Is Stupid Written on My Forehead?

Lets see, Obama is asking for two billion dollars to deal with the emergency immigration crisis.  The crisis was  created  by his selectively enforcing only the laws he agreed with.  When given the money, how do we know he will use it for the purpose he claims?  How will it “speed” their deportation?  Hiring a lawyer for each & every illegal immigrant will make their deportation faster?

Oh, and the Republicans want to help…

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/28/mccain-graham-open-to-emergency-refugee-program-for-immigrant-children/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂

  2. It is stupid on the forehead to think that stopping people from finding work will solve a problem of labor.

  3. So, what say you on this one. I’m very curious, although I suspect I know the answer. BF? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U7GYb2dOXm4

    • Charlie,

      The envy class, which you a part of, throughout history has blamed their own squalor on the rich, believing if they had what the rich have, they would be rich too.

      But history, without fail, has shown otherwise. Envy is not a means to wealth, it is a means to poverty. It makes someone else the blame for their own failings; and the destruction wrought by envy upon the rich does not suddenly make the poor more rich- because they don’t know how to be productive.

      Zimbabwe is a fine example. Let’s take the white rich land and give it to black poor so they will be rich because the rich are rich because of land…..

      ..oops, nope. It is because the rich knew how to use the land…that’s how they became rich.

      • And, one thing that you are leaving out my economist friend……if you take all the rich people today and take all their money and make everyone equal with the same amount of money and you start with square one….the same once rich people will be rich again and the same non rich people will be….well….non rich, again.

        At Charlie…..how are you my Plutonian friend?

        • Doing good, Colonel … down 67 pounds since March 5 and still losing. Getting in shape for my 3 rounder with BF 🙂 … but I was more curious about the fact a .01% wrote the article than what BF insists on trying to evoke emotion from 🙂

          How are yous good people? I’ve been busy ghostwriting a memoir about a former mob enforcer turned animal rescuer … and other stuff.

          And Pluto is just great this time of year … except for all the broken satellites that keep crashing and ruining The Honeymooner reruns!

          • Charlie,

            The one of a group who writes an article does not represent anything but himself.

            • And how about the constitution … does it really make a difference when X amount of people represent their own interests? As an anarchist, I’m sure you’re against any one person or group of people speaking for all. I was just curious about your response. Ignoring it works (gives me my answer), but I also know that you share his feelings about it (insurrection) being inevitable … you may not agree with his remedy, but I’m pretty sure you know his prediction is undeniable sooner or later.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Charlie,

                I will not say “inevitable” – I will say, however, “possible”.

                Whenever a group who becomes dependent on the largess of another, and that largess – however provided – is removed, this group from conditioning has no idea how to survive.

                Equally, this group will not die in a corner quietly.

                His remedy is one avenue; done in the past, however, with little effect.

                The reason: once a people “wake up” that they are screwed, they do not fall back to being “screwed” even if the conditions are returned into their favor. They are now awake. (See current Middle East).

                Not much can quell their “anger” other then blood lust and a wipe out.

                This is not to say that the rich screwed them. In their minds, with the propaganda, they think this even though it is entirely their own screwing up that screwed them. Transfer of responsibility is a common human trait among the unthinking masses. (Blame the Jews, etc.)

                This is, unfortunately, where your ilk has an advantage. Your ilk’s rhetoric has been pervasive for decades, and though disastrously wrong, has far more “volume” then the truth…. which is why, with only one or two exceptions, every “revolution” has introduced a far worse terror then the one replaced.

          • Black Flag® says:

            Ah, Charlie, the secret capitalist but flower child of socialism – bet you won’t give your new book away for free.

            Oh well, I guess I will have to fill Charlie’s pocket with a few coins and buy it anyway.

            • Actually, BF, I’m a hired gun on the memoir, so your donations to the cause of flower socialism do me little good 🙂 … on the other hand, I’ll have a few new books of my own out within the next two yeas (different genres; crime, literary fiction, etc.) … I’d love to give them away for free … trust me, most writers DO NOT WRITE to get rich. They write because they are compelled to do so. If money and wealth were any significance to me at all, I would’ve remained a criminal (and lived the life of an anarchist when you think about it — no taxes).

              It’s all good. The wife and I continue to work 2 jobs each and live well enough not to be envious … but we do see the writing on the wall and I’m afraid you’re right, it won’t be pretty when it happens … but we think it’ll be the chickens come home to roost, the just rewards of those who’ve gotten away with so much for so long … not because they’re evil, but because their economic system made it perfectly sensible to take what was never theirs to begin with.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, congrats on the weight loss. That’s always a tough thing to do, especially when we get older. Glad to hear you and the wife are doing well, keep it up!

                ” but we think it’ll be the chickens come home to roost, the just rewards of those who’ve gotten away with so much for so long … not because they’re evil, but because their economic system made it perfectly sensible to take what was never theirs to begin with.

                I agree, but not the way you think 🙂

                PEACE

          • Ahhhh…Ralph Cramden and Norton…….POW to the moon…….anyway, glad to hear from you. AND you never did answer me about that Charlie Stella guy you were going to check out for me…since you said it was not you.

            Now, my intrepid friend….where does one get your books?I will throw a few freshly minted Mathius’ Pirate coins your way….

            • Amazon … B&N online … some small shops that still exist (most have been destroyed by big shops and then amazon) … and if you can’t find one, I’ll send you one (for one raptor pass should I come to Texas again) 🙂

              • I missed the Charlie Stella thing, Colonel. Refresh my memory.

              • Charlie,

                More on your comment above.

                In answering a similar question, one pundit, who I quite smart, says this:

                Some say there’s going to be a revolution. No, there isn’t.

                The essence of revolution is centralized power. Engels knew this early, and reminded us of it for years. There is nothing more centralizing than a revolution. Every revolution in history has moved towards the centralization of power, including the American Revolution.

                We are at the edge of a non-revolution.

                What we’re seeing is decentralization. We are seeing the breakup of the equivalent of the Roman Empire. There was no revolution against the Roman Empire. It simply disintegrated. The medieval world was a time of enormous decentralization.

                In the 17th century, there were attempts to start revolutions. The Puritan revolution in England was one of them. It was a revolt against the centralized power of the King, but it was done in the name of the centralized power of the Parliament. It wound up with a military dictator, Oliver Cromwell: 1649-1659. He was replaced by a new king in 1660. But the Parliament continued to centralize its power, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689 stripped much of the power of the King, but it did not reduce government power; it simply transferred it to Parliament. Parliament adopted a theory of parliamentary sovereignty second to none in the history of tyranny. It claimed, and it still claims, that it has final sovereignty over all aspects of British life. There was no written constitution to restrain it. There was only the common law to restrain it. That was something important, but the centralization continued. It continues today.

                With massive decentralization, there comes, not revolution, but secession.

                I don’t mean secession like the secession of the American South, which was just another way to centralize power in the South. The governor of Georgia, Joe Brown, saw that one for what it was. It was just another group of armed revolutionaries seeking to centralize power in the region they wanted to control. It was a replay of the American Revolution, as they argued.

                Revolutions mean the centralization of power. Until conservatives figure this out, they are not going to understand what is going on, and what has been going on for the past 500 years. Revolutions centralize power. In order to fight centralized power militarily, you must centralize power, and this only leads to a shift of loyalty to a new group of centralists. We are slow learners.

                We are not going to see an extension of the commons; we are going to see an extension of private property.

                The private enclosures of the commons were crucial for the establishment of English liberty. This is a war against the federal state. It is a war against centralized power. It is a war against the bureaucrats telling us what to do with our property.

                You don’t need a revolution to escape the system. You need secession. You need a withdrawal of support for the existing systems. You need to revoke the legitimacy which you extended to these organizations. You need to do it, and everybody else needs to do it. Nobody organizes this. People just learn, scandal by scandal, bureaucratic snafu by bureaucratic snafu, that the system is irreparable. It cannot be reformed. It must not be captured. It must be de-funded. The secret of liberty is not revolution; the secret of liberty is to de-fund the existing centralized order.

                The secret of monetary stability and sound money is not to capture the Federal Reserve System. The secret is to pass a very simple law which abolishes the Federal Reserve System. The law revokes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The secret is not monetary sovereignty by Congress; the secret is monetary sovereignty in the free market social order.

                The secret of better education is not capturing the public school system. The secret of better education is to go online, cut the cost of education, decentralize the entire process, and put parents in control of their families’ educational programs. But conservatives learn slowly. They always want to capture the liberal system, because they have a better plan to make it work. That was what the Bolsheviks did with the Czar’s bureaucracy. That was what the French revolutionaries did with Louis XVI’s bureaucracy. That was what the American revolutionaries did with George III’s bureaucracy. That is what the South would have done, if it had won. Gov. Brown saw this, and he resisted it.

                The open source revolution is going to decentralize more of the world. Decentralization is not going to lead to revolution. Decentralization is going to lead to secession. I mean secession in Gandhi’s way. I mean the withdrawal of support. You don’t take up arms against the state; you simply refuse to cooperate with the state. You make it more expensive for the state to tyrannize you.

                There is no Yugoslavia anymore. There is no Soviet Union anymore. This is the wave of the future. The statists and would-be statists keep looking for the great revolution. Just like Marx, they see it on all sides. Well, it never came. The communist revolution came where it didn’t belong, according to Marxist theory the rural Empire of Russia. The urban proletariat didn’t pull off the revolution; a bunch of alienated intellectuals and bank robbers did.

                What are we going to see is the withdrawal of support from central regimes. The revolutions in the Arab world did not decentralized anything. It just re-centralized with another group of tyrants running the show. It is nice to see existing tyrants embarrassed. It is nice to see them overthrown, at least from a distance. But it doesn’t change anything. Egypt is just what it was under Mubarak. It is a military dictatorship. The revolution didn’t do anything.

                Revolutionaries have to have a centralized agenda. Either it’s open, or it isn’t. But there is always a centralized agenda with every revolutionary movement. Every revolutionary always thinks his revolution is going to be the last one. Every revolutionary thinks that when he gets in control of the hierarchical chain of command, things are going to be different. Yes, they will be different. There will be a different set of looters skimming off the productivity of the victims.

                Until conservatives stop dreaming about capturing existing hierarchical systems of power, nothing is going to change.

                There is no centralized agenda that is likely ever to come out of a decentralized communication system. This are the digital Balkans. It is not Yugoslavia.

                Facebook is decentralizing the world. It has Balkanized the world. This will continue.

              • “There is no centralized agenda that is likely ever to come out of a decentralized communication system. This are the digital Balkans. It is not Yugoslavia.

                Facebook is decentralizing the world. It has Balkanized the world. This will continue.”

                BF-not understanding your meaning here-could you elaborate?

                Why do you believe that making the world free of borders would have the effect of decentralizing the world-it seems like it would have the reverse effect and make it more centralized?

              • Borders define States.
                There is no State without a border.
                There is no such thing as a One world government, never will be, so if that is the direction of your thinking, don’t waste any more time or worry.

              • Well, sorry but I disagree-I think is very possible to have a one world government-all it takes are representatives from around the world-the UN is an example of the possible structure.

              • Black Flag® says:

                V.H.

                No, its not possible.

                Heck, its not possible have one government in a country the size of Belgium. They have not had a government for years because of the differences between the Flemish and the French Belgians.

                No, the move is to decentralization, not super-centralization.

              • Well, we certainly agree that this type of government would fail but only after much death and destruction. But I do believe it could and may very well happen eventually. Who knows maybe man won’t be that stupid but I doubt it. Perhaps after another World War the people would be convinced it was the best course of action to stop another such war.

              • Black Flag® says:

                V.H.
                “But I do believe it could and may very well happen eventually.”

                Why? There is no evidence of it for a 100 years – exactly the opposite.

                Soviet Union did not expand, it dissolved.
                Yugoslavia dissolved.
                Middle East is dissolving.
                Italians are trying to dissolve as is Belgium.
                Holland is dissolving its territories.

                There is almost no where that centralization is increasing.

              • I like the idea. Not sure about it dissolving lines on a map but I like the general idea. Way better than the alternative.

              • You like what idea? A one world government! No,Nope, I must be misunderstanding you-it cannot be true- I will not believe that you would want control of the world in the hands of so few.

              • Sedgewick says:

                One World Government = Bad

                New World Order = Good

              • I really hope you are right! But the evidence you just presented could be used to help promote the idea of a one world government. Who was it Matt, I think, believes it is a wonderful idea. And we already have our economic system’s and futures all intertwined-add the false promise of less wars and what happens? It’s a real possibility in my mind.

              • Relax V! I just like the whole non revolution/decentralize idea. One World Government is not even on my radar. Countries and state line still exist…just decentralize with no revolution. And that can happen thru the people with no input from the elite except a bunch of crying over loss of power. Of course it can only get to a certain level of decentralization..whatever that point is…which is still too much for BF.

              • Anita,
                “”Of course it can only get to a certain level of decentralization..whatever that point is…which is still too much for BF.”

                Not true. There much to say about cooperation.

                The difference is between voluntary and coercion

                But more to the point – why do you believe centralization of violence is a good thing?

              • He he-BF decided to make your point for you.

              • HuH?

                No, decentralization is great in politics – it disperses violence.
                Cooperation – an act of non-violence is great as it centralizes coordination of effort to a goal.

                These two are distinct.

              • Sedgewick says:

                Anita,

                Revolution is exactly what you describe.

                It CAN BE a peaceful process. …but it likely won’t be. (ref. Mathius’s First Law)

                Look at how people respond to political issues like religious freedom, rights, and relative principles. People can’t even get over simple shit like not minding someone else’s sex life or religion. Too many people advocate force by default, which means that a LOT of people have to die in order for the rest to be free.

                …unless, of course, you can convince them otherwise…which is one hell of a task.

                How many thousands of discussions have taken place here on SUFA in the past several years with regard to rights and freedom? ..and how many people still don’t get it?

              • BF-I wasn’t talking about your points-I was referring to your question to Anita-it was a joke 🙂

            • Sed,

              “How many thousands of discussions have taken place here on SUFA in the past several years with regard to rights and freedom? ..and how many people still don’t get it?”

              Oh, they get it.

              They merely do not like the implications.

              They have been accustomed to the largess but are confounded by principles.

              Given that choice, they want the largess, no matter the hypocrisy.

    • Sedgewick says:

      Start with the elite bankers. Seize their family fortunes and assets, and posthumously charge JP Morgan and John Davison Rockefeller, Sr. with conspiracy to commit murder/genocide. (there is no statute of limitations on murder, and money obtained thereof can be legally seized)

      JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and associates possibly conspired to murder John Jacob Astor, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isa Strauss, along with over fifteen-hundred passengers of the RMS Titanic, as a means of relieving themselves of the primary and influential political opposition to the Federal Reserve Act.

      JP Morgan was friends, associate, and major investor of White Star Cruise Lines, and thus influential of the construction by Harland and Wolff.

      The RMS Titanic was intentionally designed to sink. The concept and use of traverse bulkheads and superior less brittle riveting methods were known ship building technology at the time. Thus they knew it was very sinkable and advertised it as the opposite.

      Why would it be advertised as “unsinkable” under such circumstances? Why would Harland and Wolff risk their liability and reputation to build a less-than integral vessel?

      Why would Captain Edward John Smith, with all of his experience, on his last trip before retiring, steam full speed through icy waters, in spite of numerous warnings, and with such a powerful and influential guest list? (Maybe he was a shitty captain? There was a prior incident with HMS Hawke. So, why would he be chosen for such an important position as commanding the Titanic?)

      Why would there not be sufficient numbers of lifeboats and life vests? Could it be that there were only enough for the women and children, thus eliminating the chance of survival for their male political foes?

      I could go on, but you get the idea. The whole thing stinks of foul play.

  4. @Buck…..hope you are looking at this thread. After the SCOTUS ruling on the dues case of health care workers,,,,,now that it has been determined that the dues were taken out illegally, whom do you think is responsible for payback? There is going to be a lawsuit to try to recover the dues taken out….but I wonder against whom? Logic says the union, however, it was the State that took them out. Also, in reading all of the opinion and looking at the evidence in the Amicus brief…..there was a counter argument from the NRTW foundation lawyers that the State took the dues out WITHOUT a signed dues check off slip. So, technically, even though Illinois had the right, there still has to be a checkoff signed by the non member as well. I also remember from my times of fighting the Teamsters Union, it was required to have a checkoff signed even by non members.

    Perhaps it is a State issue and then the State, in turn, tries to get it back from the union? Interesting subject., don’t ya think? In all my days of Labor Law, it was a union responsibility to render a checkoff list to the company or State in order to have dues deducted. The checkoff list was the control point. However, to prevent liability issues, companies always demanded backup copies of the signed authorization to match against employment applications.

    In this case, the State simply deducted the dues without a checkoff slip AND the union in question added the names to the checkoff without a slip and there was no empoyment application since these were independent contractors.

    A sticky wicket.

    • What about their ruling on the “recess” appointments? The NLRB made some 600 rulings with an illegally appointed board. All will be challenged in court.

      • Heard there are plenty of EPA rulings in question now too.

      • Why should they even be challenged? Seems they should just be thrown out.

        • This doesn’t really answer your question but common sense doesn’t deem to be a basis for anything when it comes to government especially how our court systems work.It’s just the way it works.

          Republicans are so stupid sometimes it makes me crazy-the democrats threaten so they just go along and then of course the -our word means nothing- democrats just go ahead and do what they threatened to do. Some how I missed this agreement to make the board legal.

          What does the Supreme Court’s NLRB ruling mean for hundreds of labor cases?

          By Michael A. Fletcher June 26

          Hundreds of National Labor Relations Board decisions were thrown into legal limbo Thursday by a Supreme Court ruling that President Obama overstepped his authority by naming three members to the panel while the Senate was on a short break.

          Yet little is likely to change because those decisions are almost certain to be reaffirmed by the current board, labor lawyers and others who regularly deal with the agency said.

          “Obviously dozens, if not hundreds of cases, will be invalidated,” said Joel S. Barras, a lawyer who represents employers in labor litigation. “But I would anticipate the new board reaching the same conclusions that the previous board did.”

          Given that reality, Barras said it is likely that most of the cases thrown into question by the high court’s decision will likely be dropped, unless employers were simply looking to buy time.

          The NLRB said it is examining the court’s decision to see whether it requires the agency to re-ratify the decisions made during the 19 months the recess appointees took part in its deliberations, an agency spokesman said. If the board does decide to reexamine each case, then it could be backlogged for months.

          “We are analyzing the impact that the Court’s decision has on Board cases in which the January 2012 recess appointees participated,” Mark Gaston Pearce, NLRB chairman, said in a statement.

          The NLRB confronted a similar predicament in 2010 when the high court threw out decisions made when the labor board attempted to operate with only two of its seats filled. That decision left about 600 cases decided during the 27 months when the board had only two members into limbo. But, in the end, the vast majority of those cases were never brought back to the board, an NLRB official said.

          The latest case could result in a similar outcome. “From a financial standpoint, companies are going to have to make a determination about whether they want to pursue these cases, with the likelihood of different decisions being as slim as they are,” said Joe Trauger, vice president for human resource policy for the National Association of Manufacturers.

          The NLRB adjudicates employment disputes and oversees union organizing elections, making it a hot spot for partisan wrangling. For years, Democratic senators have been blocking appointees by Republican presidents, and Republican senators have been blocking those nominated by Democratic presidents.

          Frustrated by Senate Republicans who were stalling his nominees to the board and depriving it of a quorum, Obama appointed three members to the five-person NLRB in January 2012 while the vast majority of senators were on vacation. But in anticipation of that, Republicans had already decided to force the Senate to hold brief pro forma sessions in which no business was conducted, with the specific intent of blocking recess appointments. The legitimacy of these three appointments set off a court battle that until Thursday had not been resolved.

          The NLRB finally got five fully confirmed members for the first time in a decade last summer — part of a Senate deal after Democrats threatened to end the gridlock by altering Senate rules to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominations. But even after the deal, new disputes erupted, and Democrats enacted the rule change last November.

          The high-court case resulted from a dispute involving Noel Canning, a bottling company in Washington state. The labor board ruled that the company had engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. Saying that the NLRB had no standing to make the decision because Obama’s recess appointments were improper, the company argued the board’s ruling should be struck down. The court unanimously agreed.

          Most of the NLRB decisions thrown into question by Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling are noncontroversial, board officials said. But 100 are before appeals courts because of the legal questions surrounding Obama’s recess appointees.

          “The impact of [Thursday’s] ruling is far less than it might have been, because there is now a full complement of Senate-confirmed members of the NLRB and a Senate-confirmed NLRB general counsel,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a statement.

          Still, business groups applauded the ruling. “Today’s decision is a victory for the rule of law,” said Thomas J. Donahue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and chief executive. “The president’s unprecedented recess appointments left the NLRB in legal limbo, causing major uncertainty for both employers and employees alike.”

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-does-the-supreme-courts-nlrb-ruling-mean-for-hundreds-of-labor-cases/2014/06/26/3a20a1fe-fd4f-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html

  5. President Obama announced Monday that he is sending approximately 200 American troops to Iraq to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the Baghdad International Airport, as the country wages a bloody battle against jihadists.

    The troops will serve a different mission in Iraq than the 275 advisory troops sent to Iraq earlier this month in response to advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Syria (ISIS). The additional troops will serve to solely augment security.

    *** You mean he learned from Benghazi? I have a better option. Why not just close the embassy and not expose anyone? I know, I know, that is too simple but he is a simpleton…just trying to help.

    • Oh…and this……”Obama has ruled out sending combat troops back into Iraq, but he said the additional troops will be equipped for combat.”

      Does anybody see an oxymoron here? And….(shades of Vietnam) …the troops going in are advisory….hmmmmm, I remember when I was a member of B 50 MACV/SOG in Ban Me Thout, S. Vietnam, 1970/71 as a member of the TAG (Training Advisory Group).

  6. @ BF…..” The decision by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) to declare a new state shows signs the terrorists are presumptuous their power can’t be challenged, according to foreign policy experts. ”

    *** I wonder if these are the same foreign policy experts that refuse to look at the oast history of the Shiites and Sunnis?

    • at least somebody got this right…….” if we [U.S.] engage with [Prime Minister] Malaki and prop him up; it does nothing to solve the core problems.”

  7. An island off the coast of Sao Paolo, Brazil, is home to one of the deadliest snakes on Earth—and there are a lot of them. Some believe there’s a golden lancehead viper for every square meter of Ilha de Queimada Grande, or as many as 4,000 of them, Smithsonian reports; others say there are five per square meter, the Wall Street Journal notes.

    Thanks to rising sea levels 11,000 years ago, the snakes were separated from the mainland and evolved separately from their continental cousins. Having found themselves without predators and prey at ground-level, two things happened: Their numbers boomed, and they turned to migratory birds as a food source.

    To keep their bitten birds from flying out of reach, golden lancehead vipers evolved venom as much as five times stronger than that of mainland snakes, allowing them to down the birds almost immediately.

    That venom is so powerful it can melt human flesh and kill a human within an hour; their bites carry a 7% chance of death. No one lives on the island today, though the navy services an automated lighthouse there annually.

    The last lighthouse keeper, his wife, and their three kids were rumored to be killed by the snakes in the ’20s, reports Atlas Obscura, with the story going that they fled their home in an effort to get to their boat, only to be further attacked by snakes in the trees above them.

    Today, one can only visit with a permit granted by the Brazilian government, and only with a doctor in tow. The country is also home to the Brazilian wandering spider, the world’s most venomous spider, the Journal notes.

    ***** Now, I do not wish to draw attention to the fact that the ocean’s level rose 11,000 years ago to create this island. ( No doubt to global warming )……and I do not wish to lament the fact that the snakes EVOLVED..yes…EVOLVED into super snakes to survive. But that cannot be as there is no evidence of evolutionary things….however………

    • What a great disaster movie. Nubile young female geologists in bikinis get trapped on Snake Island! Charlie to the front we need a writer.

      I have wondered, Just for a moment assume that the man made global warming crowd are right. Precisely, what could we expect to change by listening to them and how long would it take the planet to recover? This is the second half of the story, the one nobody ever seems to get to.

  8. Sedgewick says:

    http://www.infowars.com/smart-street-lights-to-track-everything-we-do-all-the-time/

    Three times I commented with the suggestion that the mentioned “smart lights” be put in government offices with public internet access.

    My comment continues to be deleted. This is bullshit.

    I recommend the world…

    A – Boycott Alex Jones because his operation is apparently full of shit and/or complicit with the programs they bitch about.

    B – DEMAND government stop with the surveillance police state BS …ASAP.

    C – DEMAND that governments be put under the STRICTEST surveillance/monitoring by The People.

    Make demands crystal clear. Do not allow time or any leeway whatsoever in immediate and full compliance. If they refuse, BURN IT DOWN.

    Government works for the people and needs reminding.

  9. It’s no mystery that the cargo train known as “The Beast”, which travels from the southern Mexican town of Arriaga up to Mexico City, is the predominant transport for people leaving Central America searching for the U.S. Without this train, and a few other cargo trains like it, there would be no practical way for tens of thousands of children to transit 1,400 miles through Mexico. Without easy transportation to the U.S. border, the vast majority of the Central American children will simply give up and return home.

    Rather than waiting for illegal immigrants to make it all the way to the Texas and Arizona borders before doing anything to stop them, Washington should put pressure on the Mexican government to interdict the trains at their source, arrest all the people riding on top and march them back to Central America.

    It is far easier to identify and detain people traveling on a cargo train than trying to stop them crossing over a nearly 2,000 mile border, and a lot cheaper too. The Mexican government has the necessary infrastructure to accomplish this mission – a few soldiers perched on top of every cargo train in southern Mexico ought to do it. The only thing Mexico is lacking is motivation, something the U.S. could provide if it were serious about addressing illegal immigration from Central America.

    The U.S. government must pressure Mexico to police “The Beast”. It’s pretty easy to pick out the illegal immigrants – they’re the ones sitting on top. Mexico will likely cry poverty, but it is far more affordable for American taxpayers to pick up the tab for interdiction of illegal immigrants in Mexico than pay for the army of lawyers, social services and other resources that it will cost to take care of these children once they make it to the U.S.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64152

  10. Problem, the US with lax immigration policies is experiencing a large influx of illegal immigrants. Most were from Mexico and while a “problem”, were at a level that could be dealt with without requiring massive government action. Mexico was/has also endured large numbers of immigrants from Central America. It appears the obvious solution Mexico has come up with is to pass these immigrants thru & on to the United States.

    We have a population of around 300 million. What is our working population? Around 70 million? The working population is a key, that only working people provide tax revenue. Consider also ALL government employees, including the military are supported by taxes, so their “work” does not contribute to the economy in the same way. Now many of these immigrants may find work & thus contribute. But how many & how much will they contribute? Enough to offset the cost?

    And is there a point where we must say stop! No More! If we allow Mexico & Central America to push their poor off on us, why not other countries? Why should China or India not buy one way boat tickets to the US for their poor?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

    The World Bank estimated 1.29 billion people were living in absolute poverty in 2008. Of these, about 400 million people in absolute poverty lived in India and 173 million people in China. In terms of percentage of regional populations, sub-Saharan Africa at 47% had the highest incidence rate of absolute poverty in 2008. Between 1990 and 2010, about 663 million people moved above the absolute poverty level. Still, extreme poverty is a global challenge; it is observed in all parts of the world, including developed economies.[5][6] UNICEF estimates half the worlds children (or 1.1 billion) live in poverty

  11. Sedgewick says:
  12. Sedgewick says:
    • “The institutions that define the meaning of words and phrases to the general public are controlled by our friendly neighborhood Progressives. When we speak of rights we mean something that is inherent to our personhood, something given by God that requires no active support from anyone else. When liberals speak of rights they mean something quite different, they mean a societal obligation.”

      “In the minds of good liberals like BHO, Nixon, and Slay there is nothing wrong with ruling rather than governing. They are the natural superior class and have every right to do so.”

      There is a word for that — it is tyranny.”

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/slaying_the_rule_of_law.html

      • I think that we should all practice saying, “He who controls the language, controls the debate”. I am ashamed that it took me this long to figure it all out. We must get people to understand this. Be it Militia or Marriage, if you twist the accepted traditional meanings you create chaos. I

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Is there anyone that can explain how the Hobby Lobby case denies women anything? The hogwash being spewed from the Left is beyond stupid.

    • Sedgewick says:

      As I understand it, the whole thing centers around “The Morning After Pill”.

      Hobby Lobby owners argue that, by being forced to support Obama-care, by being forced to cover costs for abortion pills, it violates their right to freedom of religion. Be it that their religious beliefs are directly opposed to abortion.

      In other words, yes, …it denies abortion pills to female employees of Hobby Lobby as per their healthcare benefits.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I see, so despite the fact they can go to the store and buy one for about 9 bucks, they’re crying and whining because they now have to act with a semblance of personal responsibility. OH, the Horror of it all! Maybe we should plan a big pity party 🙂

        • What I’d like to know is when a benefit turned into an obligation?

          • When it became bad law which fortunately, for a time, is now trumped by a previous law, Clinton’s restoration of religious freedom act.

            “Avast! Hoisted by their own petard matey! Aaarg!”

            Simple solution, have Nancy P and Harry Reid introduce a bill to revoke the 1993 law. Would LOVE to see them try that. The bastards are good at sneaking stuff in under cover of darkness but like cockroaches, they can’t stand the light of day.

            • Sedgewick says:

              It’s a complete mess, and it isn’t over by any means.

              Obama-care says ‘you have to provide abortion pills’. SCOTUS says ‘except for certain types of companies’. (as per whether or not government posits that companies have rights or individuals have rights.)

              If it forces a company to provide the pill, it violates the company’s ‘rights’, or said proprietor’s rights. If it honors said proprietor’s rights, it denies access to the pill based on an employer’s religious beliefs , thus ‘violating’ the employee’s civil/legal right to freedom from their employer’s religion.

              …or something like that. Like I said, …a complete mess.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                There is no right to freedom FROM anything, including religion. If one don’t like the employees faith, go find a new job, that is freedom. If I were an employer and had an issue with an employee of this nature, I would remind her that she could opt out. Problem solved. 🙂

              • Yes, somehow the fact that one cannot have the freedom “to” if people have freedom “from”. We all have freedom of speech-that means we all must be allowed to speak-you cannot do that if others have the freedom “from” you speaking in any area that they might be forced to hear you.

              • Sedgewick says:

                G,

                I mostly agree with you. Except for the ‘not having a freedom from religion’ part.

                Indeed you do have a right to not have another’s belief imposed upon you.
                (I don’t see being denied abortion pills as such)

                Of course, none of this would even be an issue if Obama-care wasn’t being forced onto people and companies. Again, ..take government out of the equation and it is left up to the employer to offer a benefit package as they see fit, …and up to the prospective employee to accept/reject the offer.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I agree. If one claims they have the right to freedom from another persons rights, then it won’t end with religion, that’s just the beginning. If the Liberals win this freedom from religion issue, then freedom from self defense, speech, choice and every other natural right will be next!

  14. Hmmmm, you must admit they are ambitious. I do have to wonder though how all these Palestine defenders will support their reclaiming of their “occupied” lands when they are going after them instead of just Israel/Jews.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

    • Sedgewick says:

      Perhaps I am a lunatic, but I really like their name (ISIS).

      Otherwise, I think the Muslim world should unite against those pricks and completely annihilate them.

      • Black Flag® says:

        If you want lasting peace, leave them alone.

        The natural division of the region requires a Sunni, Shiite and Kurd lands.

        IT is the prevention of such regions that incites war, not their welcome establishment.

        • Sedgewick says:

          Apparently, they aren’t peaceful, but rather the threat, …as they are forcefully demanding obedience and doing things like raping and killing innocent Christians.

          As for leaving them alone, …sure, I have no reason to bother with it. I am on the other side of the planet and don’t care what happens to the world anyway. Remember?

          • Funny, for someone who doesn’t care-you seemed awfully worried about all those children crossing the border. 🙂

            • Sedgewick says:

              I don’t lack compassion or a sense of righteousness. I lack existential justification, motivation, and hope.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Don’t understand what you are saying.

      • “However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries.

        As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.

        Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.

        Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states – including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria – extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

        ISIS regularly makes statements and releases propaganda calling for the return of the geographical boundaries in place before the Great War .

        The group insist the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied forces after the conflict – commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement – was a deliberate attempt to divide Muslims and restrict the likelihood of another caliphate being established.

        Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East, North Africa and beyond in various forms over the course of Islam’s 1,400-year history.”

        • Black Flag® says:

          “As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.:

          No where have they ever made such claims.

          This is equal to the Italians claiming all of the Med. No, they just want Italy.

          Same here. They have what they want. They know they can’t hold much more.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Actually Flag, ISIS did release a map that had all the territory they wanted blacked out, a wish list if you will. They will never achieve such a thing, but they dream 🙂

  15. This family was denied his benefits to doctors while he was alive and then when he died he was denied his benefits to a funeral because they denied him his medical benefits while he was alive. It really couldn’t get any worse-words are hard to describe how I feel about this so I’ll just go with -totally disgusted.

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/30/iteam-acton-vet-finally-gets-va-doctors-appointment-2-years-after-he-died/

  16. Sedgewick says:

    https://au.org/church-state/julyaugust-2014-church-state/featured/cops-for-christ

    Cops for Christ?
    A Growing Nexus Between Law Enforcement And Fundamentalist Christianity Raises Church-State Concerns

    July/August 2014
    Featured
    By Simon Brown

    At one point during Phoenix police Lt. Jim Gallagher’s 18-year career, he realized he had arrested the same woman nine different times on suspicion of prostitution. That’s when he decided jail was not the best way to stop sex workers from plying their trade.

    “I’ve done all the really cool jobs in police work that there are,” Gallagher said in a recent interview with Al Jazeera America. “The most important job that I’ve done is this, because it has given me the opportunity to really, really help an underserved population. These are discarded women: people that have been completely forgotten, people that make people uncomfortable.”

    The “this” Gallagher referred to is Project ROSE, a program he started in 2011 along with Arizona State University Prof. Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, whose expertise is in social work. The goal is simple and, many would say, admirable: reduce the number of women on the streets by helping them turn their lives around instead of just throwing them in jail. The problem is the method, which consists of a partnership between Phoe­nix police, Catholic Charities and a local Christian church.

    The women arrested in Phoenix’s twice-yearly sex-work stings are forcibly taken to Bethany Bible Church and escorted inside in handcuffs. They are then given the option to avoid criminal prosecution by participating in a sectarian program. Critics, including Americans United, have said that Project ROSE is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    Unfortunately, it is one of a growing number of programs nationwide in which church and state have teamed up in an attempt to lower crime rates, as law enforcement officials hope that a dose of old-time religion can convince criminals to change their ways. But the reality, critics say, is that such programs don’t just raise constitutional concerns – there is also little evidence to suggest that they work.

    Nevertheless, the trend is expanding, with police chaplains becoming more common and correctional offici­als increasingly open to evangelical Chris­tian programs to keep convicts from committing new crimes after release.

    The Phoenix program is among the most blatant for its religious ties. During a sting in October 2013, Phoenix police apprehended 54 women on suspicion of prostitution. Those women were as young as 18 and as old as 58, Al Jazeera reported. They were immediately coerced into joining Project ROSE, which gives suspects a choice: go to church or go to jail.

    Under the program’s rules, women picked up by police must authorize Catholic Charities to enroll them in its Prostitution Diversion Program (PDP) located in a section of Bethany Bible Church marked by a sign with a Latin cross, the Project ROSE logo and the words “Prosecutor’s Office.” There, a city prosecutor informs them that if they wish to keep their arrest off the books, they must complete Catholic Charities’ program.

    On its website, Catholic Charities describes the PDP as “36 hours of self-exploration and education to develop self-esteem and give hope. Participants also receive rehabilitation services including support, education, and treatment to help them escape prostitution. Job placement assistance is also provided. Those who complete the program have their charges dismissed.”

    If the suspects don’t agree to enter that sectarian program, a police report is submitted to the Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office, and they are charged with prostitution. A conviction carries a mandatory sentence of 15 days to six months’ imprisonment, in addition to a fine of up to $2,500.

    “Phoenix is essentially telling crim­inal suspects that they can go to church or go to jail,” said Americans Uni­ted Executive Director Barry W. Lynn in a recent press statement. “The government has absolutely no right to force anyone into a position like that. These suspects shouldn’t be coerced into participating in a program that might not reflect their own beliefs.”

    Roe-Sepowitz, however, defended the program, which has led to the roundup of some 350 women as of last October.

    “It is illegal behavior, and there’s nothing that we can do to say to the police, ‘Don’t arrest them. Don’t press those charges,’ except by saying, ‘Perhaps if we can negotiate with the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement, that that arrest can kind of lay low,’” she told Al Jazeera. “We’re just trying to work within the system that we have, within the context of our laws, to be as helpful as possible.”

    But critics aren’t so sure that the program is truly “as helpful as possible.” In a letter sent April 4 to Phoe­nix officials, Americans United expressed concern that Project ROSE is violating the First Amendment by pushing suspected criminals to take part in a sectarian program.

    “The city is coercing individuals to participate in religious activities and programs, under pain of criminal prosecution,” AU’s letter read. “The city is conveying its endorsement of religion generally and Christianity in particular. And the city is using taxpayer money and law-enforcement resources to aid religious institutions. Please immediately end these violations by suspending Project ROSE.”

    The raw statistics on the program also raise doubts about its effectiveness. Al Jazeera said that on average, only about 30 percent of women caught in a Project ROSE sting actually complete the program requirements. Of those who complete the program, however, only 9 percent are arrested again within one year. The numbers sound good at first glance, but critics say that success rate is probably misleading because it factors out recidivism among those who never entered the program to begin with.

    “The whole field of rehabilitation programs is littered with poor evidence,” Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of several books including When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, told Church & State. “[I]t sounds like the same flawed methodology [that many studies use]: measure success only among ‘completers.’”

    It’s also unclear if Project ROSE saves the city of Phoenix any money. The Arizona Republic reported that a single sting in April 2012 as part of Project ROSE saved Phoenix police about $30,000 in booking costs. But Gallagher said the sting required 100 officers working for 24 hours, which would have cost the department $48,000 if those officers earned as little as $20 per hour.

    Unfortunately the problem of cops working for Christ isn’t limited to Arizona. A police program in Montgomery, Ala., is also raising some serious constitutional concerns as pastors there have been used to fight crime. The Atlantic reported in October that city police, facing what had been described as the worst local crime wave in decades, devised a sectarian solution to their problem: “Operation Good Shepherd” (OGS).

    OGS ran during the summer of 2013 and involved training local Christian ministers so they were prepared to work crime scenes right alongside police officers. Ministers were sent to active crime scenes and instructed to pray with both victims and perpetrators. Supporters of the operation said this would serve to reinforce morality in a turbulent town.

    Notably, no non-Christian clergy were part of this project, and police officials didn’t see a problem with that.

    “What we want to do is combine the religious community and the Mont­gomery Police Department, and we want to unite those as one,” David Hicks, a police corporal, told local Christian radio.

    Although the ministers who participated in OGS were volunteers, the Atlantic reported that the Montgomery police force is paid to train them and provide them with access to crime scenes, making this a publicly funded project. Montgomery’s official police chaplain does not seem to think that was an issue, either.

    “Anytime you find a group of people whose lives have been adversely affected – it could be a major fire in an apartment complex, it could be trouble in a given community, it can be a storm or a disaster – this gives us an opportunity to meet people and show them the kind of love and compassion that all human beings need,” the Rev. E. Baxter Morris said.

    He added, “There is an evangelistic advantage. That is, that once I float to your comfort zone, and we become one in our crisis, I determine what your spiritual needs may or may not be, and I may be able to share with you a word from Christ.”

    Some local critics are skeptical. Dr. Earnest Blackshear of Alabama State University told the Atlantic that he has been lobbying for “more scientific” solutions to the crime rate. According to Blackshear, OGS hasn’t actually been proven to reduce crime. He also said the program is little more than a misguided attempt to cut the cost of lowering the crime rate.

    “I think government right now is trying to figure out capitalistically how to do it for less, and I think they’re finding that you can’t,” Blackshear said. “And [Operation Good Shepherd] is just another attempt at trying to get something run by volunteers.”

    Alabama, anchored firmly in a Bible Belt ethos, seems to have a special affinity for mixing law enforcement and conservative Christianity. In 2011, Police Chief Michael Rowland of Bay Minette, a city of about 8,500 people north of Mobile, announced the implementation of something called “Operation Restore Our Community.”

    Under the plan, low-level offenders would have been given a choice: They could pay a fine, go to jail or attend church weekly for one year. At the end of 12 months, their records would be wiped clean.

    “It’s an easy choice for me,” Rowland told The Christian Post. “If I had to choose between going to jail and paying a heavy fine or going to church, I’d certainly select church.”

    The plan was placed on hold after Americans United pointed out that it was blatantly unconstitutional.

    Local judges sometimes also go rogue and impose a faith-based sentence on offenders. In 2012, a district judge in Oklahoma named Mike Norman sentenced a teenager, Tyler Alred, to attend church weekly for 10 years. Alred had been convicted of man­slaughter after the truck he was driving hit a tree and killed a passenger, 16-year-old John Dum. Alred was intoxicated at the time.

    Norman defended the sentence, telling The New York Times, “I think Jesus can help anybody. I know I need help from him every day.”

    Supporters of this faith-based approach to crime and punishment often claim it is successful. OGS backers, for example, have insisted that the program is modelled after similar ones in Dayton, Ohio, and Arlington, Texas, that have worked.

    The only problem is there’s no data available to support the effectiveness of either effort. In fact, in the case of Dayton, the Atlantic reported that there’s no evidence the city ever actually implemented the program in question. Local police officials contacted about the program did not respond to the Atlantic’s queries, and two college criminologists in Dayton told the magazine they had never heard of the program.

    Thus far, it seems neither the Phoenix nor Montgomery police departments have any plans to end their cops for Christ crusades despite criticism from Americans United and other civil liberties groups. In early June, Phoenix City Prosecutor Aaron J. Carreon Ainsa responded to AU’s accusations regarding Project ROSE by downplaying its religious nature and claiming that it is constitutional. At press time, Americans United was waiting to receive more information about the project through a public records request.

    As for Montgomery, last fall the city responded to a complaint from New Jersey-based American Atheists (the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation also complained), which challenged the constitutionality of OGS and asked that it be shut down. In an Oct. 22 letter, Montgomery City Attorney Kimberly Fehl told American Atheists that the sectarian nature of the program has been mischaracterized.

    “[There] has been a misrepresentation of the object and implementation of the program,” Fehl wrote. “Operation Good Shepherd is one of a number of initiatives of the Montgom­ery Police Department as part of its efforts to combat an increase in violent crime.”

    Critics say such programs stubbornly persist in law enforcement and in the correctional system because misguided officials believe they work despite scant evidence.

    Perhaps the best-known example of a faith-based reform program’s misleading “success” is InnerChange, the prison-based ministry founded by the late Charles Colson. Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush asked Colson, who became a born-again Christian while in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, to create a program that would subject Texas inmates to evangelizing, counseling, prayer sessions and Bible study in an attempt to ensure that they would not commit crimes in the future.

    A 2003 report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society indicated that prisoners who went through Colson’s program were very successful at staying out of prison later. But as Kleiman wrote in 2003, that report focused on the ministry’s success stories while ignoring inmates who skipped the program. As it turned out, Kleiman said, graduates of Colson’s 16-month program were more likely (24 percent versus 20 percent) to be imprisoned again than inmates who did not take part in the religious indoctrination.

    Although Colson’s program was not the success it was advertised to be, Kleiman told Church & State that InnerChange was not necessarily a failure, either.

    “I wouldn’t say that Colson’s prison [program] is worse than average,” he said. “I’d be surprised if some of the [religious-based] programs didn’t work.”

    A 2013 study by researchers at Georgia State University also casts doubt on the ability of religion to prevent crime, albeit through a small sample size. In a research paper titled “With God On My Side: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Religious Belief and Criminality Among Hardcore Street Offenders,” Georgia State criminologists Volkan Topalli and Tim­othy Brezina, along with graduate student Mindy Bernhardt, found that criminals often used religious beliefs to justify their own bad behavior.

    The team interviewed 48 “active, hardcore street offenders, each with four or more serious offenses, such as drug dealing, robbery, carjacking and burglary,” and found that most said they believed in God and sometimes employed “faith-based” rationales for their actions.

    “Offenders in our study overwhelmingly professed a belief in God and identified themselves with a particular religion, but they also regularly engaged in serious crimes,” Topalli said in a media release. “Our data suggest that religious belief may even produce or tend to produce crime or criminality among our sample of hardcore street offenders who actively reference religious doctrine to justify past and future offenses.”

    Ultimately, critics remain wary of religious-based crime prevention ploys because there is simply too little valid evidence to show that they are working. They also expressed concern about the potential First Amendment violations that come from making arrested individuals decide between church and jail.

    The situation in Phoenix, they say, is a good example of a program that looks impressive at first glance but fails to stand up to legal scrutiny.

    “This is an especially serious violation of religious freedom,” Americans United Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory M. Lipper said in a press statement on Project ROSE. “The city of Phoenix is rounding up suspects for the purpose of sending them to a religious program, and then threatening to prosecute them if they decline to participate. The government may never force its citizens to choose between religion and prison.”

    • I once heard Teddy Kennedy say that if we could save one child’s life by banning guns we should. I have also heard many other left leaning folks say the same thing. Yet, they would rather sacrifice the lives of these prostitutes or dope addicts or alcoholics and the lives and well being of their families, rather than have them possibly be contaminated by religion.

      Brother, the inmates are really running the asylum.

      • Sedgewick says:

        Little girls usually don’t aspire to become prostitutes. More times than not, prostitution comes from a utilitarian mindset, and/or serves as a practical solution to a problem where the options are very limited.

        Having a support network, expanding their options and building confidence is what helps. ..not necessarily Jesus. Don’t get me wrong… I think it’s great that churches are so willing to help.

        But the real point of the article is about them being coerced by the state into religion based programs. It is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I don’t see it as coercion at all, but providing a better option than jail, which solves nothing. It being faith based maybe the only other option available, if people don’t like it, then come up with something non faithed based and fund it , until then , those who complain should be told to pound sand. 🙂

          • Go to church or go to jail….yup, no coercion there!

            Don’t get me wrong – I really like the idea. Jail isn’t appropriate in many of these cases and social service type programs could be a great solution. But those social service programs should not be sectarian based, and (even more to the point in my opinion) those programs should definitely not be sectarian based as the SOLE option to avoid jail.

            • And if their isn’t another option-what then?

              • Why isn’t there another option? Rather than fund the church for this, simply fund a nonsectarian program held at the local school.

                Do you feel its right for the government to tell someone the only way to avoid jail is to go to church?

              • Read the article twice-see no mention of the church being paid-one example specifically said volunteers-So if it is the only option should it be stopped? And I realize not all programs are the same-so lets concentrate on the main program they discussed -Project Rose.

                Now as far as a nonsectarian program-is there any rules governing what they can say or promote?

                And No, I do not believe they should be able to force people to go to church as in get up every Sunday morning or whatever morning a certain religion observes, except maybe for children if their parents agree with the idea -but I have no problem with church sponsored programs set up to help the community.

              • But this amounts to exactly that — the government is telling people that the only way to avoid going to jail is to go to church. No, not every Sunday morning, but look at who is leading the program, look at where the program is being held, and look at the curriculum of the program.

                If the church wants to get in on this, I have no problem with this…so long as either (i) they are involved in running a completely nonsectarian program or (ii) participants have the option of choosing among various sectarian and nonsectarian programs.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                This is where the Liberal ideology fails in it’s entirety. They say Jail or church. Take away the volunteering and funding of the local church(s) and the only choice is JAIL. If an arrestee has a choice, it’s between them and the law. It isn’t hurting one single anti-Christian, anti-religion person one iota, nothing, zero. But because the church is working with the police, which happens all over the country everyday, then it gives people reason to bitch.

                Buck, I have no problem with a non-religious entity doing the very same thing, as well as funding the program and providing the facilities to do so. IT WON’T HAPPEN though, because those who bitch the loudest do the least. They don’t care if it helps women, they only care because a government agency and a religious entity joined together to provide help for some people. In your Liberal world, that’s a no-no. In my free world, it’s nobodies damn business except those that are directly involved.

                It’s a damn shame when people try to help others get shit on by people who have absolutely no business in the matter. Like I said above, until a non-religious outfit sets up a similar, no-cost to the taxpayer, system that can equal Project Rose, those who don’t like it can pound sand, with their hard heads no less 🙂

              • G – let the church get involved. Where did I say the church should be completely excluded. But it shouldn’t be a sectarian program run within the church.

                How would you feel if the program was a sectarian program run by a mosque – and your only option to avoid jail was to attend this program?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, the government is not telling anybody anything. They are offering an alternative that had not previously existed and would not exist with the church. Want non-religious, fund it and volunteer. Want it to stop, stop it, then there is only ONE option again, go to jail 🙄

                p.s. there are no other current alternatives to this one plan 😉

              • No, they aren’t-they are saying they have to go though a program that happens to be held at a church.

                As far as your number ii-I seriously doubt they will ever have numerous programs to choose from.

                As far as your number i-evoking God into a program is not establishing a church and it is not unconstitutional -it is simply being inclusive. And no one can be forced to worship God-they can only be told that these people believe that there is a God that would like to help-whether one excepts those beliefs is totally up to them. I do wonder what the nonsectarian programs are allowed to say and do-are they allowed to claim there is no God.

              • As Sedge so artfully put it:

                “It is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.”

              • There is no separation of church and state. There is just this:

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

            • Hey Buck, D13, or anyone who knows-They used to give criminals the choice of going to jail or going in the service-is that still done and if not why was it stopped?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m sure a few small town sheriff’s still allow this to be an option for first time, non-violent offenders, off the books of course 🙂

              • VH….that option stopped in the early 80’s and it was designed for juvenile criminals. Petty theft, prostitution, truancy…..small ticket items.That program did not work……all it did was put prostitutes, thieves, and truants in the army. It was hoped that the discipline of the armed service would help and it probably did for a select few but for the most part it did not work. It created much larger problems.

            • We should talk about this in light of AA or in light of the Salvation Army. Both organizations are quasi religious. I could argue for or against them.

              If a judge were to allow an alcoholic to get probation if he attend AA meetings would you object? AA more or less demands that for you to succeed you accept that there is a higher power

        • Sedgewick says:

          What if….

          …the policemen, being familiar with the hood, while off-duty, went around and handed out flyers or business cards to the prostitutes with a message from the local churches offering assistance to those who are willing?

          If those churches made it clear that they are not trying to judge them or jam Jesus down their throats, but rather simply support and help them out of their situation because that’s what they believe in, it would likely be much more effective, and not a church/state issue.

          • The liberals would still say it was establishing a religion.

            One point that no one ever seems to acknowledge is that for many people mentioning God just might be the only thing that will help them. But hey, free speech isn’t actually allowed in the liberal world of shut up Christians but your nonsectarian people you can push whatever belief you want to.

            • I ask you what I asked G (and have yet to receive an answer). Let’s assume you were given the choice of jail or attending a sectarian Islamic program run by the local mosque. Do you see any problem with this?

              • No, I don’t-we have freedom of religion-if the person being offered the program has a problem with the Muslim religion -they can say no or they simply don’t have to accept their beliefs-besides if this program was happening in a community that was mostly Muslim it would be logical to use the mosque’s-damn-do liberals really believe that people are so weak willed that they cannot decide for themselves what they believe-that somehow a program that simply speaks about God is establishing a church and forcing someone to believe.

              • Black Flag® says:

                This irrational belief in God leads to the worse of mankind.

                If I didn’t have a principle that “let people believe whatever nonsense they want peacefully”, I’d ban all religions, including the religion of the State.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                If the Islamic faith provided charitable assistance to those in need, then it would be fine with me. But they don’t, so why ask?

              • Black Flag® says:

                Of course they do! Again, more Islamphobia at work….

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gman,

                Have you never heard of the “Red Crescent”

                http://rcs.ir/en/?cat=18

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Flag, speaking of local church charities vs. local Mosque charities. The Red Crescent you speak of is in Iran, we live in the US. Stick to the subject at hand please.

                Buck, are there any non-secular charities that can do the type of assistance that we are speaking of. I’m talking about an agency that funds itself by donations, takes no government money, helps all people regardless of religious beliefs (cross of your local Mosque) and asks for no payment in return? Just one.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gman,

                Do you really believe Islamists do not give to charity????

                The Third Pillar of Islam: Compulsory Charity
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

                As I’ve often repeated, the ignorance about Islamic traditions by Americans is astounding.
                Yet, these same ignorant people have no end to making claims about Islam.

                Man, do some homework.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Locked in moderation

              • Black Flag® says:

                According to the Quran, there are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds:

                Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā’).
                Those restrained because they cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn).
                The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna ‘Alaihā).
                Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu’allafatu Qulūbuhum).
                People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyya). (Fir-Riqāb)
                Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn).
                Those working in God’s way (Fī Sabīlillāh).
                Children of the street / Travellers (Ibnus-Sabīl).

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gman,

                Do you really believe Islamists do not give to charity????

                The Third Pillar of Islam: Compulsory Charity
                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

                As I’ve often repeated, the ignorance about Islamic traditions by Americans is astounding.
                Yet, these same ignorant people have no end to making claims about Islam.

                Man, do some homework.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Flag, I don’t give a rat’s ass what Muslims do or don’t. That is not what we are talking about. If you want to include a link of a local Mosque helping cops deal with prosituttes on a charitable basis, please provide said link, because that is the subject we are discussing.. Beyond that, I don’t care what Muslim’s do as far as charity.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gee, I guess posting what they do doesn’t count when describing what they do.

                You think if they don’t do what you want, they are wrong.

                …geez… man.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I answered Bucks question, and I answered it quite correctly. Maybe you should go back and read the specific question that I provided a specific answer too! Everything you have touched on has no bearing on Bucks question or my answer.

                Geez, 🙄

              • Black Flag® says:

                So you deny you made that comment, even though you did.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Sure I did, then you took it completely out of context

              • Black Flag® says:

                Out of context, huh?

                No, YOUR EXACT WORDS, no more or no less.

              • Black Flag® says:

                You said this
                “If the Islamic faith provided charitable assistance to those in need, then it would be fine with me. But they don’t”

                And when I show how wrong you are, your Islamphobia kicks in.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Try reading the question that Buck asked, it was very subject specific, as was my answer.

              • Wait a minute -what does this mean? “Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu’allafatu Qulūbuhum).” Does this mean per the Quran-that they only help Muslims under the other conditions and will only help non-muslim if they meet these specific conditions, because that’s the way it sounds?

              • Black Flag® says:

                Read it again, V.H.
                I know as an Islamaphobic, it is hard, but try.

                Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā’).
                – applies to anyone

                Those restrained because they cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn).
                – applies to anyone

                The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna ‘Alaihā).
                – applies to Muslims, since Muslims do the collecting

                Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu’allafatu Qulūbuhum).
                – applies to non-mulisms. In other words, they give money for you to convert.

                People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyya). (Fir-Riqāb)
                – applies to anyone

                Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn).
                – applies to anyone

                Those working in God’s way (Fī Sabīlillāh).
                – applies to anyone

                Children of the street / Travellers (Ibnus-Sabīl).
                – applies to anyone

              • You’re calling me islamaphobic-for asking a question about how to interpret something. You do not like religion of any kind, yet I do not call you religionaphobic- because I do not interpret your objections to be based on fear or hate. You might consider giving me the same courtesy.

              • Black Flag® says:

                V.H.

                It is bluntly obvious you do not read what is written, but only see what you want.

                The worlds did not change between my posts. It appears until it is slapped into your face a few times do you actually “read” – but I often doubt you learn.

              • Black Flag® says:

                ““If the Islamic faith provided charitable assistance to those in need, then it would be fine with me. But they don’t”

              • And yet, I would still rather be me than you, with all your “supposed” knowledge.

              • Black Flag® says:

                I’d rather you be you then me too.

                Though knowledge is indivisible, it only grows when shared and accepted.
                I share, but you do not learn. Hence, knowledge does not grow.

              • No, I think what you mean is that I do not blindly follow-You. So I must be stupid. But I wonder, my friend, if you are actually capable of growing anymore, since you seem to be convinced that you have already figured out everything.

              • Black Flag® says:

                I know what I know and know what I do not.

                You do blindly follow – Islamaphobia

              • GMan…. run an experiment,,,,go to your local mosque, get an appointment, and talk to them. I have done that before. You may or may not get an appointment but I was only turned down at three of 11 mosque’s in the DFW area two years ago. So…go ask them,

                You can also run a public check in your area of local charitable groups. Most cities require registration. Check it out and answer your question. IF you find one, your question is answered. If you do not find one, your question is answered.

                Several years ago, when Katrina blew through New Orleans, I reported several things that were happening with the victims of the hurricane…..one of the things that I reported was what was happening at Will Rogers Coliseum in Fort Worth. This was a huge indoor arena that was set up for the victims. It was run by local churches and other non profit groups….

                I did not see any Mosque’s represented but I also did not see any Synogogue’s represented either nor Mormon…but that does not mean anything…..just that I didnot see them there. I did see plenty of other church affiliations but to when you got what they were handing out, you got their fliers and tracts along with it.

              • D13,

                You find what you look for.

                You search for a centralized system of “charity”, and you only find a few.

                You ignore decentralized systems of “charity” – which utterly dominate over all the centralized forms by orders of magnitude. You are blind to this. Thus, you take what you see and compare it to what you ignore and make a claim.

                Unlike many others, Muslims do not advertise their charity. Equally, neither do the Jews.
                Yet, these two groups make pale “Christian” charities.

                By your measure, more people drink Coke-Cola then water, because Coke advertises and promotes their consumption and water companies don’t.

              • Mornin Colonel 🙂 It’s a non-issue for me, not to mention the nearest Mosque I’m aware of is around 100 miles away. I answered Buck’s question, that is all that’s important. I will say that when I worked at a Catholic hospital in Ohio, the nearest Mosque (which is huge) was never mentioned in any of the Charity sponsored events that I can remember taking place. Even in the biographies of those who attended the Mosque (and worked at hospital) never mentioned the Mosque or their position within.

                This doesn’t mean that Mosques don’t provide charitable services in their community. I’m sure Anita can address this with some better information, but personally have not seen any such actions in my time 🙂

                p.s. This is what happens when one enters a conversation without reading the “whole” conversation. 😉 I think I fixed it below, but who knows, it’s a new day 🙂

                Stay safe down there 😀

    • Not at all sure I agree that the 14 amendment necessitates that states follow the establishment clause. Where is JAC when I need him. 🙂

      But other than that this is an interesting layout of arguments. Since this seems to fall under the neutrality argument-I would posit that if the state is prohibited from using religious organizations to help than any non-religious help would also be prohibited.

      Establishment clause overview

      First Amendment Center
      Nashville, Tenn.
      Friday, September 16, 2011

      The first of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … .” Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws respecting an establishment of religion. The establishment clause sets up a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in our society. It does so because the framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression.

      For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law… .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

      Establishment
      There is much debate about the meaning of the term “establishment of religion.” Although judges rely on history, the framers’ other writings and prior judicial precedent, they sometimes disagree. Some, including former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have argued that the term was intended to prohibit only the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another. Others believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In the words of the Court in Everson:

      “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”

      To help interpret the establishment clause, the Court uses several tests, including the Lemon, coercion, endorsement and neutrality tests.

      Lemon test
      The first of these tests is a three-part assessment sometimes referred to as the Lemon test. The test derives its name from the 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court struck down a state program providing aid to religious elementary and secondary schools. Using the Lemon test, a court must first determine whether the law or government action in question has a bona fide secular purpose. This prong is based on the idea that government should only concern itself in civil matters, leaving religion to the conscience of the individual. Second, a court would ask whether the state action has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Finally, the court would consider whether the action excessively entangles religion and government. While religion and government must interact at some points while co-existing in society, the concern here is that they do not so overlap and intertwine that people have difficulty differentiating between the two.

      Although the test has come under fire from several Supreme Court justices, courts continue to use this test in most establishment-clause cases.

      Lemon test redux
      In its 1997 decision Agostini v. Felton, the Supreme Court modified the Lemon test. By combining the last two elements, the Court now used only the “purpose” prong and a modified version of the “effects” prong. The Court in Agostini identified three primary criteria for determining whether a government action has a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion.

      Coercion test
      Some justices propose allowing more government support for religion than the Lemon test allows. These justices support the adoption of a test outlined by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissent in Allegheny County v. ACLU and known as the “coercion test.” Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. Under such a test, the government would be permitted to erect such religious symbols as a Nativity scene standing alone in a public school or other public building at Christmas. But even the coercion test is subject to varying interpretations, as illustrated in Lee v. Weisman, the 1992 Rhode Island graduation-prayer decision in which Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, applying the same test, reached different results.

      Endorsement test
      The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. She expressed her understanding of the establishment clause in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she states, “The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.” Her fundamental concern was whether the particular government action conveys “a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” O’Connor’s “endorsement test” has, on occasion, been subsumed into the Lemon test. The justices have simply incorporated it into the first two prongs of Lemon by asking if the challenged government act has the purpose or effect of advancing or endorsing religion.

      The endorsement test is often invoked in situations where the government is engaged in expressive activities. Therefore, situations involving such things as graduation prayers, religious signs on government property, religion in the curriculum, etc., will usually be examined in light of this test.

      Neutrality
      While the Court looks to the endorsement test in matters of expression, questions involving use of government funds are increasingly determined under the rubric of neutrality. Under neutrality, the government would treat religious groups the same as other similarly situated groups. This treatment allows religious schools to participate in a generally available voucher program, allows states to provide computers to both religious and public schools, and allows states to provide reading teachers to low-performing students, even if they attend a religious school. (See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002, and Mitchell v. Helms, 2000.) It also indicates that the faith-based initiatives proposed by President Bush might be found constitutional, if structured appropriately.

      The concept of neutrality in establishment-clause decisions evolved through the years. Cited first as a guiding principle in Everson, neutrality meant government was neither ally nor adversary of religion. “Neutral aid” referred to the qualitative property of the aid, such as the funding going to the parent for a secular service such as busing. The rationale in Everson looked to the benefit to the parent, not to the religious school relieved of the responsibility of providing busing for its students.

      Later cases recognized that all aid is in some way fungible; i.e., if a religious school receives free math texts from the state, then the money the school would have spent on secular texts can now be spent on religious material. This refocused the Court’s attention not on the kind of aid that was provided, but who received and controlled the aid. Decisions involving vocational training scholarships and providing activity-fee monies to a college religious newspaper on the same basis as other student groups showed the Court focused on the individual’s control over the funds and equal treatment between religious and non-religious groups.

      In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the plurality decision clearly defines neutrality as evenhandedness in terms of who may receive aid. A majority of the Court continues to find direct aid to religious institutions for use in religious activities unconstitutional, but indirect aid to a religious group appears constitutional, as long as it is part of a neutrally applied program that directs the money through a parent or other third party who ultimately controls the destination of the funds.

      While many find this approach intuitively fair, others are dissatisfied. Various conservative religious groups raise concerns over diminishing the special place religion has historically played in constitutional law by treating religious freedom the same as every other kind of speech or discrimination claim. Strict separationist groups argue that providing government funds to religious groups violates the consciences of taxpayers whose faith may conflict with the religious missions of some groups who are eligible to receive funding using an “even-handed” approach.

      Conclusion
      Although the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the justices will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.

      http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establishment-clause

      • Here we go with the meaning of words again! The 18th century definition of “respecting” means regarding which, since I was a kid, I always read it to mean. The piece above seems to see respecting as in giving respect to or preferring or honoring which is not the meaning. “He who controls the language controls the debate”.

        So “Congress shall make no law regarding religion” sure reads totally different than “Congress shall make no law honoring religion”. Hence, the amendment reads as neutral which is what any sane person without an agenda would see.

        technically Congress is totally out of the religion business which means I guess that people who worship trees or nothing at all have the same right and access to government services as Christians, Muslims or Jews.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Legalize prostitution and it all goes away!

    • No maam…..I fly a G58 Baron….twin engine. What you saw was an A36 Bonanza…1974 model. Great aircraft and a perfect wheels up landing.

      • The only problem with a wheels up landing…..it is very noisy and extremely hard to taxi.

        • But a perfect emergency landing…..circle to burn fuel off, feather the engine on short approach, turn remaining fuel source off when over thresh-hold, conduct normal landing procedure and keep the nose center line with rudder pedals….great job.

  18. I notice that California, a sanctuary state filled with sanctuary cities……stopped the buses from bringing in 1500 children….you will see more and more of this….there are no facilities to house this influx and the cost is enough to get the attention of the cities. The Federal Government says that they will pay but we have been down this road. they SAY they will pay but somehow the money does not get there.

  19. @LOI….what you have not said is that the Mexican Government has been running the beast and its 6 brothers for over two years now. What you have not said is that these families sending their children North seem to be able to come up with $7,000 to send their children North ( the equivalent of two years salary down there….What you have not said is that the price for riding the beast is $1500 straight to our “supposedly” good neighboring government…What you have not said is that approximately 50% of the girl children do not make it because they have been raped and kidnapped for whore houses run by the cartels….what you have not said is how many fall off the train or are thrown of the train in the remote areas of Mexico….What you have not said is the children are also carrying drugs forced on them by the cartels….what you have not said is that the Federales at the border towns get $500 per head to let them NOT be arrested.

    What you have not said is that the Mexico government has become one of the most corrupt governments in the world since the last election…..Open borders will not clear this up…there will still be a charge of $7,000 to get them to the border, they will still die, they will still be exploited, they will still be sodomized, they will still become whores and then murdered by the age of 18….the Mexican Government will still be in the hman trafficking business.

    Want to stop it? Shut the border down, completely and militarily. Dry up the source. What people are missing is that it is not the policy of the United States……..if the United States did not have any policy, the same thing would be happening. There is a human trafficking market in Mexico and it is profitable. People do not see this….it will still happen because Mexico IS the buffer zone.

    • “LOI….what you have not said is that the Mexican Government has been running the beast”

      I tnk I said something to that effect here somewhere, but how about I just agree with you on your post? I didn’t know the numbers & details you supplied either. I would add a point, by allowing this “soft” invasion to continue, we encourage other countries to attempt the same policy. Want 400 million from India or China?

      “Want to stop it? Shut the border down, completely and militarily. Dry up the source.”

      Respectfully I disagree. It won’t stop it or dry up the source. They flee Central America for Mexico for a better life, for economic prosperity. (at least the hope for it) They are then exploited & victimized by a corrupt government & the drug cartels. The drug cartels are enriched by the drug demand in the US that is a result of our drug policy. Legalize drugs & the economics that support the cartels dies. Hopefully the corruption bought by the drug money goes away soon, but who knows?

      That said, I still favor closing the border. Make it their problem & the UN’s.

      • It will not dry up the drug source…it will dry up the children and the immigrants….It is clear that we do not have the resolve to stop the benefit programs that draws this crowd…and we do not have the resolve to go after employers. We can close the border.

        It is not the preferable way but the only way…….I am telling you outright that the PRI party that is in charge of Mexico has reversed everything that Vicente Fox did….the mordida is back alive and well…kidnapping is back alive and well…..victimizing the children is here and has been for two years. It is terrible, This will not stop with open borders…it will not.

        • Black Flag® says:

          D13,

          You surprise me at times with how utterly illogical you are.

          “We have significantly increasing the costs and the extent and the violence in preventing immigration.

          The consequence is this huge mess” that you point to.

          Then, ‘we need more of it!’. The answer of “stop doing what is causing the mess cannot be done!”

          • I agree with his logic. Mexico & Central America need to solve their own problems just as the US needs to resolve our own. If we try to be the worlds policeman, we fail. The world is too big. Same if we try to be the worlds welfare system.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Time to face the truth, D13

          What you are doing is simply magnifying the problem – this is blunt obvious.

          Even if you have no concepts that show that stopping what you are doing will make it better, for whatever reason those concepts cannot penetrate your thinking, the fact remains what you are doing is making it worse.

          You can do no worse by stopping. Even in this ignorance, you trade a certainty of a worse condition (your present action) with the uncertainty of maybe it will get better but we won’t know if we don’t try.

          This has happened many times in the past.
          After WW2, a large group demanded that rationing and price controls had to be maintained or else the economy would crash. They argued like you do “…we must impose more rationing, not less – if we do less, it will be a disaster…”

          But the economy was a disaster, and the argument was made “…well, it might help and we won’t know if we don’t try…” – and that won out. Guess what. The greatest economic boom in modern US history.

          Adam Smith and the free trade argument. He faced a chorus of D13’s of his time saying “…if we eliminate our trade barriers, we will be overwhelmed by imports and our economy will collapse..!” As it happened, for some unknown reason, the British rulers (probably due to indifference to the economic plight of their peons) did nothing – and the barriers came down. Guess what! England became the world’s first global superpower.

          That’s the problem with your stance. Your plan is an utter failure. It is your own intellectual dissonance that prevents you from seeing this and changing your thinking (probably because you are knee deep in the issue).

          • I would normally agree with you….but not in this instance. You are incorrect in that if we say…no borders and no immigration problems. it will NOT stop the coyotes and it will not stop the beast trains….Mexico is ratcheting up the ante….it will still take coyotes and it will still be controlled by the cartels. We play into their hands. I do not know how to explain it to you. I fear you are as hard headed as I…..

            Let me ask you this….show me where the human trafficking stops if we just say come on in….the border will still be a border from the Mexico side. Things have changed in Mexico when the PRI took over….Mexico will simply strengthen their borders and the saga will continue.

            • Black Flag® says:

              D13,

              The ol’ “yeah, you’re right – the principles that worked “over there” worked, but the same principle will not work over here because, well, its the same issue…hence, past solutions won’t work for the same problem…”

              All I can say is …. geez….

              No, D13, you use the same nonsense arguments that was applied in the past … and just as wrong. They said it about prohibition, they say it about the war on drugs…

              Look, D13, your argument has been used by your ilk for every problem and every time is DISASTROUSLY WRONG.

              It is because you do not understand the problem.

              You have made up -in your collective mind of your ilk – that “this is the problem”. No matter how ridiculous your claim is presented, you can’t move from your defined square.

              Worse, even your strange square your actions are not working but making it worse. This fact should be more than enough to abandon your position, even if you think its right, since your solution is not working.

              But that’s the issue I am demonstrating. What you are doing is not working and magnifying this is making it worse. Why this fact does not rattle your brain simply surprises me.

              • Well, prepare to be surprised then because I am telling you, if we abandon the southern border….to mean, there is no restriction on immigration, it is not going to solve the ongoing problem. It seems to me that you are failing to recognize that if we, the US, erased the Southern border today……and we, the US, said we are not going to stop one single solitary immigrant…the border would be re instated by Mexico and the same problem will exist. You seem to think that there would be no incentive to continue but I am saying, the incentive will become greater. There is too much money in it. Now, if you wish to adopt the theory that the US will prosper because of unfettered immigration….I will not argue that…but it is not going to stop human trafficking and it will not stop the killings and it will not stop the emptying of prisons and it will not stop the cartels.

                Actually, the more that I think about it……pulling back from the border would make it interesting…because then, the border becomes Mexico’s problem…not ours. It will not stop the murders, nor the kidnappings, nor the slave trains…..but it will be Mexico’s problem.

              • Oh, and let me add, we are not stupid and we are not dumb. We fully recognize that the current situation is not working. We know it is not working and we all know that it will not work….that is, those of us on the ground know this. But if you are suggesting that we flout and do not enforce written law…..if you are suggesting open revolt….and if you are suggesting just walking away….well, that will not happen. I cannot do that. I am not an anarchist.

    • Black Flag® says:

      The problem with your anaylsis is that these are kids are not coming from Mexico.

      In fiscal year 2014, for the first time ever, the majority of unaccompanied children are coming from Central American countries. More children are coming from Honduras alone than from Mexico — and nearly as many are coming from Guatemala as from Mexico.

      • Actually, BF…..it is far more than reported. Do not believe what you are reading….the number of immigrants and unaccompanied children over the last three years is threefold what is being reported and they are NOT from Mexico…they are from Central America as you noted. Here is the problem as well…..a parent brings their child to Mexico’s southern border…Mexican authorities will not allow the parents onto the trains and will only allow the children….for a minimum of $7,000. Some up to $12,000. The parents are forcibly turned back by Mexican authorities. They can get more money this way. The children come here. Then the parents have to come separately for another $7,000. It is a racket and it is run by the Mexican Government….

        • Black Flag® says:

          D13,

          Research after research shows my numbers, not yours.

          Unless you have a source other than “this is what I see” ……

          • Sorry, I wish I could…I can only report the numbers that I actually see and what I have put on paper….I cannot say what happens to them after they leave my charge…if you are talking about the children and where they come from….I am telling you that your research is correct in origin..just incorrect in number.

            And, there is no research that you are going to find on what happens on Mexico’s southern border. I am telling you, whether you choose to believe it or not, what is happening. If your source is going to be sanitized internet, I cannot argue with that. I just know that it is sanitized because I have seen the raw numbers.

            And, please, do not put stock in Mexico….I have never seen it this bad. For the first time in family history, we have armed guards on our property. We have never had to do this before.

            • Black Flag® says:

              I put no stock in the behavior of others.

              As shown via Adam Smith, what others do or do not is utterly irrelevant.
              All that counts is what you do.

  20. @ Buck….(this is in your expertise area)….I notice that Panama has now decided to rid itself of the US completely and has told the Obama Administration to shove it…..they will not report to the IRS any American holdings or cash…..Mexico will soon follow.

    • Those two countries I don’t believe are high on the priority list anyway, but regardless, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them both come around in the coming months or years.

      Your thoughts?

      • No..I do not think they will..under Fox, Mexico was reporting. They are now going to stop.
        ( The reason I know this is I just finished meetings with our Mexican attorney’s and they are usually correct, They see it coming ). Mexico is also moving to confiscate and require American companies that are established there to surrender 51% of their stock to Mexico or be Nationalized ). Panama is so pissed off at the US….a whole lot of money is beginning to go there now. Same with Costa Rica…..

        All of a sudden truck traffic along the border is 1/3 less than it was 90 days ago…..keep an eye out.

  21. And KY has now overturned its ban on same sex marriage…

    Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear argued in favor of maintaining the ban, Louisville’s the Courier-Journal reports, “because only opposite sex couples can procreate and maintain the state’s birth rate and economy.” “These arguments are not those of serious people,” Judge Heyburn wrote of Beshear’s reasoning.

    • I read Judge Heyburn’s remarks and quite frankly he was a total ass and as a sitting Judge he should be shamed by his unprofessional behavior and remarks.

    • Language again, Kentucky and its citizens have done nothing regarding changing marriage. A Judge has. One person, member of an increasingly powerful oligarchy whom it takes years and countless millions of dollars to challenge has overturned Kentucky law. Simple, no?

      • But they haven’t overturned the law -they have produced a new law out of thin air-they have just changed a definition and bingo, new law-the citizens haven’t voted for it and the legislation hasn’t passed it. And nobody even knows if the new law is actually constitutional either based on the reasoning used to change the old law-because that’s not the “question” that was asked- I don’t understand all the ins and outs of how our legal system works- But I know that the Judicial branch isn’t supposed to make law -but somehow they do. I just don’t get it-if a law is unconstitutional-it should be thrown out or sent to the legislative branch to decide how to fix the problem. The judicial branch shouldn’t fix the problem-that is not their job.

        • The activist court ruling on the ever changing, ever flexible, ever living constitution. Nothing means anything anymore!

          Hell, if times were to change we could probably revisit the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

          • Well, we need to revisit something-it is rather disheartening to realize that the branch of the government which decides the constitutionality of our laws are set up in a way that they are in and of themselves acting unconstitutionally.

            It would seem that we as a people could at least agree on the proper and legal way to do things-even if we don’t agree on the issue its self. I’m against gay marriage but I will accept it without complaining if I feel it was actually the will of the people and it was done legally. But the way it’s being done-not accepting that without a fight.

            • Sedgewick says:

              Think about what you’re saying, V.

              …because of the law, you are fighting for position of your religious convictions, even though you are willing to accept the existence of same-sex ‘marriages’ of a small minority.

              So long as it is framed around law, you are fighting/competing. That’s how it controls you. Law is inherently divisive as it applies to all, but cannot satisfy all simultaneously. Your belief system is being used as a crutch to justify it’s legitimacy and/or usefulness. (Divide and conquer)

              If law had no part in it, there would be no issue, as you can enjoy your heterosexual monogamy while others also exercise their right to self determination.

              Take law out of it…problem solved. If people still want to make it legal, simply sign a contract similar to a prenuptial.

              🙂

            • But law does have a part in it-and I am talking within that framework. If we are going to have a government than the system should be followed not twisted and perverted.

              • V.H.

                It is the law that is perverted.

                If a system, by its roots, is perverted – following such a system can only lead to massive perversions.

              • V.H.
                …more…

                This is the fundamental failing of your ilk -which is most of the people.

                You assume a system that exists must be a system that is coherent. You refuse to investigate the roots of such a system, however, to check your assumption

                When others, such as Sed or myself, displays the incoherency of a system, you recoil – not against the system, but to the individuals who expose it.

                You do so because you have already affirmed the system by rote – you have made no analysis but merely cling to the affirmations of others around you. You refuse to think for yourself and as bad, refuse to do the work of investigation.

                And *shock*, you are always on the losing end. Losing both in principle and in reality as the system continues to abuse and steal and kill all around you.

                But steadfast in your dogma, you believe it is merely the operators of the system that fail, not that the system itself is sick.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” But law does have a part in it ”

                Seriously? Please explain to me the reasoning behind this assertion.

                Marriage is ultimately about love(to me anyway), and you cannot say law exclusive of force, thus legal marriage is forcefully regulated love. It is a contradiction in terms as love is not about force.

  22. Now you have this…..it is happening as we speak……All cell phones and I pads are being confiscated at the military posts and Red Cross areas where these children are….the physicians are not allowed to speak to media and are not allowed to report the number of health issues now at these sites. They will face incarceration and military officers will lose their commissions. There is a gag order in place.

    It will not stop most of us…we will still take pics and leak them out the best we can. You should see the barracks and the places that are housing the children…..the windows are now blacked out….terrible.

    • From what I’ve read there are very serious concerns about the spread of disease. First they are all put together so the sick infect the others-then they are shipped all across the country which will then spread it everywhere. Can’t help but wonder what will happen when this kids are sent to our schools. Even read where a psychiatrist was worried about specific children which she diagnosed as suicidal, which was being ignored.

      • Forget schools for now What about the planes and busses the kids are on now?

        • The planes and buses are for the children only and the attendants are wearing surgical gloves with masks….I have seen this first hand. We do not handle them without gloves and masks…..the disease is why Mexico will not let them off the trains….these kids are defecating and urinating off the tops of trains and in fields when the trains stop.

          • What do you mean the planes and buses are for children only? Why-what are they doing with the adults? And aren’t these buses just dropping them off and turning them loose in some places?

            • VH….what I have seen are the buses, actually. No one is going on those buses except children and maybe one or two women….mainly children.

  23. For SK:

    Krauthammer: If fences don’t work, why is there one around the White House? If they don’t work, why is it that the Israeli fence which separate Israel from the West Bank has cut down terror attacks within Israel by 99%. Fences work. Yes, there are parts of the border where you can’t have a fence, fine. So you don’t have it in those areas and you do heavy patrols. But there is no reason why a rich country like us cannot put a fence across — a double fence, a triple fence and patrol it all the time. That would have a tremendous impact.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/01/krauthammer_if_fences_dont_work_why_is_there_one_around_the_white_house.html

  24. There are 5 major issues found by the IG – all of which have the potential to massively increase calls for Obamacare’s repeal.

    Washington Examiner:

    1. Fraud could be significant. The audit found the federal government has been unable to resolve 2.6 million out of 2.9 million “inconsistencies” in the information provided by people who applied for health care subsidies. In other words, it could not verify the data provided by people seeking subsidies.

    2. Most inconsistencies were about citizenship and income. The vast majority of the questionable data provided by those receiving health care subsidies relate to citizenship and income level. The audit found that 44 percent of inconsistent information concerned verifying citizenship or lawful presence. Income information made up 33 percent of the potentially faulty data, and in 11 percent of cases, the government couldn’t verify whether a person was truly ineligible for employer-sponsored insurance.

    Citizenship and income are the two categories where you would most expect fraud to occur. If so, it looks like about 1/3 of enrollees may be receiving tax money in the form of subsidies that they don’t deserve.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/look_squirrel_ig_report_shows_obamacare_in_a_world_of_hurt.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This should come as no surprise. Wonder if the Clinton’s made this list 😀

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    To clarify things so the arguments can stop:

    Buck says:

    July 2, 2014 at 11:13 am (Edit)

    G – let the church get involved. Where did I say the church should be completely excluded. But it shouldn’t be a sectarian program run within the church.

    How would you feel if the program was a sectarian program run by a mosque – and your only option to avoid jail was to attend this program?

    Then to VH: I ask you what I asked G (and have yet to receive an answer). Let’s assume you were given the choice of jail or attending a sectarian Islamic program run by the local mosque. Do you see any problem with this?

    My Answer:

    gmanfortruth says:

    July 2, 2014 at 12:33 pm (Edit)

    If the Islamic faith provided charitable assistance to those in need, then it would be fine with me. But they don’t, so why ask?

    I could have been clearer on who I was answering and maybe copied and pasted the question, but, it wasn’t needed. Buck knew it was an answer to his question.

    So let me pose a question, are there any local Mosques providing this type of assistance in conjunction with local police ANYWHERE in the USA today? If yes, link it. Is it for all people, regardless of religion? If yes, link it. If the answer is NO than my answer to Buck’s question is quite correct, because if they do, I’m cool with it, but until there is some proof that it is occurring, my answer stands on it’s merit as being correct in response to the question.

    Buck, Did this answer your question? 🙂

    • Black Flag® says:

      “So let me pose a question, are there any local Mosques providing this type of assistance in conjunction with local police ANYWHERE in the USA today? ”

      Because they don’t have to wait for the police to provide assistance!!!
      They do it without them!!!

      …geez…

      You beat up a group because – hell – they don’t use the police to do what they do already….

      The insanity of Islamaphobia.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        You need to learn to read. I have no problem with local Mosques providing charitable services. I stated that quite clearly. Jump done off your high horse and pay attention better. GEEZ

        • Black Flag® says:

          Don’t make statements cannot back up

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Quote from my answer to Buck “If the Islamic faith provided charitable assistance to those in need, then it would be fine with me.”

            Exactly which part of that can’t you comprehend?

            • Black Flag® says:

              It’s clear, and your reply was they don’t

              Yet they do, hence, my complaint.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m glad they do too, when I see some proof, aka, a link. Talk is cheap, prove it!

              • Black Flag® says:

                Showed it already, But your Islamaphobia blocks your brain

              • Black Flag® says:

                Via wiki, if you’d even bother a modicum of research:

                “In the United Kingdom, according to a self-reported poll of 4000 people conducted by Zarine Kharas, Muslims today give more to charity than people of other religions,.[31]

                Measured in US Dollars, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists.[31] Today, conservative estimates of annual zakat is estimated to be 15 times global humanitarian aid contributions.[8]

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Much like Iran, we don’t live in the UK.

              • Hohoho!

                So now your argument is that the Muslims over there are wholly different then over here!

                Hohoho!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Do they open their doors snd help prostitutes in any city in the US? That is the subject of discussion. You can play your dog and pony show all you like, it does’nt change the facts of my answer to Buck, your search engine and your ability to copy and paste are showing where you really are limited too

              • They do not care. They measure need and pain as the reason for charity, not profession.

                Why would they help a rich prostitute?

  26. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor……..

    Obama lied; people died.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/woman-class-action-lawsuit-against-xerox-dies

  27. Thanks, G and peace back at you.

    Colonel … it’s inevitable. It may take a long-ass time and we may blow ourselves up before it happens (or because it’ll happen), but there’s no stopping the sprint toward feudalism technology/capitalism has set into motion.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    The stupidity of Liberals on full display, over nothing:

    Gunssavelives.net points out a couple of very telling facts. First, “Prior to HB60 becoming law yesterday, there was nothing stopping criminals from carrying firearms into these places. Reed felt no reason to attempt to protect people with armed security then, but now that licensed gun carriers are allowed to carry there, Reed thinks these places need armed security.”

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/atlanta-mayor-challenges-new-pro-gun-law-passing-law-his-own

  29. gmanfortruth says:
    • As badly as I know you want to be right about all this kind of fear mongering, look at how easy it was to get those busses turned around. It only took a hundred or so people to accomplish the task. Yeah, they just went somewhere else, but the people made it happen peacefully. The Bundy Ranch, same thing. The people did it.

      I’ll ask again. Where is the push to the White House? Oathkeepers. Patriot Guard, where are they? Why aren’t they moving, doing something besides spreading fear? You’ve said before that it isn’t time yet. If this bio warfare isn’t going to drag them out, then nothing will. Bunch of hot air if you ask me. It’s the regular ol joes taking care of business while you and sites like this are just plain scared. Frozen. You and they are prepared for armed revolution. It isn’t going to happen like that. I tire of this kind of thinking because it can and is being done peacefully. Without all you guys with your chests puffed out.

      Don’t forget…anything can be undone. Any legislation, any EO, any Brown Shirt, any bus load of sick kids, all of it can be gone by the will of the people. SCOTUS is pitching in and pushing back too. Obama is on the ropes and just about outta here. How about join us and leave these cowards and sites behind. If the SHTF in your area stand against it peacefully.

      I know what you’re thinking. :::I do it for fun, I’m ahead of the pack, I toldya so, you think we’re all crazy:::: what it is is wasting time and energy while getting nowhere . Cross over G. Join the doers, make something happen if it comes to you. In the meantime chill out with the fear before you nervous breakdown yourself right into uselessness. You’re not telling us anything with these bombshell reports. Jus sayin

      • ROFLMAO! Anita, you made my morning, first thing too! 🙂

        ” It’s the regular ol joes taking care of business while you and sites like this are just plain scared.”

        I’m not afraid of anything, We Northerners aren’t involved, yet. Probably never will be. “Sites like this” is FOX News, not some CT site that I always post. D13 is quite right in many of the posts he made, it’s a huge problem down there. He’s mentioned all the medical problems, this story would qualify as verification. Flag may argue all day long with D13, but D’s posts have been spot on and way earlier than any news source (including my fun CT sites) 🙂

        For the moment, I wonder why this is happening and what the expected outcome should be by the Obama administration. I believe D13 that this is a planned event and they knew it was coming, but why? Obama gets on TV and lies about sending them back, which is no surprise. The man’s agenda has no shame, as he is now using sick kids to fulfill it. I haven’t heard a logical reason as to why yet. Any ideas?

        • I know it originated with Fox, but Freedom Outpost ran with it and is hysterical. It’s fear mongering. That’s what I’m saying. You’re right up in it with those sites and for my money, while they claim to be the new alternate media, they’re the ones creating hype. And you buy the hype. There doesn’t need to be the hysteria they try to conjure up. If anything they’ll be the ones causing any retaliation on the regular folks, like martial law. I’ll trust the Colonel’s take..martial law isn’t in the cards. There isn’t enough Brown Shirts to cover just the armed conservatives, how are they going to handle the whole country? Ain’t happenin. Small crowds of people are handling local situations peacefully. And it’s working. And it will continue to work peacefully.

      • I will admit, Anita, it is tough without leaders. There are plenty of followers. The issue would not have happened in California without the mayor raising the hell.

        It is the same in Texas….I just happen to be the “stud duck” right now with a particular veterans group. we do not try for headlines…we just do but it takes leaders and it takes “cast iron” cajones. You will get your picture taken by the FBI, the INS, and other government agencies and you will get harassed by these same agencies, so it is not for he weak. Lead by example is what is needed. Not leading by academia nor philosophy. All great reading and maybe correct but all reading does is increase knowledge…it does not DO…..THAT takes leaders.

        You are right….it is going to take the masses rising up. Start locally….install people hat think like you, protest what you want but be visible with it. You have to show up at obscure town meetings or PTA meetings and city hall meetings. It takes showing up at your local election meetings and voicing your opinion and shouting down those that try to disrupt your message. It takes showing up at the legislative meetings of your state. It takes challenge.

        This is what is missing.

        • I agree. Leadership is key. I see it happening in my city with a new mayor and half a new council. My city is coming alive. Detroit, same thing. New mayor, new police chief who doesn’t play, working together with an emergency manager. Thanks to Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans fame, and the Illitchs, much restoration is going on down there. It’s going to take time, but the feeling is there now. It’s not going backward anymore.. It’s happening peacefully.

  30. At BF….I stand corrected…you are obviously talking about the Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations……for some reason I did not connect what you were posting to this Adam Smith.

    Yes, I had to write a paper in college in his vision of supply and demand and economics.

    The largest issue that most “modern” day (cough cough) economists try to dissuade is whether labor is a commodity as anything else. I say that labor is no more and no less a commodity……not something agreed to today.

    • D13,

      Yes, labor is absolutely an economic good, that is, obeys absolutely all the laws of economics, no more and no less, than any other economic good.

      And it is true many “economists by name”, but not by theory, pretend labor is “something else”. Of course, all their proclamations and claims never come to matter much.

      Many people buy into these alchemist economists because, unlike say an apple, labor is personal – people disassociate the production of inanimate objects that they make with labor from that labor. They easily see the machine that makes a car equal as an “economic good” with the consequences .. the “car”. But they cannot extend that to the “labor” that made the “machine” that made the “car”.

      As SK demonstrates here, because labor is “himself”, it ties an emotional (and irrational) appeal to this good, and with that irrational emotion, they through away all the economics associated with labor.

      Thus, politics plies upon this irrationality, leading these unthinking souls to their long-term doom.

      • PS:
        The disassociation of labor as an economic good from the goods made was strongly made conscience by Karl Marx et al.

        It is a fundamental disassociation of Collectivism – Socialism and its child, Communism. When one understands this, one equally understands why Collectivist/Socialist policies are a disaster – they operate under a system that is counter to the laws of economics.

        He who refuses natural law ends up crushed by nature.

      • “because labor is “himself”, it ties an emotional (and irrational) appeal to this good, and with that irrational emotion, they through away all the economics associated with labor.”

        BF, obviously people are making a distinction about labor based on the fact that the world is divided into different Countries. We can not freely travel between Countries at our whim so the matter of labor is considered within the confines of that separation. Now I know that you do not care whether jobs are given to citizens and legal immigrants or given to people who just walk across our borders but we must care because we cannot just ignore reality. And you claiming that everything we do is wrong based on your Non-existant world may satisfy your principals but it hurts actual people more than it helps them.

        Let me put it this way-we do not change the definition of freedom when it comes to children-the principals haven’t changed-we simply accept that their age makes a difference and use that knowledge to make principled decisions. Borders are no different-the underlying principals haven’t changed but this distinction must be factored in in order to make principled decisions.

        • You misunderstand.

          It matters not whether labor is transportable across borders or not, the laws of economics still apply.

          Goods are blocked or restricted across borders too – export and import laws and taxes, and the laws of economics still apply.

          Laws of economics explains consequences. IT does not judge choices.
          This is one of the fundamental points people do not understand about economics.

          If you put up a trade barrier against an economic good – whether it is labor or cars – the price of that economic good will go up for consumers behind that trade barrier. This is a law of economics.

          An argument whether such a trade barrier is “good” or “bad” has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with choices.

          If you say “paying more for a good then I should” is “good” – then trade barriers are “good”
          If you say “paying more for a good then I should” is “bad” – then trade barriers are “bad”.

          Economics merely explains a consequence “if you do this, you get that”. You have to decide whether what you get is good or bad. Do not blame economics when you argue for an action which delivers opposite of your goal.

          It is your fault for pretending that gravity falls up.

          • I’m not saying borders are good or bad in this discussion-I am simply saying they are-so by there mere presence they are effecting the rules of economics-so as long as they are part of the equation-there presence has to be factored in or offset by something else to make things work. You are simply telling me they need to be removed-well that isn’t a possibility at least not right now if ever-so what do you suggest.

            • V.H.”so by there mere presence they are effecting the rules of economics-so as long as they are part of the equation”

              They absolute do NOT affect the “rules” of economics

              Again, you badly misunderstand economics.

              One more time: economics describes consequences

              “Do this, you get that.”

              If you put up barriers, you get higher prices. This is not barriers affecting “rules”, but a consequence of applying the “rules” of economics

              • Okay, “by there mere presence they are creating consequences” better? Now how do we deal with that reality if we cannot get rid of the barriers?

              • V.H.

                “How do we deal with the consequences our action creates without changing our actions”

                Hohohoho!

                Well, since you refuse to change your action, how do you possibly believe you will change the consequences?

                You are asking “Well, every time I leap off a cliff, I fall hard. I do not want to stop leaping off cliffs. Is there a way we can turn off gravity?”

              • Oh BF-there is always another way-you simply refuse to even contemplate the possibility. And if I wanted to jump off a cliff without falling hard -I would use equipment that was created to allow me to do just that.

                Have a great day-I’m out of here for awhile. 🙂

              • V.H.
                “Oh BF-there is always another way-you simply refuse to even contemplate the possibility.”

                Hohoho!

                Yep, there is magic.
                You certainly can avoid following natural law, and hook your wagon onto magic. I mean, it exists, right???

                Hohohoh

                “And if I wanted to jump off a cliff without falling hard -I would use equipment that was created to allow me to do just that.”

                Hohoho!

                Yep, that’s right. Pretend there is a way for you and make it a universal principle.

                And then you wonder why the world collapses around you.

                Hohohoho!

      • So, you finally got me. I take it personally. Well, maybe that is because I am a people. I will not tolerate abuse against myself nor against others if I have the power to do something about it.

        The interesting thing about the study of history and the study of literature is that you can place yourself in other times and places and ask, “What would I do, what side would I take?” So, my answer today regarding the coal industry which I am intimately familiar with the good guys are the industry and the workers in that order. The bad guys are the government. Had this been 1890, my answer would have been that the bad guys were the industry and the government to a lesser extent (they sent the troops). Had this been the late 40’s or ’50’s my answer would have been labor and the government.

        You should be happy to see that the one constant here is the government. They are always the enemy because they meddle and take sides. .

        • Just had a thought. Note that above, there was a time when the government sided with people, either the industry or labor. In this case (coal) they side against people, progress, jobs. The government has become an abstraction unable to identify its purpose!

          • SK,

            You think that because you do not understand the purpose of government. You have this “halo” view of it as a tool for good.

            No, it is a tool of power – its purpose is to expand its power, and power is its goal.

            “[It} seeks power entirely for its own sake. … We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. … How does one man assert his power over another … By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. … A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. … If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever.”

        • SK,

          You are the barbarian in action

          “So, you finally got me. I take it personally. Well, maybe that is because I am a people. I will not tolerate abuse against myself nor against others if I have the power to do something about it. ”

          Yep, you self-define abuse to be anything you don’t like and operate upon that barbarian principle. To hell with other people’s rights, you wants are above that.

          But as always you cannot understand the Law of Reciprocity. That which you do to others gives them right to do to you. So when your barbarian creed is used against you, you spew – but your abusers do not care since by your own action of barbarianism, you’ve given permission to your enslavers.

          • You give me a laugh. I, I am the selfish one? I step on the rights of others? Man you have no clue what I am about, none at all.

            Regarding government, your position is to curse it from inception. I watch it and see how it degenerates. There are numerous trite phrases to describe it. Two come to mind.

            The Road to hell is paved with good intentions

            Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

            So, while I may certainly agree with you as to where we are, it was never the intent of the framers to put us here. We did that on our own.

            • SK
              “You give me a laugh. I, I am the selfish one? I step on the rights of others? Man you have no clue what I am about, none at all. ”

              Oh? Damn easy to show this back to you.

              You want to stop free men from finding work.
              You want your neighbors to pay more for your services then they could get from another who merely happens to live one line further away.

              You want to stop free people from marriage.
              You go into extreme twists and twirls to make these people -somehow- diminish your own self-worth, when in fact, they have nothing to do with you.

              Small sampling, SK.

              • Every now and then one must call Horseshit! I’m doing that! It is ludicrous for me to try and explain to you what a “society” is about since you reject the very notion.

                My morals such as they are were imbued in me by my parents, my religion and my teachers. I do believe I am my brothers keeper. I also believe that 42 people in a lifeboat designed for 24 in heavy seas is a calamity. At least 18 have to go over the side. Which `18 is a great question and one I have wrestled with for a long time. There are no easy answers merely the fact that you are faced with 18 or 42 deaths.

              • SK
                “Every now and then one must call Horseshit! I’m doing that! It is ludicrous for me to try and explain to you what a “society” is about since you reject the very notion.”

                Talk about H/S…. as if YOU know what society is about.

                Again, to you, it is infringing on the rights of others so that you get a benefit.

                And I know you got your mess of morals from rote – exactly. You have NO THINKING about them yourself. YOU, as you admit, merely copied by rote what others told you. You have no idea that they are shit, but merely because the authorities in your life “said so”, you believed them.

                And you pretend that a “lifeboat” is the same as a nation. No wonder you are so screwed up.

            • SK
              “So, while I may certainly agree with you as to where we are, it was never the intent of the framers to put us here. We did that on our own.”

              Boy, are you wrong here!!!

              It was always the intent of the constitution to give rise to a political elite – that is the whole point of FEDERALISM – a group of power hungry men to control the actions of a region of millions of sq. miles.

              But, as usual, you have blinders and shades. You are immersed in propaganda with few principles to cut through it.

              As Lsander Spoon put it:
              “Either the Constitution was designed to create this outcome, or it was insufficient in preventing it – either way, it is worthless.”

              • That is because you trust no one. Must be a lonely life but then again, it is what you have chosen and all you know. . Being acknowledged no doubt by many as the “expert”, always the “expert” must be very satisfying. It allows you to psychologically lord it over the rest of humanity. I suggest one day you take the time to read the relatively short novella, “Waldo” by Robert Heinlein.

              • My father, the bartender who was screwed over more times than I can count nonetheless always took a man at his word, right until the end. He believed that if a man was not trustworthy, you would learn that soon enough. His math was based on the fact that there were more good than bad and it would be a shame to waste a possible relationship over the issue of “trust” before parameters had even been established.

              • SK,

                “Trust”? No, trust is earned. Trust is gained by people operating without contradiction and without hypocrisy. And, by your example, few do that.

  31. Hmmmmmmm…….I wonder why the 21st Cav is being sent to Iraq? I thought this was only going to be “advisory”…….

    Oh, now I get it….I advise you to stop where you are or BOOM….that kind of advisory group.

    What a joke. Combat troops being sent…..but not picked up on the media….remember, you heard it here.

  32. LOI has posted a new thread! 🙂

%d bloggers like this: