former IRS IT worker adds that in his time on the prime contract, “I have worked for many federal agencies and the IRS had some of the best people.”

    “This reason is why I scoff at the story being put out. Those folks would not have had such a short retention period for email unless they had it in writing from the highest levels. It would have made the local IT water cooler gossip if the IRS had screwed up and lost tons of email by accident.”

    Is there any contemporaneous evidence that corroborates the computer-crash explanation? There is in Lois Lerner’s case: The IRS produced an e-mail exchange from 2011 in which Lerner and an IT person discussed the damage to her hard drive. If they were dealing with a plague of crashes, though, in which seven people or more lost data due to computer failures, there should also be contemporaneous evidence of the IT department noticing that the problem was systemic. Is there any? Hard to believe people at the IRS, of all places, would have shrugged at seeing potentially important data on multiple hard drives going up in smoke.

    Either the IRS’s IT department is miserably incompetent, in which case lots of people should be fired, or the data destruction is deliberate, in which case lots of people should go to jail. Over to you, Ron Fournier. Exit question: Did anyone not connected to the targeting of conservative nonprofits lose any e-mails or is this curious string of bad luck confined to the principal players?

  11. Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

    Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations.
    Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

    Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried.
    If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

    In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.
    We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”

    Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

    If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices.
    The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    @Buck, Sorry, was quite busy yesterday. On the straw purchase issue, the Feds have no authority to regulate who purchases firearms, period. That’s where that pesky part “shall ne be infringed” comes in handy. They have already been told they can’t do a damn thing that would keep guns from the people. They have regulated a straw purchase, or buying a gun for someone else. Sorry, but laws only affect the law abiding citizens who intend no harm towards others, criminals don’t give a crap and never will.

    If nephew Alvin bought a gun at a special discount for Uncle Buck, and both are law abiding citizens, the Feds are in violation of the Constitution for attempting to regulate that purchase, period. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means just that. Any law that makes this transaction illegal is inherently unconstitutional. The whole issue is about people likely being honest, not attempting to do anything wrong. Alvin could have just said I’m buying this gun because I can, what I do after wards isn’t any of the governments business, unless I use it in a crime. Kagan is an idiot who should not be wearing that black robe, she seems to be deficient in her understanding of the sentence “shall not be infringed”. Let me make it a little clearer “can’t do shit, period”. How’s that? 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      OH, I have filled out the forms before. It’s entrapment to ask if one is a convicted felon then do a background check. Then if he/she is a felon, arrest them for violated a law about lying on the form. That’s stupid on it’s face. Why ask if your going to run a background check? Yes, that is entrapment. Most of the other questions are stupid as well and there is no way to prove the answers one way or the other, the background checks don’t look for such things. More government waste of time. All that should be done (and I’m not all that keen on background checks) is name, address, SSAN and the background check. Nothing more should be required or even asked. I can go back to that pesky statement on each question, because it’s none of Big Brothers business.

      • I have a different perspective. On FOX this am they talked about NYC having had around 1,000 violent deaths each year. Tougher laws & enforcement are credited with reducing it to around 400 now.

        After the Instant Background Check System began operation, Bill Clinton took credit for preventing thousands of felons from obtaining a firearm. I want to know why thousands of felons weren’t arrested? They broke the law attempting to buy a gun. If they are non-violent, I would hope for a hand slap. If they have gang affiliations, I would hope they are taken off the streets immediately, parole violated & sent back to the pen…

        • And another example of why we don’t need more laws, we need to ENFORCE existing laws.

          • LOI

            You fail to understand government.

            The more laws, the more control.
            Enforcement costs money. To demand “more enforcement” means more money is necessary to spend.

            However, more laws allow enforcement to be arbitrary. This keeps the population on edge of terror, never knowing what is or is not enforced or when or if there will be a knock on the door.

            • I think I do understand government as pertains to this conversation. With that stated, I agree with the rest of your points. Where we differ, I do advocate for government. I think it is a never ending battle to keep it small and under the peoples control. It’s funny to look at what we have today, and remember where our country started. The founders would revolt today if they had to live under the government they started. They wanted a limited government. We have a government without limits…

              • LOI

                That’s the root conceptual error you hold.

                There is no such thing as a “limited” government – it is a contradiction.

                By holding that such a monster must exist, you equally hold it has power over your rights.

                Once you grant such power, you have dismissed all your rights.

                ALL government seeks unlimited power.

                Being fooled by watching it grow – making a false comparison between the past and present, fools you into thinking the past was “limited” – it was never limited in the past, but merely constrained by the amount of time it has to grow in size.

                By your false comparison, you could argue that last year the government was “limited” but today it is not because it was smaller last year then this year.

                This highlights the problem of the failure of such concepts. Instead, you must evaluate the issue from a PRINCIPLE, and measure the condition against such a principle. Then you will never be fooled. It will not matter how much bigger or smaller the entity is, because by the use of principle – violence on the non-violent – it has ALWAYS applied this principle in its action.

                So whether it commanded 1% of society 200 years ago, 10% 100 years ago, or 65% today – is irrelevant. It has never been”limited” – it has ALWAYS sought more power.

              • LOI

                In the end it is a battle between total freedom or total tyranny.

                You cannot like some tyranny without actually providing the tools and energy that creates total tyranny.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          LOI, Congressional debate clearly shows the straw purchase law was intended to keep guns from those not eligible to have them, eg Felons. The ATF wrote further additions to include everyone. This whole SCOTUS case is filled with BS that should have never seen a court room. It’s agenda driven, but it certainly isn’t constitutional. The law on it’s face is in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

  13. gmanfortruth says:
  14. gmanfortruth says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is a real good example of how Democrat Progressives force their views upon others. They seem to hate freedom and truly love slavery. Shameful 😦

  15. gmanfortruth says:
  16. gmanfortruth says:

    The Supreme Court will soon decide if threatening speech posted on the internet is protected by the First Amendment.

    The Court said it will hear an appeal from a Pennsylvania man convicted of making threatening comments on Facebook against his estranged wife, elementary schools, judges and the FBI.

    Anthony Elonis was convicted of transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce and sentenced to 44 months in prison.

    The case is Elonis v. United States.

    Mr. Elonis’ lawyers argued an individual should not be convicted of making a threat unless there is evidence he actually intended violence. Elonis said much speech posted on the internet is “inherently susceptible to misinterpretation.” He insisted his posted remarks did not demonstrate a “subjective intent to threaten” based on previous Supreme Court precedent and are protected speech under the First Amendment.

    The Justice Department countered by saying Elonis’ argument undermines “one of the central purposes of prohibiting threats,” which is to protect individuals “from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders.”

  17. Howdy JAC….how are you?

    Iraqi Kurdistan in northeast Iraq is governed semi-autonomously. The Kurdish security forces are partly integrated with the government, but there’s somewhere between 80,000 and 240,000 Kurdish peshmerga (militias) who don’t answer to Baghdad. They’re well equipped and trained, and represent a serious military threat to ISIS.

    The Kurdish boundaries actually take in much of the oil lands of Iraq. As it now stands, the Kurds are in charge of two very large oilfields. Their funding comes from the sale of oil that they control and do not ship through Bagdad, Secondly, the Kurds, although largely Sunni are very closely related to the Armenians. Funding goes through Armenia directly to the Kurds via CIA.

    Despite the tension between Turkey and the Kurds…..oil flows through Turkey via blackmarket.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning sir. I am well but very sore. Hands stiff from hammering and tearing out sheetrock. Now back to packing up the household goods. Saturday is the big day. First time in my life I will be moving “EAST”. But then almost everywhere is East of here.

      Thanks for the answer. I suspected we were funding the Kurds. I see claims that ISIL is funded with oil money as well. Seems phony to me. So where is their support coming from?

      My guess……………. Saudi and other “fundamentalists” and the Russians.

      Are you still coming to Portland in early August? Thought maybe we could play Golf and consume a fine dinner the week before your frisbie tourney. Will be back then for lil’ JAC to go to Camp. If your up for it I will email you with dates time etc.

      • Haven’t been keeping up – what did I miss? Where are you moving to? The great midwest this time?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Not that far East.

          Moving back to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. We still have a house there so we are going there while we figure out where and what to do next. I am trying to get back to Montana but other family needs are holding us in north Idaho for now.

          BUT…………… I will SOON b free to make a longer trip back EAST. If not this summer then next I plan on taking Anita up on that chair sitting on her porch at the lake. Perhaps you could join us. I will bring you a Super Bowl Champion SEAHAWK T shirt if you like!

          • Yes – I am overdue for a visit to Anita’s paradise.

            Wilson getting divorced and Rodgers hot and heavy with some Hollywood babe – distractions!!!

            • Talking behind my back I see. Im thinking I’ll drive west on 94, grab you, and we’ll both continue west to JAC’s crib. Got a couple weeks to spare? 😉

      • Sunnis……SA funded…….Shia……Iran funded……..ISIS/ISIL are Sunnis.

        • With an axe to grind…..mind you. The Sunnis are pissed and it is not at the West…they are pissed at the Shiittes and have been for a few hundred years but especially now as they were promised seats at the big table….and did not get them…plus, the current Iraqi government butchered several Sunnis….and the Sunnis are returning the favor. It is a civil war designed for some more of those “imaginary” lines…..

          • The Sunnis’ want a homeland same as the Kurds….the Kurds are sitting back and watching the Sunnis and Shiites hammer it out. Iran, in the other hand, cannot afford to have a Sunni state on its border because that effectively brings SA into the fold on Iran;s border. SA and Iran are as friendly as poison ivy is to your butt…So Iran has a stake…hence the involvement of our State Department making peace overtures to Iran…….If I were Iran, I would bargain support for Iraq if the US withdraws all of its objections to their nuclear program and release of frozen funds. I can actually see that happening as Obama’s legacy is taking another torpedo below amid ship and he will bargain away and position that the US has….much to the detriment of SA and Europe. We shall see.

            • If I were SA. I would immediately make a deal with the devil (US) to station nukes in SA…so, you will have Sunnis with nukes, Shiites with nukes…..India and Pakistan with nukes and a mideast region at knife’s edge just like several centuries ago…….pretty cool actually….THEN….

              Get the midterms into the hands of the Repubs….Senate and House….and immediately open up the Federal lands for oil exploration and become free of mideast oil..( the oil is here to do that )….then threaten to pull out of SA with our nukes. At that time make a deal with SA, for more oil for security. Beef up Jordan with nukes to protect their little Kingdom. (Although we already keep a carrier group in the area and have for years just for them.)

              THEN….it gets better…….go to India. Give them some much needed trade to ratchet up their border with Pakistan….and split the Pakistani’s attention..(they hate each other anyway). India has a really powerful navy for that region…much better than Irans…bridge the relations ship between them and Oman and Qatar….use the US navy and the Indian navy to create a nice barrier across the Arabian Sea.

              How is THAT for a scenario?

              Russia and China will do nothing about it,

    • I love her response. In case the haters didn’t go to the link…the majority peaceful Muslims are IRREVELANT. As were the majority Germans, Russians, Japanese, and whoever else ..They’re IRREVELANT….since the numbers of radicals in those groups were so large, they’re a great security concern.

      The moderator had a good question at the end too…Who is the leader of the Muslim Peace Movement? The lady said..paraphrase… ‘I guess at the moment it’s me’

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    First of all, the Federal Govt was NEVER given any authority to regulate the purchase or ownership of weapons by private citizens. Yes this is a strict “interpretation” but such should be the application of a “Constitution”. Otherwise it is meaningless.

    Which brings us to the current situation where SCOTUS has taken upon itself the role of deciding what is an EXCEPTION to what is clearly an absolute prohibition of Govt power. The authority to regulate weapons was CREATED by SCOTUS, it was not GRANTED BY THE PEOPLE.

    But lets use the “modern” approach. That is a RIGHT is absolute except when Govt can show a compelling interest in infringing upon that right.

    NOTHING in the straw purchase law and especially nothing in Keagan’s argument addresses or establishes a “COMPELLING” Govt interest; Note that the reasoning does not mention the need to protect or prevent a crime, but that overturning the law would impede LE ability to “TRACK” the gun ownership over time. That ownership has no relationship to any actual crime committed. Except the crime of exercising one’s right itself.

    The purchaser and the person they purchase the gun for are both turned into criminals by Govt dictate, their Constitutional Right is violated without any hard evidence of “compelling Govt interest.”

    Now lets look back at how the California Circuit Judge applied this standard in overturning a Constitutional Amendment passed by POPULAR referendum, on Gay Marriage. Remember the lengths he went to trying to show that the Govt had no compelling interest to overturn the “Right” to be granted equal “privileges” under the law/?? If the same standard were applied to the Second Amendment there would not be any Federal Laws dealing with weapons ownership. Except perhaps the ownership of truly Military Grade weapons, like Nukes and F16’s loaded to the max.

    Now with that said, the States do have authority to regulate weapons as the Constitution did not restrict power of the States in this matter. That was done via State Constitutions which contained similar provisions as the Second Amendment BEFORE the US Constitution was written. Many have added such restrictions since.

    I also see today in the news that the Fed’s are prosecuting a fellow for making “threatening” remarks against his ex wife, school administrators and other Govt authorities on the internet.

    Their “authority” for this arrest and prosecution? They claim it is under the COMMERCE CLAUSE. So there you go. Speech is now part of commerce because the means of transferring the speech is considered commerce. Yet are not books, magazines and newspapers also “commerce” and are they not also sold or transported across State lines?

    When we do not stick to our principles in matters of the Constitution this is the king of rotten muck we find ourselves wallowing.

    • Until we get a Supreme Court that agrees with you, we are stuck with the one that we have. They have interpreted this to be a straw purchase which it actually is. Now if the straw purchaser issue is ever litigated, you and I will have a leg to stand on ant the schmuck’s conviction will be vacated after several hundred more thousand dollars of his expense.

      I think back to last year to an event in NY State when two firemen were killed a police officer paralyzed by a convicted felon who killed Moms and then set the house on fire. He would have failed a background check but a 27 year old female neighbor was perfectly willing to buy the thing for him no doubt for a small fee.

      If she is guilty, unfortunately so is our current hoople even though the outcomes were totally different.

      Regarding the “entrapment” issue, it is more like a brain dead issue. The Form states that you will be checked and you are under penalty of perjury if you lie. How many people, knowing that it will be checked are dumb enough to check the “no” box?

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    To those who think elections do not matter at all. Watch what POTUS and Congress do to address the polling numbers before the upcoming elections. When their sense of validity is threatened they always act out. And it is not always in our best interest. But they will act out, in some fashion.

    New polling data shows Obama and Congress in the tank. A majority now think Obama in “unfit” to lead the country. R’s and D’s have Unfavorables in the mid to high 40’s. A majority think their “Own” Congressman should NOT be re-elected. That last one is a huge change in general polling in quite some time.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think Graham already said we could have another 911. This is the MO of those who desire power. Obama is a dictator tyrant who won’t leave easily.

      Hitler did it, Obama and the Dems are the Nazis twins, most of the American sheople are just as dumb as the Germans in the 30s.

      Good day to you Sir. 🙂

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    More on the “elections do not matter” front. If not, then why all the money pouring into Mississippi???

    • JAC,

      You make the classic error

      Who sits in the “Big Chair” matters to who?

      It certainly matters to those that live lavishly from the largess of loot accumulated by the criminal gang. “My guys” pour money into “my pocket” whilst “those other guys” pour money into someone else’s pocket. So it matters if my guy gets the Big Chair.

      But you are not any of those guys. Whether it is that one or this one, you are the victim of the pillaging, not its recipient.

      Thus, the lobbyists job is to get the right guy in the big chair for his guy. They warp your mind and head into thinking that your vote counts FOR YOU. But it never has and never will.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Sorry old friend but it is you who once again makes the “classic” error.

        You project your view onto my comments when I make no such statements that you believe you are reading.

        I never said that elections matter FOR ME. I simply said that they do in fact matter. That those who seek election do in fact pay close attention and the do in fact seek validation and will do almost anything to keep it.

        This gives We the People leverage. That is if WE held solid principles and remained firm in our demands of elected officials. The problem is not that voting is worthless but that the majority of those voting hold worthless values.

        By the way, you made a good argument to LOI on the nature of govt, and all without making the usual personal insults to your target. You should try that approach more often.

        Also along those lines, and in recognizing your own argument, you have yet to explain how a Society of “Free Men” can prevent a Govt from forming. How do free men protect their “absolute” freedom from those who would rather have power over others?

        It keeps coming to mind that free people are generally pretty peaceful and thus to slow to organize against threats of the tyrant. Where as the tyrant makes his fortune organizing for violence against the innocent.

        • JAC
          “I simply said that they do in fact matter.”

          Absolutely false. By the FACT, that nothing changes, your claim is false.

          ” That those who seek election do in fact pay close attention and the do in fact seek validation and will do almost anything to keep it.”

          Absolutely false.

          You confuse their rhetoric with their actions. What they promise they do not do. Obama and Bush and all the rest demonstrate that point vividly. You are fooled by words.

          “This gives We the People leverage”


          You think you have leverage??? You are terribly naive.

          You do not pick the candidates, they are given to you. You have NO leverage.

          . That is if WE held solid principles and remained firm in our demands of elected officials. The problem is not that voting is worthless but that the majority of those voting hold worthless values.

          “you have yet to explain how a Society of “Free Men” can prevent a Govt from forming.”

          Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

          Free men abhor violence. Do not legitimize the use of violence as a means to an end. Period.


          • @BF……”Free men abhor violence. Do not legitimize the use of violence as a means to an end. Period.”

            And the reality of this is where? Do you consider yourself a “free man”?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your explanation amounts to nothing more than you declaring it an absolute when you have ZERO evidence it will work, happen, etc.

            I have no problem understanding. I think it is you who wishes selective amnesia when it comes to “explaining” your position.

            As for elections, I suppose you are now claiming that nothing has ever changed as a result of elections. I guess the election of FDR did not cause a serious change in this nations direction.

            This argument that our candidates are handed to us IGNORES the process used. WHO hands them to us???

            Some candidates do in fact do what they promise once elected. The issue of their honesty is related to the time they spend in D.C. or any seat of power.

            As I said, it is those voting for them that is the real issue. They WANT them to bring home the goodies. Harry Reid is the perfect example of how that desire for getting stuff overrides what the electorate know is a bad apple.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              WHO hands them to us??? The two cabals called political parties, follow the money, they have it.

              As I said, it is those voting for them that is the real issue. 100% correct. This is exactly why voting no longer works for the benefit of the people, but rather, the benefit of the government.. That fact that you continue to be brainwashed into thinking elections will change things in the future says it all, because it was elections that got us here. But it’s OK if you ignore that fact, most do, because they can’t see the problem, which is them. 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                So you claim that voting made a difference in getting us to here, yet claim voting makes no difference.

                Apparently you do not understand WHO the PARTIES are. There is not some single group of people deciding who will be the candidates. Those of you who wallow in this cynicism don’t seem to understand how the “system” works.

                Political Parties are run by those who participate and who are elected in LOCAL elections of Precinct Officers. Of course there are powerful people who try to make it all work their way. But just ask Karl Rove how that is working out these days.

                Which of these “hidden cabals” put Ted Cruz, or Mike Lee, or Labrador, or Rand Paul on the ballots?? How is it the ELITE failed to get their favorite son Mr. Cantor elected again just the past week or so??

                Gman, you are falling for the crap spread by the Anarchist ideologues. Voting does make a difference, although I will grant you not always. Whether that difference agrees with you depends on how many people share your views and whether they participate.

                But if the standard for evaluating change is that those elected MUST abolish Govt, well then it is your criteria which is faulty. Not voting.

              • JAC
                “So you claim that voting made a difference in getting us to here, yet claim voting makes no difference.”

                Again, you repeat the same flaw over and over again. Can’t get around it, huh?

                It matters WHO benefits from the voting. YOU DO NOT. Your vote changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE.

                You are not the benefactor of the largess YOU ARE THE VICTIM, regardless of who sits in the Big Chair.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Which of these “hidden cabals” put Ted Cruz, or Mike Lee, or Labrador, or Rand Paul on the ballots?? How is it the ELITE failed to get their favorite son Mr. Cantor elected again just the past week or so??

                JAC, what is the percentage of Congress that agrees with the Libertarian ideology? Just curious, because when you see that those very few mean nothing in the big picture, they are there to keep the illusion going. Good luck with your fairy tale, That’s what you espouse! 🙂

            • JAC
              “Your explanation amounts to nothing more than you declaring it an absolute when you have ZERO evidence it will work, happen, etc.”


              You start from NO PRINCIPLE in your basic assertion. It is YOU WHO HOLDS a baseless concept.

              “As for elections, I suppose you are now claiming that nothing has ever changed as a result of elections. I guess the election of FDR did not cause a serious change in this nations direction.”

              IT MATTERED NOT ONE WIT to your ilk who would be voted in. It has not for centuries. It certainly mattered to Rockefeller and Ford etc!

              “This argument that our candidates are handed to us IGNORES the process used. WHO hands them to us???”

              I do not ignore the process! YOU DO!!

              You have no idea how the candidates are vetted and manufactured onto your ballot!

              • JAC,

                “Elections are merely a futures market on stolen property”

                You are confused into believing that you participate in the take of the largess.

                No, YOU ARE THE VICTIM of the theft, not its benefactor of it

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The hell I don’t. I used to participate in the game.

                My principles have nothing to do with your INABILITY to show us all how absolute freedom can be preserved. ALL of history stands against you.

              • JAC,
                You can’t show ANYTHING can be preserved, so your point is empty.

                It has NOTHING TO DO with an ability to maintain.


                If your argument is merely maintenance, you are drifting over a dead-end cliff, old friend.

  21. Not new information necessarily, but laid out in a clear format. Video at end is good – wonder if the witnesses are still alive?

    • All I can say is that people, especially the military that knows that these things went down ought to revisit their oath. “Too preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Not seeing a lot of that lately.” The president does not even appear in that oath.

      Thinking back, it was this loyalty to the Constitution among subordinates plus elected officials of the same party in power that brought down the Nixon White House.

      Perhaps the almost total condemnation of Edward Snowden by the media, talking heads, pundits, power brokers of either party, elected officials of all stripes is exactly because he put the Constitution before his loyalty to “the government”.

  22. Kurdish independence now being supported by … Turkey?
    posted at 1:31 pm on June 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

    Via Ace and HuffPo, I’m suspicious that a story potentially this big has been confined so far to a Kurdish news outlet. If you’re looking for signs of an impending partition of Iraq, which all of entire western media is, they don’t come any bigger. Where’s the Drudge siren?

    A few days ago, I tweeted that with Iraq in chaos, the Kurds might as well declare independence and upend the regional table entirely, to which maybe 50 people instantly replied, “What about Turkey?” Well, what about them?

    The Kurds of Iraq have the right to decide the future of their land, said Huseyin Celik, a spokesman for Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) on Friday.

    “The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of the entity they are living in,” Celik told Rudaw in an interview to be published soon…

    In case Iraq gets partitioned, said Celik, “the Kurds, like any other nation, will have the right to decide their fate.”

    Celik believes that Iraq is already headed towards partition thanks to “Maliki’s sectarian policies.”

    Is that diplomatic nonsense being pushed by Turkey to a foreign outlet, obscuring the fact that they’d surely bomb the new Kurdistan to smithereens if it declared independence and gave Turkey’s Kurds a reason to revolt? Or has Turkey come around on the idea of a Kurdish state? Believe it or not, this may be on the level. Moe Lane points to this recent piece at Time mag about the Kurds’ secret weapon as Iraq melts down: Namely, oil. Iraq’s Sunnis and Shia could spend the next 20 years fighting over territory in the west and south; in fact, the country’s biggest refinery was seized by Sunni “militants” just this morning. If you want a steady flow of Iraqi oil, your best hope is for the country’s most stable group to break away, grab the oil assets it can, and keep the tap open. In fact, there’s already a pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey. Erdogan’s simply protecting his investment.

    He’s also worried about Iranian expansionism, first in Syria via Tehran’s Shiite proxy Assad and now in Iraq as Maliki and the Shia gear up to face ISIS. Kurdistan’s peshmerga are an obvious partner for Turkey against Iran on the one hand and Sunni jihadis on the other. In fact, Kurdish troops may be the best military force in Iraq right now. Peter Galbraith:

    Kurdistan’s military, called the peshmerga, is ideally situated to combat ISIS. The Iraqi Army—or what is left of it—is hundreds of miles from Mosul; the peshmerga hold the Kurdish eastern half of the city. Although ISIS readily routed the Iraqi Army from the west bank, it chose not to tangle with far more formidable Kurds. President Obama can only order air strikes if he has good intelligence, controllers who can identify targets and troops who can follow up on the ground. Only the Kurds can do this…

    Today, Kurdistan and Turkey are the closest of allies. Turkey is Kurdistan’s most important trading partner and Turkish companies are the largest investors in Kurdistan. Turkish intelligence and military officials consult regularly with their Kurdish counterparts. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a close personal relationship with KRG President Massoud Barzani and a poisonous one with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In advance of Turkish elections, Erdogan and Barzani jointly addressed a large public rally in Diyabakir, the largest city in Turkey’s Kurdish southeast and Kurdistan is playing a constructive role in support of Erdogan’s effort to make peace with Turkish Kurdish rebels.

    Credit the Kurds with brilliant strategic thinking in making nice with Turkey after the U.S. invasion in 2003. They’ve wanted a state for 100 years; they knew there’d eventually be an opportunity once the Sunni and Shia started tearing each other’s eyes out; and they knew who the big obstacle in the region was to their ambition. They convinced Turkey to invest in Kurdish independence, economically and militarily, and now it’s going to pay off. Well done.

    The obvious play here for the White House, as Galbraith notes, is to back the Kurds in independence, no matter how much crow the U.S. might need to eat for resisting the partition of Iraq until now. Kurdistan is famously pro-American as it is; offer them official diplomatic recognition and that’ll only ripen further, replete with help in stomping out ISIS. If they want to seize an oil field or two or 10 in the process, no one’s going to object, least of all Turkey. We’d finally have a real partner and a strong military ally in the region at a moment when Iraq and Syria look like they’re about to become the most target-rich environment on earth for the U.S. military. It’s a no-brainer.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      typical journalism these days. Let’s find something to rag on the USA over.

      Not one mention that the Kurds would be living in shit holes if the USA had not enforced a No Fly Zone over northern Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from wiping them out completely.

      Which by the way is one reason the Kurds are more “friendly” towards the USA.

      There are good reasons to fear a partitioning of Iraq and John Kerry called for long ago. But it may be inevitable given the current situation. Just think WHO benefits from the division of the country into smaller and thus “weaker” nation states?

      • There are no boundaries. As much as I hate to give him credit for anything, Flag was right about Versailles and the Post WW 1 divy up of the mid-east. Straight lines may have made some sense for Kansas and Colorado but over there, it was a joke.

        • NOT was…..IS……

          • True, it really should be tribal. Thanks by the way, I researched Kurds and am getting to like the folks. Some non-crazy Muslims for a change with less than orthodox views. No wonder they are hated.

            • @ Stephen…

              It is….read up on the Ottoman Empire and you will see that, if left to their own, Iraq will end up exactly as it was in 600……the Kurdish, the Sunni, and the Shiites. Iran does not want this, of course, and neither does Turkey. The Saudis, on the other hand, want exactly that.

              Now, Turkey….very interesting country and culture…it is a mixing bowl of sorts that dates back to Alexander the Great. On the Easter end of Turkey you several little tribal enclaves,,,,each wanting their own identity. There are the Kurds ( closely aligned with the Sunnis ) and there is an enclave of approximately one million people who identify with a tribal unit called the Zaza’s. The main portion of the Turkish population is…well…Turkish with many roots deep from the old Ottoman Empire. It is important to understand the really deep ethnic roots in this region. The Zazas have ties with the OLD northern Iranian peoples and were driven out of that part of Iran centuries ago. The Turkish people are Muslim but are what is termed moderate or “western Muslim”. This is to mean, that they like the order of the Islam faith but do not like the draconian Shia laws. The majority of the Turkish Muslim are also Sunnis….

              THe majority of the Kurdish are also Sunnis…hence the unholy alliance with the ISIS/ISIL group. However, the ISIS/ISIL are fanatical about Shia Law whereas the Kurds are not. Now, with the election of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, years ago and led party called the Justice and Development Party. He has tried to turn turkey to a more fundamental Islamic State…in doing so, he isolated the Kurds as well as the West. However, this is an election year in Turkey where this “yahoo” cannot, by their current rules, be elected again as the Prime minster. BUT…..wouldn’t you know it….he is trying to change the Constitution of Turkey now, to allow him to continue as his party has grown in size in their version of an electoral college. In other words, he does not want to give up power.

              It does not appear that he is going to be successful, however, even though he has de-fanged the military. I go through all of this because it is rooted in the past….way before any divisions after WWI and WWII. This year, there is obviously going to be a vacuum of sorts and I look for the Kurds to gain not only power but more land control within Turkey….expanding their influence. The land in Turkey is divided like Iraq into enclaves controlled by the ethnicity. Pretty convoluted but one needs to study and understand the Muslim/Arab.

              That is the secret. All of this was required reading and study in War College.

              • Turkey is fascinating. Back when I was a kid in Geography and History it was always known as “the sick man of Europe”. I absolutely loved Mustafa Kemel, Attaturk, for what he did bringing the country into modern times of course, it was destined not to last. It was the misfortune of the Brits at Gallipoli to be up against him both a competent general and competent and very pragmatic politician.

                If you have never seen it, these are his words, inscribed at the ANZAC memorial. How could you not respect such a man?

                Almost seventy years after the Gallipoli Battle the place on the peninsula where the Anzacs landed on 25th April, 1915, was recognized as Anzac Cove by Turkish Government and in return for this gesture, the Australian Government established the memorial garden around the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk memorial. On Anzac parade this is the only memorial to an enemy commander and it honors the heroism and self sacrifice of the Anzac and Turkish soldiers who took part in Gallipoli Battle. There is an inscription written by Ataturk on this memorial and it reflects his understanding about cost of war. It says:

                “Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lay side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.\”.

                Whoops, lump in the throat time.

              • Indeed.

                At one part of the battle, when the third wave of Australians and New Zealanders was reading to attack the Turks – after the first two waves were annihilated – the Turkish commander sent a heartfelt plea to the British commander.

                “I beg of you, for the love of our mutual God, do not send any more good, brave men to die before our guns”

                The British sent them anyway, and the Turks cried as they annihilated the assault.

              • There was a brilliant BBC documentary showing the Turks side of WW1, so poignant to view the battle from the other side. I have to find it and post it.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said in response to a question during a town hall forum. “You are about the fifth person in the past few weeks — parents, another teacher, interested citizens — who have said something similar to me.”


    Hillary, we say the same thing about the Democrats, go figure. We’re 80 plus million strong, you are not, that might help readjust your idiotic opinion. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Here’s common knowledge to many of us.

      Much worse.

      I don’t think many of our readers will be surprised, but we trained many of these men as well. Aaron Klein, reporting for WND, now tells us that many of these rebels were trained by the U.S. at a secret facility in Jordan.

      Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.

      The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.

      The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.


  24. gmanfortruth says:

    imagine that :

    Nonnewaug High School’s SonicWALL Internet filters restrict access to web sites for the National Association for Gun Rights, the Connecticut GOP, RedState and even Townhall.

    On the other hand, students are free to access the home pages of Moms Demand Action, Planned Parenthood, the Connecticut Democrat Party and the official site of Hillary Clinton.

  25. gmanfortruth says:
    • I would be proud, proud I say, if the team were to change its name to the “Washington Rednecks”. Show them mo fo’s a thing or two!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thought I would add to this issue. This, hopefully, cannot stand. It’s a complete violation of Free Speech Rights. It’s not within the Govt’s authority to decide what is “offensive” or not. Once again, this administration can’t seem to understand the Constitution and it’s purpose, to LIMIT the Federal Government. What’s next, pull the trademarks for all gun manufacturers? Threaten all stores who sell guns, like Walmart with same action?

      If this stands, then when the Republicrats take office they can do the same with Planned Parenthood, claiming the name is misleading. Would that be fair and balanced? Do the same to the DNC because it offends Donkeys?

      Government, beyond corrupt, beyond fixing at the polls, beyond hope for a bloodless Revolution.

  26. gmanfortruth says:
    • Don’t insult Benedict Arnold! he was a patriot before he was a traitor.

      • NO!

        He was always a patriot. You are confused to the meaning of the term.

        He abandoned Washington because he saw the Revolution becoming corrupt. He was right.

      • His aim was to overthrow the corruption in the Revolution, and restore it by using the British as his weapon. Had he succeeded, America would still be free from both the corruption and the British.

        • I must admit, a perspective I have not been aware of before. That he was screwed big time, I am aware.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          What a load of crap! He felt insulted and traded his honor for a commission.

          Where do you anarchist create all this alternative history, in a cauldron?

          • JAC

            You are too full of the government education wrought upon you.

            Arnold was the rebels’ biggest military hero for the first two years of the war, winning battle after battle against overwhelming odds, often by his wits and other times through the sheer strength of his personality. Then a serious wound sidelined him. General George Washington appointed him military governor of Philadelphia, where Arnold quickly learned that the homegrown politicians who’d seized power weren’t fighting for the same freedom he was; rather, like modern Progressives, they’d created a huge, centralized bureaucracy — with themselves firmly in control, of course. Indeed, they idolized the State in the constitution they foisted on Pennsylvania: God “alone knows to what degree of earthly happiness mankind may attain by perfecting the arts of government…”

            Arnold appealed to the Continental Congress for help in thwarting this cabal. But Pennsylvania supplied too many soldiers and materiel to the Continental Army for Congress to oppose its rulers. Next stop: King George III, whose Redcoats were the only force willing and able to save America from totalitarianism…

            Benedict Arnold defied American dictators. Those dictators naturally and vengefully vilified him at the time; textbooks and professors have repeated their slanders ever since as the truth.

    • Yep, T Ray,,,,,it is once again a frontier and it is going to take frontier justice to control it.

      • As a matter of fact, it is referred to as the “frontera”….

        • Asking again, when will the SW governors in effect do the equivalent to “jury nullification” to the Feds. seems your governor punked out big time the other day with “we ain’t got the money”. I am sure most of your citizens would not mind springing for bus fare. I’d actually send a check myself. Eventually these folks will make it up here and the chaos they will cause will make the ’70’s in the big city look like Sunday School. .

          I suspect that the Mexican Government will refuse to take ’em back. In that case, it behooves the State of Texas to establish inspection stations on the highways to carefully monitor vehicles entering/re-entering the country for faulty mechanical equipment. I’d staff each facility with one inspector who works 9 to 5 with a full lunch hour and two 20 minute coffee breaks. No comfort stations! That ought to get Mexico City’s attention.

          • Actually……we do that. We do that because NAFTA established a one way deal….Mexican trucks can come into the United States but American trucks cannot go into Mexico and that stands until this very day…..however, the DOT here is very strict and Mexican trucks cannot pass the safety checks…….we turn them back in droves until they can pass the safety checks and must comply with DOT regulations which includes reading and speaking English in order to obey traffic signs and warnings. they must also comply with keeping logs and abiding by the same safety regulations as American drivers do. The reason American drivers cannot drive into Mexico is because Mexico is highly regulated and it does not want competition….so it keeps American drivers out of Mexico.

            However, the reason that Perry made the comment he did was not an affordability effort but telling the Feds it is their responsibility. Texas actually enforces our borders pretty good,,,this is why these children are being picked up by the Feds in a hurry…Texas will send them back….the Feds want them here for political reasons.

            • Current news reports have put him back on my good side. He has to get in with Jan Brewer in AZ. They have to act in concert. NM and CAL are probably hopeless. Let them get their fill. Texas and Arizona should probably get their AG’s together now in preparation for the coming shit storm from the head psycho.

              • Actually, New Mexico has commissioned Texas to train them on border issues. N M is getting serious.

              • Well, this is a good thing. It would be fun to drop them all on Governor Moonbeam. Sorry, know it’s a flashback from the past but I couldn’t resist.

                They should be prepared though to stand firm and defiant when Holder brings the roof down ion them with the help of people like Breyer, Sotomoyer, Kagen and Ginsberg.

                Should probably get the best Conservative speech writers working on it NOW.

  27. Sources: Lois Lerner’s emails likely gone forever

    It may be standard government procedure, but the revelation is significant. | Getty
    By RACHAEL BADE | 6/18/14 9:59 PM EDT Updated: 6/18/14 11:34 PM EDT

    Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive has been recycled, making it likely the lost emails of the lightening rod in the tea party targeting controversy will never be found, according to multiple sources.

    “We’ve been informed that the hard drive has been thrown away,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a brief hallway interview.

    Two additional sources told POLITICO the same late Wednesday, citing IRS officials.

    It may just be standard government procedure, but the revelation is significant because some lawmakers and observers thought there was a way that tech experts could revive Lerner’s emails after they were washed away in a computer crash in the summer of 2011. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for example, subpoenaed her damaged hard drive earlier this week, when he asked for “all hard drives, external drives, thumb drives and computers” and “all electronic communication devices the IRS issued to Lois G. Lerner.”

    “IT experts have weighed in and said yes — we can get those” emails, said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) earlier Wednesday.

    The latest news suggests such professionals may never get the chance to try again — and the IRS has even said its criminal investigators who specialize in rebuilding hard drives to recover hidden information from criminals were unable to restore the data back in 2011. But this is only likely to further enrage Republicans, who are fuming over the matter and suspect Washington officials drove the selective scrutiny.

    The IRS told congressional investigators on Friday that the emails of Lerner, the former head of the tax exempt division that was found to have singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny, were lost from 2009 to 2011 in a computer hard drive crash in early summer 2011. IRS chief John Koskinen will face angry Republicans at a hearing on Friday.

    The time frame is significant because the tea party targeting began in spring of 2010, and Republicans think if there was a smoking gun connecting the Obama administration to the IRS treatment of conservative groups, it could be found during that period.

    “We believe the standard IRS protocol was followed in 2011 for disposing of the broken hard drive. A bad hard drive, like other broken Information Technology equipment, is sent to a recycler as part of our regular process,” an IRS spokesman said in response to a query from POLITICO.

    On Wednesday, the White House retorted that for the time frame in which Lerner’s emails are missing, there are no direct communications between 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the now-retired Lerner.

    Earlier this week, Ways and Means Republicans said as many as six IRS employees involved in the scandal also lost email in computer crashes, including the former chief of staff for the acting IRS commissioner.

    That’s because before May 2013, the IRS backed up emails only for six months on a tape, then recycled the tapes, so they essentially threw out the data. Many agencies do the same, transparency experts say.

    The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which wrote the May 2013 report that uncovered the practice of IRS workers singling out some applicants for tax breaks with the words “tea party” for added scrutiny, is currently in possession of Lerner’s laptop and her new hard drive, according to an IRS letter.

    The IRS has been able to retrieve about 24,000 of Lerner’s emails sent to other IRS employees by recovering them from other agents who received, sent or were copied on the emails.

    However, Koskinen has acknowledged that the IRS wouldn’t be able to find emails Lerner sent outside the agency.

    Read more:

    Doesn’t that sound- oh so reasonable- for total BS!

    • Makes the Nixon tape controversy archaic and romper room compared to this. And Niixon was a crook….what does that make Obama?

      • Then we need to do whatever we did back then -they managed to get the information on Nixon-of course I assume that would take the democrats helping-which they should if they care anything about this Country and the responsibility they owe to the people.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          THe democrats only care about their agenda. By any means necessary, remember?

          • Yeah and there are a whole lot of republicans that don’t care about anything but getting re-elected but they helped none the less-It was just so in your face crap that I suspect they felt they had too-well so is this BS.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              What I find odd is that servers usually save emails, not PC’s. What about the PC’s she sent email’s too? I agree, way to much unbelievable BS coming from the Left.

              • Every day I am inundated with commercials on the radio for programs that safeguard your files when the computer crashes. The excuse is akin to “the dog ate my homework.” Our friend Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena the IT guys from IRS and do it fast.

    • “Lost emails”

      Of course they are not “lost” – nothing electronically stored is lost. It is absolutely somewhere.

      This is nothing more then a person walking into a room filled with stuff – but his eyes are closed – and saying “Nope, don’t see a thing therefore the room is empty”

      • The EMails would also be at the other end. All EMails sent to the WH, would be on that person’s computer. All EMails sent to the FBI would be present there. Good luck getting to them. Can you really “prove” someone burned down you house when they are caught with the empty gas cans, matches, etc? Those who stand with this administration will loose all credibility. Some in the media have figured out this means they will not survive as a business.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Wouldn’t the NSA possible have the e-mails in their archives? There were data retention and recovery rules for every business I ever worked for. They extended up to and possibly exceeding a minimum of 7 years, just in case. These records were not stored on just my desktop. The point also valid about the recipient and the servers they pass through. Servers may have a temporary limit for immediate recovery purposes and space limitations, but the data is not destroyed. It is archived. Heck, I had access to records of all work done on the air control systems on the USS Coyningham from the day it was launched in the early 60’s to when I was re-engineering and updating those system in a 1980 overhaul at BIW.

      The government has an old age disease of selective memory.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Cliven Bundy update: To date, there have been no legal action taken against Bundy by the Feds. However, criminal charges were filed against the Feds by numerous members of the family. Seems the feds were wrong on this issue, and Harry Reid got caught with his hand in the cookie jar again. Most have forgotten this story. Reid should be arrested with Obama for treason!

  29. gmanfortruth says:
  30. Back to D-day. Gotta love the French.

  31. Those of us old enough to remember, however slightly, the Joseph McCarthy days? Anybody, other than me, see a connection between Joseph McCarthy and the use of government agencies to enforce political whim……ie. The Patent Office and the Washington Redskins?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Watched a documentary on the legendary “Poncho Barnes” the other week. It was unbelievable, but re-enforced, to what lengths the government went to to destroy her when they were attempting to seize her ranch for expansion of Edwards AFB for a proposed nuclear aircraft requiring 15 mile runways.

  32. We have made much of the saying, “the Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend”. Iranian fighter jets and supply planes flying relief into Syria and Iraq and engaging…..and the US is flying cover…..unbelievable.

    So, Obama, you are supporting the Shiites who are fighting the Sunnis. You are supporting the Shiites who are also supporting Hezbollah and Al Queda……You claim that Egypt is our ally which is………………………….Sunni.


    • Does the term “dipshit” mean the same in Texas as it does up here? Because the big “O” is certainly demonstrating his abilities in that direction.

    • Is this a good breakdown of what’s going on?

      After backing Sunni rebels in Syria, Gulf nations face blowback in militant campaign in Iraq
      Published June 18, 2014
      Associated Press

      DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Saudi Arabia and other petro-powerhouses of the Gulf for years encouraged a flow of private cash to Sunni rebels in Syria. Now an al-Qaida breakaway group that benefited from some of the funding has stormed across a wide swath of Iraq, and Gulf nations fear its extremism could be a threat to them as well.

      Those countries are now trying to put the brakes on the network of private fundraisers sending money to the rebel movement, hoping to halt the financing going to the radical Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But at the same time, they sharply oppose any U.S. military assistance to Iraq’s Shiite-led government aimed at stopping the extremists’ rapid advance — and are furious at the possibility Washington could cooperate with their top rival Iran to help Iraq.


      Their stance reflects the complex tangle of national rivalries and sectarian enmities in the region. Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia, along with its Gulf allies, have had the primary goal of stopping the influence of mainly Shiite Iran in the Middle East, and they deeply oppose Iran’s ally, Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom they accuse of discriminating against his country’s Sunni minority.

      They are torn over the Islamic State’s stunning victories. They would be happy if the insurgency forces the removal of al-Maliki and his replacement with a more Sunni-friendly government. But long term, they fear the Islamic State or other radicals inspired by it could eventually turn their weapons against the Gulf’s pro-Western monarchies. And they are alarmed that its power could increase Iran’s role in Iraq — a scenario already realized with top Iranian military figures in Baghdad helping organize the army.

      “They all hate al-Maliki and they all hate Iran, they want to see it play out,” one U.S. official said.

      In phone calls this week with the leaders or foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry heard a chorus of disapproval for any kind of U.S. military operation to help al-Maliki, such as airstrike or train-and-equip missions, according to U.S. officials familiar with the conversations. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the private exchanges.

      Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia’s Cabinet put out a statement blaming the insurgent explosion on al-Maliki’s government’s marginalization of the Sunni minority — “the sectarian and exclusionary policies practiced in Iraq over the past years.”

      Iraq’s Cabinet replied Tuesday with a furious statement of its own, accusing Saudi Arabia of fueling the Islamic States’ rise and of “appeasement to terrorism.” It said it holds the kingdom accountable for “the resulting crimes, which are tantamount to genocide.”

      The Islamic State’s surge in Iraq is in part a blowback from the Gulf countries’ policies in neighboring Syria, where they have backed the Sunni-led rebellion in hopes of toppling another of Iran’s allies, President Bashar Assad.

      With government consent, influential and even state-linked Sunni clerics in the Gulf in recent years urged men to join rebels in Syria and drummed up donations for the Syrian cause in campaigns in mosques, online and on TV. The funds went to numerous Syrian rebel factions, but some are believed to have gone to extremist ones like the Islamic State.

      David Cohen, of the U.S. Treasury Department, put the amounts raised in the hundreds of millions. Some of that went to legitimate humanitarian purposes, but much went the rebels, including extremist groups, Cohen — who is the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence — said in a speech earlier this year. He did not provide more precise figures.

      He said Kuwait has become “the epicenter of fundraising for terrorist groups in Syria.” He said money is being raised in Kuwait and Qatar for the Islamic State as well al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front. The U.S. State Department said Monday there is no evidence of Gulf governments themselves funding Islamic State.

      The head of the Western-backed Syrian opposition coalition, Ahmad Jarba, angrily denounced the international community for failing to support more moderate rebels from the Free Syrian Army and implicitly accused Gulf nations of backing the Islamic State in a speech to a gathering of leaders from Islamic countries in the Saudi city of Jiddah on Tuesday.

      “Some leaders believed they could use terrorists as hired mercenaries but suddenly found themselves stuck with terrorists who used the opportunity to advance their own interests and agenda,” Jarba said. Free Syrian Army fighters have been battling Islamic State forces in eastern Syria, trying to hold back their advances there.

      The Islamic State has emerged as one of the most radical factions in Syria’s civil war and its priority, more than ousting Assad, has been to achieve its dream of a crossborder “Islamic emirate” in the region, starting with Iraq and Syria. Even before Islamic State swept over Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, a week ago, Gulf nations began to worry the group is too uncontrollable, too ambitious and a potential threat to their rulers, who al-Qaida and other radicals have long said should be toppled.

      The Islamic State “not only targets Kuwait, but the entire region,” Kuwait Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Al-Jarallah said, adding that Gulf nations must “protect our internal front.”

      Governments began reining in their support for rebels earlier this year. Saudi Arabia has warned its citizens they will be prosecuted if they fight abroad and labeled the Islamic State a terrorist organization.

      In Qatar, one of the most prominent clerics supporting Syrian fighters, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has not been on the pulpit for months. In Kuwait, Nayef al-Ajmi, who held the posts of justice minister and Islamic endowments minister, resigned in May after the U.S. Treasury accused him of having a history of promoting jihad in Syria, though the government insisted his activities were “charitable, religious and humanitarian.”

      Fund-raising clerics complain that they are now being told not to raise money for any Syrian rebels.

      “Right now there is a siege. All the Gulf countries that were supportive have barred that support,” Kuwaiti cleric Nabil al-Awadi angrily said on his TV program. Al-Awadi, who is part of a collective fundraising campaign for Syria by Kuwaiti charities, has been accused by other prominent clerics in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia of using donations to fund the Islamic State.

      “Pressure has been put on me to stop collecting aid to Syria,” he said, adding that directives from the Kuwaiti government “were clear: Syria is over.” But he said money is still finding its way through back channels.

      Toby Matthiesen, author of “Sectarian Gulf” and a research fellow at Cambridge University, said that for now Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are focused on “regime survival” and countering Iran — and “playing all the cards they can in this regional sectarian war trumps everything else.”

      But the repercussions are unpredictable. The Islamic State blitz could exacerbate sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites in flashpoints like Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia, the heartland of the kingdom’s Shiite minority. It could also embolden al-Qaida-inspired fighters against the Gulf countries.

      The Gulf’s polices supporting rebels in Iraq and Syria have been a “double-edged sword,” said Matthiesen. “My prediction is that in the mid to long term this will turn out to have been a bad policy.”


  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Ambrose Bierce, a 19th century political satirist, accurately described Washington D.C. as:

    “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles and the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”

    • …and supported by Just Citizens, who are fooled into thinking their vote matters.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Nice try.
        The game is won by those who PLAY.

        Your complaints remind me of the Monday morning quarterbacks bitching about how the game unfolded on Sunday yet they never played the game a day in their lives. In fact, most never have even attended a game. Yet the claim to know how the game is played and what the outcomes will be if only their choices were carried out.

        VOTONG created our current system.. Now care to explain how that voting did not make a difference?

        Your arguments fail to be even remotely logical.

        • JAC


          You are worse then a problem gambler in a Casino playing Roulette – believing as long as he plays, he will end up the winner!

          No, sir, you are the victim no matter where the ball falls on the wheel. You think you pounding the table and making the ball bounce improves your 0% chance to come out ahead.

          Voting did NOT create the “current” system! That is your historical blindness at work.

          Voting has NOT made a difference in Federal politics for nearly 125 years or more.
          You are lost.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I see that part of your problem is not knowing which type of game you are discussing.

            Politics is NOT roulette nor any other game of chance. It is deliberate, has rules, goals and objectives and involves the view points of people.

            Much more akin to football or some other sport.

            Your argument remains irrational so now you once again resort to disclaiming the truth of history as your defense. Well my friend, the Constitution was adopted and ratified by VOTING. Those men who took us down this path were put in office by VOTING.

            So it is obvious that voting matters. You just don’t like the outcome.

            You suffer the age old malady of believing that because YOUR viewpoint cannot prevail that voting does not matter at all. Yet it matters quite a bit for those who hold the majority view.

            Your need to focus on the real issue, that of the principles underlying our society and system, rather than taking on the cynical view that “you can do nothing”. Such a view only allows the evil, and thus the Tyrant, to flourish.

            • JAC

              You are the one who believe politics is a game, not I.

              Regardless of whatever “game” you think it is, you have as much power to manipulate the outcome as a fan does watching the game on the field.


              You are fooled into thinking your cheering or booing dictates an outcome. It does not. But what your cheering and booing does do is continue the myth about the game. Without you showing up, there is no football game – it is your money who pays the players. But no matter what you do, the outcome has NOTHING to do with you.

              You are there to pay no matter who wins.

              You believe as long as you continue to pay, cheer or boo, you will get an outcome of your choosing, yet not ONE SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE demonstrates this claim of yours. That is irrational, sir.

              It is you who is naive and irrational, not I.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Why is it you cannot discuss any issue without trying to project some strange value/principle or lack of understanding upon the other person? It comes across as an inability to articulate your point.

                For example, I do NOT propose we should be FANS of the sport. I am proposing that we all become PLAYERS. Some who vote are in fact “fans” as you call them. However, “players” not only play but they also vote.

                Your position leaves us with only two choices, both of which lead to significant hardship if not outright destruction. Those are armed revolt or waiting for system collapse. The latter will occur but most likely not for another generation or more.

                I understand why collapse is the preferred method for you. It is the onlyly means that would allow any chance of “Anarchy” to exist. Except that it would be quickly replaced by another form of Government. One imposed upon you by a “majority” who would VOTE to create it.

                Until you can provide some rational argument as to how this cycle can be broken your arguments sound like nothing but howling in the wind from the far off ridge.

              • JAC

                Any discussion of violence upon your neighbors is a declaration of a principle. It is not my inability to articulate, but your lack of comprehension about the topic.

                “For example, I do NOT propose we should be FANS of the sport. I am proposing that we all become PLAYERS.”

                Nonsense. You cannot be a player in politics no more than you can be a player in the NFL. You do not have ANY of the ability or qualities or background necessary to participate and it is a terrible illusion to believe you do.

                “Those are armed revolt or waiting for system collapse. ”

                First, your future-vision does not have the certainty you seem to claim it does. You have the false dichotomy, not me.

                You hold either we continue with the evil myth else we are destroyed. Neither is necessary, in fact.

                Second, there is no necessity of “armed revolt” – in fact, history shows such a thing is utterly counterproductive to the ends it claims to achieve.

                Third, “system” collapse. As usual, empty words. What system? What does collapse mean?

                “Except that it would be quickly replaced by another form of Government. ”

                You are as stuck in the 15th century as Mathius is. You cannot conceive that a man can pray to God without a Pope.

                Yet, you utterly ignore history and the hundreds of years post-fall of Rome and the centuries of other social formations that did not have an oligarchy.

                It is not a cycle. Human affairs are not a matter of physics, JAC – hence your error.

                You have a mental block thinking human action run in lines and circles – that is, the past equals the future.

                You, somehow, got infected by the same disease Mathius has – you are devolving.

              • The Early Middle Ages had a complex system of laws which were often not connected, but they were effective and fair for the most part.

                For merchants traveling around the world, there was the Lex Mercatoria (Law Merchant) which had evolved over time, rather than being created. This law included arbitration and promoted good practice amongst traders.

                At the same time, Anglo Saxon Law was formed with a focus on keeping peace in the land. While this eventually lead to some very tough laws, living under the legal system in the Early Middle Ages was probably the best time to live – as it was still flexible and fair for the majority.

                The third important legal system was the the Early Germanic Law which allowed each person to be tried by his own people – so as to not be disadvantaged by ignorance or major cultural differences

            • Your further confusion is analogized by a man with only a hammer in his tool box.

              You believe unless you use your hammer, nothing is done.

              The root assumption is that if one does not vote, there is nothing else to do. Thus, voting – even if it is utterly pointless – must continue.

              You are trapped into your small mental box of your own definition.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I believe no such thing. But now Voting is a hammer?? Last I looked a hammer can cause REAL things to happen. I thought Voting did not matter, so how can it now be a hammer?

                I assure you I am trapped by nothing that even remotely resembles your claim.

              • JAC

                You mind is so full of jargon, you can’t get an analogy.

                You have one tool in your hand, called a vote. This tool is useless, but you believe it is all you have, hence, you try to use it anyway. You cannot conceive there are more tools.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am Trapped?? Not hardly. I’m filled with jargon? Funny, since your the one repeating your undefended claims.

        So now you use the “middle ages” as you one example, yet you admit there were LAWS. These LAWS were enforced by MEN upon OTHER Men who may or may not have agreed to them. Thus your absolute Freedom did not exist within your own example.

        Tribes living under their own law invaded other tribes with different law. Thus one tribe living free was taken by another.

        Given that I have posted here several examples of how these ancient “legal systems” worked and could be applied I think your accusations about my lack of understanding are nothing but hot air.

        Voting is but ONE tool of many. You attack one tool while ignoring how it fits with all the other tools. I wonder if you realize that those “common laws” you fondly defend were constructed by people “voting” their approval.

        • BF insists on controlling the definitions-he has to or his principals don’t work. He looks at tribes which have a system of laws and leaders as just free men living as they want to. he doesn’t acknowledge that this is a system of government-a smaller, more local one but none the less a form of government. They can fight with other groups to protect their territory, decide who they will grant entry into their tribe and make laws as a group and that’s all okay. But somehow free people coming together and forming a society as it relates to the US or any other Country, that is a government, societies aren’t real, our laws are evil because All don’t agree, and protecting our territory is denying free men their freedom. I see contradictions here-not that he doesn’t make many, many, important points-ones we as a people would be wise to follow in a lot of ways. But there is a difference in saying one way is better and in changing definitions to fit your arguments or in BF’s case his principals.

          • “BF insists on controlling the definitions-he has to or his principals don’t work.”

            First, words must have meaning

            I do understand that you need “floating” definitions – you wish to maintain a suite of definitions of a term so that you can use the term under one meaning to gain acceptance, then flip the definition but demand that the acceptance given must remain unchanged.

            This is the typical “Revolution within the Form”.

            “He looks at tribes which have a system of laws and leaders as just free men living as they want to. he doesn’t acknowledge that this is a system of government”

            It is not a government. These leaders do not make laws, that is, they do not legislate.

            This is exactly the type of example you chose. You deem a tribe has a “government” – which does not legislate – and argue that I find this acceptable.

            You then insert a GOVERNMENT – one that legislates – and declare “See, BF, you don’t accept government here – therefore YOU are inconsistent.”

            No, it is you who does not understand the form and function of government and utilize a change of definition within the term to formant your ridiculous claim

            • First-please tell me on what basis you claim that they did not legislate-that they did not make laws.

              Second-Do free men have the right to come together and form a tribe/community/state/society or not?

              Third-By what right do you claim the people of the USA do not have the same rights as a tribe? We are a group of free people who came together and formed a society?

              • V.H.

                Please self-educate yourself on the Anglo-Saxon common law.

              • Second,

                The claim they have a “right” determines the form.

                By what right does a group of men declare they overrule the right of other men?
                Who so declares that 5 vs 4 give right to the five that the four do not equally retain?

              • Please answer the second question-it your answer is yes-which it must be based on your prior posts-than number three answers its self.

              • Third,

                All men have the same rights – no more or less.

                To declare, thus, that you have some SUPERIOR right to enforce over other men contradicts the rights of all men.

              • Nice little sidestep your doing there BF-but it really doesn’t answer the question.

              • OF course it does. You merely ignored it.

              • The second.

                “Please answer the second question”
                “Do free men have the right to come together and form a tribe/community/state/society or not?”

                The answer is “Yes” – but that is not your question.

                Your question is ” does the tribe have a right superior to those that create the tribe?”

                So the question back to you is:
                Do you believe men in a group have a superior right to the individuals who make up the group?

              • Yes, that is my question-you simply don’t like this question because it points out that the premise is the same-take note that your question is not based on mans right to form societies but the dangers of doing so, to individual freedoms. We don’t have too many disagreements when it comes to acknowledging the dangers.

              • Y”es, that is my question-you simply don’t like this question because it points out that the premise is the same”

                Your question expose your lack of principles – you do not support the free association of men at all – you support that a group of men have more rights then the individuals who make up the group

                That is your failing.

          • V.H.

            Look, a “legal system” does NOT create a government.

            “a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time—known in American English as an “administration”. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organized”

            “State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government”

            V.H., a “state” and a “government” are synonymous. To declare a “Tribe” is a “State” is a confusion. Equally, to claim a “gathering of men” is a “State” is equally a confusion.

            You suffer from a lack of root principles. You equally suffer from a confusion of terms. You multiply your confusion by mixing the lack of root principles with your terms.

            ” I do not understand! I understand nothing! I cannot understand nor do I want to understand! I want to believe! To Believe!”

            Look, V.H., no person achieves the “Black Flag” ideal by rote.

            Rote dictates as you do – the limited and confused concepts that under any reasoned study collapses. You were born into these lies, and it is only by principle and reason can you release yourself from them.

            But when you refuse either – and worse, both – that you become trapped into championing your own murderer.

            “I hate victims who respect their executioners. ”

            “He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being. “

            The rise of Freedom comes from reason, not an adherence to rote evil.

            “We will freedom for freedom’s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim.”

            “To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.”

            “I am condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, I am responsible for everything I do.”

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Government= A monopoly on the use of legal force, also described as being within a specific geographic area.

              Does not require a “Nation State” to be a govt. Just a monopoly on “lawful” force and a location where it applies.

              USA treaties with Tribes is recognized as “Nation to Nation” . Tribes themselves DEMAND this status. Those same tribes you use as examples of not govt.

              • Old friend (and new foe),

                “Government= A monopoly on the use of legal force, also described as being within a specific geographic area.”

                No, it is the monopoly on violence within a geographical area.

                No tribe leader has (had) such a monopoly. No one person in “common law” made such a claim.

                It DOES require a “State” to enforce your argument – a situation where the use of force is centralized upon an institution, and a legitimization of such.

          • “Night is falling: at dusk, you must have good eyesight to be able to tell the Good from Evil”

          • I divide men into four categories: those who have a lot of money, those who have none at all and those who have a little, and lastly, who do not consider money at all.

            The first want to keep what they have: their interest is to maintain order;

            The second want to take what they do not have: their interest is to destroy the existing order and to establish one which is profitable to them.

            The third group want to overthrow the social order to take what they do not have, while still preserving it so that no one takes away what they have.

            Thus, they preserve in fact what they destroy in theory, or they destroy in fact what they seem to preserve.

            The fourth are none of the above.

            V.H., you are the third group.

            I, myself, are in the fourth.

        • JAC

          “So now you use the “middle ages” as you one example, yet you admit there were LAWS.”

          You are bizarre in your red herring.

          Nowhere can you ever claim I said “no laws”. You are so desperate in your position, now you must make up stories about my position.

          Come back when you have a real argument defrocked of strawmen and red herring.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF When laws are established by some men and then all men are required to comply with those laws you have GOVERNMENT.

            It may not be your grand hated NATION STATE but it is government and it eliminates absolute freedom foe some.

            • JAC
              “BF When laws are established by some men and then all men are required to comply with those laws you have GOVERNMENT.”

              We agree.
              That a group of men declare superior their claim above the rights of others, you have a government.

            • “Absolute” freedom dictates that all men must have freedom.

              There is no declaration of destroying the freedom of others is an act of freedom – it is an act of enslavement

  34. Didn’t think my disgust with the liberal left could get any worse – but I was wrong. So even at a hearing to try to get answers from the IRS re emails is nothing but a joke to them. Gag.

%d bloggers like this: