Pretty Please!

We’ve heard about illegal immigrants getting special treatment.  Fines & tickets dismissed due to the difficulty of collecting.  The alternative of jailing them for months or years is an expense cities & counties cannot afford.  But imagine if you or I were to abandon our children.  What the consequences for us would be…But when it’s done by illegal immigrants, our governments response?


The federal government launched a major public relations campaign Wednesday to try to urge Central Americans not to send their children to the U.S. as illegal immigrants, vowing to press that message through radio ads and billboards in those countries and interviews with Spanish-language press in the U.S.


  1. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Wonder what the Dems will try and pull off now?

  2. If one is myopic and only address symptoms, the problem never repairs.

  3. Voting: The Great American Deception

    By Chris Rossini

    Economic Policy Journal

    July 3, 2014

    Cass ‘Nudge’ Sunstein unintentionally explains how the bird of prey utilizes the ‘sacred right’ called voting to bamboozle American citizens:

    Whenever American voters elect a new president, they choose someone who is, along a critical dimension, the antithesis of the incumbent. The Incumbent Antithesis hypothesis, as I’ll call it, fits recent history, and it may be correct.

    Sunstein isn’t precise enough. He should say: American voters elect what appears to be the antithesis of the incumbent. Every 8 years (sometimes 4) it’s time to ‘throw the bum out’. Miraculously, the non-incumbent is portrayed as an angelic savior, who will rescue America from the incumbent tyrant.

    Like clockwork, Americans go gaga for the deception. They get out there and rock the vote! When the angelic figure takes the throne, in what is always called the most important election of our time, literal tears pour down the cheeks of the most naive citizens, while goosebumps visit many of the rest.

    Another victory for democracy! The winning voters are ‘proud to be Americans, where at least they know they’re free’!

    And yet….Sunstein writes:

    Insofar as the Incumbent Antithesis hypothesis applies to two-term presidents, it can be linked directly with another pattern, which is that presidential approval ratings plummet in the second term.

    Of course approval ratings plummet!

    No matter who is elected: the military empire expands, the police state expands, the welfare state expands, the money is debased, the executive is strengthened….freedom is lost!

    The U.S. government is one entity, and it has the voting deception mastered.

    The U.S. bird of prey lives on a strict diet of freedom. It eats nothing else and its insatiable hunger is not satisfied with American freedom alone. It’ll also consume European freedom, South American freedom, Asian freedom, etc. etc. etc.

    Most Americans haven’t grasped this yet. Come 2016, they’ll predictably fall for yet another round of it’s time to ‘throw the bum out’.

    Reprinted from Economic Policy Journal.

  4. Tis sad-with all this woman’s pain and regret-she still cannot admit WHY she feels so bad-she simply can’t acknowledge that the reason she cried so much and was so unhappy was because she had just Killed her child. So she justifies-it’s important for her child to have the same right to wound herself by killing her child.

    Private Lives
    I Couldn’t Turn My Abortion Into Art
    July 2, 2014 8:01 pmJuly 2, 2014 9:07 pm

    Private Lives

    I had just turned 22 and I had the self-esteem of a squashed toad. This may explain why I was having an affair with a married 36-year-old sound mixer whom I’d met on a film shoot a couple of months earlier.

    I’d had only one serious boyfriend by this time and recently had been asked for the first time, “Can I buy you a drink?” by a man. (He was an actor in a film I’d worked on the summer before; he asked everybody that question, but still it felt like progress.) Somehow, by that tender age, I had convinced myself that I should take what I could get. So I took the married sound mixer.

    And then, a few months later, I rolled out of bed at an unreasonably early hour and vomited.

    This didn’t seem as big a problem to me as it might have for other young women. This was the mid-1990s. Reared on protest marches, I had a NOW poster affixed to my bedroom wall. I was an unwavering believer in the fierce rhetoric of pro-choice. And now: a poster child.

    In addition, in college I had essentially majored in experimental feminist video. I could make art out of anything.

    I called my boss — a pretty, perpetually single 35-year-old art director — and confided my situation. She gave me the name of a clinic on Park Avenue. “Whatever you do, don’t go alone,” she said.

    I called. I made an appointment for the next day and checked the price: $350 — slightly more than a week’s pay.

    The money intimidated me but the mission didn’t. Not only was this the right I’d marched for, it was an opportunity. It could provide material for the kinds of film I’d voraciously consumed in college, in which women transformed their most traumatic experiences into emotionally stirring and awareness-raising images: Margie Strosser’s “Rape Stories” or “The Body Beautiful” by Ngozi Onwurah, about a mother undergoing a radical mastectomy. An abortion today, a debut at Sundance tomorrow.

    The next day was perfect movie material. A blizzard had hit New York City, shutting down the trains. I did something that I considered extravagant at that time: I called a car service. I added it to the mental tally, the bill I’d present to the married man when he returned from working on a film overseas.

    I stuffed my Ricoh Hi8 video camera in my backpack, and I went alone.

    The driver was Middle Eastern, from some hot and weather-less country, but he did a fair job of steering into the skids. He kept asking me why I was going out in such weather.

    “I have to go to the doctor,” I kept telling him.

    “Why? You don’t look sick.”

    “I have to have a procedure.”

    “What? What procedure?”

    Finally, I told him. Why not? I was proud and un-conflicted. I was exercising my right. I was making a video.

    He pulled over to the side of the road, right there on the Brooklyn Bridge — not only illegal but dangerous. “Please don’t kill the baby,” he said. “Please don’t kill the baby.”

    “What are you doing?”

    “Don’t kill the baby.” He wouldn’t move the car, though horns blared all around us.

    “Keep driving! I have an appointment!” I shook his headrest. This was not part of the script.

    “Please don’t kill the baby,” he said again, turning around to face me. He had beautiful big brown eyes — almost black. “I will take care of you and the baby. I work two jobs.”

    “Drive,” I told him.

    “You are going by yourself?” he asked.

    I said, “Drive.”

    He drove. The camera wasn’t on. I didn’t have any of it on tape.

    At the clinic’s counter, the receptionist asked me what I’d come for. I said, “Um …”

    “Termination of pregnancy?” she asked in her best would-you-like-fries-with-that voice. I nodded.

    They gave me pamphlets, a paper gown and paper slippers. They sat me in a room filled with women, one of whom told me she’d been there eight times before. “They used to have terry cloth,” she said, lifting her toes in the paper slippers. It had never occurred to me that people had serial abortions, but it confirmed my expectations: abortion — safe, legal, no big deal.
    Credit Bianca Bagnarelli

    Yet as I looked around the room, my expectations began to shift. This wasn’t the liberating environment I’d expected to enter. The uncomplicated message of those protests led me to think that legal abortion would be light. Lite. I wasn’t prepared for the saturnine cloudiness of the room, all those sad-looking women burying their faces in tabloid magazines.

    The video camera stayed sleeping in my lap.

    Nurses led me and 10 other women into a room where they talked to us about our anesthetic options — local or general — and had us sign forms. Everyone opted for general except for me. “I want local,” I said. I showed the woman from the clinic my video camera. “I want to be awake and I want to record it.” I said this with a now wavering smile.

    She took me aside and informed me that I could not use my video camera in the operating room for legal reasons, and that they did not approve of local anesthesia.

    “Why are you giving me the option, then?” I asked.

    “We have to,” the woman said. For legal reasons.

    My hands shook, the camera wobbling in my grasp. I was freezing inside my paper gown. I checked the “general” box on the form. I put the camera in my bag.

    The first thing I thought when I awoke from the anesthesia was that I’d never be pregnant again, that I had just squandered my only chance at motherhood. I was sobbing — I had arisen from the depths of the medication this way — as they rolled me into the recovery room where the other women were lying, almost all of them with a friend or partner or relative to brush their hair back or offer them ice chips. I could not stop crying, big heaves and gulps of it. The nurse came over at first to soothe me and then to quiet me.

    “You’re upsetting the other girls,” she said.

    “It hurts.”

    She sent the doctor over. “Sometimes we have to massage the womb,” he said, inserting his hand inside me and pressing. This did not stop the crying, but eventually it stopped the pain.

    Or, at least, it stopped the physical pain. The begging cabdriver and the woman on her ninth abortion and the shocking suction in my womb: It was too traumatic for me to make art of. Or maybe it was just that I wasn’t a good enough artist to transform that level of trauma into something that others could learn from and use. I had been taught that a woman’s right to choose was the most important thing to fight for, but I hadn’t known what a brutal choice it was.

    I took a car service home, too, where my brother and his girlfriend met me and we ordered in. “We would have gone with you,” they said, “if you’d asked.”

    “I was going to make a video,” I said. Reacting to the way my hands still shook, they tended to me as if I’d just walked miles in that blizzard. I knew then I’d never be a filmmaker.

    About motherhood, though, I was wrong. Fifteen years later, happily coupled with a wonderful man, I gave birth to my first daughter; I now have two. I don’t wish I had a 20-year-old. I didn’t want that baby, with that man. Abortion rights, yes, I’ll always support them, but even all these years later, I wish the motto wasn’t “Never again,” but “Avoid this if there’s any way you possibly can, even if it’s legal, because it’s awful.”

    I wish that someone had alerted me to the harshness of the experience, acknowledged the layers of regret that built and fell away as the months and years passed. I want my daughters to have the option of safe and legal abortion, of course. I just don’t want them to have to use it.

  5. IVF With Donated Eggs Can be Deadly
    By Wesley J. Smith
    July 1, 2014 8:37 PM

    A new study reports that women who use donated eggs in IVF have a greater likelihood of dying. From the Daily Mail story:

    Women who have IVF babies using donor eggs could be much more at risk for a common but potentially dangerous complication of pregnancy, warn researchers. A new study shows a threefold higher risk of hypertension – high blood pressure – and an even higher risk of pre-eclampsia.

    Pre-eclampsia is a severe disorder of high blood pressure in pregnancy that is potentially fatal for the mother and baby and the only cure is to deliver the baby surgically. The use of donor eggs in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) is increasingly common among older women trying for a baby who have no eggs of their own.

    The numbers are pretty startling:

    But French researchers say the pregnancies of egg donation patients are at a higher risk of disorders caused by high blood pressure, than the pregnancies of IVF patients using their own eggs. They found almost one in five pregnant women using a donated egg developed hypertension, compared with one in 20 women using their own eggs during IVF.

    Altogether 11 per cent of women using donor eggs suffered pre-eclampsia, compared with less than three per cent of women using their own eggs.

    These risks don’t even count the hazard faced by egg donors, which can include infertility, infection, perhaps cancer, and death.

    We have rushed into IVF and surrogacy with few regulations and a lot of profit-making. Some are paying devastating consequences.

  6. To all my friends here at SUFA! Have a happy and safe 4th of July celebration. 🙂

  7. Happy Birthday, America (celebrated). You are still the best country in the world.

  8. You call it Independence Day.

    I call it romanticized bullshit to make people feel good about trading one set of masters for another.

    • Jonc,

      Welcome to SUFA. You’re post were stopped by the spam filter. I have approved them. Not sure why they were bounced…is you web address real or made up? As the publisher, I have access to your info, which will not be shared. It could also be a self correction issue, which we get from time to time. If you need to post multiple links, it’s best to make multiple posts or it will hit that firewall. That said, we are an adult site that strives to maintain polite exchange of ideals. Please limit F-bombs and personal attacks. Sorry you were spamed.

      • I switched names again, and the web info is made up.

        I am having issues posting at certain sites(SUFA included) and have been hacked by stalker weirdos before. I assume it is them again playing their stupid sick games. Whenever I feel I may be being manipulated, I respond with at least some resemblance of erratic behavior.


  9. If anyone is interested in where I have spirited DPM ( Mathius has not looked in his basement lately) to………..This is an area that I have “visited” in my Black Ops days….and really liked it……….

    Lat (4.543570) Long (- 68.049316)

    DMS Lat (4 deg, 32 min, 36.8520 seconds North)
    DMA Long (68 deg, 2 min, 57.5376 seconds West)

  10. Happy Birthday, America and Happy 4th everybody!

    Stirring 1973 ‘The Americans’ Radio Commentary: ‘I Am One Canadian Who Is Damned Tired of Hearing Them Kicked Around’

    By Brent Baker | July 4, 2014 | 10:25
    0 0 Reddit0 0
    A A
    Brent Baker’s picture

    Forty-one years ago, an angry Canadian radio newsman, Gordon Sinclair, inspired many when he took to the airwaves to defend the U.S. and denounce much of the world as ingrates who didn’t appreciate America’s greatness.

    “Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don’t think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around.”

    Sinclair later read aloud his commentary before a video camera, and that’s what you can watch in this YouTube video:

    Audio, MP3 of the original radio commentary.

    When Sinclair passed away in 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan made an observation that certainly still applies today in the Obama era, noting it was not only foreigners “who forgot this nation’s many great achievements, but even critics here at home.” Reagan’s statement:

    I know I speak for all Americans in saying the radio editorial Gordon wrote in 1973 praising the accomplishments of the United States was a wonderful inspiration. It was not only critics abroad who forgot this nation’s many great achievements, but even critics here at home. Gordon Sinclair reminded us to take pride in our nation’s fundamental values.

    A Canadian Communications Foundation page about Sinclair’s commentary recounted how the commentary inspired Reagan:

    8 years after the first broadcast of THE AMERICANS, U.S. President Ronald Reagan made his first official visit to Canada. At the welcoming ceremonies on Parliament Hill, the new President praised “the Canadian journalist who wrote that (tribute)” to the United States when it needed a friend. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had Sinclair flown to Ottawa to be his guest at the reception that evening.

    Sinc had a long and pleasant conversation with Mr. Reagan. The President told him that he had a copy of the record of THE AMERICANS at his California ranch home when he was governor of the state, and played it from time to time when things looked gloomy.

    Wikipedia outlines what prompted the commentary and how it went “viral” for its time:

    On June 5, 1973, following news that the American Red Cross had run out of money as a result of aid efforts for recent natural disasters, Sinclair recorded what would become his most famous radio editorial, “The Americans.” While paying tribute to American success, ingenuity, and generosity to people in need abroad, Sinclair decried that when America faced crisis itself, it often seemed to face that crisis alone.

    At the time, Sinclair considered the piece to be nothing more than one of his usual items. But when U.S. News & World Report published a full transcript, the magazine was flooded with requests for copies. Radio station WWDC-AM in Washington, D.C. started playing a recording of Sinclair’s commentary with Bridge Over Troubled Water playing in the background. Sinclair told the [Totonto] Star in November 1973 that he had received 8,000 letters about his commentary.

    With the strong response generated by the editorial, a recording of Sinclair’s commentary was sold as a single with all profits going to the American Red Cross.

    On this Independence Day, at the suggestion of the MRC’s Rich Noyes, I’m re-posting this commentary which I had highlighted in an MRC CyberAlert, before we launched NewsBusters, a few days after 9/11 and for the July 4th holiday in 2002.

    Below is a reprint of the transcript of Sinclair’s “Let’s Be Personal” commentary, “The Americans,” as aired on CFRB-Radio in Toronto on June 5, 1973. Note that the ellipses are not gaps in the text but denote a radio announcing pause:

    The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

    As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtze. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

    They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help…Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

    The Marshall Plan…the Truman Policy…all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

    I’d like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

    Come on…let’s hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 10? If so, why don’t they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

    You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times…and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them…unless they are breaking Canadian laws…are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

    When the Americans get out of this bind…as they will…who could blame them if they said “the hell with the rest of the world.” Let someone else buy the Israel bonds. Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won’t shake apart in earthquakes.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

    Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don’t think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

    I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

    This year’s disasters…with the year less than half-over…has taken it all and nobody…but nobody…has helped.

    In the age of Airbus, his reference to American domination of the commercial jet industry is a bit dated, but otherwise Sinclair’s rousing affirmation of the USA’s greatness in helping others in the world is just as valid today as it was 41 years ago.

    Read more:

  11. Again. Happy 4th to everyone, even Black Flag who is convinced it was all a plot.

    If anyone missed it last year I’ll link you to the Battle Hymn of the Republic video again. Masterfully done!

    • SK,

      You are badly confused.

      You believe the 1776 revolution is the US you live under today.

      No, sir, that dream died in 1788 and buried forever in 1865.

  12. Almost every day
    I see the same face
    On broken picture tube
    It fits the attitude
    If you could see yourself
    You put you on a shelf
    Your verbal masturbate
    Promise to nauseate
    Today I’ll play the part of non-parent
    Not make a hundred rules
    For you to know about yourself
    Not lie and make you believe
    What’s evil is making love
    and making friends
    and meeting God you’re own way
    The right way

    To see
    To bleed
    Cannot be taught
    In turn
    You’re making us
    Fucking hostile

    We stand alone

    The truth in right and wrong
    The boundaries of the law
    You seem to miss the point
    Arresting for a joint?
    You seem to wonder why
    Hundreds of people die
    You’re writing tickets man
    My mom got jumped — they ran!
    Now I’ll play a public servant
    To serve and protect
    By the law and the state
    I’d bust the punks
    That rape steal and murder
    And leave you be
    If you crossed me
    I’d shake your hand like a man
    Not a god


    Come meet your maker, boy
    Some things you can’t enjoy
    Because of heaven/hell
    A fucking wives’ tale
    They put it in your head
    Then put you in your bed
    He’s watching say your prayers
    Cause God is everywhere
    Now I’ll play a man learning priesthood
    Who’s about to take the ultimate test in life
    I’d question things because I am human
    And call NO ONE my father who’s no closer that a stranger

    I won’t listen

  13. SK,

    Switching Scripts

    Almost all of us were raised to follow a more or less uniform script through our lives. Sometimes it was specifically taught to us, and other times we just absorbed it by watching others. But regardless of how we were trained, there are two primary problems with following this script:

    Following a script is unbecoming to a thinking being and leads in bad directions.
    Such scripts reflect what worked a generation ago, and yesterday is gone.
    We all know the details of the script, of course. It goes more or less like this:

    Do well in school.
    Rebel with music from the entertainment corps.
    Get shoes, clothes, and gadgets with the best corporate logos.
    Get a university degree. (If your family isn’t rich, take student loans.)
    Take a job at a big firm with good benefits.
    Get a loan and buy a house.
    Build a 401(k).
    Believe in democracy.
    Send your children to daycare, then school.
    Buy brand-name goods.
    Watch the best in entertainment.
    Rely on Social Security and Medicare.
    Do these things, and people in authority will approve of you. In fact, nearly everyone from the previous generation will approve of you. After all, you’re following the script that they wrote, back in 1984, a generation ago.

    It No Longer Works
    In 2014, however, this script no longer works. Manufacturing jobs are way down, selfemployment is down, and even the number of military jobs seems to be declining. We all know college grads who can’t find a job, and others who are working at Starbucks… and lucky to get that.

    Poll after poll shows that the Millennial Generation (people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s) have very little expectation of doing better than their parents. The reason for that is obvious: The old script isn’t working. And while the older generation is emotionally committed to the 1984 script, the young generation isn’t. They know they’re being screwed.

    Still, the old script is being promoted in media and by politicians. Almost the entire older generation – or at least those who are televised – do homage to this script, and repetitively.

    What is promoted isn’t working for most of us, and government/corporate promoters will change last of all.

    So, what is to be done?

    Switching Scripts
    The obvious answer to the question above is to switch scripts: to stop doing what no longer works, and start finding things that do work.

    The problem with doing sensible things such as this, however, is that they’re scary.

    Those of us who have gone to traditional schools and grew up surrounded by the televised culture (that is, almost all of us) were taught to stay within the lines and to take part only in things that have been authorized. Venturing outside the borders of the approved seems dangerous to us. That’s for weird people.

    But what we find authorized is the script from the last generation, and that no longer works. So, we can either stay within the lines that were drawn for us, or we can act on our own judgment, go rogue, and work at improving our situations.

    However dangerous leaving the authorized script may feel, it’s the only reasonable path to take. 1984 is gone.

    So, What Is the New Script?
    Obviously, there isn’t one. We have to start creating it ourselves. But if we don’t do this, the only alternative is 1984’s script – the one that worked for the generation that is in power now, and who sees the world through 30 year old lenses.

    Furthermore, the most effective new ways of living won’t be handed to us from some genius authority. They will form by establishing root principles, not by rote. And it will come through many minds and by many examples, not from unified and authorized sources.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      At least this post is not some philosophical debate based on principles which are different for everybody and therefore neither right or wrong. It’s pure cold hard truth and I totally agree.

  14. I really wonder what these two “daddies” are going to tell this precious child when he asks questions about who his mom is-well baby you don’t technically have a traditional mom-we made sure of that-you came from an egg and a rented womb. But don’t worry about it son-we just wanted you so bad that we felt it was okay to INTENTIONALLY deny you a mother. Then of course at some point the kid will want to know which one of these men is his actual biological father. But hey, this is “everything Pride is about”.

    Surrogacy: Expression of Love, or Human Rights Violation?

    by Austin Ruse 3 Jul 2014 11 post a comment
    Buzzfeed ran photos Wednesday of two gay men welcoming their new son who was born from a woman who had rented her uterus to them though not her eggs. Those came from yet another woman.

    Jennifer Lahl, a campaigner against assisted reproductive technologies (ATR), and who has produced several documentaries explaining why, published a story at her Center for Bioethics and Culture Network that ATR had a very bad week.

    A new study shows “a threefold higher risk of hypertension and an even higher risk of pre-eclampsia” among women who use donor eggs to conceive. Yet another study just out from the Journal of Immunology Research shows “egg donation pregnancies are associated with higher incidence of hypertension and placental pathology.” The study also showed an increased “risk of pre-eclampsia in donated sperm…”

    Lahl reports a new study from the University of Copenhagen, the “first large-scale study comparing mental disorders in children born to mothers naturally and to mothers with fertility problems.”

    Finally, Lahl reports on an Australian story that “really nails the corruption of medicine in exchange for profits.” The story says, “Fertility clinics operate in an industry that is capable of exploiting those desperate to have children.” Lahl agrees with the report that “To an IVF business, patients are commercial revenue units as much as people.”

    There is a growing movement to slow the growth of assisted reproductive technologies, something that is completely unregulated in the United States.

    Robert Oscar Lopez, who runs the blog English Manif, is a bi-sexual man raised by lesbians who is vociferous in his opposition to such technology. He calls it a human rights violation that a child may be created intentionally without being able to know his father.

    Alana Newman, who was donor-conceived, calls the method of her conception “humiliating and dehumanizing.” She runs a website dedicated to telling the stories of donor conceived children who agree with her.

    The two gay men featured in Buzzfeed said on Facebook that the pictures from the child’s birth show “everything Pride is about.”

    • And I just gotta ask where are the feminist-where are the so-called woman’s movements that claim to fight against the exploitation of women-if this crap isn’t exploitation-I don’t know what is!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are all the people who supposedly care so much about children-is it considered okay, to basically turn a new born baby into an immediate orphan, so people can buy themselves a child.

      • I know a lot of you think I go overboard about these issues but I find as I learn more and more about the new science that is making all these things possible the angrier I become.

        We are turning babies into products and woman into factory equipment that are used to produce the product. It is just sick and so wrong I just can’t understand how anyone can’t see that-why is it being allowed to happen? How do we stop it?

        • Why do you want to stop it?

          What does this have -even a hair- to do with you?

          Here is something that brings the most valued thing in the known Universe alive, and you condemn it – while at the same time, doesn’t impact you one atom.

          This is where your lack of principles shows up the worse, V.H.

          • Some things simply shouldn’t be a part of the free market BF. But you honestly don’t know that do you. Wow, I find, I’m feeling quite sorry for you at this moment.

            But just for your info. I’m not gonna respond to any more nastiness-so comment or don’t-I don’t really give a damn.

            • Why?
              Why do you believe you can interfere with the freedom of others, especially when it has utterly nothing to do with you

              You simply don’t get it.

              If you can chose when and what freedom you can pervert for others, you lose your own freedoms because others will do the same to you

              • Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”–Abraham Lincoln

                For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
                Nelson Mandela

                We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. ~William Faulkner

                No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck. ~Frederick Douglass, speech, Civil Rights Mass Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1883

            • If you cannot accept the freedom of others, you cannot accept freedom for yourself.
              You doom yourself, and everyone else, to slavery.

              • You do realize BF, that you are arguing that it is okay to sell human being in the market place based on the principals of freedom.

              • It is not selling a human.

                It is a woman renting her own womb.
                I suppose you are against adoption for the same reasons, huh?

                Again it has nothing to do with you.
                No one is harmed.
                No one is affronted (except your ilk).
                No one is has any aggression on them.

                But of of that –you want to do violence on them

                Check your principles, woman.

              • The end product is a human being-Check your own principals.

              • So are your kids.

                Check your principles.

              • Ask yourself,

                Who is forced?
                (no one)

                Who wants to use force?
                (you do)

              • I didn’t buy my kids. I didn’t use a woman as a machine and I didn’t deny them a father or a mother. I didn’t help to pay for a new industry who’s business it is to produce and sell children. I really wonder what happens when the purchasers aren’t satisfied with the product-can they return it-refuse to accept delivery or worse case cancel their order.

              • Yes you did. You paid doctors, etc.

                “I didn’t use a woman as a machine”
                So what?

                “I didn’t deny them a father or a mother.”
                They have a mother and a father. Who is denying them this?

                “I didn’t help to pay for a new industry who’s business it is to produce and sell children”.
                So what?

                “I really wonder what happens when the purchasers aren’t satisfied with the product-can they return it-refuse to accept delivery or worse case cancel their order.”

                I wonder what other mother’s do with children they don’t want. Gee… give them up for adoption.

              • You are making up fantasy stories so to promote real violence on people who have done you no harm.

                Check your principles.

              • You bought your kids by paying doctors

                You are a procreation machine. You made kids.

                You pay an industry whose business is to make kids – you paid doctors, schools, etc.

                And your ilk aren’t satisfied with kids. So do you suggest that people like you should take a test before you procreate?

              • This is why most people will never accept your freedom above all else rhetoric-it opens the door to pure, unadulterated evil.
                But hey “So What?”

              • That is why you are a slave.

                You have no principle other than promoting violence upon those that do you no harm, nor harm anyone.

              • You cannot provide a principle from which to make your assertions, which is why “So what?” is the correct response.

                Show where someone is forcing someone else. You can’t.
                But you want to force someone to follow your bizarre thinking – people who have done you nor anyone any harm.

                And then you wonder why your world is falling apart.

              • No, they are harming a lot of people BF-but you are incapable of seeing that truth because you are insane when it comes to protecting your idea of what freedom means. And evil is okay if stopping it might require telling someone something isn’t allowed even selling children obviously-So please don’t expect me to buy into your freedom arguments anymore because freedom doesn’t mean anything to you or you wouldn’t be able to support the making of children for the express purpose of selling them.

              • “No, they are harming a lot of people”

                Prove it.

              • And as far as my world falling apart-you couldn’t pay me to live in a world you created.

              • Don’t worry.
                Your chains are firm around you.

              • Why bother-you don’t care if they are harming people- per you they have that right.

              • You can’t show harm at all, but you assert it anyway.

                Typical of someone who has no root principle from which to present their position.

              • Not gonna fall for that BS either-your root principal has no morality attached to it-so it can’t be principled-and you are incapable of recognizing the obvious harm that selling children and using woman as machines and intentionally denying children either their mother or father creates. I can’t explain it to you.

                Now I’m done while we are still talking to each other. Hope you had a nice 4th-that is if you celebrate the 4th-which you probably don’t.

              • “Not gonna fall for that BS either”

                No surprise, you have nothing so you won’t fall for reason.
                Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.

                “your root principal has no morality attached to it”

                See, you’re foolish.
                You believe that someone who does no harm has no morals.

                It is you that has no morals – you want to harm those that have done nothing to warrant it.

                I know you can’t explain it, V.H. – that’s the problem

                You’ve got nothing but a tornado in your head – nothing makes sense.

  15. ?

  16. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Just to throw a monkey wrench into this dialog…….why is it illegal to sell one of your spare body parts. Why is it that the medical groups make thousands and the person receiving the part get potentially their life, vision, waste processing and so forth while the donor or family get ZIP, NADA, NIENTE, ZILCH. Why when you check “donor” on your drivers license and you have a fatal accident only the shell of your body is returned to your family. The usable parts are harvested and your heirs receive no compensation. I know the State would argue it’s to prevent suicide to benefit your heirs, or illegal harvesting of parts by thieves, but I take the stand that the medical lobby has created the law to receive their raw materials for free and maximize profits. Economically moral but not ethical for any number of reasons.

    • Dale,

      The question is
      Why shouldn’t be able to sell your body (or its parts)?

      If you cannot, you do not own your body.

      “Economically moral but not ethical for any number of reasons”

      Ethics, without a principle, is slop.

      What is your principle?

  17. Hang in there V. BF is not all that he believes he is. He has contradictions in his morals too. It’s ok for his chosen ‘victims’ to use violence. It’s ok for him to label himself Christian, but to slander God as a ficticious entity. As a Christian, there are commandments, #5 comes to mind. And to his Golden Rule..imagine what baby BF would think about his being created to satisfy the whims of 2 guys.

    …….not even gonna argue with you BF.

    • Thanks Anita-but I’m done talking to BF about this subject-it makes me too angry and anger doesn’t a conversation make 🙂

      • Good.

        Anger means that you that you cannot reconcile your thinking with contrary reasoning. It is your own mind fighting a battle with itself.

    • More nonsense from the fool’s choir.

      There is no contradiction in my principles. You merely assert such empty, pretending the assertion makes the proof.

      “It’s ok for his chosen ‘victims’ to use violence.”
      What victims and violence?

      “It’s ok for him to label himself Christian”

      I am not your Christianity.

      ,”slander God as a ficticious entity”

      I do not believe in your very sick God

      “.imagine what baby BF would think about his being created to satisfy the whims of 2 guys.”

      Imagine what baby Anita and V.H. think about being created to satisfy the whims of your parents.

      “…….not even gonna argue with you BF.”

      You don’t have an argument, so…

  18. Why should people who have not gone through the process of becoming a citizen be able to vote-how do you even know if they are voting based on what they believe is best for this Country-if they have not made that commitment by becoming a citizen. And State legislation is tied to Federal pretty extensively -non citizens should not have that much power to effect our elections. And how does one insure they do not vote in the National elections-or quite frankly would these states even try to stop them.

    Citizenship, Schmitizenship! On the Fourth of July, Multiculturalists Want to Dilute Your Vote
    by Virgil 4 Jul 2014 172 post a comment
    Here’s an interesting headline: “You soon may not need citizenship to vote in the US; just become a New Yorker.”

    Who wrote that headline? And who published it? Some nativist right-winger? No, it’s an article by Ron Hayduk, a professor at Queens College, part of the City University of New York. And his let-them-all-vote article was happily published Friday morning on, which is a part of D.C.-based The Atlantic; that’s as MSM as one can get.

    See, Hayduk and Quartz are all for non-citizens voting. They think it’s a wonderful idea–a wonderful way to celebrate the Fourth of July.

    As Hayduk details, New York City and New York state are actively considering proposals to allow non-citizens to vote:

    Over the last few weeks, New York state has been considering a law to make nearly three million non-citizen residents eligible to vote. A similar piece of legislation soon to be reintroduced to the New York City Council, which actually has a decent shot at passage, would give more than one million legal non-citizen residents the right to vote in local elections.

    And of course, being a liberal himself, Hayduk is not against these proposals. He believes that immigration is good, and so the more, the merrier. As he puts it:

    Non-citizen immigrants work, pay taxes, send their children to schools, start businesses, revitalize neighborhoods, and contribute mightily to the vitality of our communities in countless ways on a daily basis. But they have no formal say over how their taxes are spent. Local voting rights would not only address this taxation without representation but also would strengthen municipal governing institutions by making them responsive and accountable to all, which is after all, the essence of democracy.

    Got that? As soon as people come here, Hayduk says, they should become voters. Forget all that rigamarole of citizenship; just get them to the polls.

    As Judicial Watch pointed out in 2010, it’s already legal for non-citizens to vote in some municipal elections in Illinois, Maryland, and New York. And for years, San Francisco has been pushing the same idea for its elections. And how many other cities around the country will be taking their cues from the progressive trailblazers of San Francisco?

    Indeed, if the multicultural leftists can pull this off in New York, they can also pull it off in California–and a dozen other states, just for starters. Pretty soon, red states would start to tip blue–and who thinks that isn’t the goal? But of course, helping Democrats is only part of the goal. The rest of the goal is the full multiculturalization of the U.S. That is, the best of Latin America, the best of Iraq, the best of Syria–all wrapped up into one European Union-style package.

    So yes, there’s a plan here. Hayduk and woke up the morning of July 4th thinking to themselves, “America needs to change, and so we’ll do our part to change it.”

    This phenomenon–of the illegal immigrant becoming the legal voter–is something to keep in mind as the nation watches the latest wave wash over the U.S.-Mexican border.

    If present trends continue, they will all be voting soon enough.

    • “Why should people who have not gone through the process of becoming a citizen be able to vote-”

      Why should people vote anyway? It is pointless. Like pretending the kid’s steering wheel on the grocery cart actually changes the direction of the cart.

      But the principle this guy fundamentally makes counters your false principle.

      You pretend that by voting, you chose what laws you live under, and you pretend you have a right to chose those laws. These people are equally forced to live under those laws. Why do you bend your principles to declare that these people cannot equally chose those laws too?

      In other words, you merely mouth the Principle of “Democracy”, while want to act to destroy your own principle.

      Typical confusion of yours, V.H.

      • Because I’m not willing to risk the sovereignty of this Country or it’s citizens based on the fact that people were granted the privilege to come here-and that’s what they have BF a privilege -not a right.

        • So you do not believe in Democracy at all, then.

          • And just how do you come to this conclusion?

            • Your own words.

              “granted the privilege to come here-and that’s what they have BF a privilege -not a right.”

              You deny the vote to those that you do not like for whatever reason you chose.

              • Nope, I deny them the vote based on the fact that they are not citizens.

              • Exactly what I said – you deny vote to people, hence you do not believe in Democracy.

              • Think, V.H.

                If the vote denial was because of gender, is it a democracy?
                If the vote was only a privileged of wealth, is it a democracy?
                If the vote was only a privilege of lettered people, is it a democracy?

                Do you believe the act of merely voting makes a democracy?

              • There you go again trying to make things equivalent that just aren’t. Now I really have to get ready to go to work.

              • Oh dear.

                You do not know what democracy is.

              • Of course they are.

                They are all “rules” of who gets to vote or not – no more or less your rules.

                But because you have no sense about what you proclaim, you cannot make a case to why your rule is “the right one” and other rules are not.

  19. I haven’t read much about Ukraine lately-what’s going on there?

  20. Facebook is having to apologize for treating it’s customers like they are lab rats-something I doubt will stop-anybody see a problem with this?

    • No, just quit using Facebook.

      • Read an article where the man’s fix for this problem was to not allow Facebook to run companies like Facebook-to turn them over to the government -Oy vey

        • People, after generations of rote learning, have nothing in their mind other then “government” as a tool to “fix a problem”.

          They believe that government action “must be good” and does not have defects. If such action fails to solve a problem, it was not the action being wrong, but “simple mistakes in exercise” by the government creatures – thus, one merely needs to change the creatures in government, and that will fix the action.

          No different then your belief, V.H.

          • All actions are not equivalent in my world.

            • They aren’t – but by what principle do you use to sort them?

              • Freedom and moral responsibility. I find the two work together quite well with my core principle “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

                In this example-facebook should have the right to improve their services but they have a responsibility to respect the privacy of their customers so they should have to clearly state their policies so their customers know what is being done.

                But on the basis of common sense and the fact that Facebook will continue doing what they have been doing-people should just not use Facebook if they do not want to be manipulated.

                Now I know you are fixin to go batcrap crazy-so enjoy-I unfortunately have to go to work.

              • “Freedom and moral responsibility. I find the two work together quite well with my core principle “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.”

                They do, if you know what that means.
                It means if you exercise freedom, the consequences are yours to carry, not someone else.

                It does not mean that you impose upon another merely because you do not like how people exercise their freedom.

                If that is your core principle, you violate it constantly – that is why I pound on you, V.H., you contradict yourself.

                You do not want others telling you what to do with their lives, but you have no problem demanding on others to follow your life.

                “In this example-facebook should have the right to improve their services but they have a responsibility to respect the privacy of their customers so they should have to clearly state their policies so their customers know what is being done.”

                They have no such responsibility, nor duty to do so. That is your error. You pretend that simply because you may use their services, that they are beholden to you. Not at all.

                Your recourse is to stop using their service. That is how you enforce responsibility upon them – remove your business – not demand some “power” be used to “force” their compliance to your whim.

  21. Time to reiterate; The Philosophy of Liberty

    • Very good, however, I do not agree with including “Fraud”

      Fraud cannot exist without consent. If you give under a pretext, you still give. To deny this denies that man can reason and think and make his own decisions. It matters not if he makes a bad decision – he still made it.

      It matters not if he made a decision with incomplete information, he still made it. It was his choice to exercise in ignorance. To deny this choice was valid, denies a man can make bad choices.

      The inclusion of fraud as a claim to demand violent redress is fraught with contradiction

      • I disagree with the notion that fraud is acceptable pending the responsibility of the victim, but do not necessarily argue that responsibility is wavered.

        Fraud is counter-intuitive, antithetic of truth peace love and righteousness, and serves as a means to violate. It is a tool, a weapon, and is selfish and evil from it’s very core.

        There is nothing right about wrong. Nor do two wrongs(irresponsibility and fraud) make a right. There is nothing good to come from a fraudulent situation.

        Truth should be valued and fraudulence rectified.

        • Who determines what is “truth”? Who determines “beauty”? Who determines “love”?

          Is the search for this “truth/beauty/love” sufficient reason to do violence on non-violent people?

          If so, who determines the extent of this violence; how much violence is “right”?

          What good comes of it? You are smarter the next time. Education is valuable, and the next affair engaged will be exercised with greater care and more information.

          Interrupting this education -learned the hard way- merely promotes more ignorance and less caution. It takes no brains to club another man in attempt to repair your own ignorance.

        • Truth is very valuable, and fraud is rectified.

          Those that exercise truth in their dealings will be sought after by other righteous men. Those that do honest business tend to prosper.

          Those that exercise fraud in their dealings will only find other fraudsters to do business with – righteous men will avoid frauds, leaving only fraudsters to each other. Eventually, even fraudsters avoid fraudsters.
          Those that tend to do dishonest business tend to starve.

          • …more.

            When this natural operation of free men is interrupted by violence and force, different lessons are learned.

            The arcane rules of violence to correct fraud allow fraud to proliferate. Fraudsters use alternative means of “government” violence to conceal their fraud – using “corporations” and their limited liability to deflect the recourse of others using “government” violence to correct the fraud.

            Fraudsters abandon their corporations – empty shells – to disposal. The victims get very limited compensation, the system presents “resolution” and pretends “all is now well”. The fraudster starts up again, and repeats with little risk.

            The victims, who rely on this government solution, sit back and let the “government” parse between right and wrong. The victims abdicate their own responsibility.

            The consequence; an increase in fraud – but a fraud that is “legal”.

            • …and more.

              The complaint of the natural operation of free men is often made “…but that will slow down commerce..” since there is time necessary to do the extensive due diligence.

              In a “government” violence system, this time is aborted with the idea “government” does the work, hence, everyone who enters this system is argued to have “…the knowledge that such limits to liability puts them at some risk…” but that the government by its laws mitigates this risk.

              But it does not, because government does no due diligence. It takes nothing of note from a man to make a corporation – it is often less then a 30 minute set of paperwork.

              With no diligence, and a faith in compensation (that, itself, is minor and mitigated) people abandon and abdicate their own responsibility to the system.

              Yes, transaction happen faster – but so does the fraud.

              It appears that common society is willing to accept the fraud for the faster rate of transaction – they are merely lucky that most businesses are, indeed, mostly honest.

            • A glowing example of abdicating one’s own responsibility and trusting the State to fix it.

              The State did no diligence on the person registering the deed. These people trusted the State to do such diligence.

              With no surprise, their trust was misguided.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Seems to me that Global Warming is an outright fraud, which we will all be victims if the Liberals get their way.

  22. V.H. and Anita, and others

    Nobel-laureate colleague James M. Buchanan‘s 2005 book, “Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative: The Normative Vision of Classical Liberalism” it is a truth that is sadly and dangerously ignored by many people – for example, by those who rightfully get morally indignant at the prospect of government intruding into their bedrooms, but who simultaneously also demand that government force others to interfere in someone else’s bedroom;

    Equal liberty is a two-way street.

    A person might be quite firm in a commitment involving attempts by others to impose their values; freedom from coercion is a quasi-universal desire.

    But a willingness to refrain from imposing one’s own values on others is a less recognized and surely less widely accepted commitment that is also essential.

    ’Don’t tell me what to do’ and ‘Do what I say’ – these are not compatible admonitions.

  23. Dos anyone know how much damage a 7 lb buzzard can do to the left wing leading edge of a Baron 58 at 205 knots? Does anyone know how much paperwork you have to fill out to the FAA when a bird strike occurs? Does anyone know how much paperwork has to be filled out when an inflight emergency is declared because the damage is extensive enough to cause low wing stall issues? Does anyone know how much paperwork and reports have to filled out when an inflight emergency is declared and the airways have to be cleared of all aircraft, commercial included, so the damaged plane can land quickly and safely?

    Answer: A SHIT POT FULL !!!

    Now, even PETA will probably be involved because I was in its airspace instead of the other way around.

    Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    • Once, taking a hop with the Dutch Air force (who love flying fast and low), we struck a bird.

      I was in the back taking in the experience, when over the radio a “Mayday” was announced.

      I looked around at the squadron to see which one, but saw nothing. As the squadron returned to base, the rest of the planes (who were actually guiding us in) peeled away as we approached landing – and I saw the emergency vehicles… they were for us!

      We landed safely – excellent pilot – who was badly injured as the bird penetrated the canopy and hit the pilot square in the visor. I didn’t know anything was wrong until I saw the runway.

      • Yup….I had to hit a hard right to avoid a canopy collision….but the resulting damage to the wing was enough to dictate an in flight emergency due to shuddering of the aircraft and loss of airflow over the end of the wing directly in front of the left aileron. It required shallow turns to the right and an approach speed 20 kts higher than normal to maintain proper lift, even with full flaps. No injuries except to the left wing and the buzzard did not fare very well.


    Stirring commentary to be noted, for what I do not know.

  25. Just found this interesting-course people died a lot younger then.

    Overnight Open Thread (7-6-2014)

    How Old Were the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776?

    We tend to always think of them of them as old men based mainly on portraits made later in their lives but in 1776 they were surprisingly young. But then revolution has always been a young man’s game.

    Marquis de Lafayette, 18
    James Monroe, 18
    Gilbert Stuart, 20
    Aaron Burr, 20
    Alexander Hamilton, 21
    Betsy Ross, 24
    James Madison, 25
    John Paul Jones, 28
    Thomas Jefferson, 33
    Thomas Paine, 39
    John Adams, 40
    Paul Revere, 41
    George Washington, 44
    Samuel Adams, 53

    Benjamin Franklin was the old man of the revolutionaries at 70 years old.

  26. Nope, couldn’t stay there-I would end up with another dog.

    Travel Thread: Going to the Dogs [Y-not]
    —Open Blogger

    Yesterday on Twitter this article from Today crossed my timeline:

    Fluffy pillows might make hotel guests feel welcome, but sometimes face time with a floppy-eared mutt is what a road warrior might be craving.

    That’s why the Red Mountain Resort in St. George, Utah, offers the Pound Puppy Hike, a complimentary amenity that matches guests with a puppy or dog from a local shelter for hikes on scenic trails in the area. “We know that busy executives are visiting the property to recharge and disconnect yet stay active and not sit around,” said resort general manager Tracey Welsh.

    Seems like a neat idea.

  27. Well, well, well……you will never guess what we found on a 15 year old Guatemalan child this morning…

    100 Raptor points for a correct guess…..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Illegal drugs?

    • Vial full of disease? Directions to EBT office?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A book entitled “How to Take Black Flag’s Job with Low Wage Workers”

        • Gman,

          You are funny, because you do not understand economics.

          No one is “taking my job”.

          First, its not my job. It is my employer’s job. He owns the job, and I own my talent.

          Second, this job is highly skilled, and very few people are capable in doing it. Hence, by the law of supply and demand, the offered wage is high.

          Third, IF another can do my job cheaper for the same quality, it is economically beneficial for society that my employer take him in lieu of myself. The signal to me is multiform:
          1 – need to be more productive at my price, bringing more value to the employer
          2 – need to lower my price, bringing more value to the employer
          3 – seek another opportunity that has scarce labor supply, bringing more value to the new employer

          Because you do not understand that in a free market, the consumer is King, and you, instead, hold that the market requires that the producer is King, you invert your thinking that the consumer must overpay for his goods so that the producer benefits.

          Get you head straight on what you are demanding.

      • EBT office….good guess…nope

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Obama wants amnesty so HE can be a citizen too! 😀

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    What a fine mess these immigrants are stirring up. Over a quarter million since April (according to some sources), many with disease’s that are unique to their home countries.

    So let me ask, who is expected to pay for all of this? Who is going to take care of these kids, pay for their healthcare and schooling? WHO? I have no problem with immigration, but there should come a time when the good that immigrants bring reverses into a bad, then what? Do we demand all immigration laws be revoked and be the only country on planet earth with no immigration laws? Do we continue to be silent at the humanitarian issue that has been perpetrated by the Obama administration?

    Here’s my short term answer, let them stay and let registered Dems get taxed to pay for all of it. No more taxes for anyone other than the Democrats (then watch how fast they change their tune on the subject). What a sorry assed bunch of losers to use poor kids as their pawns for political reasons, totally sickening!

    • Only in the minds of terribly twisted people can the existence of free men seeking work be a threat.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t think that 50K kids are looking for work, but you keep on believing that and when they grow up you will be right 😀

        • Gman,

          No, they are looking for a better life.

          The lessons “you” -the ilk that is anti-immigration- is a better life is gained by state violence.

          Be wary of the lessons you teach the youth.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I’m not anti-immigration at all. Seems I’ve said that before like, a hundred times or so. Current events are contrived by the government, that much has been proven and admitted.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I would agree that many of the current wave of immigrants want a better life, which is cool with me. There are other issues that need to be dealt with, as in who is going to pay for their care (the kids), their schooling (which public schools are mostly pathetic now), and their healthcare (as many are coming here sick).

              I don’t care how many come here, as long as they can take care of themselves, that’s the big rub here, most can’t. Kids under age can’t work. Obama want’s more money from the people, the States want more from the people too take care of this issue. I don’t want to give any more money to the thieves in government who have caused this problem, none, zero, nada.

              • Gman,

                It is grave evil to argue for more evil to repair the damage of previous evil.

                Individual charity, which outweighs State welfare by 100x or more, is more then able to care for them. They are however prevented by law. Heck, local charity groups cannot feed the homeless on the street as it is unlawful.

                Eliminate the root evil, and everything naturally takes care of itself.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Eliminate the root evil, and everything naturally takes care of itself. I agree, except….

                The government ain’t going away anytime soon and the problems exist today, not a hundred years from today. While your proposed solutions would work, they ain’t gonna happen, so why keep repeating the same non-existent solution that isn’t going to happen? That solves nothing, but it’s a great way of living in a future Utopia that is not likely to ever occur.

              • Gman,

                Your argument is “but evil is here, therefore, let’s continue to use it”.


                You first stop demanding government “solve the problem”. It is not whether government is here or not, it is stop using it as your tool, no matter what.

                You do not stop evil by declaring you can’t stop evil.

                You stop evil by stopping your support of it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That is not my argument, you just keep repeating the same old stuff, that, with my support and your support removed, shit will change. Hogwash. Put on your Ruby slippers, click your heals together 3 times and repeat 3 times, government go away, government go away, government go away. I tried, they are still there, just as they will be tomorrow. A few people removing support changes nothing, not when we live in a country where tens of millions think government is the answer. I don’t want government in my life either Flag, but that is not an option today. is it? Is it an option today? Please answer this one simple question can we can have a nice chat about the reality of this world, not the utopia you want so much (I would love it too).

  29. We shall see what happens…there is to be a conference call this afternoon and I am supposed to be in on it. I do not know whom with yet.

  30. For those that see a Collapse coming, here is what it will look like

    (re-post of someone’s excellent blog)

    At the age of 72, I look back at my life, and I ask a question: “What was the most significant event of my lifetime?”

    I go back and forth between two events, but in fact they were the same event. The first was the decision of Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to begin to remove economic controls over agriculture in China. That led to the greatest period of economic growth over the largest area in the history of man.

    The second was the collapse of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in late August 1991. This was followed by the decision of the Soviet government to shut down the Soviet Union in the final week of 1991. This was the largest empire in history geographically. The Russian component spanned 11 time zones. Through its satellite nations, it extended into Western Europe. It had been in operation for over 70 years. It had the most extensive system of control over thought and activities of any large society in the history of man. Yet, in one week, without any bloodshed, the leaders of the USSR simply abandoned it. Nothing like this had ever happened before.

    Those of us who lived through it could barely appreciate the magnitude of it.
    That is because it was bloodless.
    There was almost no warning.

    The West had been involved in a great competition between the two systems from 1946 until 1991. Then, without warning, that competition ended. It caught Russians by surprise. It caught Westerners by surprise.

    Communist China and Communist Russia were loosely connected by ideology.

    Each system was far more rigorous than anything in the West. The West was committed to a vague faith in democracy as a political system, but with all kinds of economic opinions and religious opinions tolerated or promoted.

    The Communists were very different. They had a consistent ideology.

    It involved a specific view of God, man, law, causation, and the future. There was no toleration of supernatural religion. There was no official toleration of capitalism, although the black market was always allowed to exist, because without the black market, both systems would have completely collapsed. There was a name for it in the USSR: “blat.” There was also a phrase: “Blat is higher than Stalin.”

    Yet for all of the centralization, for all of the tyranny, and for all of the interference with civil liberties, both systems ended.

    They did not end with a bang.
    They ended with a whimper.

    There was no collapse of society.

    The Chinese economy began to boom almost immediately in 1980.

    The Russian economy did go through some withdrawal pains, and these lasted for about 10 years. But it has recovered remarkably.

    Today, Russia is the dashboard camcorder capital of the world. When we watch YouTube videos of spectacular car crashes, a large percentage of them took place in Russia.

    From the standpoint of general economic theory, the breakdown of both the Soviet Union and Red China was inevitable. In the case of China, there was no societal collapse, because the economy was so poverty-stricken in 1979 that the reform instituted by Deng Xiaoping could not possibly have collapsed it.

    In the case of the Soviet Union, which was a far more advanced economy, and which had been copying Western prices for half a century, just as Mises said socialist planners would have to do, the transition was more painful economically. But it was a major recession, not a collapse of society.

    In Ernest Hemmingway’s novel, The Sun Also Rises (1926), we read this:

    “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.”Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

    That was what happened in the Soviet Union. It was bankrupt morally and spiritually from the October Revolution of 1917. But it took 74 years for the implications of that bankruptcy to play out.


    What are the lessons of all this?

    First, there is a science of economics. Mises understood this. His critics did not. His critics were legion. But his assessment in 1920, three years after the October Revolution, proved to be accurate in Red China and the USSR.

    Second, the inevitable economic failures of socialist societies gives time to prepare.

    There was no conflagration.

    Their societies did not fail.

    One of them simply folded up shop and disappeared. T

    The other adopted Western policies of central bank financing, mercantilism, and Keynesian bubble inflation. It is crony capitalism on a massive scale. Its bubbles will pop. Be patient.

    Communism lost.

    Keynesianism has not yet lost. Give it time.

    There need not be a social collapse in order to make possible a transition to a non-Keynesian economy. It is possible for the system to go belly-up at the top, yet not bring down the social order. We have seen this twice since 1979.

    The United States government will go bust at some point. It will default. It will break its promises. At that point, the voters will get a lesson in economics and civics.

    It is our task to prepare the educational materials required to make the case for liberty when Washington’s checks bounce.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Nice post, but like all predictions of future events, it will likely be it’s own animal and events will be like this and like that and totally different than all of them. We have a huge welfare class that will go batshit crazy when the cookies stop coming. I doubt they will just die quietly, it’s not in their nature. Barbarians will be …..barbarians, or maybe zombies 🙂

      • Russia and China had an order of magnitude more of a “welfare class”, and they did not.

        It is true that the future is uncertain, it is might be true that the examples of Socialist collapse in the 20th century, instead of a precognition of the US future was merely the anomaly.

        However, they are the examples of recent history whereas the French Revolution is an example of ancient history.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Gee, now why isn’t this a shock……

    “In another indicator of how low a priority veterans have with this administration, a whistleblower in Atlanta has revealed that VA employees were switched from processing VA applications to those of the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.

  32. Thank you Texas……all bills are paid and a surplus of $8 billion. No State income taxes and no increase in property taxes.

  33. Moral dumbfounding

    Most of us have strong opinions on issues like cannibalism and incest, with the majority of us considering them to be morally wrong.

    However, researchers have found that, when asked about these issues, most people’s brains sit there sluggishly, unable to come up with an appropriate response, even though the behaviors in question are considered taboo by most modern societies. T

    his phenomenon is termed moral dumbfounding—quite simply, the subjects were “struck dumb” and unable to properly explain why they felt so strongly about an issue.

    One of the scenarios described someone working with a body that was going to be cremated anyway and taking a small chunk of flesh home with her to eat. She made sure to cook it thoroughly to remove any diseases.

    Another told of an adult brother and sister who were on vacation and decided to get freaky, making sure they used protection.

    The participants were asked if what these people had done was wrong, then asked to explain why.

    The researchers found that people felt very strongly that these behaviors were morally wrong, but struggled mightily to verbalize their reasoning.

    Research has not yet explained why this response occurs.

    It may be that society’s taboos are simply ingrained into our consciousness so deeply that we feel a powerful moral drive against them even though we cannot logically explain why.


    People do not take the time to actually understand their root principles which is necessary to verbalize any logic or reasoning behind their beliefs, and thus, lazily, accept the rote teachings of authorities without nary a thought.

    For most things, this process is fine. One really doesn’t have to spend a day reasoning out why murder is wrong.

    But other things, this process is dangerous. The same “lazy” thinking that doesn’t reason out murder, equally does not reason out why these same people accept State murder.

    Both are provided by rote, both are “unprocessed”, and both accepted by rote.
    One enhances life, the other destroys life – yet this contradiction is unresolved, and people get all dumbfounded trying to argue the former is fine whilst its contradiction is fine.

    • LOL….you are really trying to get a debate going on this one……

      • Actually, just reading some interesting things about physiological mental quirks – quite interesting, like “Earworms” (songs that go over and over in your head), false memories, etc.

    • So out of curiosity BF, where do you stand on the two scenarios presented?

      • Beef is beef. Cook it, eat it…….but wait until you are hungry. Interesting question Buck, although I am not BF…..but I never would have even thought of eating a dog…I mean, come on….eating Lassie? But when I had dog stew in South East Asia, it was quite tasty and I would eat it again…, do not bring your dog to my house.. 🙂

        • Me? I’d eat a dog…

          Strange, as I type this my dog just jumped off my lap and ran to the other room…no joke.

      • The cannibal;
        It was not his to take. Immoral.

        Their bodies, their desires, their choice. Moral.

        • Much as I expected.

          I would assume then that you do not find the act of eating human in and of itself immoral, correct?

          • Do you chew your finger nails? Swallow your own spit?

            • You always have the need to parse every single word. You know I meant eating another human.

              • No, YOU self-define the eating of human tissue, etc. to be different depending on what human produced the tissue.

                Eating yourself is ok.
                Eating someone else is not ok.

                Why? They are both humans

                So what is the difference?
                You own yourself.
                You do not own the other person.

          • Cannibalism is a violation of property rights, Buck. When you eat the body of someone else, it is not your body. That is why it is immoral.

            The act of “eating” is a human requirement of life. So that part cannot be the immoral part.

            Eating meat is an appropriate food. So that part cannot be the immoral part.

            We eat everything that is possibly edible on earth.
            So that part cannot be the immoral part.

            So what part can possibly be immoral, after you remove the act of eating, meat, and edibility?


            • Surely you can conjure a situation where consent is given.

              Also, at death, how can one still own their body?

              • Buck,
                “Also, at death, how can one still own their body?”
                So you do not believe a person who is dead has no right to dispose of his property by his wishes. Thus, I guess you believe “Wills” are empty. Strange idea from a lawyer.

                Yes, you still own your body whether or not you have any care to its disposal. Whether others respect your property right is another matter – a matter that concerns the living as well.

                If there is consent, why not?
                Just because in your head, you find such a thing disgusting for no reason you can actually articulate does not make such a thing “immoral”.

                Look, we abhor the thought that a person would cut off their arm and eat it – because we recognize the permanent disability the lack of an arm will cause that person as measured against a temporary satisfaction of hunger.

                We sense the great disability incurred does not equal the temporary solution.

                If we, magically, would grow back that arm, then we would be unlikely to make the same judgement.

              • That is why “chewing your finger nails” is not seen to be the same issue as chewing your arm off.

              • And consider, Buck, that even in the West, eating the placenta is a recognized event.

                “Eating your placenta, or afterbirth, is called placentophagy” – cannibalism in action, but why is this acceptable, Buck?

                Go back to my posts to figure out why.

              • Actually your estate would own your body. Trust me I know and understand the difference. I specialize in estate planning.

                On the consent issue I am making no judgment here ut inquiring of your position – after all you were the one to write that eating another is per se immoral.

              • …more about eating an arm…

                Yet, if the same man chewed of his arm so to save his life – say, he was pinned under a rock he could not move, we are not horrified by his act – we say “Wow, that was major gutsy and brave”.


                Because here we measure the permanent disability vs the permanent death and calculate the former is worth it considering the alternative.

              • He still owns his estate, Buck. That is the essence of the law.

                His body is property. The property is accumulated in the Estate. His wishes on the disposal of his PROPERTY – the Estate – is his right.

              • Legal distinction here that does matter.

                He cannot own anything, he is dead. His estate, a SEPARATE legal entity, owns his property at the moment of death. A will is a legal document that enables an individual to direct the disposition of his property from the estate, but this does not mean the dead owns the property.

              • Buck,

                First, I care not about your “legal” distinction. Yours is artificial.

                In Common Law, the property -all of it- remains his.
                Further, since he is no longer in need of such property, since property exists for the support of his life, which now is unnecessary, the property is disposed of to those that still need property to live. But it is still his property because his RIGHT of USE is recognized.

                Ownership is determine by command of the property.
                His commands, even after death, is recognized.

              • I could care less that the distinction is irrelevant to you. As a matter of law the distinction remains.

                By the way, here I am, mostly agreeing with you and trying to get some clarification on your position, and you still feel the need to obfuscate!

              • I do not obfuscate. Exactly opposite – as a radical, I pull to “the roots of the issue”.

              • One more story -adjacent- to this discussion between “permanent” and “temporary” as the root of the “self-cannibalism” theory.

                “The Leningrad seedbank was diligently preserved through the 28-month Siege of Leningrad. While the Soviets had ordered the evacuation of art from the Hermitage, they had not evacuated the 250,000 samples of seeds, roots, and fruits stored in what was then the world’s largest seedbank. So a group of scientists at the Vavilov Institute boxed up a cross section of seeds, moved them to the basement, and took shifts protecting them. Those guarding the seedbank refused to eat its contents, even though by the end of the siege in the spring of 1944, nine of them had died of starvation”

                These incredibly brave men knew the permanent loss of the seed bank to solve the temporary hunger (even though it wasn’t so temporary) gave them moral strength to resist in consuming the food.

              • Buck,

                One more concept to roll in your brain.

                Why is “grave robbery” ‘illegal’ (ie: wrong).

                If, by your ideology, the dead have no property, why is the taking of the goods present with the dead “wrong”? Since the dead do not own it, is it not -by your ideology- free for the taking?

                The Estate does not own the grave. After the Estate is dismissed after redistribution by Will (or failing a lack of a Will, by decree) it no longer exists.

                So why is “grave robbery” a crime, if – by your claim – the property is un-owned?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                While I like to eat meat, eating people meat is repulsive. Sharks and alligators may like it, but I’ll go Vegan before I follow in their footsteps 🙂

              • Gman
                “eating people meat is repulsive”

                The thread here is to discover “why” you feel that way.

  34. Now, my turn.

    ” Corporations are impossible without people, and people do well when corporations hire them and prosperity spreads from the boardroom to the lunchroom.”

    • “Corporations are impossible without people”

      That is an utterly pointless and stupid comment. All things that are human abstractions are impossible without people.

      This is like saying “without air to breath, going to a movie will be impossible”. Well, duh.

      So, building an argument with a wholly empty and pointless statement, is a fallacy.

      People do not need a corporation to hire them. I can hire people, corporation is unnecessary for hiring to occur.

      Corporations are impossible without government writ.

  35. “The alternative of jailing them for months or years is an expense cities & counties cannot afford. But imagine if you or I were to abandon our children. What the consequences for us would be…But when it’s done by illegal immigrants, our governments response?”

    So, what would you have us do with them? Put them in the jails you claim we can’t afford? Or maybe shoot them? Or do you intend to keep the military/police, etc., stretched arm to arm across the southern border of the United States to keep them from coming in? Maybe use high technology to make sure they’re not tunneling their way into the good old US&A.

    It seems to me the ONLY people with a legitimate claim about illegal aliens are native Americans … but if you’re an Ayn Rander, you probably can’t accept that.

    So, outside of crying about it, what do you suggest?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I suggest we give them New Jersey 🙂 All of it!

      • 🙂 It’s too corrupt, G! Nobody wants NJ …

        I’m curious about BF’s opinion on Rand’s comments on Native Americans.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I always thought she was a bit of a kook 🙂

        • Gman, she was no kook, but foible like any human.

          Charlie, nope, I’m not a “Randian” though many of her arguments on many topics are strong and consistent.

          Her’s vis a vi natives is not coherent with her other arguments.

          Whereas in other areas, Rand discards “legal” recourse as a reason for a certain immoral action, she plies that recourse as a reason for such actions against the Natives.

          Creating a circumstance under some legal doctrine that “this groups” adheres to, thus, arguing that “other group” does not follow it, therefore, “this group” has the right of exercise over said “other group” due to the lack of the same “legal” doctrine strains reason.

          Charlie, as you know, I’ve always been a supporter of Native rights. Further, they did sign treaties. Further, many of those treaties were made under duress. Further, those treaties were broken, not by natives, but by the other party. It is an unholy mess.

          If I was the “government”, it would be solved in a day. And the next day I would be assassinated by “white people” who suddenly lost billions of dollars in land claims.

          • Refer to Canada, where -shockingly- the Supreme court sided with the Natives. The “whites” are reeling – not only did “white guys” side with the natives, but the economic “loss” (artificial as it was theft) is substantial – but not fatal.

            Fortunately, unlike the US, most of Canada is uninhabited. The “white” guys will recover just fine. Sadly, as you stated, it was more of a matter of “we can afford to be righteous”. Had the territory been substantial, like New York, I do not doubt the verdict would be very different.

            • Canadian example of “we can afford it or not”.

              Whereas the recent court case was successful for those natives, another native claim – which is utterly correct under treaty lays claim to most of the Canadian city of Vancouver.

              That one, with no surprise, didn’t even get a hearing.

              • PS: That tribe lives under a small section of land under the “Lion’s Gate Bridge” – the only part of their land that hasn’t been appropriated…. and, sadly, one of the poorest sections of the a city that is so wealthy that the average price for a small home approaches $1 million

          • Good answer, BF. We agree again. Oy vey …

            • Indeed, Charlie, we do agree.

              The deprivations upon the Natives of this land is a horrible testament to “western culture”.

            • Further, what is so sick about her argument is that even when the Natives followed the imposed legal doctrine, they were still screwed over, that legal doctrine ignored at a whim.

              In my opinion, it is the most clear-cut and serious abuse of a people on this planet. Yes, others were simply slaughtered into submission (oh, wait, they were).

              One seizes their land because they “do not have our legal system”; then they accept that legal system, even though by duress; then, that system is pushed aside at any time on a whim.

              If I was an Native, I’d be over-the-top angry.

              No surprise, they are.

              What surprises me is their constraint on revenge. That, alone, demonstrates how morally strong they really are.

              They truly are the “Palestinians” of America, but unlike the Palestinians, have restrained themselves of violent revenge and recourse. They, if they wanted, could set aflame the entire continent but with such profound patience, generation after generation, continue to fight for their true rights without firing rockets into the cities.

              They are truly admirable as a people.

              • Here is a native, staring down a solider.

                Most white people see the solider as the hero, enforcing “white” doctrine without fear, and see the native warrior as the villain.

                But in fact, the native warrior is the hero.

                The native has no army. He has no air force. He has no artillery. He has no tanks. He has no body armor, heavy machine guns, mortars….

                Behind him is more men like him – just flesh and blood.

                Behind the solider is an air force, tanks, mortars, artillery, heavy machine guns….
                It is easy to be a brave solider, knowing if the flesh and blood in front of you fires a shot, he and all his comrades will be wiped out in 20 minutes.

                The picture, a solider with helmet, body armor, the best modern weapons, supplies and an endless level of firepower behind him. The native, with a cloth hat, cloth shirt and a gun with but one clip to defend himself.

                Who is the brave one?

              • Pte. Patrick Cloutier, a ‘Van Doo’ perimeter sentry, and Mohawk Warrior Brad Larocque, a University of Saskatchewan economics student, face off during the Oka Crisis.

              • “The Mohawk people, in accordance with the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, asked the women, the caretakers of the land and “progenitors of the nation”, whether or not the arsenal which the warriors had amassed should remain. The women of the Mohawk Nation decided that the weapons should only be used if the SQ fired on the barricade and to use them as defensively as possible.”

                And these savages have no principles???

                To ask the mothers of their nation permission to fight and how to fight…. if such a doctrine was accepted by the West, how many wars would not happen….

              • On August 29, at the Mercier Bridge blockade, the Mohawks negotiated an end to their protest with Lieutenant-Colonel Robin Gagnon, the ‘Van Doo’ commander responsible for monitoring the blockades along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River west of Montreal. This action further resulted in the resolution of the original siege on the Kahnawake reserve.

                Mohawks at Oka, however, felt betrayed at the loss of their most effective bargaining chip in the Mercier Bridge: once traffic began flowing again, the Quebec government rejected further negotiations pursuant to their original dispute concerning the Oka golf course expansion.

              • The Chief of the Defence Staff, General John de Chastelain, placed Quebec-based troops in support of the provincial authorities; some 2,500 regular and reserve troops from the 34 and 35 Canadian Brigade Groups and 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group were put on notice.

                On August 20, a company of the Royal 22e Régiment, led by Major Alain Tremblay, took over three barricades and arrived at the final blockade leading to the disputed area. There, they reduced the stretch of no man’s land, originally implemented by the Sûreté du Québec before the barricade at the Pines, from 1.5 kilometers to 5 meters.

                Additional troops and mechanized equipment mobilized at staging areas around Montreal, while reconnaissance aircraft staged air photo missions over Mohawk territory to gather intelligence

  36. In case you don’t know it (her famous (infamous, really) quote): “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.” * Source: “Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974”

    So, what’s up with that quote? It’s okay to conquer (that evil word has sooooo many violent connotations) for your own betterment? Only the strongest survive? Answers, boyeeeeeees, I’m waiting … 🙂

  37. D13 – Conference call results?

    • Results were two fold……first, was the secret service assessment on the POTUS visit and that they deemed the border unsafe for a Presidential visit. Also, the VIP TFR around Austin. ( a 35 mile flight restriction around Austin….meaning no flights in or out of that area ).

      Secondly, a reiteration of the fact that ANY documentation, photographs, or interviews concerning the current issues at the border must go through a clearing house prior. Failure to do so will result in fines or incarceration ( their words ) and revocation of FCC licensing for media that publishes said material.

      Welcome to Nazi Germany.

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    Chicago is worse than Afghanistan:

    The answer lies with the political ideology of the Left:

    Chicago lost its legal battle to keep gun stores out of the city, and now it must pick up the tab for nearly $1 million in legal fees that the winners spent on the case.

    U.S. District Judge Edward E. Chang said in a one-page ruling Thursday that he found fees associated with the lawsuit filed in 2010 by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers “reasonable.” Chang, who in January declared Chicago’s decades-old ban on gun stores unconstitutional, ordered the city to pay attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $940,000….


  39. I don’t even know what to say. Fined for releasing soot and littering?? Dude better watch his back, that’s about all I can come up with. That and he looks like David Axelrod.

    Detroit man admits to burning Qurans in Dearborn

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Other than he needs psych treatment, he’s pissed at getting ripped off. Is it not better to burn a book versus blowing up a Mosque? If he owns the books, so what.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    I have heard that this is written into the ACA. Coming to America courtesy of the Democrats, and only the Democrats:

  41. Gotta hand it to the North Dakota Governor….Jack Dalrymple, says Texas has it right….a great tax structure, a sound energy policy, and a resource management philosophy that is second to none.

    ” I copied the Texas model and we are now the number two oil and gas producer next to Texas, outpacing California and Alaska. Our tax friendly business culture and our recent tort reform like Texas is reaping huge results. Business is expanding at record rates and the economy is booming. Thank you Texas. Now, watch out…we want to replace you and become the fastest growing economy and market driven state.”

    Bring it on, North Dakota…Texans love a good fight….perhaps other states will follow?

    • The exact example Hans Hoppe suggested in “Democracy; the God that Failed”
      ;as decentralization of the State grows, competition between States grows.

      When the State decentralizes, it equally lowers the constraints of the movement of wealth producers. It is easier to walk a 100mi. then 1000mi. to a “better” environment.

      With increased mobility, the States begin to compete to attract these producers, and this competition tends to repeatedly lower the costs of the State, increasing the production of wealth.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Any suggestions on getting rid of the bloated federal crime syndicate in DC?

        • Yes, decline any and all largess from them.

          • Yes….Perry at least has declined most of the Federal Funds….he did take some on the West explosion and he paid a hefty price for it. Texans got really mad…..REALLY mad that he took anything from the Feds…and he got the message. To date, Texas has turned down all other fed funds that came with strings attached.

        • PS: They will “go away” soon enough all by themselves.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    Most Jews don’t know this. Is it possible that they have been duped, and that Judaism is a satanic cult masquerading as a religion, which has subverted humanity using Freemasonry as its instrument? This question is so urgent that I am again reprising this 2010 article, Is Lucifer the God of Judaism? by Will Newman, a fellow Jew. – See more at:

    A different look at Jews and the religion. I have no comment, one way or the other, just passing it along.

    • Almost everyone has been duped through a steady progression of exploitation manipulation, mistranslation/transliteration, and misinterpretation, (predominantly through organized religion) over a period of 3000+ years.

      The article is little more than an anti-Semitic/anti-Catholic/anti-masonic/anti-occultist hit-piece.

  43. gmanfortruth says:


    Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:
    •A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
    •Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later
    •Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
    •The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
    •The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out false flag attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change
    •The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligenceadmit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security”(and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special
    •As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
    •2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
    •And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
    •A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists
    •The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
    •An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
    •Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
    •According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is a short list. The most recent proven False flag was the chem attack in Syria, committed by the CIA funded rebels, then Obama attempted to blame the Syrian regime, which, of course, failed miserably because nobody believes anything Obama says anymore.

      Some other events that may one day prove to be False Flags include:

      911 attacks in NY and DC
      The First WTC bombing (that has been proven to be an FBI sting gone bad)
      OK City bombing
      Sandy Hook school massacre
      Boston bombing

      More too come, like a nuke attack that has been warned about in Charleston.

      Fun stuff this Conspiracy Theory stuff. 🙂

  44. gmanfortruth says:
  45. Just A Citizen says:


    “Shit pot full”………….. I think you were describing the condition of your britches and not the volume of paper work!

    Glad you are OK. Golf in Portland at end of July??????????????

  46. Now, and this is directed at the left leaning souls upon this blog…

    What do you call it when the government chooses not to enforce Federal Law? Do you call it “selective enforcement” or do you call it breach of civic duty.

    What do you call it when your government forcibly, by use of arms, refuses to allow a sitting United States Senator access to a Federal Military Base ( Fort Sill, Oklahoma ) and expressly forbids inspection of the facilities and the condition of the children?

    What do you call it when your government does not allow access to the children and the facilities unless you do the following.

    !) You cannot talk to the children.
    2) You cannot talk to the staff.
    3) You cannot take pictures.
    4) You cannot write an article unless it is sanitized and approved by the government.
    5) If you want a picture, it will be provided by the government.
    6) Clergy is not allowed at all.

    Is this the type of constitutional flouting you want and voted for?

    • Col., are you in need of a vacation? We can arrange for an all expenses paid trip to your local camp ground. We will provide lodging, meals and entertainment. The camp counselors will assist you if you have any trouble following the well laid out trails. If you become confused, they will gladly enlighten you.

      Herr T-Ray

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sounds like there’s a lot to hide.

  47. Mexico is finally getting it right…..or, that is, the people of Mexico. This, from an article that would not link ( probably because I am not technically proficient ).

    HIDALGO, Mexico — The gunmen nabbed watermelon farmer Jesus Manuel Guerrero as he drove from his ranch to buy supplies and held him for five painful days in the trunk of a car. When family members finally paid a $120,000 ransom and they released him, he was urinating blood.

    He’s just one of hundreds of victims of a wave of kidnapping that’s swept this once peaceful farming town, about 130 miles south of Texas.mBut almost three years after his brutal abduction, Guerrero, who is now the mayor, says his town has become safer, the kidnappers scared to enter.

    This change is not due to the police, he says, but to a clandestine vigilante group known as the Pedro Mendez Column, named after a local general who fought the French in the 19th century. The column hands out leaflets declaring it operates night patrols to defend the community from the feared Zetas cartel, which is behind most of the kidnapping. The vigilantes have also claimed responsibility for several murders of alleged Zeta members, including two men shot dead in January.

    This is the latest expression of a vigilante movement in Mexico that’s expanding from the southern mountains to areas near the United States border like Hidalgo, in Tamaulipas state. The vigilantes are rising after the Mexican government failed to stop the country from becoming a world kidnap capital, with more than 1,600 reported abductions in 2013, the worst year on record. There have been more than 70,000 cartel-related killings since 2006.

    But human rights groups warn that vigilantes may only add to Mexico’s cycle of violence — a severe problem in border states like Tamaulipas, which suffers shoot-outs that have caused temporary shutdowns of crossings into Texas. Bordering the Rio Grande valley and the cities of Brownsville and Laredo, Tamaulipas lies along a major US-Mexico trade route, with tens of thousands of trucks of goods crossing daily, as well as many undocumented migrants and drug loads.

    Farther south in the Pacific states of Michoacan and Guerrero, a vigilante movement mushroomed until thousands openly took up arms to fight cartels. Some of those vigilantes were deputized as rural state police in May, but others have carried on operating outside the law. Last month, police and soldiers arrested Michoacan vigilante leader Jose Mireles and more than 70 of his supporters for carrying illegal guns.

    Gun permits are difficult to get in Mexico, but the country is awash in illegal arms, many smuggled in from the US. The vigilantes favor the same Kalashnikovs and AR-15 rifles as the cartels, which sell on the black market here for several thousand dollars apiece.

    The vigilantes in Tamaulipas are more secretive than those of the south, working in hidden cells from towns and ranches. They conceal their identities because they not only fear arrest but also revenge attacks from the gangsters.

    In May, alleged cartel gunmen shot and burned nine people at a ranch here in Hidalgo, accusing them of being linked to the vigilantes. Among the victims were two children. “People of Hidalgo, don’t be involved with the column,” a note left by the bodies read. “The monster has woken up. This is the first test. Attentively: The Zetas.”

    The murders took place in a hamlet away from the town center, which is harder for the vigilantes to defend, Mayor Guerrero says. “It was a terrible, brutal scene. They killed the parents, the children. These are the kind of criminals we are dealing with,” he added.

    The Pedro Mendez group first formed in 2010, but the mayor said it has grown substantially this year and now has hundreds of gun-owning affiliates. “The criminals submit to blood and fire,” the Pedro Mendez declares in a leaflet it released in May. “The defense of our people has been long and gory, in permanent struggle and sustained combat against kidnappers.”

    The column accuses some police officers of being in league with cartel members but says it supports the Mexican army and marines. “Insecurity, violence and criminality are only solved by honest soldiers and an armed people,” the group says in the leaflet.

    Web users claiming to be local vigilantes also participate on social media sites set up to discuss drug violence. In one January post, in which the vigilantes claim the killing of a Zetas cartel kidnapper, a user writes, “Excellent. That is the only way to finish the Z.”

    There are also signs of these vigilantes spreading to other towns near the US border.

    In the Tamaulipas state capital Ciudad Victoria, a leaflet recently appeared from a vigilante group calling itself the Alberto Carrera Torres brigade promising to fight the Zetas.

    Federal prosecutors have accused some vigilantes across Mexico of being backed by drug cartels to fight rival gangs. The Pedro Mendez may be receiving weapons to fight the Zetas from that gang’s enemies in the Gulf Cartel, Guerrero says. But the mayor insists the vigilantes are authentic in defending their community.

    While Guerrero says the vigilantes have reduced crime, he says he is not himself a militia member. The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto has led a shifting and seemingly confused policy on Mexico’s vigilante movement. At times it has ignored them, at others attacked them, and sometimes actively worked with them.

    Peña Nieto repeatedly condemned people taking justice into their own hands — but then in May he made a speech in Michoacan recognizing the work of vigilantes there. The administration is currently waging an offensive by soldiers and federal police in Tamaulipas to quell cartel violence plaguing the state. In the last two months, troops have arrested ranking gangsters from both the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel.

    “We are working in a good coordinated way and with good results to win back the tranquility of Tamaulipas,” Mexico’s Interior Secretary Miguel Osorio Chong told the government’s news agency. “All the criminals who have hurt the Mexicans’ tranquility will have to fall.”

    However, many residents in the embattled state are concerned that the federal offensive won’t do enough to protect them from ruthless gangsters. In June, thousands of marchers dressed in white took to the streets of the Tamaulipas cities of Victoria and Tampico, calling for better security.

    ******* Interesting article. As noted on here, we, as a family, have had to resort to armed guards at our place in San Miguel Allende. It has become necessary. We have the proper permits.

    @ Buck…..when the rule of law has broken down, vigilantes will form. Selective enforcement creates this environment. You cannot claim ” so much for the rule of law” as you stated one time when Texas decided to not follow a specific law. For example, ignoring the edict on voter ID. Texas is doing it anyway. You cannot claim rule of law on one hand and then claim selective enforcement on the other hand. It negates all rule of law, in my opinion. This is why, in Texas, you are beginning to see civilian militia (private groups) forming and patrolling ranches. This is why you see the Texas Department of Public Safety turning a blind eye to legally formed civilian militia volunteering their service to ranches and private lands. If you do not enforce written Federal Law… give up the right claim the law.

    Mexico is just the starting point. It is getting worse. Texas will patrol its own borders and will do so in a violent manner. That is all that is left. We could care less about the immigrant looking for work. We need cotton and potato pickers and construction people…what we do not need is what comes with it…..and, unlike where BF and I agree and disagree at the same time…we both agree that our current system is broken….we disagree on how to handle it. So, we will handle it in our own way.

    Obama won’t go to the border because his schedule will not allow it…he will not go to the border because of the violence and the fact that he does not want to catch the multitude of diseases that are showing up there. Well, he has created it…he should have to wallow in it. But Texas is fiercely independent. We can handle it.

    Side note to all….This Valerie Jarret ( or however you spell her name ) was quite incensed on the local news this morning…..the fund raiser for Wendy Davis that Obama is in Dallas for… not sold out and it is only 500 seats. They are giving away free tickets to get people in there. Perry is going to show up…he said, “what the hell, the Prez won’t go to the border, I might as well get a free luncho out of the deal.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, Good morning Sir 🙂

      Obama caused this crisis, and once again, like in Nevada, the people will rise up and put an end to the problem. This is the one thing that this current group of criminals in DC didn’t count on, and they have no idea how to handle it. If they go against the militia, they will grow into numbers that the Feds couldn’t handle, another embarrassing loss that shows they can’t rule the people. The Left wingers in government want a bloody end to the militia’s, they have made that very clear over Obama’s reign. They lost in Nevada, and will lose on the Southern border. The Feds only response would have to be violence. That may be the line that finally puts an end to the Feds and their over reaching greedy hands. Let’s hope they aren’t that stupid.

      @Buck, You and I both know there are so many laws that it’s likely both of us could be in violation of some law on any given day. The sad part, we both live our lives thinking we are law abiding citizens. This is one thing that needs to change.

      p.s. I and my friends support the militia folks who show up to help at the border, however, they should all be vetted to ensure they aren’t violating any laws (can own guns) and aren’t mentally ill (usually and nice sit down chat with questions can work here). There is no place for hero wannabe’s and anti-government mental cases. Those who worked in Nevada did a great job, removed the bad apples when they figured them out and handled their business with great patience and professionalism. Hopefully, the same will be said of those down at the border when all this is over 🙂

  48. gmanfortruth says:

    In an incredible development, doctors and nurses at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, who are caring for scores of illegal immigrant children have been threatened with arrest by a government-contracted security force if they divulge any information to Americans about the threat of contagion

    Nah, nothing to hide here. 😦

%d bloggers like this: