But It’s for the Children…

President Obama is asking for four billion dollars to deal with the border crisis.  I think it’s smart he asked for four billion, not the two originally floated.  I can picture Harry Reid saying, they will never give you a two billion dollar slush fund.  Obama say’s, you’re right , I better ask for four!  And after years of ridiculing conservatives about border security, if we build a fence, they will say it isn’t high enough, eventually they’ll ask for a moat & some alligators...  And now it’s a crisis that only big government can resolve.  The problem is it’s a crisis he nurtured into existence if not outright caused.  And a big question is just who is crossing our border.  Thousands of innocent children?  A few terrorists?  Any others?




  1. Fox News contributor Mara Liasson started the discussion off on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” pointing out the actual intention of the 2008 immigration bill passed unanimously in Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush: ”It was a law instituted under the Bush administration to protect children from sex trafficking,” she said.

    “And voted unanimously in Congress,” Bret Baier cut in.

    “Yes, from sex trafficking,” Liasson confirmed. “Clearly, if he [Obama] had to make a decision between Republicans in Congress who are asking him to deport these kids versus immigration advocates, he’s sided with the immigration advocates.”

    “Clearly the country is not setup to have 52,193 deportation hearings quickly,” Baier said.

    Krauthammer chimed in, agreeing with Liasson’s assessment: “It [the law] was intended for sex trafficking, it was intended for a small numbers of kids. And it made a lot of sense,” he said. “It was never intended for a mass influx.”

    He then attacked the argument that deportation is “inhumane,” arguing that is exactly what the U.S. does for Mexicans, and no one gets upset.

    “And people are yelling it would be so inhumane, inhumane to return them. Well that is exactly what the law is for Mexicans, for Canadians, so if it’s inhumane, why haven’t you heard a protest about the return of kids who come in from Mexico? It was intended for something else.”

    “Obama is clearly making the statement, indirectly, by that story you just gave from AP — and through his homeland security secretary, who refused to answer about deportation — that he is opening the doors of America to this influx.” (RELATED: Obama’s Deputy Gives Wishy-Washy, Noncommittal Answers About Illegal Children And Border Security)

    “It will double, it will triple,” Krauthammer continued.

    “He obviously was never serious,” Krauthammer concluded. “I don’t think he’s lost on this. I think he knows what to do. He wants to win the political argument with Hispanics, and other pro-immigration groups. And he’s doing it for political reasons, very, very cynically.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/07/krauthammer-obama-immigration-efforts-for-political-reasons-very-cynically-video/#ixzz36yigKsj8

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    This is an outright Obama created crisis. I hope the GOP tells him to pound sand and the States send them back into Mexico

  3. What a fricken’ mess. Created by government to be fixed by making government bigger. The only money spent should be for planes to take them back to their countries of origin.


  4. No, let the borders be open. Saves billions plus get the benefit of a motivated workforce.

    • The question is what will Obama do with the four billion dollars he is apt to guilt us into spending. Is it an any way going to improve the US? How is it good for us?

      • Do you think government action will fix government problems caused by government action?

        It will accomplish nothing, waste money, and the day after, the problem will remain.
        What else do you think happens when government steals from one group to solve a problem of its own creation, while not removing the problem that created the issue?

        No matter how many band-aids you have, if you continue to stab yourself, you will continue to bleed.

  5. Canadian argument of deportation.

    First, few are deported. Check yourself to see how many chinese illegal immigrants were deported (almost none, which is a good thing)

    Second, it is true that one could be draconian in the policy when a few hundred a year reach your shores. Canada is only accessible by boat or plane (US doesn’t count by land since you have to get to the US to get to Canada) – and both require thousands of miles of travel. This distance is a barrier.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      We ain’t Canada and minors are not workers. Second, this will cost billions to deal with the current influx, which has nothing to do with people wanting a job, it’s political BS that can only lead to more people on welfare.

      You are confusing this to normal immigration, which is false on its face.

      • Minor’s issue is minor.

        It is not normal immigration – because there is no “normal”. It is just IMMIGRATION.

        The problem is the adjectives, Gman. You want an adjective to change reality. “Legal” “Illegal” – changes YOUR thinking on the subject, not reality of the issue.

        If you remove the adjective, the situation becomes more clear for you.


        • IMMIGRATION starts at the front door.

          • Anita,

            As usual, you make the serious intellectual error of pretending your INDIVIDUAL action somehow equates to NATIONAL action.

            Yep, you own your door.
            Nope, you do not own your nation.

            • You pretend there are no laws.

              • I pretend nothing, Anita. Your poor strawman is pointless.

                If you argue “laws”, you better get some principles in place first, or you will be “beaten” by reason into a intellectual pulp.

              • You can beat me all you want BF. That doesn’t change the definition of immigration, or the fact that we have immigration laws. You want to start the conversation from scratch. We are well past scratch and that is what you refuse to acknowledge. You stomp your feet and demand that we start where you want to start or we’re ignorant. That is pretending. There is no strawman in either of my previous posts. You just don’t like what I said.

                We have immigration laws. You want me to have principles? Fine. Do unto others..blah, blah. Cool? I will not try to sneak into another country through the back door. I will politely knock on the door and ask to stay. If my credentials are fit for the country to which I’m asking to immigrate, they may or may not allow me to stay. If I don’t fit, I don’t get to stay. I don’t get to pout and ask them what lines on a map have to do with the price of apples. They have laws, I have to follow them. I’m fine with that. You aren’t…. but I’m pulp? Whatever.

              • “You can beat me all you want BF. That doesn’t change the definition of immigration, or the fact that we have immigration laws.”

                So what? The exclaim “we have anti-Jewish laws” by the Nazis fits your argument perfectly.

                ” There is no strawman in either of my previous posts. You just don’t like what I said.”

                Bull. You said “You pretend there are no laws.” I make no such pretense, so don’t make up stories about me.

                “We have immigration laws. You want me to have principles? Fine. Do unto others..blah, blah.”

                Nope. You are preventing people from seeking work. So you are ok when others will do the same to you. Oops. You don’t like that.

                You believe your little imposition is limited… “Since I don’t like this, and make a law against it, I suffer the same law – though it is fine by me”

                But that is used against you, lady.
                Someone else will make a law fixing what they don’t like about you, and use the same argument “well, I suffer that law too so suck it up”.

                Thus, you enslave yourself by your own perversion.

                You do not believe in do unto others, blah, blah at all – you only apply when it suits you, and twist it when it suits you too.

              • When you choose to use violence on non-violent people to correct what you think is a “problem”, be prepared for violence on you to correct what others see as YOU being a problem.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Anita, so sayeth Mr. Neverwrong.

                Flag, is it possible for you to get any more self righteous?

              • Gman,

                You fail again.

                It has nothing to do with “righteous” – it has to do with root principles

                Either your principles apply, or they are not principles. Whim does not work.

              • You can’t have a welfare state and open borders. You want your open borders? Then eliminate all welfare and make it a completely free marketplace.

              • You can have both. You can have free trade anytime. Immigration is “free trade in labor”. It is independent.

                And yes, the root issue is government. Period. Get it out of the lives of people, and problems naturally fix themselves.

              • Kathy,

                You make the same argument as Milton Friedman – but his argument has long been refuted.

                This is his argument, read it carefully.

                “Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration.

                Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing.
                It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants.
                It’s a good thing for the United States.
                It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country.

                But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.”

                That’s an interesting paradox to think about.

                Make it legal and it’s no good. Why?

                Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off. “

                What is confusing about the anti-immigration crowd is the vast contradiction they present, as exampled well here.

                Picking on Gman and SK, first they argue:
                “They’re Lazy Parasites! No, Wait … They Work Too Much!”

                Well, which is it?
                They have both pointed to this:
                “Since 2000, all of the net jobs added by the U.S. economy have gone to immigrants, both legal and illegal” (“ALL of the net jobs gains in the U.S. since 2000 have gone to immigrants,” June 27).”

                Immigration opponents (such as SK and Gman) interpret this finding as a reason for tightening immigration restrictions.

                But then they argue that we must restrict immigration into the U.S. because too many immigrants allegedly flock here to free-ride on the U.S. welfare state.

                But if this finding is correct, it is strong evidence that immigrants overwhelmingly come to the U.S. for work and not for welfare.

                Such is the confused brains of most here. The immigrants are lazy who work too much.

                Back to Milton.

                As far as I know Friedman never qualified his passionate, powerful, and principled case for drug legalization by claiming that legalization, while desirable in principle, is unworkable (or undesirable, or impractical, or unrealistic, or whatever) in a world with a U.S. welfare state.

                But it seems to me that if Friedman genuinely believed that the existence, and likely permanence, of a welfare state in America is a strong-enough reason to empower government to do what that government otherwise ought not do – in the case of immigration, forcibly prevent people from migrating to the United States – then he should also have qualified his argument for drug legalization with the same condition; namely, in the case of drugs, forcibly prevent people from getting high by whatever peaceful means they choose.

                The fact that Friedman (again, as far as I know) never qualified his case for drug legalization with the condition that the welfare state first be rolled back suggests to me that Friedman’s case for restricting immigration (at least as that case has now come down to us in lore) is at odds with his case for drug legalization. At the least, this difference between Friedman-the-’realist’ on immigration and Friedman-the-principled-proponent-of-freedom on drugs exposes an inconsistency in his policy assessments. And so why not resolve the inconsistency in favor of more freedom rather than in favor of more government-imposed restraint?

                Almost every argument that can be marshaled to make a case for why the welfare state practically means that ‘we’ ‘must’ restrict immigration can, with few alterations, be marshaled to make a case for why the welfare state practically means that ‘we’ ‘must’ restrict people’s access to mind-altering and body-damaging narcotics.

                Yet, again, I’ve never read of Friedman making the latter argument – and I somehow doubt that he would have accepted it if it were offered to him as justification for continuing the ‘war on drugs.’

                If Friedman were correct about immigration and the welfare state, why not also – in addition to continuing the war on drugs – also impose high tariffs and other trade restrictions?

                (Or, at the very least, why not also refuse to lower existing trade barriers?) After all, the freer is trade, the greater is the risk that some jobs in ‘tradable-goods’ industries will be ‘destroyed’ by trade. And with the welfare state available for opportunistic displaced workers to fall back upon, these displaced workers are less likely to look vigorously for new jobs. Free trade, therefore, imposes a negative externality upon the entire society when a welfare state exists.

                And, while we’re at it, doesn’t the existence of the welfare state require government also to restrict which majors college students choose?

                Without a welfare state, students would be more focused on finding gainful employment after they graduate. But with a welfare state, the risk of being unemployed for long periods – or of earning very low pay for most of one’s working life – as a result of majoring in the likes of “race studies” or “dance criticism” will too often be ignored by irresponsible or lazy students, who rely upon welfare-state payments to subsidize their indulgence in majors that promise no decent monetary rewards.

                Where does the enhanced scope for government action end once we admit that government buys for itself, by illegitimately exercising power W, an indulgence for the exercise of otherwise illegitimate power R? What sort of distrust of the motives and knowledge of government officials leads many self-described libertarians to oppose government’s exercise of power W but approve of government’s exercise of otherwise-illegitimate power R if government insists on simultaneously exercising illegitimate power W?

                I have never grasped the logic that leads to the conclusion that the illegitimate welfare state turns the otherwise illegitimate power exercised by government to interfere with freedom of movement and association (that is, open immigration) into a legitimate power.

  6. The power of the pocket book in COSCO’s eyes……Costco co-founder and director Jim Sinegal, a major Democrat donor and a speaker at the 2012 Democratic National Convention that nominated the president sent a signal to the CFO to restock Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “America: Imagine the World Without Her,” No one anticipated the backlash and the boycott of COSCO that was quickly forming. COSCO is in bed with the current POTUS but isn’tit strange how economics makes a strange bed fellow.

    • Not economics, (as that is a science) but “short term benefit”.

      Money does not make any person any better at economics, nor immune to the disease of trying to capture short-term benefit vs. suffering long term losses

      • True,,,,,I use the term economics, sometimes, very generically.

        • Forgive me when I correct such.

          Most people do not tell the difference, and they make individual action of benefit equal to some economic theory that they then apply broadly – a fatal mistake.

          I am focusing on correcting this symptom more and more. “The meaning of words matters”.

    • Be cautious in comparing GDP – they are not measured the same way between countries, and over the period described, the measure metrics changed.

  7. Kathy…some shoes even I can handle 😉

  8. @Anita, my love and BF:

    “I pretend nothing, Anita. Your poor strawman is pointless.”

    BF argues from a fantasy world of no laws (what he didn’t admit to) … the anarchist argument will find fault with every form of government/law, etc. … what it doesn’t address (from on high) is the fact it is a fantasy of epic proportions … it will never exist … it has only existed (if ever) in another fantasy world (the Bible–the Garden of Eden) … where even there, if one follows the bullshit story verbatim, a “God” issued a law to avoid the fruit of a certain tree …

    BF argues from on high also … like a God … at least in his mind. He means well, but he’s on fairy dust instead of the ground.

    That is all …

    • See, Charlie, this is when you go bat-shit crazy.

      “BF argues from a fantasy world of no laws”

      You can find no such argument in the years I have posted here. Yet, in your bat-shit brain, you make us stories.

      And you wonder why I almost always throw away everything you say.

      ” the anarchist argument will find fault with every form of government”

      Because of reason, Charlie – a methodology of thinking you seldom exhibit.

      All government REQUIRES the use of violence on non-violent people.
      NO exceptions

      That is a fundamental fault – hence every form of government holds this fundamental fault

      Anarchy (law, no rulers) has existed and in some societies longer then your piss-ant democracies

      But you are unlearned, and no matter the information, you won’t learn.
      That is your mental condition.

      • Seems reality is in our way. I can agree a society without government could exist & prosper. I do not agree it can exist here today. I am well armed & prepared, but I am not an army. I am free to walk any street in America, but I know if I try to be “free” in several Chicago neighborhoods my survival is unlikely. There are organized gangs that are all but an army. There are drug cartels. There are terrorists. All of them are willing to band together and take by force what they desire. My neighborhood has some dozen homes & could fight off 50 or so, but not 100 or 500. There is a place for government or an organized defense….

        • LOI,

          So you believe that evil, distrustful, dangerous men can cooperate better then honest, trustful, free men.

          Weird thinking.

          No, the difference between you and the gangs is they absolutely long ago discarded the vestiges of the State to protect them and they do it all themselves.

          You, however, still are hooked on the State – you have not discarded the vestiges of the State, you believe you still have them in your back pocket, so you do not need to do nearly any work at all to guard yourself “…if it gets really bad, the Cops will show up…”

          That’s the difference

          The gangs threw away the fantasy of the State, but you and your ilk still linger inside that fantasy.

        • Example to demonstrate how contrary your thinking is to reality.

          Maybe you can learn for this example.

          Mexican vigilantes force drugs cartel out of town

          Armed local militias in the Mexican state of Michoacan have forced a notorious drugs trafficking organisation out of their town

          Armed vigilantes seized a cartel stronghold in the Mexican state of Michoacan on Sunday after a gun battle with suspected members of the notorious “Knights Templar” criminal organisation.

          The vigilantes say they took up arms last year because the government did nothing to protect them from the Knights Templar, who extorted local farmers and raped and murdered local women.

          [Once they threw away the fantasy of the State “protection”, they got their shit together]

          On its Facebook page, the Tepalcatepec “community police” force said that over 100 vehicles full of armed men took part in the move to occupy the town of Nueva Italia, which was successfully taken after a “light confrontation” at the city’s entrance.

          Once inside the town, the vigilantes disarmed local police, who are often accused of working with criminal groups in the state of 4.3 million people.

          Several Mexican media outlets reported the federal troops in the area observed the incursion but did nothing to intervene.

          In the nearby town of Paracuaro, which was taken over on January 4, members of the vigilante groups said on Sunday that they were hunting for a local Knights Templar boss known by his alias, “the Toucan”.

          On January 7, a group of 300 vigilantes took over Paracuaro. One member was reported killed in the incident, and 11 local police officers were taken into the group’s custody.

          Several smaller communities in Michoacan’s “Tierra Caliente” (Hot Country) region were also taken over by members of civilian militias last week, leaving them in control of much of the area around the city of Apatzingan, which is considered the headquarters of the Knights Templar organisation.

          On Friday, masked gunmen set fire to Apatzingan’s municipal building and looted and burned several local stores.

          In a statement, released by Fausto Vallejo, the state attorney general, said that he had asked for additional federal forces to help give local residents “tranquillity and security” and acknowledged the “insufficiency of municipal and even state police”.

          Similar self-defence organisations have also sprung up in the neighbouring states of Oaxaca and Guerrero.

    • Point’s to Charlie…

      “he’s on fairy dust”
      Personal attack, but kinda funny, polite or maybe “classy”?

      “your bat-shit brain… bat-shit crazy”
      Pretty crude presentation.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    I see that BF and Charlie once again rely on their own “emotional” beliefs and the numerous stereotypes created around the clash of European and American cultures.

    Sorry gentlemen, but the full story is far more complicated than either of you try to portray.

    There are atrocities and betrayals on many sides and for various reasons. Not all tribes were as “civilized” as the Mohawk example provided. And yes, they invaded and murdered their fellow Natives in order to “take territory”.

    As for Rand’s comments I do agree that they appear in conflict with her other stated principles. EXCEPT, it is not based solely on the existence of Law as BF presents. But on the notion of “civilized” vs. “savage” cultures. Rand is never pushed on this issue beyond this one occasion so we never get any further discussion or explanation.

    Her argument does raise the moral dilemma BF outlines. WHO decides WHO is civilized and who is not?? By what right to men of any group declare another unworthy of the same rights they have created or discovered for themselves.

    Word of caution for those wanting to crawl into this mess, you cannot judge the actions of societies or civilizations many hundreds of years ago when they did not share the same “concepts” of things like “Rights” or “moral/ethical” principles. This includes the European cultures, not just the Natives.

    One must also recognize the difference in how the various Europeans interacted with the Natives.

    • You say it is “more complicated” then I portray, then with the same argument, show that it is exactly what I portray.

      Who gives a care how they “interacted”? We are talking about Rand’s comments, not the “history”.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Not sure where yoy think I argue both cases but you do make such accusations often.

        Rand’s comments are tied to the History so you cannot separate the two when trying to understand what otherwise appears a contradiction. Her argument rests on the “savage” behavior of the Indians. Which rests on her view that a group with certain principles or values does not have to project or award those same principles to groups who do not share them.

        Which by the way pretty much describes human history, including the Indians.

        • JAC

          No, her comments are an exercise of argument, not history.

          Her argument is that a legal structure trumps a lack of legal structure.

          As you equally noted, the fallacy is that she merely promoted her own legal structure and asserted the natives had none at all. She made no account or recognition of the legal structure that, in fact, did exist.

          She tries to use this fallacious argument to justify history.

        • This is no different then many posters here who try to justify Zionist actions on the Palestinians by claiming “they” did not have a “nation”, arguing therefore that the Zionist nation trumps whatever the Palestinians had.

          It is post hoc fallacy added to an empty assertion from ignorance.

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    @Anita, Good morning 🙂

    Let’s put some things into a different perspective concerning immigrants. Technically, BF is correct that cheap labor would be an economic boom. The problem is that the boom will likely be short lived. Why, because if the Progressive Democrats get 12 plus million new voters, they will promptly take over all 3 branches of government and then there will be NO cheap labor, as they will raise the minimum wage above 10 bucks. This will cause far more harm than good, as it seems to be doing in Seattle.

    If Obama gets his wish and this current situation overwhelms the system until collapse, amnesty is what will come of it, and the republicans will be off the hook politically. Not to worry, most of the Republicans are on Obama’s side anyway. I have no problems with immigration or cheap labor, I have issues with the political fallout of this country being run by Progressives for a lengthy period of time, a time that will have you screaming that voting doesn’t matter.

    The immigrants are but pawns in a game of politics, that if the goal is achieved by the Democrats, the next fight will likely be against the very government the immigrants help bring to power. Should be interesting times ahead.

    • gmanfortruth says:
    • Gman,

      What economic theory are you proposing here?
      “Technically, BF is correct that cheap labor would be an economic boom. The problem is that the boom will likely be short lived”

      This makes no sense. Like free trade, the economic gain is permanent.

      Your claim about voters is irrelevant. You have no way to prove they will vote one way or another, or that their vote flips certain policies.

      The fact is, those policies already exist with or without them. To turn the blame on them for something that is already here is bizarre.

    • But it’s all based on a false economy. Our government, therefore our tax dollars are subsidizing illegal immigrants thru entitlement programs. While many work, many also do not & live off SNAP, live in low income housing, receive free health care, etc.. A new report states our federal government improperly paid out nearly a trillion dollars last year. Most of that to entitlement programs. Like windmills, the labor is cheap only because our government subsidies it! For example…

      The federal government’s health-care programs made over $62 billion in improper or fraudulent payments last year, according to a Senate report out Wednesday, and the sum is likely to rise in the future as the federal government’s role in health care is expanding drastically.

      Medicare, Medicare Advantage and Medicaid alone accounted for $62.2 billion of the federal government’s improper payments in 2013, the last full year of former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ tenure, according to the Senate Special Committee on Aging report.

      While improper payments across the entire federal government have dropped from a record-high $121 billion in 2010 to $105 billion total last year, incorrect payouts from federal health-care programs are growing.

      In 2012, 8.5 percent of all Medicare payments were considered incorrect, but last year the rate grew to 10.1 percent.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/09/hhs-spent-62-billion-on-improper-payments-in-health-care-programs-last-year/#ixzz374St7fv7

  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Are there any intelligent good looking Liberal women on US soil? http://eaglerising.com/7272/pro-life-activists-attacked-liberals/

    This isn’t one of them 🙄

  13. Radical jihadist group ISIS has seized 88 pounds of uranium from a research facility at Mosul University, Reuters reports.

    “Terrorist groups have seized control of nuclear material at the sites that came out of the control of the state,” says a Tuesday letter from the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N., who explained that it “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.”

    “These nuclear materials, despite the limited amounts mentioned, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise, to use it separate or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts.”

    A U.S. government source told Reuters that the uranium is likely unenriched, meaning it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. Unenriched uranium can, however, be used to fuel nuclear reactors, though at much larger quantities. A different official, downplaying the significance of the acquisition, said that he was unaware of it worrying U.S. authorities. (RELATED: US Partially Evacuates Baghdad Embassy As ISIS Marches On)

    U.S. officials have also downplayed ISIS’s June seizure of a Hussein-era chemical weapons depot near Baghdad, with Department of Defense spokesman Adam Kirby saying “Whatever material was kept there is pretty old and not likely to be able to be accessed or used against anyone right now.” The seizure came to light after an earlier letter from the Iraqi ambassador notified the U.N. that Iraq is unable to “fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons” because of worsening security conditions.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/10/isis-just-seized-a-bunch-of-uranium/#ixzz374PWkTmr

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Black Flag® says:

    July 10, 2014 at 11:29 am (Edit)


    You fail again.

    It has nothing to do with “righteous” – it has to do with root principles

    Either your principles apply, or they are not principles. Whim does not work.

    So let’s take a short poll: it’s easy, yes or no answers only.

    Does anyone on SUFA really give a rat’s ass about principles at this point?

    My answer is a simple NO, I would just like to have a nice conversation about today’s issues without the great deal of unwanted drivel that is being posted.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Whoops, broke my own rule, ROFLMAO 🙂 Let me try again….NO!

    • Careful GMan. I understand what BF is trying to get at. I’m probably not going to say this right so I’m ready to get beaten again. BF lives by principles. Good. But there are also laws that even though he detests the laws he still lives by them. Property taxes for instance. I’m sure his principles dictate that property taxes are violence, but he still pays them. So he really isn’t living by his principles. Everyone here has a different level of tolerance for laws. BF prefers to be grumpy about them, but he obeys them. So much for his principles. But it’s the same with the rest of us. We don’t like some laws, but we live by them. So in a sense our principles (here we go) have to float (omg i’m in deep now) or we’re going to be just as grumpy as him. It’s about cooperation… or you win a few you lose a few..

      • Anita

        “BF lives by principles. Good. But there are also laws that even though he detests the laws he still lives by them. Property taxes for instance. I’m sure his principles dictate that property taxes are violence, but he still pays them.”

        What garbage.

        So you believe a man with a gun to his head “somehow” is not living by his principles when forced to act differently.

        You are insane.

        • I’m insane because you pay your property taxes? How’d it get switched over to me? Afraid to admit that you can’t always live by your principles?

          • Anita,

            Only an idiot claims
            “I’m insane because you pay your property taxes? How’d it get switched over to me? Afraid to admit that you can’t always live by your principles?”

            You believe that I should martyr myself for your entertainment. No.
            A gun to my head to pay off a criminal does not me a criminal, nor agree to the crime.

            Your idiotic idea is that if you hand over your purse to a thief, you have don’t have a principle against stealing.

            • What? By your reasoning…all of us at SUFA are good to go. I’m sure we could all live in Flagville, but it doesn’t exist. If we’re idiots, what does that make you?

              • Not an idiot.

                At the minimum, I have principles – yours, at best, is some mishmash of whim.

                Flagville exists everywhere, it is so pervasive you don’t see it – like a fish that can’t see the water in which you swim.

                Voluntary cooperation is the absolute cornerstone of civilization, you do it every day.

                But sadly, because you don’t see it, you ignore it, and attack it with nary a thought of what you are doing.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Anita, you should know by now that careful isn’t one of my strong suits. I respect Flag, I’m just tired of everybody constantly getting corrected by him. Who the hell does he think he is GOD? He can live his life as he choses, no problems from me, but I’m going to live how I chose as well and he ain’t gonna change a damn thing about me. Frankly, how I live and what I believe and feel really isn’t up for his approval. I don’t give a flying fuck if he likes what I stand for, it’s really none of his business at all.

        Rant over 🙂

        How are you this fine day Anita? Nice and sunny today here.

        • Doin fine. Nice and cool here, 70’s and no humidity finally. Extended outlook calls for the same for most of the rest of summer. Yay!

          Have to disagree with your post. BF has changed your thinking temendously since the beginning of SUFA…give the man some credit 😉

          • gmanfortruth says:

            When good things are taken to extremes, they then are nothing short of evil. But don’t fret, I’m having fun pullin his chain today, gives a few of you a break from being called stupid snd ignorant, or something like that. The world will go on and eventually, everyone will tire of his mantra and dismiss it as insanity, then he will be duly ignored until he decides to play nice 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I might even go vote this November!

            • Ignore at your peril, Gman.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Actually, it all sounded great for a long time, then, you went extreme, sociopathic narcissistic and all the other stuff I mentioned not long ago.

                That was a major turn off. I would rather be considered an imbicile by a sociopath than to treat people like shit under my shoe. To be honest, you have become so delusional you can’t remember who did and didn’t agree with you quite often. Shame really, but it’s not at all uncommon for sociopaths to turn on people, but at least you have been a great example.

              • I am not extreme, I am a radical.

                …and none of the other nonsense either.

                You are “mirroring” your own behavior. You hate others who come here, so you call me the sociopath.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Nope, I like everyone, even if I don’t agree with them. That however doesn’t stop me from standing up to bullies and sociopaths who feel they have some special right to judge others. I still like you, even if you have chosen to be a dick as of late, you already know about all that so no need to repeat.

                I’m just not one to take shit from people, no matter how smart they may think they are. A really smart person knows that you get more bees with honey than vinegar, but maybe you ain’t as smart as you want everyone to believe. 😉

              • Gman,

                First, you get more bees with vinegar, not honey. Bees do not seek honey, they make honey. They seek pollen. That is why I am smart. I know things about the world and am not laden with dumbo jingoism.

                Second, you deserve every bit of shit you got. You hold an ignorant position. You do not attempt to correct your ignorance. You want to sit on your pile of ignorance in esteem.

          • Oh? Where? 😉

            I guess I really disliked “GG” before he turned into “Charlie” – so you could count that one.

    • Gman,

      As you give a rat’s ass about principles, you have doomed yourself to suffer depredations, slavery and slaughter.

      Good luck!

    • Gman,

      I understand your frustration.
      You want “X” but that confounds your freedom of “Y” if applied to you.

      So you pretend that by some “magic”, other than reason, you will still get “Y” while demanding “X”.

      When guys like me say “HuH? Are you insane?” you get all flustered because you dearly want “X” and dearly want “Y”.

      Sorry, the world don’t work that way, Gman. If you want X, you will lose Y.

      So you blubber and rant, hoping that will change something. It won’t.
      So you ignore guys like me and champion “X”. Oh well, when the day comes you lose “Y”, I’m sure you will blubber and rant some more on how unfair and wrong it is.

      But then, everyone will ignore you.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I am sure that the world only works the way you say it does, but, I don’t come here to do anything other than converse with nice people. I don’t want a lesson in principals or any other type of lesson from YOU or anyone else. You live your life as you chose, try respecting others enough to let them do the same.

        • Converse, and so will I.

          And I will continue to show how ridiculous you are.

          Look, the conversation of idiots pretending their ideas have merit is entertaining. But the moment these idiots then demand their ideas be put to some action, then there is a problem.

          You are not living your life the way you chose – your living choices impacts me and others. If you had no impact, I wouldn’t give a hoot.

          But you are damaging society and the future of human freedom by your idiotic ideas and the demand they should be actioned.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Just like the billions who have lived long happy lives without one bit of your self righteous Mumbai jumbo, I too shall die a happy old man knowing I completely fucked up your life without even breaking a sweat trying. 🙂

            • If you had to choose between world peace, billions dead and billions free, …or the complete enslavement of your grandchildren, …which would you choose?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Too bad the latter is what’s likely to occur. Your question would have me put myself in a Kings chair, a job I won’t take. The sociopaths seem to get all the righteous attention, ask BF. 🙂

              • Yep, it just may occur because of the ideas and thinking of the likes of you, Gman.
                You are in the King’s chair – everyone is.

                It is by your action and principles that the future unfolds. Everyone has a part and every action and idea matters.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    A few lessons and a few serious Rights violations: http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-confiscation-begins-in-new-york.html

  16. BF,

    Are you suggesting that we return to a tribal mentality?

    • What “tribal” mentality?

      Isn’t that your affliction, trying to keep “non-tribe” members out?

      I’m the “everyone join voluntarily” type.

  17. Metals are climbing…make them keep climbing BF. Is this where they start launching like ‘they’ say they should have been all along?

    • You did not buy metal to play the market.

      Do not bother looking at the price unless you need to sell.

      Economics dictates the eventuality, not the date.

    • @ Anita….for example, a one oz ingot, if you can sell it, Gold for August delivery, the most active contract, rose $14.90, or 1.1%, to settle at $1,339.20 a troy ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange.

      A one ounce 2004 gold panda coin is worth over $2,000.00. Try selling a one ounce gold ingot right now for the current prevailing price….you will not get it.

      Metals are very finicky…..you have to be on top of them constantly. Most buy metals as a hedge against inflation which I personally think is not a good thing. But that is ME…..others disagree.

      But, bottom line, it is not a child’s game to play in the peripheral.

      • Anita,

        D13 words are for those that “play the market”. You are not playing the market.

        Gold has a 10,000 year history as a hedge against perversions of government. Its track record is unmatched.

        He infers manipulation. There is some, but consider that the trade in gold in a day exceeds oil trade in a month. Manipulation, if any, we be violently corrected quickly.

        Yours plan is immune to most of this unless you need to sell now.

        • Don’t need to sell. But you said back in the day that you sound the alarm when its go time….then you bailed for some months. I’m trusting you! If you bail again, at least check in on bail out day.

          • Don’t worry, I’ll let you know.

          • Correct…I was merely backing up BF on this…..unless you are in it for the game….( as a family we are not ) …..be very cognizant of the advertisements and things you see on TV. I cannot tell you how many people think hey have gold when all they have is a piece of paper that says they have gold, All they have is a piece of paper. It is like a stock certificate or bond…..it means nothing. Take it to the bank and see what you can get for it.

            BF has an interesting take on things. My guess is that he invests in certain things…perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think he is stupid. There are things to invest in where the return is quick. There are things to invest in where the return is long term and there are things to invest in if you believe that a collapse in government is coming. This is BF’s approach…..what happens if the inevitable happens. A complete collapse of economy. Metals, especially gold/silver has a long recognized history of economic reality. But, I do not see a gold standard coming back into reality anytime soon and soon means in this century. People worry about China and buying up gold…..yes they buy it and then sell it. I know…we have the entire Panda series in their gold coins as well as their other mints. We have the same from Russia and we have the same from England in their pound sterling series. We do not have the same in Australian currency not the same in Swiss currency….we do not trust it even though it is the same gold. But that is a position that WE, as a family, takes.

            Another thing on China that we are finding interesting. If you, as an individual, wish to purchase gold from china….the only currency they will accept is USD. You cannot purchase their gold with their own yuan. Why is that? you need to ask that question. And, China will not sell to a government.

            But even as the history of gold/silver goes, it has its own ups and downs but has relatively survived unscathed. However, it IS rooted deep in history and although history ( that which has happened ) will not change,,,Things change for the future.and are changing this very date. We hold gold but not in ingots. We hold silver, but not in ingots. That is our choice. One thing that we have found in history…..gold bars and gold dust is difficult to trade…coins, on the other hand, are not. There is not one economist out there that can tell you what is going to happen. you must rely on your own judgement. You can certainly take advice from whomever you want….BF, me, JAC, Gman….but in the end, you must make up your own mind as to your plan of action and your plan of action must fit YOUR circumstance.

            • Follow up to the Colonel.

              I do not invest.

              I do not invest in stock market

              If there is one thing that is absolutely manipulated, it is the stock market. This manipulation is by the Fed Reserve, who produces money, and that money is used to buy stocks. The stocks go up in price. These shares are not going up because the companies are producing more or better, but because of the oversupply of money. When that money supplying stops, the shares will collapse – like in 2008.

              But I do own shares (more on that later), but not in the terms of “investment”

              I do not invest in property, same reason. but I do own property, but not in terms of “investment”. (more on that later).

              I, do not invest in gold. I own gold, but not in terms of an investment.

              In other words, I do not own this stuff so to sell at some point in the future in search for profit I do not own shares merely because I seek a profit in selling them in the future. I do not own land so to sell it in the future, nor gold to sell it in the future for a profit

              I own shares in the company I work for because it is part of my compensation. These shares will become part of my future income

              I own property to derive income

              I own gold to insure that the excess income I have will not wither.

              • Any investment today is an investment in a massively manipulated scheme due to the oversupply of money, whether stocks, bonds, certs, property, etc. These things are increasing in price, but not in value because of the over supply of money.

                These prices will equally collapse when the oversupply of money stops.

                I look at eventuality. Things that cannot go on have a tendency to stop.

                I have no crystal ball to declare this will stop tomorrow, or on Feb.14, 2018 or any such date, or even range of dates.

                I do know however, it will stop.

              • Now about gold.

                Unlike these other things of land, shares, certs,etc. Gold is far outside the mindset. Take a poll asking “who owns gold” – it will be 1 in a few thousand, if that.

                Ask who owns shares? 2 out of 3. Ask who owns a derivative (bonds, interest bearing certs, savings accounts), 4 out 5. Ask who owns land? 1 out of 3.

                The price of gold suffers far, far less of the manipulation of an oversupply of money than anything else. People are not using their oversupply of money to buy gold – they are buying these other things. They are ignoring gold with their money…. for now.

                Only when money suddenly becomes less valuable do people rush to gold with their money.
                This is not happening …. yet.

              • So you can see I focus on income, not profit. A different mindset.

                The future is terribly uncertain. Money could go valueless (inflation), or suddenly become very valuable (deflation).

                BUT no matter what money does, your income measured in money will follow the money.

                Inflation, prices go up, so will your income go up.
                Deflation, prices go down, so will your income.

                Your income will match the prices you have to pay – so my mindset is to establish sufficient income that I use to buy the things I want – the “amount measure” is irrelevant – whether bread cost $100 or $1, and I earn $1 million or $10,000-, it is the relative measure that is important.

                As long as my income exceeds my costs, I am well..

            • BF…see below…..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is what the Nazis did, should be no surprise. Add another 12 to 20 million voters, kiss freedom goodbye

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    While trying to deal with Soc. Sec. administration I had to listen to a phone message while on hold.

    Three different call to three different offices got the same recorded message as the FIRST thing you hear. In summary, it was directing people to the ACA and healthcare dot gov if they want or need better health care.

    Second was the reason for me having to wait 50 minutes for a real person.

    “We are currently serving over 50 million people on Social Security of some type, so please be patient.”

    Got that?? Over 50 million Americans on Soc Security. This is before the full boomer bubble hits.

    • A lot of pain when the government checks bounce….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        They will never bounce. They will just be worth less 5 minutes after you get them.

        By the way. Is it coincidental that Anarchists dream of Govt collapse in order to bring in the new age and their support for policies that can accelerate that collapse? Like unlimited immigration without any restriction.

        • JAC,

          No, sir, it will bounce.

          As I’ve posited before, it will come to the destruction of money vs. insolvency of government.

          The banks control the money. They know they will swing from lampposts if money is destroyed. Their whole reason of existence is money, they will not let it die.

          They will let government go insolvent to save the money, just like in Russia and elsewhere.

          If Congress nationalizes the Fed. Reserve, then all bets are off.

        • Immigration is a non-issue regarding the solvency of the government. It is not even a measured drop in the bucket.

          To hang your argument on that is a sign of desperation.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I can’t believe SUFA missed the chance to pounce upon our Pirate friend for his obvious contradiction in principles when describing hoe HE would resolve the Indians plight.

    HE would return the land to them. Of course this would require violence upon innocent people and would necessitate the use of GOVT. Since he would only be able to accomplish this by FORCE exceeding anything he alone could accomplish.

    I guess emotions can get the best of even a Mainframe posing as an Anarchist.

    • JAC,

      No contradiction at all.
      You merely make up a story.

      Enforcement of rights is the principle, and if I was in charge of government (which will never happen) that is what would happen.

      The benefit you gain from a thief is not yours to keep, JAC. If the Mob dropped a million bucks on your door step that is not yours, and you take it, you are a participant in the theft.
      You are in “Possession of stolen property”.

      You are confused. The principle is “NO INITIATION OF VIOLENCE” not the prohibition on violence.

      You are as muddled as the rest here.

      • BF…looks like you’re all by yourself in the world…you have lots of work to do by yourself. 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Actually old friend it was you who some time ago expressed the view that a person who acquires stolen property is the valid owner of such property and the original owner has no right to claim or try and take back said property.

        Maybe I don,t remember the discussion correctly, but I recall it involved bicycles, garden hoses and such things. I am not confused about anything. You really need to stop PROJECTING positions on others just because they ask a question.

        It is YOUR position to make and which appears I conflict with YOUR past statements.

        Your definition of violence also seems to be changing, again. We previously established that violence requires “physical injury”. Now you claim that blocking movement is violence or that signing treaties under duress is violence.

        What difference is there between the Indian ceding land knowing he cannot protect them anyway and a person allowing others to use their womb believing they have no other way to earn money for food. Explain you view on where the element of coercion starts and stops. Why is one “exploitation” and the other is not?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Howdy JAC 🙂 Glad to see you back. Our Pirate friend is acting more like a hard core Leftist more and more these days. Maybe he’s coming out of the closet? A true Obama fan in hiding BWAHAHAHA 😀

      • Gman,

        Yep, the refuge of the mindless – start labeling your opponent with your own fantasy of his position, pretending it is his position.

  20. California started it…Texas has figured out how to tweak it. I am referring to the residents of the California town that blocked the bus loads of illegals from being dispersed…..in a KNOWN conservative enclave. So, the Federal Governments response is to no longer notify town

    • Sorry, it did not post…will finish it

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Colonel, I’m with you on this issue. Frankly, we have enough problems in this country we should send every one of them back with a note that says next time they get sent home in a body bag.

      • No sir, it is not necessary to get to this extreme…..cut off funding. They will go to another place that has it. When everybody does it…it will send a message. The weapon to use is not bullets…it is dollars. Legal immigration or worker immigration will continue. You can get a green card in Texas in 72 hours…. all you need to do to get worker status in Texas is to have a sponsor.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          In all honesty, I feel bad for those people. It must really suck to have such a bad life you need to leave your birth country to find a better life. What is also odd, why don’t they work at fixing their own country instead of running from the problems?

          Obama sure has caused a fine mess.

        • Then it isn’t a 72 hour process.

          Pray tell, how does a man get a sponsor when you prohibit the man from entering to find such a sponsor??

          Typical bootstrap idiocy.

          • You remind me of the Congo, D13.

            To get in the country you needed a document from the UN Health Service.
            The Health service is located in the main city.
            You have to get into the country to get to the city.
            You cannot get into the country without the document.

            They couldn’t see the problem, so what happens?

            The proliferation of forged documents, to get into the country.

            And, gee, the similar thing at the US border. By enacting a bootstrap contradiction, you create a class of criminals.

            • Sponsorships come in a variety of ways…unlike the Congo. In order to get a sponsorship, Texas has started its own program within the state of Texas. There are currently 6 sites located along the border. ( Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, El Paso). Each one of this sites is located in what is called the mercantile zone. Employers, based in Texas, are linked to this program SHOULD THEY DESIRE TO BE. Undocumented workers (illegals) can go to any of these sites to locate jobs as the sponsorships are listed. The mercantile zone is a 1.5 km zone that is located on the Texas side. The 1.5 km zone is a free zone to both sides of the border. All one has to do is go to one of those sites. It is like a job fair. They are then REGISTERED and given a 6 month work permit good for that employer only. Once registered, they are sent to the employer…..Now, this is where we lose control as there is no way we can force them to an employer but the work permit is only good in Texas. If they get stopped in Texas, they show this permit. The rub of this program is that once the worker arrives, he/she begins work. During this time, the State of Texas does not interfere in this employers business. Now, since the worker is documented, they are no longer in the shadows and can work and move freely about. Now, the rub of this program is that the worker must do his own due diligence and use the six month program and file for a US green card and take the steps necessary to become documented legally. Even in the US, once you have an employer sponsor, you can walk the process through like a passport. It costs $50.00 This facilitates two things…..number one, the employer is no longer under the radar and will not be raided. Construction crews and yard crews have a steady supply of workers almost immediately. AND During this six month period a State issued picture ID is given to the worker, It is not good for voting but it is good for a driver’s license application. (Driver’s license in Texas is not considered a proper picture ID for many things except driving.) The drivers license says Non citizen on it but it is recognized in Texas. The idea, is to keep Texas full of workers that do not have to stay in the shadows, and in the meantime, apply for proper entry and being able to work LEGALLY in the process.

              Now, I know this does not sit well with you, BF because you favor unfettered hiring, unfettered border, and unfettered control. You prefer to be reactive instead of proactive under the disguised thinking that the majority of the border crossings are just the poor and displaced looking for work. You cannot prove nor disprove your theory…especially if you rely on numbers that the very government you despise puts out there.

              So, Texas recognizes that there is a starting point to solve the problem. It is not perfect yet…and it does not take in these children of which approximately 30 percent are gang members and that number is being verified. Independent cities and towns are exercising their rights of control because they see the assault being the very violence that you do not like….you feel that keeping someone from work creates violence but refuse to see, or will not acknowledge, that forcing people to pay for these undocumented workers is not violence.

              That said, at least Texas is doing something and I think it is a great model for the US to follow. Except Senator Reid, who thinks Texas is stopping future democratic voters with all of our control. He is an ass, no doubt, and has no concept of freedom beyond wiping his own ass, which he probably does with a manual from Washington.

              • “Now, I know this does not sit well with you, BF because you favor unfettered hiring, unfettered border, and unfettered control.”

                Read Hoppe.

                I am against violent force

                An establishment of government to overcome government’s establishment does not solve the problem.

                You are imposing on employers as well as labor.

                You require that an employer has to fill in reams of paperwork, get it approved, get it posted and wait for a suitable candidate.

                Most low-income jobs, this is economically onerous.

                ” You prefer to be reactive instead of proactive under the disguised thinking that the majority of the border crossings are just the poor and displaced looking for work”

                You, like almost everyone else, propose your brain to be my brain, and like almost everyone else, you are just as terribly wrong.

                D13, I at least expect you to respect my position instead of rewriting it to your own whim.

                The facts, sir, it is the poor looking for work – it is you who is so blinded to this, not me. They are not coming to the US for the weather.

                “You cannot prove nor disprove your theory…especially if you rely on numbers that the very government you despise puts out there.”

                I have already proven my theory by principle. It is you has not proven a damn thing, since you have not provided a shred of principle

              • D13,

                Look, Mexicans coming over are not coming to take technology jobs, nor be doctors, or accountants, or CEO.

                These are poor unskilled workers – the very people that the Progressives and Democrats and Republicans have a hard-on for helping, in their rhetoric, right?

                Opps, their action betrays their rhetoric. They give don’t give a rat’s butt about the poor, and neither do you.

                The fact is, you and they have no principles – you have a merely a position of ideology.

                You (and almost everyone else) declare, on a whim, I don’t want this, but not for your life can you defend it by any principle.

              • D13,

                Why this is onerous….

                Look, any employer looking for cheap labor, in reality, doesn’t have to look far.

                The number of “illegals” looking for work is large – you’d agree.

                So why would a “unskilled labor employer” put any effort in publishing work? He merely has to drive to certain areas, and point a finger, and get his labor.

                By pretending some exercise to deliver such labor by some government process of paperwork and process to be such a solution is utterly ignorant of the reality of such unskilled labor.

                As always, the government solution is actually magnifying the problem

                It entangles the likes of you to exclaim “Well, we have a way!”, though you do not measure the effort.

                When your way is avoided, you disclaim “SIN”!!, not at all considering the impositions.

              • D13,

                Don’t be disheartened by your lack of principles in the matter.

                Even JAC, who often preached about the importance of principles, finds it convenient to abandon them when “push comes to shove”.

                The “problem” with principles is the demand that they apply Universally – under all circumstances for all people.

                Suddenly, many principles people believe they hold can turn into their loss of status, wealth, position and power.

                It is easy to hold to principles when you are a “winner”, but how about when you are a “loser”? Nope, not many at all. Suddenly, their real principle – pragmatism– is exposed.

                The other stuff is merely a psychological protection that “in their hearts” they are “good” people, and what evil they do now is “excused”, because, heck, in their hearts they are “good” people.

                Not by words but by action, thy self is defined.

      • Gman,

        Yep, that’s the ticket of the unthinking masses.

        Murder non-violent people – that’ll solve the problem!!

    • The Fed’s response is to NOT notify towns where they are going to take them. As in Dallas, Texas, the Feds came in, got a local democratic judge to force the opening of closed schools to house 3,000 illegal immigrants.

      So, League City, Texas ( Houston ) has said that since the US government is not allowing interviews with children OR any workers and has banned cameras and recording equipment and has threatened loss of FCC licensing………League City has just changed its laws, using Obama;s own rules…with the use of resolutions ( the same as executive orders ) prohibiting the use of any facility in the city for housing of illegal immigrants.

      There are several municipalities that are following suit. The same is happening in liberal Austin…….since the Texas schools do not accept Federal school funding through ISD’s ( Independent School Districts ) and the ISD funding comes from property taxes….the citizenry is finally beginning to rise up and say enough.

      We shall see how this goes…..In the case of Dallas, the ISD said, ok you put them there without permission, you take care of them as there will be no local funds available. They have told the Feds…..is you do not pay the bills, there will be no water or lights. I is not in the budget of Dallas.

      ****It is a shame that politics is being played by the Feds….but that is what it is and it is time to play hardball….I hope the trend continues. The faith based organizations have stepped up to the plate and are offering food and water for a week and a ticket home. In addition, ISD’s are now requiring picture ID’s to register for school, with a verifiable address. Texas is saying, no longer are you going to go to school if you do not live in a registered tax paying home or residence with a verifiable address. The budgets will not handle in the influx and since Texas is a balanced budget state….meaning that the school districts get only so much state money and the rest has to be handled with local property taxes, local entities are saying we cannot afford it.

      Since the President will not authorize the use of National Guard troops, Gov Perry is considering using his authority to declare a State emergency where he can authorize the use of troops to close the border. But that would require the use of our 8 billion surplus that is actually saved for a natural disasters. Getting interesting.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Wasn’t one of the tactics by the administration about deportation of un-documented migrants “illegals” was saying it is not humanitarian to deport the children along with the parents because the children were here by no action on their part. I believe the parents were then allowed to stay. The current border crisis is the reverse. Send the children, it is then not humane to deport them. The government is trying to match them up with existing relatives here and those not sent back, I’ll wager, the next course of action by the administration will be to track the parents down in their home countries or ask them to come forward so they can be reunited with their children here in the US. All on humanitarian grounds of course. If, as the Colonel stated, and no reason to doubt his word, they discovered vochers issued by the US government for passage through Mexico. Maybe that is where the mis-appropriated 6B went during Hillary’s tenure. Skim off monies from different agencies to fund the operation and the the DHS and DOJ half heartedly enforce or ignore the “LAW” by administrative directives.

      My experience for the most part with labor, here, from other countries is not that they are taking jobs that the US peoples do not want. The workers did it better and were very skilled craftsmen and filled a gap in our labor force. They do not work for lower wages. They work at the going local rate. The unfortunate fact is that our government, education and economists propaganda deemed it beneath us to work in those manual fields, like masonry, plastering, landscaping, boat finishing, electricians, roofing, cooking, marble finishing just to name a few occupations. Now that covered skilled labor. The unskilled from here or anywhere will take and be limited to jobs that nobody should want to aspire to.

      When Ford moved a portion of their engine manufacturing production to Mexico, they sent what they deemed the dumb stuff and not taking a lot of skill to Mexico. They retained the skilled machinist work here because they thought the folks below the border were not up to the task. It took exactly 3 years for the workforce in Mexico to get trained in those skilled machinist trades and took over the entire engine production.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Black Flag® says:

    July 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm (Edit)


    First, you get more bees with vinegar, not honey. Bees do not seek honey, they make honey. They seek pollen. That is why I am smart. I know things about the world and am not laden with dumbo jingoism.

    Yes, your so smart you don’t know the bee saying is just an old saying about people communicating, your a damn genius, it has nothing to do with actual bees. Intellectual you certainly are, not one lick of common sense. I hope nobody let’s you use power tools, that’s a scary thought.

    • Chill out G. You know darn well Flag has good intentions. You’ve been down right nasty to the liberals and commies on SUFA, and they’ve taken the beatings from you. Flag probably has a headache half the time from sniffing all that oil. He reaches more than the people who post here. Let him have the platform. I bet he’s changed thousands of minds in the country by posting here. He’s admitted he’s not all that…can’t turn a screwdriver, puts his tail between his legs when Mrs Flag speaks, he’s clumsy as hell, stairs and ice come to mind 🙂 . He’s just a stickler on his philosophy. We’re all idiots..all of us..that puts us in good company. I and I’m sure you, have been called worse. .and if you get right down to it, he’s right. It’s just an overwhelming task and probably not even doable, but the closer we get to Flagville, the better off we’ll be. He’s alright in my book, the big dummy. (Fred Sanford voice off)

      • BF is smart – just somewhat lacking in people skills. His current solitary employment seems to have made it worse. Guess we need to cut the guy some slack as he probably only has himself to argue with. (Can you even imagine the debates that go on inside his head?)

        • Gman,
          “Yes, your so smart you don’t know the bee saying is just an old saying about people communicating”

          That’s my point, Gman. Empty jingoism is not some “wisdom”; what comes out of most people’s mouths (hence out of their brain) is nonsense.

          You, like others, have built an entire world-view based on such nonsense. Because you have no firm reference (called “principles”) the nonsense gets all rolled up with real truths.

          But because the massive creation of nonsense far outpaces discovery of truth (because it takes no effort to be irrational, since it is devoid of proof, and takes tremendous amount of effort to discover truth as it needs to be proven) the nonsense overwhelms your world-view and you don’t even know it.

          It is you and the mindless masses that need to be wary of power “tools”. You misuse power terribly, to your own demise.

        • Kathy,

          I have great people skills, but I do not suffer idiots.
          I do not have “solitary” employment. I work with 10,000 other people – hardly solitary.

          You cannot imagine the debates that go on in my head – and you should consider doing such debates because that is how you figure out your principles and their consequences.

          You have to THINK, Kathy.
          Give it try sometime. You might surprise yourself.

          • Don't Mess With Me says:


            • It’s true, though.

              When I was a kid, I was watching my angry teacher (who didn’t like that I was already smarter then he was) playing chess.

              I asked him how to play the game.
              In his frustration with me, he gave me a gift.

              He said “If you’re so damn smart, you figure it out”.

              So I did. I watched how the pieces were moved, and later picked up a book or two about the game. I made my own chess set and played my Dad – and soon, could win every game. In a couple of months, I was the school chess champion.

              I would win so handily, that few wanted to play. So, I entertained myself by playing chess against myself. I was a tough opponent for me to beat.

              To do this, I “split” my brain into another person in my head. One side black, the other side white, depending on what move was next. Doing this over and over again, I created two internal “I”s.

              When I think about a particular position, now more expansive then merely chess, there are two “I” who begin a dialogue. An idea will be bounced between two sides, pro and con, and rigorously debated in my head – fortunately, both “I” are rational, (because the Big “I” is rational) and a position is formed.

              This is commonly why I can retort against the arguments here. I’ve already made them to myself, and had to defend the retort against my own argument – but with rigorous reason that I demanded upon both “I”s. I am well armed.

              It is also the reason I “turned” Blackflag. My favorite side, the Statist side, lost a devastating argument in my head. It was, personally, shocking – I could not defend the State against my own arguments against the State.

              I found myself utterly stuck, and brushed up against the light of clarity.

              I could either ignore my enlightenment, continue as I had, and suffer no loss.
              I could hold that enlightenment, exercise the principle that was discovered, and take a terrible loss.

              What would you do?

  22. I know this appears to be a long read, but take the time to read it carefully

    By Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows:

    Other things being equal, businesses go to low-wage areas, and labor moves to high-wage areas, thus affecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital.

    An influx of migrants into a given-sized high-wage area will lower nominal wage rates. However, it will not lower real wage rates if the population is below its optimum size. To the contrary, if this is the case, the produced output will increase over-proportionally, and real incomes will actually rise.

    Thus, restrictions on immigration will harm the protected domestic workers qua consumers more than they gain qua producers.

    Moreover, immigration restrictions will increase the “flight” of capital abroad (the export of capital which otherwise might have stayed), still causing an equalization of wage rates (although somewhat more slowly), but leading to a less than optimal allocation of capital, thereby harming world living standards all-around.

    In addition, traditionally labor unions, and nowadays environmentalists, are opposed to free immigration, and this should prima facie count as another argument in favor of a policy of free immigration.


    As it is stated, the above argument in favor of free immigration is irrefutable and correct. It would be foolish to attack it, just as it would be foolish to deny that free trade leads to higher living standards than does protectionism.

    It would also be wrongheaded to attack the above case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become to a significant extent the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even if the United States, for instance, is below her optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards.

    For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state.

    To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.

    The problem with the above argument is that it suffers from two interrelated shortcomings which invalidate its unconditional pro-immigration conclusion and/or which render the argument applicable only to a highly unrealistic – long bygone – situation in human history.

    The first shortcoming will only be touched upon.

    To libertarians of the Austrian school, it should be clear that what constitutes “wealth” and “well-being” is subjective. Material wealth is not the only thing that counts.

    Thus, even if real incomes rise due to immigration, it does not follow that immigration must be considered “good,” for one might prefer lower living standards and a greater distance to other people over higher living standards and a smaller distance to others.

    Instead, a second, related shortcoming will be the focus here.

    With regard to a given territory into which people immigrate, it is left unanalyzed who, if anyone, owns (controls) this territory. In fact, in order to render the above argument applicable, it is – implicitly – assumed that the territory in question is unowned, and that the immigrants enter virgin territory (open frontier).

    Obviously, this can no longer be assumed. If this assumption is dropped, however, the problem of immigration takes on an entirely new meaning and requires fundamental rethinking.


    For the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarcho-capitalist society.

    Though convinced that such a society is the only social order that can be defended as just, I do not want to explain here why this is the case.

    Instead, I will employ it as a conceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamental misconception of most contemporary free immigration advocates.

    All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.

    With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others.

    With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

    Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration.

    Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles.

    Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners consent to such movements.

    There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.

    Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism.

    From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance.

    To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation – the absence of any form of forced integration – that makes peaceful relationships – free trade – between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.


    In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners.

    This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation).

    The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an “unnatural” (coercive) institution.

    Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples’ natural inclination to associate with others.

    First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call “forced integration” by government agents.

    Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects’ private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source.

    Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade – a lowering of transaction costs – as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities).

    Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning.

    Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties.

    Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).

    Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism).In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners.

    This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner.


    It is now time to enrich the analysis through the introduction of a few “realistic” empirical assumptions.

    Let us assume that the government is privately owned. The ruler literally owns the entire country within state borders. He owns part of the territory outright (his property title is unrestricted), and he is partial owner of the rest (as landlord or residual claimant of all of his citizen-tenants real estate holdings, albeit restricted by some kind of pre-existing rental contract). He can sell and bequeath his property, and he can calculate and “realize” the monetary value of his capital (his country).

    Traditional monarchies – and kings – are the closest historical examples of this form of government.

    What will a king’s typical immigration and emigration policy be?

    Because he owns the entire country’s capital value, he will, assuming no more than his self-interest, tend to choose migration policies that preserve or enhance rather than diminish the value of his kingdom.Traditional monarchies – and kings – are the closest historical examples of this form of government.

    As far as emigration is concerned, a king will want to prevent the emigration of productive subjects, in particular of his best and most productive subjects, because losing them would lower the value of the kingdom. Thus, for example, from 1782 until 1824 a law prohibited the emigration of skilled workmen from Britain.

    On the other hand, a king will want to expel his non-productive and destructive subjects (criminals, bums, beggars, gypsies, vagabonds, etc.), for their removal from his territory would increase the value of his realm. For this reason Britain expelled tens of thousands of common criminals to North America and Australia.

    On the other hand, as far as immigration policy is concerned, a king would want to keep the mob, as well as all people of inferior productive capabilities, out. People of the latter category would only be admitted temporarily, if at all, as seasonal workers without citizenship, and they would be barred from permanent property ownership. Thus, for example, after 1880 large numbers of Poles were hired as seasonal workers in Germany.

    A king would only permit the permanent immigration of superior or at least above-average people; i.e., those, whose residence in his kingdom would increase his own property value. Thus, for example, after 1685 (with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes) tens of thousands of Huguenots were permitted to settle in Prussia; and similarly Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, and Maria Theresia later promoted the immigration and settlement of large numbers of Germans in Russia, Prussia, and the eastern provinces of Austria-Hungary.

    In brief, while through his immigration policies a king might not entirely avoid all cases of forced exclusion or forced integration, such policies would by and large do the same as what private property owners would do, if they could decide who to admit and who to exclude.

    That is, the king would be highly selective and very much concerned about improving the quality of the resident human capital so as to drive property values up, not down.


    Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned.

    The ruler no longer owns the country’s capital value, but only has current use of it.

    He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, “free entry” into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.

    Democracies as they came into existence on a world-wide scale after World War I offer historical examples of public government.Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned. The ruler no longer owns the country’s capital value, but only has current use of it. He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, “free entry” into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.

    What are a democracy’s migration policies?

    Once again assuming no more than self-interest (maximizing monetary and psychic income: money and power), democratic rulers tend to maximize current income, which they can appropriate privately, at the expense of capital values, which they cannot appropriate privately. Hence, in accordance with democracy’s inherent egalitarianism of one-man-one-vote, they tend to pursue a distinctly egalitarian – non-discriminatory – emigration and immigration policy.

    As far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that for a democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productive or unproductive people, geniuses or bums leave the country. They have all one equal vote.

    In fact, democratic rulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bum than that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latter would obviously lower the capital value of the country and loss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic ruler does not own the country.

    In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism’s prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler.

    For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities – unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals – are likely to be his most reliable supporters.

    As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse.

    For a democratic ruler, it also matters little whether bums or geniuses, below or above-average civilized and productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is he much concerned about the distinction between temporary workers (owners of work permits) and permanent, property owning immigrants (naturalized citizens).

    In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called “social” problem,” and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems.

    Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not.

    The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing “quality” concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism).

    Indeed, though rarely noticed, the immigration policy of a democracy is the mirror image of its policy toward internal population movements: toward the voluntary association and dissociation, segregation and desegregation, and the physical distancing and approximating of various private property owners.

    Like a king, a democratic ruler will promote spatial over-integration by over-producing the “public good” of roads.

    However, for a democratic ruler, unlike a king, it will not be sufficient that everyone can move next door to anyone else on government roads.

    Concerned about his current income and power rather than capital values and constrained by egalitarian sentiments, a democratic ruler will tend to go even further.

    Through non-discrimination laws – one cannot discriminate against Germans, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Hindus, homosexuals, etc. – the government will want to open even the physical access and entrance to everyone’s property to everyone else. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the so-called “Civil Rights” legislation in the United States, which outlawed domestic discrimination on the basis of color, race, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, etc., and which thereby actually mandated forced integration, coincided with the adoption of a non-discriminatory immigration policy; i.e., mandated inter-national desegregagtion (forced integration).

    The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars or bums or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to kick out those who do not fulfill these requirements as trespassers; and to solve the “naturalization” question somewhat along the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen.

    What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy?

    The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses).

    This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule.

    Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy.

    More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian)


    What is important to see in his argument is that democracy is forced integration.

    If you do not want immigration, specifically, a certain type of immigration, like poor Mexicans, you cannot have a democracy.

    This want to prevent certain immigration is equally a want of resisting integration.

    But integration is a necessary condition for democracy

    As I have stated here often to (you know who you are), you cannot have both prevention of immigration AND democracy

    Trying to have both leads to disaster. See current situation.

  23. ‘Administration turns to churches to avoid clashes…’ What happened to separation of Church and State-no protests-no court cases?

  24. Bamadad says:

    BF said:

    First, you get more bees with vinegar, not honey. Bees do not seek honey, they make honey. They seek pollen. That is why I am smart. I know things about the world and am not laden with dumbo jingoism.

    False, bees do seek honey. They make honey from nectar and store it with pollen to consume when flowers are not in bloom. When you rob a hive the vast majority of the bees are more concerned about eating the spilled honey than going after you, the robber. This is a good thing when each hive has about 60,000 bees in it. After we process the comb we set out our equipment and the bees happily clean it for us. If they have plenty of pollen stored they will go for honey over flowers.

    • Not false, Bama.

      You have to force the bees to seek honey by robbing them.

      As you point out, they seek nectar and pollen.

      • Bamadad says:

        “You have to force the bees to seek honey by robbing them”

        I have never been able to force a bee to do anything. They make honey to eat when there are no flowers. I can put out honey NOT robbed from the hive and they will swam it.

    • …and the saying is actually “you catch more flies….”

  25. Disappointment with the World

    …because (shhh) “people have no principles”

    • BF – it must be so very hard for you, what with your principles and all, having to deal with all of us simpletons, completely void of any principle, our brains eternally filled with mush. I could go on but it hits my puny brain.


      • Buck,

        Not hard at all. I deal with your ilk constantly and every day.

        It is sad

        The brilliance of humanity is stunted by the thinking of the likes of you.

        • …and my respite to this sadness, is that all human moral progress occurs, not by your self-imposed ignorant and unthinking ilk, but by the incredibly small few who, against overwhelming odds, slowly push mankind to a higher moral ground.

          • It is indeed fortunately that people with principles are equally endowed with nearly infinite patience.

            We know that this is a progress that will take lifetimes to achieve. Almost everyone is married to their condition, and resists any attempt to change that condition, better or worse.

            Inches per generation, as history has shown.

            Almost measured in geological timescales, but slowly humanity will rise above the use of violence.

            • Further, what is utterly astonishing and unprecedented in history, was the Industrial Revolution and the advent of Free Market philosophy in the 18th century.

              No historian has presented a cogent case to why this happened. Quite literally, out of nowhere, the explosion of economic and political freedom occurred.

              The best we can do at this point is blame the Scottish.

              • And, yes, I am half-Scot. 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Figures, My family tree goes way back to the McPhearson clan in Scotland in the 1600’s. My 5th Great Granddad was the first to find Custer, after his demise. We still have the original news paper Front page saved from the time of it’s happening. Cool stuff. Imagine that BF, we might be related 😀

              • Gman,

                With no doubt, if we go back merely a few generations, we are related, cousin!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It is a small world, so the saying goes 🙂

        • Funny, because I tend to think progress marches on because of the likes of me. After all, as you say, we are the vast majority. Or do you credit all advances to the so very few who see the world as you do?

          • Buck

            It is funny, because it doesn’t, not by those that advocate violence to correct their disagreement with non-violent people.

            You are the majority, no doubt. As the youtube suggests, people have no principles.

            It is not “seeing the world as ‘we do'” it is applying principles to the world.

            You have, with absolute consistency, avoided any principle whatsoever.

            What change do you believe you can create based on whim?

      • …and with deep sadness, you and your ilk are the vast majority.

  26. Just A Citizen says:


    You keep claiming others have no principles when in fact they do.

    You simply don’t agree with them. Whether due to contradictions or violation of one of your definitions, it still amounts to disagreement.

    Lets take for example your old claim that morals are subjective and unique to each person. Yet morals are the root of all other principles. Then you claim others morals are invalid based on YOUR Standards.

    You claim REASON as your standard but ignore the reality of human existence when defending your no govt. society. I have not forgotten that you still have not demonstrated how your no govt tribe preserves itself against these tribes who view survival of the fittest as their standard. After all, they will have used force to build a full time army much stronger than your militia.

    You claim you don’t suffer fools lightly. Well most here are not fools, so perhaps you should suffer a little more and poke eyes a little less.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      P.S.; I have not abandoned any principles. Stop confusing my questions or challenges to your position with taking a position.

      • But you have.

        You advocate violence on the non-violent.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF I advocate initiating violence against nobody.

          But then I don’t view preventing others from invading my tribal lands as “initiating” violence. And stopping them at the border is not violence in itself.

          Certainly if the Indians had a right to defend their land I and other Americans have that same right.

          • JAC
            “But then I don’t view preventing others from invading my tribal lands as “initiating” violence. And stopping them at the border is not violence in itself.”

            But it is.

            You do not discern between free movement of a free people from an invasion.

            To you, they are the say thing.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Actually I do recognize a difference. But tell me where YOU draw the line.

              Didn’t the pilgrims and other Europeans simply exercise theie right to free movement when coming here??

              • They did.

                And they were successful, not by war but by trade.

                The tribes had lots of land to give.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                BF…..your argument here is so bogus. The native americans resisted the “migration” almost immediately in Virginia, took 3 wars for the indians to be subdued. The Indian wars in NC took a few years to come to a head, but were brought on by the Indians objecting to the raiding of the colonists for slaves, encroaching on the land and spread of diseases decimating the tribes up and down the east coast where ever there was contact with the european migrants. In NE disease by 1618 had decimated the indian population brought in by fishermen. The pilgrims were granted a charter to settle in Virginia, not the NE area. within 50 years the Indians rose up throughout NE in an attempt to put an end to the “Great Migration”, stealing of land, people and spread of diseases. Needless to say the native americans lost in all these cases by the use of overwhelming violence, not trade. The colonies were used as dumping grounds to get rid of many of the disaffected, disenfranchised, poor, debtors, criminals in the home countries. Sending gentlemen was a failed experiment resulting in the vast majority of the future migrants pre-1776 were by most peoples definitions “hard cases” and needed to hack out the colony. Trade of raw materials back to the home country and profit to the “company” was the over-riding european objective. How they were obtained on our side was usually predicated on violence in one form or another. Colonies were also granted and flooded with migrants to act as buffers between other european countries geopolitical objectives, like Spain and France…..Indian tribes aligned themselves on different sides in these conflicts, not only for their survival but also to eliminate rival tribes in their own age old conflicts…… this by no means the whole story and can be discussed in what could be measured in years and thousands of pages of debate.

                What is most prevalent, is that the federal government ignores SCOTUS rulings defining “indian” tribal territorial rights and citizenship granted very early in the history of this country to suit itself and relocated them “for their own good” when the tribes stood in the way of “progress” and the land that now was desired by the westward expansion of the white settlers. When the “LAW” or “Treaties”, stood in the way, the “LAW” or “Treaty” was just changed or ignored usually without consent of the peoples being affected.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              P.S. No physical injury the no violence.

    • JAC,

      No, they don’t have principles.

      Principles are not whim. It is not a declaration, but an action. It is not a matter of disagreement, but of consistency and lack of contradiction

    • Nope, Will not suffer fools. And I will poke eyes without fail.

      When the people are blind, hitting their eyes makes no difference.

      Engage the brain, no matter the pain

    • PS: I have demonstrate, by argument how my ideology preserves the people.

      Eliminating violence in society is the most effective means of expanding the common good – in fact, it is the singular only ideology that succeeds this goal of expanding good.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Wouldn’t it be great if all humanity could eliminate violence? I would love being able to go anywhere and feel totally safe from violence. If that were indeed a fact, which it is not, we would all be better off.

        • Gman,

          That is the goal, even though each generation may miss it directly, we get closer every shot we fire gets us closer, as long as we hold to that principle.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Damn, battery is about dead. Have to go until tomorrow. Should have internet by next Wednesday. Then won’t have to suffer disjointed discussion.

  28. *test*




  30. gmanfortruth says:

    Gotta love those anti-hunters. In this case, their intelligence is exposed: http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/stupid-bunny-lovers-anti-dinosaur-hunters-flip-lid-speilbergs-kill/

    Must see for a good laugh! 🙂

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Nabil Na’eem, the founder of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and former top al-Qaeda commander, told the Beirut-based pan-Arab TV station al-Maydeen all current al-Qaeda affiliates, including ISIS, work for the CIA.
    Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/former-al-qaeda-commander-isis-works-cia/#TczCs45RUIMy1sWe.99

    I’ve been saying this for quite some time 🙂

  32. .



    (truly overkill, LOI)

  33. BF….you saved me a question for clarification for others…..I am glad that you took the time to describe your outlook….invest is another one of those words that has many connotations in the minds of those whom do not fully understand economics or the difference between income and profit. Many lump it the same….it is not. It is the same as people trying to understand the difference in debt vs deficit…..not even close. And it is trying to explain the term cash flow, which is where you are coming from. IF you have sufficient cash flow to cover your debts, you are well.

    I did not want people to misunderstand where you were coming from because,I fear, they misinterpret your meaning of deriving income to profit. Most people, including many gurus, and no doubt very many on here, will simply state that profit equals income or vice versa. Many people look at a share of stock and say, ” look, my basis is one dollar and now its stated value is ten dollars, I have a nine dollar profit”. We both know that is ridiculous. I know many people who have outstanding net worth on their Personal Income Statements…people worth millions but scarcely have one dollar in the bank. Cash is king, and as you rightly point out, only as long as cash is worth something. We are solidly behind the issue that when you are out of cash, you are out of luck..

    All this hoopla about the stock market is pure hoopla…these record setting prices are nothing more than manipulation of the market…….some people will cash out in time like the 90’s…and make a fortune….most will fail and lose. You are correct in that the supply of money (M1) is a false supply and like the 80’s under Carter, when inflation and devaluation were paramount, those with cash actually survived quite well. When the correction came, cash ended up being worth a hell of a lot more….the same thing is happening again. These interest rates and the flood of money into the system is a false god….it will stop eventually, sooner than later. Credit will dry up even further and there will be no cash to be had unless you already have it.

    People worry about the US defaulting on debt…who will it hurt? The world still revolves around the USD and I see NO replacement yet. But I am watching closely.

  34. Interesting…..28 press organizations, including Huffpo (surprise here) complaining about the censorship that has been coming out of Washington. not only with this administration, but coming from the established elites in Congress on both sides of the aisle for the last 50 years…..since Kennedy…and it is getting worse. we shall see what becomes of this. Even the German rag Der Speigel (sp) saying that they have not seen it this bad since the fascist days.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mornin Colonel 🙂

      Nothing will come of this at all, Obama don’t care nor do anybody else in government. They are the new GOD in their own minds.

  35. And now, you have OBAMA of all people, begging the churches for help on the immigrant situation. Obama…it is really easy……close the damn border uti you get a handle on this….the criminal element is now making up almost 40% of the crossings now…..times have changed.

    • Hush, BF….just my morning rant….I am entitled. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JMHO, Obama seems to be trying to overwhelm the system so it implodes. In his sociopath mind, the governors of the southern states will demand Congress pass immigration reform (amnesty). I think Obama will be wrong, because the Governors will do no such thing, they will shut the border themselves, even if it means asking the people (militia) to help the regular authorities.

      But, maybe not…LOL Amnesty will not solve the problem anyway, it will make it far worse, all in the name of getting more votes. 🙄

  36. Test post

  37. First you had Venezuela…one of Charlie’s examples that he pointed out, where everything was nationalized by the government. Venezuela now has the highest poverty rate, no national airlines are flying there anymore, inflation is rampant, prices have increased tenfold, pensions taken away, the Euro and the USD do not trade there any longer…and now, for those individuals wishing to fly out of there have to pay……………….ready……………..clean air breathing tax of 127 bolivars. Yes….they are now charging for breathing……..

  38. I dunno who you are, but unless you are just another person playing games…

    Thank you.


%d bloggers like this: