The Tempest-Tost

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”(1)


These words resonate thru our history, the history of the United States of America.  Our history also contains many examples where our citizens were not open and welcoming to immigrants, especially mass immigration.  Do we have the “right” as a nation to say yes or no to anyone who might want to visit our shores?  I think the answer to that lies with asking, do we have the right to exist as a nation, period?


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.          Abe Lincoln.(2)


Do we have any “right” to have a nation of, by and for the people?  To abstract?  Lets ask instead, do you have a right to live in and keep your home?  What gives you that right?

And the sign said, Anybody caught trespassin’ would be shot on sight
So, I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house
“Hey, what gives you the right?
To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in
If God was here, He’d tell you to your face, man, you’re some kinda sinner”(3)


I like the song, but do not agree with the reasoning.  You can lock the doors on your house.  Who you let in is & should be your choice.  The Bruce Willis movie “Unbreakable” has a psycho killer that walks up to a front door, rings the bell, tells the  man who answers, ” I like you house, can I come in?”  He then forces his way in, kills the father, rape, torture, etc…  You can lock your doors.  You can put up a fence.  You can do this because we as a society agreed on some laws.  Follow certain rules & you “own” property.  You can expect to be safe on that property, defended by police and an army.  You pay taxes on that property to insure you are kept safe.  You have the right to protect what is yours.  By extension, does our government not have the right & responsibility to protect our nation?  PreWW2, would Japan have not come and taken our oil without defended borders?

Consider how often during a dry spell, we wish for rain.  Even during normal seasons, do we protest when rain comes?  OK, let’s have the picnic next weekend instead.  But do we ever wish for massive thunderstorms?  For flash floods?  For an overwhelming burst of water too great for the normal ditches,  streams and rivers to contain?  No, we don’t wish for so much rain as to wreak havoc, to destroy live and property.  Sadly, this analogy falls short.   We have seen normal floods and can respond, survive, rebuild.  Most of the damage done by hurricanes Sandy & Katrina was by flooding.  Getting closer, but still this falls short of our situation.  Sandy, the hurricane flooded much of our East coast, but it ended.  Measured in hours or days, there was an end.

The “flood” of immigrants, where & when does that end?  Mexico has announced an agreement with two Central American countries on allowing & assisting immigrants, including young children, to enter the US, illegally.(4)  Parts of our government seem to be assisting these immigrants while others parts are attempting to stop them.  Our country is praised for being a nation of laws, where the law protects everyone’s rights.  Here we have the federal government ignoring written laws, attempting to force the states to abide by illegal suppression of those laws, and some states are pushing back.  We are taught a history where dishonest governments suppress & control the news.  During wars & foreign conflicts, it is expected even the press will respect the need for some  secrets.  Why would that be applied to the housing of hundreds or thousands of immigrants?  If they are our “guests”, why can we not see the conditions they are living under?  What bedding, clothing, food & medical care are we extending?  How many are families with an adult & how many are children traveling alone?  How many are young males aged 15 to 25 with gang tat’s?  I think the world watches & see’s here an example of how far America has fallen.  Clearly our government is hiding from us, its citizens, information we have a legal right to expect & demand.  At the same time, our world-renowned media seems content to allow this, sitting quietly like a well-trained, well fed dog.

Look at the numbers.  The US has a population of 300 million, of which around 70 million work.  China has 300 million people living in poverty.  The US is the richest nation in the world, often referred to as the world breadbasket.  We could support those 300 million and instantly improve their quality of life.  It would likely have a negative effect on your and my quality of life.  India has 400 million living in poverty.  Can they come also?  Also consider this helps both China & India as nations.  The bulk of their non-productive population becomes someone else’s burden.  Human rights advocates have been outspoken over China’s brutally enforced “one child” policy.  They are an overcrowded nation with over a million citizens.  In perspective, some good news.  Central America only has around 40 million  people in total.  I think it’s unlikely more than 10 to 15 million will seek refuge in the US.  And they qualify as “refugee’s”, fleeing poverty & violence. (5)  And how many thousands have died in Sudan?  What about Libya, Syria, Egypt, Nigeria & Iraq?  Surely people fleeing war face a more urgent crisis than those living in poverty?  In a civilized world, what is a civilized answer to all these crisis’?

My answer?  A civilized nation & people help where they can in and at those nations in crisis.  Not here.  Bringing their problems here do not resolve the problem.  It may provide temporary relief.  But if the culture of a nation causes them to overpopulate, eventually they will breed past what the ecosystem can support.  It’s funny if you study efforts to control the deer population in the US.  They have tried nearly everything from sterilization to urban hunts.  In every case, the deer breed to fill the habitat.  Then over breed unless controlled by hunting.  Perhaps wars are an equivalent?  If there was plenty of food & space, would there be so much fighting in the Middle East & Africa?  Outrageous thought?  Offensive even?

The Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region has 500 million Arabs, Persians, North Africans and others living in an area with an agricultural system that can support half that number. (6)

Sorry but allowing them to come here in mass is bringing their problems to us, making their problems ours.  It still will not solve their problems, be it poverty or war, it will just bring poverty and war here.  While I think the US should always be open and welcoming to immigrants, we cannot allow a flood that is all but an invasion.  Too many too soon means no assimilation.  That will kill our culture.  It will then be replaced with that of the invaders.  If their culture was so successful, why did they flee their homeland?  I can understand Mexico’s actions.  They have struggled with too many immigrants.  Much better for them to pass them on & up to us, make it our problem.  Our only solution is to completely seal the border, including Canada should it prove necessary.  Immigrants must come as guests, not invaders.  You wish to live in your house, keep a home for your family?  Have doors that lock.  Put up a fence if needed or desired.  You wish to live in a nation where all men are created equal?  We must guard what is ours, or we are giving it away.



(1)  excerpt from  “The New Colossus

(2) The Gettysburg Address

(3)  Signs by Five Man Electrical Band






  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. Such bizarre arguments.

    As if all the Chinese or Indians or Mexicans want to come to the US.

    Using such idiotic arguments to make an idiotic case only creates idiotic conclusions.

    As I’ve already presented, in great detail, the principle you present is that “we can’t have free trade, otherwise the world will overrun us”. Yet, economics (and, yes, labor is economics) and history shows that the opposite occurs.

    And I further presented that if you want to limit immigration, you cannot have democracy

    You still pretend that you can have both.

    You will lose one or the other.

    And it seems since you have chose immigration, you are willing to lose what little is left of your freedom.

    • *limit immigration…

    • Aaarrrggg! Have at thee!

      So no issue with my numbers? If everyone came, America would have a population over a billion as soon as they could make the trip?

      “the principle you present is that “we can’t have free trade, otherwise the world will overrun us”. Yet, economics (and, yes, labor is economics) and history shows that the opposite occurs.”

      But it’s not a free trade environment! This is a false premiss you are stating. Governments are artificially manipulating the currencies, trade and labor. Government of Central America & Mexico flooding the US with mass immigrants is a manipulation if not an attack.

      “And I further presented that if you want to limit immigration, you cannot have democracy”

      We are or were a republic, not a democracy. And we very well may have already lost that with progressives/socialists manipulating our laws & principles against ourselves.

      • “So no issue with my numbers? If everyone came, America would have a population over a billion as soon as they could make the trip?”

        Again, with the utter nonsense fantasy of “what if aliens from Mars only landed in the USA, then what!?!?!”

        You create a fantasy story in a ignorant attempt to prove your conclusion.

      • It is a free trade principle. It is not a false premise, it is A PRINCIPLE of economics.

        I know you have a hard time knowing the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, a principle and a premise, and between an argument and a fantasy.

        Your argument about free trade in labor was the same argument men made about free trade of other goods – “we can’t have free trade if other countries also do not have free trade!!”

        But their argument was just as wrong as yours is.

        Look it’s simple. You benefit when the cost of your goods is lessthis economic LAW is independent of the economic goods you are taking about, whether it is cars, oil, food, clothes and labor.

        If another country is willing to let its economic good of labor leave – the most valuable economic good in the economy to benefit YOU, you’d be an idiot to say no.

  3. “You wish to live in your house”

    Again the bizarre and ignorant argument of presenting individual rights to be national action

    Again, the lengthy piece I had last post explained this, but I know it is too much for you to actually understand.

    • the word understand does not equal the word agree in my dictionary. What’s yours say?

      • LOI,

        So you do not AGREE that Individuals – Human Beings- have rights, but ABSTRACTIONS do not have rights

        You believe an abstraction – a concept has rights.

        Oh boy… now I can see where you go upside down.

        • I disagree with some of your conclusions. That does not equal or mean I did not or do not understand your arguments.

          • So I present principle and reason and achieve a conclusion from such.

            You go “principle, check. Reasoning, check. Conclusion, no thanks” – and bizarrely sit back and say “Yep, I disproved your case”

            Really, you haven’t a clue, do you?

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    I would like to draw your attention to BF’s long post from Mr. Hoppe, and BF’s conclusion.

    You cannot control immigration and have Democracy.

    1. Democracy here is used as a collection of many Govt types. But a true democracy could in fat restrict immigration, just as the Athenians did. Because the land owners would have direct say on immigration.

    2. The argument supports our original Republican form as a better alternative to the current more Democratic form (but not democracy) It also explains why the Progressives seeking greater Govt power always try to increase Democratic methods, such as using the POPULAR vote for all elections. This increases the need for the party to increase its voter block. Thus the Dems have bet their future control on capturing the Hispanic vote.

    3. Big govt types are not as concerned about immigrant quality as numbers will increase TAX revenue more than quality. Especially since quality tend to oppose Govt growth in taxation.

    Bottomline………..all things are related and the purpose of govt actions are not nonsensical, if you look at them in context of what benefits securing and maintaining power.

    As for the rest of the article just be careful to read closely what the “assumptions” are for each. As is often the case the assumption can appear reasonable due to the presentation method, but be completely unreasonable, in the real world.

    For those curious the Theory of Social Justice depend on just such a flawed assumption about how reasonable people would behave.

    • JAC,

      If you have a complaint about assumptions, then make the complaint – just not say “check the assumptions”

      Hoppe presented his arguments from principles already in play – there is nothing “made up” in his presentation.

      Believe me, Hoppe has heard all your complaints and by argument, long dismissed them regarding his “assumptions”, indeed, he avoids assumptions, and plies principles, for -in the end- that is always what is exposed.

      (1)(2) No, Athenians were not a “true” democracy – they were an oligarchy. Restricting the vote to a minority is not a democracy. You can argue they were a Republic, but that is NOT the current establishment today. Athens did not allow women to vote, nor slaves, nor the “un-landed”. By wary, sir, of invalid comparisons.

      There is no doubt that expanding the vote to women has empowered the Progressives and the unproductive classes.

      (3) Yes, that is Hoppe’s argument rephrased. The genius and superior people disavow government.

    • JAC,

      You error here.
      “about immigrant quality as numbers will increase TAX revenue more than quality”


      Quantity provides votes – that is, legitimacy of core policy.

      They do not care about tax revenue, in fact, tend to shun it in the modern Nation State of Central banking.

      Look, the case is simple. Taxes are visible. You increase taxes above the magic number of 40%, the population becomes riotous.

      The advent of central banking has avoid the visible. It is now debt. By avoiding tax increases, and taking debt – funded and unfunded liabilities – the government is capable of hiding their expenditures into the future.

  5. *test post*

  6. LOI.

    I want to apologize for being such a dickhead to you yesterday, and I feel I owe you an explanation, …at least a better one than what I gave.

    Please understand, I have been through a lot. For the last couple of decades anonymous groups of people have been messin’ with me REALLY hard, and in ways that most people with an IQ of less than 120 may have a difficult time comprehending.

    I am far FAR beyond tired of it. I am frustrated and absolutely livid beyond description. My blood has been boiling for about 20 years, my life and pursuit of happiness has been raped and taken from me, and my tolerance level is all but gone. I feel like a pressure cooker sometimes. Yesterday was one of them.

    It all centers on one thing. It is the fact that they are always doing something subtle, ambiguous, or cryptic, …but never direct, clear and concise, never in truth and always manipulative. It has caused my frame of reference in discerning things to be fluid and transient. It makes my head spin. What I need most is to be anchored in absolute definitive truth. …like NOW, …ASAP.

    There is apparently more than one side at work. Some appear to be looking out for me, while most seem to be trying to aggravate, manipulate, control and/or and ruin me, as if I am a tool or something. I am having a difficult time discerning between friend or foe, and I am indeed aggravated.

    My logic is this…

    Almost none of them are looking out for my best interests as I see fit. If they were, they would at least pay me a level of basic human respect to approach me directly. They would come to me and state their business. Because they do not, I must assume they are all enemies.

    They do not approach me truthfully, therefore they have something to hide. Because they hide, they must be assumed to have ill intent(apparently). If they have ill intent, they are a threat(obviously). Since they are a threat, they need to be neutralized. Because they are not cooperative, that means killing them as a prerequisite to continuation of my pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, if unresolved, I may as well blow my brains out.

    I have been playing along and slinging bullshit, chaos and obfuscation for no other reason than to push their buttons, observe and gather information. At this point, I care not for their goal or agenda, only who is playing the game. They play for an objective of some kind, while I play to identify a kill list. So every time someone does something in pattern with their games, they go on a list, …unless they are clearly demonstrating in the context of honesty or alliance.

    “CharlieOpera” is a good example. I know who he is and I can find Charlie any time I need to because he doesn’t hide. Thus I am not any more vulnerable to him as he is to me. It is neutral. He doesn’t manipulate, but rather demonstrates a gesture of good will, and therefore has my trust.

    I realize you were probably trying to cover for me by removing the more controversial section of my posts, but because it is probable and not definitive, not crystal clear, I am nonetheless aggravated. If you want to cover for me, do so with honesty and forthrightness.

    …PLEASE. I cannot stress enough the need for truth and forthrightness as to keep my compass aligned in context of the world around me.

    I understand ( at least in part) the position I am in, and the potential power of it. On a personal level, I couldn’t care less. I see it as meaningless bullshit. I see no value in it. The only reason I have any concern is because of the world around me. I only care because others do, …and frankly, I wish they didn’t.

    I see it as a huge burden that I was born with and want no part of. But life doesn’t work that way. It is what it is, and it needs to be resolved. I am ready to do so, and I need ALL THE HELP I CAN GET, …starting with the discernment of truth.

    I am only trying to do the right thing, …trying to live, learn, and grow for a better life of peace, love, and truth.

    Whose with me?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’ll hang with Ya! You should consider moving out into the country and away from populations, it’s far more peaceful 🙂

      • I appreciate your support and I reciprocate mine to you as well.

        I wish it were that easy and simple as moving to the country. But what I need is to find truth and closure in expedient fashion. It is a requirement for the continuation of my existence.

        If closure does not come in the form of truth and resolve, then it must be in the form of war.

    • Jonc,

      Forgiven, forgotten & deleted. We all have bad days. Some advice I will offer (worth just what you paid for it). Be yourself. At all time, as much as you can, be the person that makes you happy. I think you are a good person. We all get angry. We all have our reasons. The thing about it is only you make yourself angry. If a bird shit’s on you or an asshole yells & spits in your face, you decide, you determine how you feel.

      Do you want to be the guy cursing and throwing rocks at every bird? Maybe hit a few innocent bystanders? Or the other guy yelling & cussing on the street until the cops come and arrest you both? It’s always your choice. But from all the comic books I’ve read, all those “spirits of vengeance” types have very unhappy lives.

      For what it’s worth, I personally am going thru some of my darkest times. In facing them, I try to stay centered and make the best of each situation. I am enduring a lot of yelling, spitting in my face. Sometimes I yell back. Mostly I try to stay calm, say what I have to and walk away. They want to stand there and yell for hours each day. It doesn’t fix anything or pay any bills. Maybe what I do is no more than the band playing on the Titanic, but at least they went with dignity.

      • Thank you for your kind words, forgiveness and wisdom.

        I wish it were that simple, though. Not that you aren’t right (indeed you are), …just that it isn’t quite that simple.

        There is an enormous amount of information to cover for me to even explain it. It is complex and requires a bit of research and thought to verify and/or understand. And there is no telling of what the response will be.

        I am not sure what to make of it, or even where to start…

        Essentially, …When you take my full name and exact time and date of birth, the corresponding astrology, history, meaning, etymology, numerology, gematria, and mathematics thereof, as well as my bloodline, life’s events and physical traits, …an interesting and anomalous phenomenon occurs when applying it to religion (among other things).

        It is one of those things that is extraordinary and seemingly against beyond astronomical odds that that many things would line up so perfectly, context. I have seen what people consider an act of god. I have seen what people consider confirmation of fulfillment of religious prophecy. If they are so easily convinced of those things, they may quite possibly consider my circumstances the same or beyond.

        When put into context, it calls a few things into question in a way that has the potential to cause a bit of an upset, and may very well change things.

        Frankly, it scares the hell out of me. I stopped looking, and instead have tried to make an effort to wreck it and my integrity so that no one may actually believe it.

        It has apparently attracted attention from someone[s] whom knew before I did, and refuse to confer with me, and appear to be taking the position of opportunist. Also, there are apparently a lot of people who are already aware and who are trying to figure it out with incomplete and/or lacking of information that I have mostly kept to myself.

        The eventual conclusion (given the information I have thus far gathered) is that information has somehow moved backward in time, and in the form of a big encrypted loop.

        I feel that, until I can explain it, I cannot continue life in any normal capacity. I MUST know truth. And I am going to need help in doing so.

        • Jonc,

          “take my full name and exact time and date of birth, the corresponding astrology, history, meaning, etymology, numerology, gematria, and mathematics thereof”

          I think you went way above my pay grade there. But time is just an abstract concept. So is math & language. Nearly everything we think of as thinking is an abstract concept. Therefore you can make it as complex or simple as you think!

          • I can explain it in detail. My fear is that people would actually believe it. Some apparently already do, ..or are pretending to. The issue is that it is a real head scratcher when considering the odds of that many things lining up so perfectly.

            Before I go any further though, I want to reiterate that, in my humble opinion, it is complete bullshit. Although I am sure there are people who may argue against this notion.

            In attempting to verify legitimacy and authenticity, …in trying to understand and discern truth, it has forced me to dig deep, only to discover things that are pretty damn interesting all by themselves.

            Anyone that follows my trail of research would likely discover the same. I dare say that it has the power to call into question history as we know it and the religious and philosophical foundations of what billions have structured their lives around for centuries.

            Depending on how people would respond, and because Knowledge is Power, the circumstances of what I ‘know’ potentially threatens the stability of global economics, religion and politics.

            I’m not kidding. Consider the potential disaster.

            This is why I have been stressing that it is important for people to work together in spite of divisive systems. It is why I have been following issues like tolerance of gay people and religious equality. It is all dependent upon how people would respond.

            I’m not trying to start WW3. I am only trying to find closure as to get on with my life, maybe find a suitable mate, start a family and build that small farm before I get too old to do so.

            I should probably be having this conversation with Pope Francis and/or Mossad, and a few others. But I don’t exactly trust them, …or rather their position.

            I need all the help I can get. I MUST find closure through truth and righteousness, ..peacefully. Otherwise, I have to run the gamut, start hunting and killing people, or blow my brains out. Suicide makes the most sense. But it isn’t necessarily the preferred option.

            So, I ask again… Who is with me?

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    If one would sit back and look at the immigration issue from a far, it’s a little more interesting. Liberals want amnesty for the current group of illegal immigrants in country (this number is likely over 25 million, that’s another subject), the Conservatives are against amnesty. The Liberals says “they just want a better life” , the Conservatives say “come get a better life, begin by following our laws”. Neither side seems to be against immigration.

    The Anarchist view is open borders, I’m not sure how the Left views this subject so I will ask Buck, Mathius or another other Lefty to clarify what the Liberal position is. The Conservative position is no open borders and better control of them. I don’t see open borders ever happening.

    The current “government made crisis” has created quite a mess. From what I’m reading, the feds are shipping these kids all over the place and releasing them with a court date, which may be as far out as 3 years from now.

    I was thinking about how this could be resolved, considering the positions of the two political sides. I thought of the costs of dealing with this subject, but it seems that the government is just going to borrow more money and either stick the payments to future generations or just default on all the debt and start over. I can only guess how this would end. What would be a solution? Amnesty for…….? I doubt the Liberals will just get amnesty, so if there is to be a compromise, they will have to give up something that they won’t want too.

    • Again, GMan, it is the choice between your freedom or more restrictions on that freedom.

      Again, refer to the Economic Principle of trade. Are you better off (consumer) with free trade or with import restrictions? Is the country better off with more government restriction on what price you have to pay for your goods or is it better with a free market price?

      You can’t have both, Gman – more government AND more freedom.

      Pick one.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m looking at it from outside looking in. Government is the cause of most of the ills of this country, that’s for sure, but the current immigration issue is basically “open borders” as the feds aren’t enforcing the laws (which you do not like). So, your getting your wish it seems, open borders. The influx has caused a humanitarian issue, from all accounts, that has it’s own problems. Your wish for open borders is happening now, at least as far as federal laws go.

        Just heard than another huge pharm company is moving from Illinois to Ireland, because of taxes. How long before we won’t need low wage workers….because we will be them ?

        • Gman,

          Boy, you just don’t learn.

          “Just heard than another huge pharm company is moving from Illinois to Ireland, because of taxes. How long before we won’t need low wage workers….because we will be them ?”

          I explained why companies leave. They leave because costs here are higher, for the same productivity inputs, then “over there”.

          Yes, taxes are one. Labor is another.

          Look, most resources in the world are fungible. I lived in the Congo, and you know what a steak cost over there? …. about the same as you pay where you live. The difference, of course, is that very few over there could afford to pay that amount, so there is not a lot of steaks in Congo.

          But of all the resources and costs, labor is not fungible, because as you noted nearly every country has immigration controls. So a the technology worker in Congo that I has working with me earned $1,000 a year whilst I was earning $2,000 a day.

          This is the irony of immigration controls, Gman, and your position suffers this irony.

          You want expensive labor to come to the US with little barrier but want to block cheap labor. In other words, you want to pay more for your goods and services.

          It is not “basically” open borders. Open borders means not trying to stop immigration with guns, helicopters, D13 soldiers, walls, dogs, prison camps, etc.

          Just because a few have gotten through this barbaric wall of government, and once achieved the government shrugs, is not open borders – it is a perversion of open borders.

          What do you get when you set up such extreme filters on the person trying to come here?

          You only get the most desperate because anyone less would not suffer nor attempt getting through your barbaric wall.

          What is truly bizarre is then you sit back and say “Damn, all we get is the real desperate people making it through!” as if you are expecting something else.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Boy, you just don’t learn. Nor do you. As you like to put it, just because you say does not make it true. The company I mentioned stated very clearly, “it’s because of taxes”. Which part of that isn’t clear to you? And for the record, a lot of companies have also left due to labor costs, that is well known.

            This is the irony of immigration controls, Gman, and your position suffers this irony. What position is that exactly? You also have a bad habit of painting everyone with the same broad brush. My position is more of a question, who’s gonna pay for all of these kids and the care they require? Obama wants 3.7 billion. I guess that cost will be past on to future generations. That part I’m against. I’m against the welfare class of people who ARE U.S. citizens and want that seriously changed. I’m against any immigrant, legal or not from getting any form of govt aid. As you can see, I’m against just about any form of government intervention. Your brush is ignorant, try painting with a new one 😉

            You want expensive labor to come to the US with little barrier but want to block cheap labor. In other words, you want to pay more for your goods and services. Again, where did I say this? Note: I didn’t, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I don’t make false claims about your position, unless you would like me to start, don’t do it to me.

            You only get the most desperate because anyone less would not suffer nor attempt getting through your barbaric wall…….or, we only get the desperate because of a really generous welfare system. The smart ones know the tax issues and labor costs, why would they want to come here to start a business?

            Something off subject somewhat, but what low paying jobs are there that need filling? Do we not have our own low wage work force already here? Get government out of the way and immigrants will stay home, except the best and brightest, who wouldn’t want them coming onboard.

            • Gman,

              Boy, you can’t read.
              I said ” They leave because costs here are higher, for the same productivity inputs, then “over there”. Yes, taxes are one. Labor is another.”

              Look, to be crude, grab a brain.

              As I argued, non-human resources are essentially fungible. My “steak in the Congo” was an anecdotal example, but the same can be said about almost every commodity on earth, except government and labor

              People do not leave one country to go to another because “copper is cheaper”. They leave because the stuff that isn’t fungible is more expensive here and that is government and labor.

              You did argue for more expensive labor – you argue those that “do the paperwork, get sponsors, etc” are welcome. Clue to the mindless, this is only done on jobs that are expensive because this is an expensive undertaking. You do not understand the consequences of what you demand

  8. No comments from me this morning….posting what we picked up in our area of the border the last four days.

    412 personnel – among these were….

    114 gang members – identified with the following.

    1) Los zetas – 14 identified members with the youngest @ 12 yoa and the oldest at 19 yoa. Three previously arrested on rape, 4 on murder, 2 on extortion…..all released into the US by ICE after our arrest.

    2) La Familia – 22 identified members with the youngest at 14 yoa and the oldest at 26 yoa. Eleven of these had prior convictions ranging from DUI, rape, murder, extortion, and arson. All were turned over to ICE and all released back into the US.

    3) Sinaloa Cartel – 19 identified members with the youngest at 9 yoa and the odest at 39 yoa. Fourteen of these had prior arrests and convictions in the United States ranging from DUI, drug trafficking, rape, murder, extortion, human trafficking, and kidnapping. All were turned over to ICE and all released back into the United States.

    4) Nortenos – 4 identified members with the youngest at 37 and the oldest at 51. All four had prior convictions for mainly DUI and kidnapping.

    5) 18th Street Gang ( A Los Angeles based gang )- Eleven identified members with the youngest at 10 yoa and the oldest at 16 yoa. (1) Member aged 13 previously convicted of rape. Three of them had tatoos of tears on their cheekbones ( identifiers for kills )…all turned to ICE and all released into the United States.

    6) MS 18 – Forty four identified gang members with the youngest at 8 yoa and the oldest at 19 yoa. Nineteen had previous convictions in the US and all turned over to ICE and all released in the US. Three of these members were identified by others as having thrown innocent victims into ravines from the trains because they would not or could not pay extra to stay alive.

    There is no secret that ICE is setting convicted killers, rapists, extortionists, arsonists, kidnappers, murderers, and drug runners free…..IN THE US.

    No further comments…..just passing along the last FOUR days of detainees.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Carrying concealed seems like such a no-brainer, maybe this will convince those that have exercised their Rights yet.

      I see Obama is making more military enemies with this “pink slip” stuff going on. Interesting times ahead 🙄

      • Yep….and the interesting factor that has yet to be pointed out… that the pink slips are primarily officers and primarily combat officers that are in combat….not when they get back here. The leaders are being picked on more so than the enlisted. AND….most of the RIF’s are at 18 years service and they do NOT GET early retirement. They get nothing.

    • A Mexican national who records show has been deported from the U.S. four times was arrested Saturday for allegedly fondling a 9-year-old Texas girl.

      According to the Parker County sheriff’s office, 35 year-old Israel Andrade allegedly broke into a Springtown, Tex. home around 6 a.m. and molested the young girl while her family was asleep, WFAA reports.

      Following the attack, the girl ran screaming to wake her parents.

      Andrade allegedly stole the family’s computer and their cell phones, forcing the girl’s mother to have to call 911 from a nearby convenience store.

      According to Fox DFW, footprints led police to Andrade, who was was found at a friend’s home sleeping on top of a pile of the phones. Other evidence was recovered linking Andrade to the burglary and the attack.

      The sheriff’s department stated that Andrade’s relatives said he had re-entered the U.S. about a month ago, according to WFAA. Records from the Immigration and Naturalization Service show that he was deported on four separate occasions — in July 2003, Feb. 2004, Sept. 2009, and Dec. 2010.

      Andrade’s ability to come back in to the country so easily prompted Parker County sheriff Larry Fowler’s heavy criticism of U.S. immigration policy.

      “How long will we have to tolerate this type of injustice?” Fowler asked in a written statement, according to WFAA. “It is time for American citizens to make a stand and begin petitioning for tighter security at our borders in order to protect our citizens.”

      The incident occurs amid an unfolding border crisis occurring in southern Texas as tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are being apprehended at the border and shipped to various locations in the U.S.

      It is unclear whether Andrade was booked for any violent crimes during his previous stays in the country.

      Earlier this year it was revealed that approximately 36,000 criminal illegal aliens had been released from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2013. Nearly 200 of those were murderers while more than 400 had committed sexual assault. The revelation prompted Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn to send a letter to Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson asking for statistics on how many illegal aliens who had committed violent crimes had been released.

      According to WFAA, Andrade faces a first-degree felony charge of indecency with a child by sexual contact, as well as burglary of a habitation.

      Read more:

      • “A 16-year-old American girl who attempted suicide after she was bullied for accusing two high school seniors of rape in the town of Maryville, northern Missouri.”

        How long will we have to tolerate this type of injustice?” Loi Dumbo asked in a written statement, according to WFAA. “It is time for American citizens to make a stand and begin petitioning for tighter security at our street in order to protect our citizens. We must demand that everyone carry government documentation and authorization before they walk the streets”

        • Wow, really? You equal this with a criminal who has been caught multiple times to a demand for a police state? If a violent criminal is caught, should we not expect something be done other than to release him back onto the streets to commit more crimes? If the criminals were US citizens, they would face consequences. Rapist & murders go to prison for years. But illegal alien criminals are deported only to quickly return.

          • LOI…..they are no longer deported and they are not incarcerated. They are free….what this does…is make everyone suspect. They get special treatment over and above our own citizens….it is terrible. I am not advocating any type of government police state but there has to be something. I suppose we can take the law into our own hands and become vigilantes since the Feds obviously do not care. The locals are over whelmed…..everybody is suspect….and, like the Travon Martin case…..if I were hispanic or even Latin in origin, I would not be out walking the streets….I know that I profile. Just look at what we found this weekend and that was only four days.

            And, what I did not post, were the number of gang identifiers relating to tattoos……tear drops and crosses and hash marks signifying how many people they have killed. The gang members that have their entire bodies covered in, as they like to say, “body art”….have all these little identifiers hidden with in the tattoos.

            In North Fort Worth, there is a well known tourist attraction called the Stockyard’s…look it up…it is where the Chisum Trail came together on the Trinity River. In this tourist attraction is a night club called Billy Bob’s…very popular. Billy Bob’s not only has its own local guards, but they are now armed with automatic weapons just to escort women to their cars in the parking lots because of the problem the women are having with ladies being accosted and it is no other race than Hispanic that is doing it and they love blondes. So, Billy Bob;s and the local police and local “private guards” are patrolling the Stockyard’s and the parking lots…the Hispanics that are being arrested are not citizens and almost 100% are marked with gang insignia….but that is ok….we will handle it. One fortunate thing in Texas under our castle doctrine…along with out right to carry, we can legally protect citizens from bodily harm…and that is what we are doing.

          • “Serial rapist released on bail struck again five days later – despite ex-girlfriend’s warning

            It is you who is clamoring for a police state, sir, not I

            You present an anecdotal case, use that case for a call for more government controls, because your case was a Mexican immigrant.

            But when it is not a immigrant, your argument changes though the crime is the same.

            It is you, sir, that is so upside down and backwards, you can’t make a coherent principle.

            • BF, I know your reply was not to me…but I do not want a police state at all….we will handle our situation locally….and it matters not to me what color or origin or race the perpetrators are…..they will all suffer the same under my watch. We will have to take care of this locally…there is no other way.

            • Excuse me good sir, but I am merely asking existing laws be enforced. No free pass to someone because they are an immigrant. A violent criminal should be held accountable where the crime was committed.

              • LOI,

                Again, to your principles, because it is law, you demand enforcement, even though the law maybe immoral, evil and against your interests?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The laws aren’t working, shoot ’em down, crime will stop.

              • No, Gman, crime will explode.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No, Gman, crime will explode. If you say so Flag, if you say so. BWAHAHAHA!

              • It absolutely increases with the increase of violent enforcement of laws against the non-violent.

                This is self-evident.

              • “According to the Parker County sheriff’s office, 35 year-old Israel Andrade allegedly broke into a Springtown, Tex. home around 6 a.m. and molested the young girl while her family was asleep. Following the attack, the girl ran screaming to wake her parents.

                Andrade stole the family’s computer and their cell phones, forcing the girl’s mother to have to call 911 from a nearby convenience store. footprints led police to Andrade, who was was found at a friend’s home sleeping on top of a pile of the phones. Other evidence was recovered linking Andrade to the burglary and the attack.”

                Here we have a thief caught. Likely a child molester as well, but a criminal. In our nation, the police arrest & hold him for trial. A judge decides within limits, how he will be punished. Without that, it would fall to vigilantes to capture & punish. Maybe he’s just a petty thief, wrongfully accused of the molestation. Should the angry father with a shotgun decide his guilt or innocence and the cost to the thief?

              • Emotional application of violence is not justice.

                Use principles, not emotion.

  9. What will be funny to observe is the revolt from the Democrats base. One group will suffer significantly greater from unchecked immigration, the African American. Black unemployment is already twice the average. Imagine what that does as a continued policy? Wonder if it will kick in by the midterms?

  10. The UN Commission on Global Governance reported in 1995, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” (United Nations, Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance, 1995, Oxford University Press)

    It seems that our national sovereignty is yielding quite fast on the southern border without Congressional input, under the guise of a socially engineered humanitarian crisis. They could not erase national sovereignty fast enough in the name of “environmental cooperation.”

    The progressives’ social engineering projects implemented around the world are not limited to just destroying national sovereignty, language, and cultural identity. Those who grew up under communism are familiar with the Soviet style, mass movement of entire villages to high density urban areas.

    Social engineers had decided that land was better used in co-operative farms owned by the communist government. Private homes located on farm land were bulldozed and people were moved into densely populated cities with grey concrete apartments of 400-500 square feet, mushrooming practically overnight. They could not build them fast enough. Often it necessitated moving two families into a 600 square feet apartment, sharing the kitchen and the bathroom.

    • I presented this already, LOI.

      If you want “Democracy” (whatever the nuance), you are equally demanding integration.

      You do not want integration, but demand nuanced democracy – believing you will get both.

      You are operating in deep denial and fantasy.

  11. This isn’t immigration, this is human trafficking. By our government. The proverbial “the end justifies the means” is coming into clear view.

  12. @ BF…..China on the brink of currency devaluation…..rumor has it…..22%. THAT is a chunk!!!

    • gmanfortruth says:


      • Expected. They are Keynesian, about 40 years behind the US and catching up fast.

      • Benefit, cheap Chinese goods.
        Oh, I forgot, you don’t like things getting cheaper.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You didn’t forget, you just make shit up to make you feel superior, a lie.

          • That’s the best you can do, is deny if China’s goods get cheaper, you benefit???

            Economic idiot.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              You are mentally ill, period. Get help.

              • Nope, you’re the idiot.

                You think cheaper is worse for you.

                Go pay double and see how far it gets you to being rich.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I never said that in any form, that’s your BS lie YOU made up. Where’s the quote that I said that? copy and paste it. You are no better than Obama or Eric Holder, intellectually and morally bankrupt and have to rely on lies to play your game. Your a fake. Your the little fat kid that lives at home and your whole life is based on lies. Did your mommy bring you your snack today. Their a country song that is you in a nutshell, about myspace. Your not a genius at all, genius’s don’t have to make shit up about people to debate. Closet Left winger I would guess. Fake Moron. 😀

              • No, that is exactly what you said.

                You wanted to prevent cheap labor, believing cheaper goods makes you poor.

                That’s the thing, Gman, you think economic laws change depending on the time of day.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I said no such thing or anything close to that. You sir, are lying. You are a fake.

            • Gman, you have so, go read your own posts.

              You deny immigration, because you do not want cheap labor.

              Get a brain.

      • As BF said…expected…..along with their devaluation will go higher import tariffs….

  13. Dateline: Fort Worth, Texas.

    Fort Worth ISD starting the training classes for teaches for weapons training today. 80 hours in nine days. Fort Worth ISD will be armed by August class dates.

    • Confused-Fort Worth ISD- independent school district ?

      • Yes…..sorry,,,,,,Independent School District… Texas, you have local school districts….each district can decide its own fate….There are over 110 school districts in Texas so far that are arming their teachers….Fort Worth, the latest. It is estimated that over 90 percent will arm..

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    A different view of the immigration issue.

  15. The spin doctors are coming to Detroit for their progressive pow wow

    “Detroit is a really excellent spot to come. It’s an example of the out-of-control income equality we have in our country,”she said. “We have live action examples in Detroit of years and years of the wealthiest being separated from the poorest.”

    No. We have live examples of 50 years of progressive destruction of a great city. I wonder who they consider wealthy in the D?

  16. Texas doing what Obama will not. Senator Kay Granger and Texas democrat and republican lawmakers got on a plane, asked for and received an audience from the Guatemalan President and the Honduran President and have worked out schedules and arrangements to take the children back. Both President’s have said that Washington is the problem and that they do not want their children leaving but Washington’s message was such that they all think that the United States has extended invitations and they do not understand the reaction that they are getting once they get to the United States. Senator Granger and bipartisan democrat and republican Texas representatives have now worked out the problem and are establishing judge commissions in Texas to fast track hearings. Within 14 days, each immigrant will be brought before a judge to determine if there is a logical reason for them to stay into the United States and they will either get a grant of asylum or sent back at that time The immigrants will be held until they get a judge hearing and while being held, they will undergo public health screening and treatment. They will be given a dry bed, food, water, and clothing until their hearing. During the hearing, a child or immigrant needs to make their case for asylum and children must have a relative in the country to take them or they will be sent back. The relative, if living under the radar screen, comes forward to take responsibility and the qualifications are met for asylum, that relative will get the same treatment and be allowed to stay.

    Anyone not given asylum, will be flown back to their country of origin. This pertains to non Mexican only.

    On another front in Honduras,now known as the most dangerous country in the world with a killing every 20 minutes, the Honduran President has said that they are going to get tougher on the gang situations. He was on TV saying that the “coyotes” in human trafficking are going into the neighborhoods and directly challenging the parents and the residents telling them that if they accept any governmental charity such as food, water, transportation, etc., they will be killed. All charities must come through the “coyotes” for a price. And it has already happened…one family, having no money and starving, went to a governmental warehouse to get food and was killed and dismembered on the spot. The average age for prostitution in Honduras is 13 and the girls are forcibly taken and taken to other countries as prostitutes…including the United States. THIS is a sad commentary on the United States if there is that much demand for under age prostitutes. This would be a real good example of getting of the high horse of morality and understand that the oldest profession in the world is NOT going away…..legalize it and then control it to keep minors out of it and dry up the underground source….or at least put a dent in it.

    This is the reality of the world. Progressives need to get on and understand that there is NO ONE WORLD SOCIETY and you cannot have a one size fits all mentality. The reality out there is….it is a mean, mean world full of mean, mean people and there is nothing you can do about it except fight it and fight it violently. And it is pervasive.

    • D-Why do you believe legalizing prostitution would stop underage prostitution? If there is a demand for it -is that demand gonna go away or just bring a higher profit?

      • Because it seems to work for Nevada….it is regulated, health certificates have to be issued, it is age restricted, it is taxed, it is an industry…..and, if you believe the reports, child prostitution is non existent there. Condoms are required and at last report that I read, STD rates are among the lowest in the country.

        Also, I have no moral objection to prostitution and I do not believe that it destroys any moral fiber at all. I hate the idea of regulating it but I hate the idea of child prostitution worse and would give up the regulation part of it. As to whether it will stop the demand for it, I do not know….that is a real sick demand but I did see it prevalent in many countries where it is accepted even to this very day. I view it somewhat like prohibition……when you outlawed liquor you made outlaws.

        I have no real answers but, in this case, something needs to be done…I just do not know what. Personally, I would beat the crap out of anyone that engages in child prostitution whether as a supplier or customer…and, yes, that makes me judgemental here and I admit it.

        • I’m not so sure it does work in Nevada-it is legal in small rural counties-there not being a lot of prostitutes walking the streets or child prostitution in these areas does not surprise me. Now go to the big cities and these things are prevalent -is it because prostitution is illegal-I don’t think so-they have all kinds of escort services and a lot of child prostitution there and all those legal avenues are just a few counties away. And as far as the oldest profession not going away-one could say the same about abuse of children-from my reading that has existed forever too.

          Per wiki-this industry-this business is run by pimps-the woman are virtual prisoners and they get no benefits. But read it for yourself. I’ve highlighted a couple parts but feel free to read the whole entry.

          “In 2009 Las Vegas was identified by the FBI as one of 14 cities in the U.S. with high rates of child prostitution.[26] Las Vegas police claimed that “roughly 400 children are picked off the streets from prostitution each year.”[27]

          The U.S. Justice Department has also named Las Vegas among the 17 most likely destinations for human trafficking.[28]”


          “The brothels in Nevada’s rural counties have been criticized by journalists, sex worker activists, feminists, social and religious conservatives and politicians.

          Columnist Bob Herbert wrote “A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri’s Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by”.[29]

          The working conditions from these brothels have also been criticized by many.[who?] During the 1970s and early 1980s, several towns had enacted rules prohibiting local brothel prostitutes from frequenting local bars or casinos or associating with local men outside of work. After a lawsuit was filed in 1984, these regulations had to be abandoned, but as a result of collaboration between sheriffs and brothel owners, they remain in effect unofficially. For instance, most brothels do not allow the prostitutes to leave the premises during their work shifts of several days to several weeks.[2]

          In 2009, an article in the Guardian, stated that some brothels “impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers” in order to “separate sex workers from the local community”: some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all.[30]

          The Nevada brothel system has also been criticized by activists in the sex worker rights movement, who are otherwise supporters of full decriminalization of prostitution.[31][32] Organizations and individuals supporting the rights of prostitutes typically favor deregulation and oppose Nevada-style regulation, mainly for three reasons:[33]

          the licensing requirements create a permanent record which can lead to discrimination later on;
          the large power difference between brothel owner and prostitute gives prostitutes very little influence over their working conditions;
          while prostitutes undergo legal and health background checks, their customers do not; the regulations are thus designed to protect customers, not prostitutes.

          Teri, a prostitute who has worked in a Nevada brothel (and who would like prostitution to be decriminalized), stated that “The brothel owners are worse than any pimp. They abuse and imprison women and are fully protected by the state”.[34]

          Another former prostitute who worked in four Nevada brothels attacked the system, saying, “Under this system, prostitutes give up too much autonomy, control and choice over their work and lives” and “While the brothel owners love this profitable solution, it can be exploitative and is unnecessary”. She described how the women were subject to various exaggerated restrictions, including making it very difficult for them to refuse clients, not being allowed to read books while waiting for customers, and having to deal with doctors who had a “patronizing or sexist attitude” (the brothels discouraged and in many cases forbade prostitutes to see doctors of their own choosing).[35]

          In an article published in the Guardian in 2007, Julie Bindel wrote: “If you believe their PR, Nevada’s legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse?”[36]

          In her 2007 report, Prostitution and trafficking in Nevada: making the connections, Melissa Farley presents the results of numerous interviews with brothel owners and prostitutes, she says that most brothel prostitutes are controlled by outside pimps and that they suffer widespread abuse by brothel owners and customers.[37][38] Farley said that “What happens in legal brothels is sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and sometimes rape”;[39] she also said more than 80% of the women she had interviewed told her they wanted to leave prostitution.[40]

          Alexa Albert, a Harvard medical student who has conducted a public-health study inside one of Nevada’s brothels, and authored Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women,[41] wrote in her book that the brothel owners used to require the prostitutes to have outside pimps, because the pimps were thought to make the women work harder: “The involvement of pimps enabled brothel owners to leave discipline to men who wouldn’t hesitate to keep their women in line.”[42]

          Bob Herbert also stated that many brothel prostitutes are controlled by outside pimps: “Despite the fiction that they are “independent contractors,” most so-called legal prostitutes have pimps — the state-sanctioned pimps who run the brothels and, in many cases, a second pimp who controls all other aspects of their lives (and takes the bulk of their legal earnings).”[43]

          In 1998, some pimps from Oregon managed to place at least four underage girls in Nevada’s legal brothels; they were arrested and convicted.[44][45]

          Detective Greg Harvey, from Eugene, Oregon, said such cases were in reality very common; he said, “It’s happening right now, it’s amazing how many girls are shipped from here to different brothels in northern and southern Nevada. Many are underage.” Another detective, Sgt. Pete Kerns, supported Harvey’s claims: “Never buy the line that nobody under 18 works in (Nevada brothels),” he said. “It’s happening.”[45]

          Former Nye County Commissioner Candice Trummell, director of the Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking, said “It is way past time for Nevada to be the last state in the United States of America to finally stand against all forms of slavery.”[46]

          Assemblyman Bob L. Beers said that “A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner.”[39]

          Some brothel owners have been involved in criminal activities: in March 2009, a Nye County brothel owner pleaded guilty to fraud charges for paying bribes to a former Nye County Commissioner;[47] in 2008, a former brothel owner was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison on two child pornography charges;[48] in 1991 Joe Conforte fled to Brazil in order to avoid a conviction on tax fraud charges.”

          “Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. ”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, maybe that’s the answer, kick the Feds out and handle things at the state level. The whole crisis issue is totally on the Feds. They have, in the past, set up large fenced in facilities to house and feed 2500 Cuban Migrants in the republic of Panama in 1994/95. A total of 10K migrants filled up 5 camps. The US Army handled the food, medical and security issues for each camp. The USAF had to come in a clean up during and after riots, but eventually the Army handled things and did a bang up job. For the most part, the health issues were dealt with quite well, the food provided was ethnic in nature and quite tasty.

      The whole issue could have been handled in much better fashion, and provided for more humane provisions. This falls on Obama’s shoulders, as the DHS has all the plans needed to do what I explained above. Basically, FEMA camps would become reality. I could/can be done, I have seen it with my own eyes (that’s why I know that FEMA camps exist and are not conspiracy theory).

      I agree that prostitution should be legalized, along with most, if not all current illegal drugs. However, legalizing prostitution won’t do much to quell pedophilia. It is far more rampant than most would like to know, link coming on the subject.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Lengthy, the unreleased Discovery documentary is quite telling about things in the US.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Who said FEMA camps are phony?

        The camps are very real. What is fiction is the PURPOSE of those camps as presented by people like Alex Jones.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m guessing that FEMA camps could have multiple uses for govt. The problem with the Jones mantra is thit his version has only happened a few times and nobody thinks it could happen as he claims. I hope he’s wrong too!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            All things, well many, can be used for something beyond the original purpose.

            The conspiracy folks, much like the anarchists will claim original intent if and when these other situations arise. Broken clock is correct twice a day! 🙂

            Remember when I stated here that Spousal Unit Leader was in on setting up these camps and that we had a key? I was not bullshitting you. HOWEVER, SHE HAD TO TURN IN HER KEY WHEN SHE RETIRED.

            So we will noe be just the same as all the other sheep when the great herding begins.

            • 😮…you… You PROMISED Me & Cyndi you had the key…JAC I know you made a copy of that key right?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, As far as the FEMA camps, I’m not in any fear of such things. Fear mongering exists all over the place. There are so called experts still saying the US economy will collapse (this started years ago), yet here we sit, no collapse. I have zero trust in the Federal government, period. I put nothing past them. But the original point to D13 was that the feds have all the plans it needs to house the immigrants, but aren’t using them. Their plans have been proven effective and safe. The fact that they are doing something different (trying to ship them all over the country and release them) is telling. More evidence that this current issue is 100% government made 🙂

              Voting, if you recall my position, works, but not the way things are being stated. Voting legitimizes government, allowing them to grow. More voters means more government. Look at what’s happened since the huge black voter turnout in 08. Although this is likely a very minor cause of government growth, it does help the 800 lb gorilla.

              Good luck dealing with Mr. Neverwrong. 😀

  17. New White House spokesman Josh Earnest was saying a little while ago that the Texas delegation has no authority to establish any type of guideline for immigration and that it is a Federal issue…..the Texas delegations response was…………………..copying Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe’s reply to the Germans when asked for surrender while being surrounded in the city of Bastoogne…………………..NUTS!!!.

    That says it all.

  18. LOI-good article-agree 100% with you.

    July 15, 2014 4:00 AM
    Illiberal Immigration ‘Reform’
    People who call for “comprehensive immigration reform” seldom mean it.
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    The last thing a liberal proponent of immigration reform wants is liberal immigration reform. Remember that paradox, and the insanity at the border makes some sense.

    Each day a worried politician or pundit, with creased brow and pained expression, lectures us about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform” to avoid the sort of chaos we are witnessing on the border.

    Then a funny thing happens. The speaker never defines the term. If on rare occasions advocates are asked, they fumble around, annoyed that anyone would press them to explain what they mean.

    In truth, no one in the open-borders coalition wants anything approaching comprehensive immigration reform. Advocates are embarrassed about the present mess at the border not because thousands of foreign nationals, many of them unescorted children and teens, from Latin America, without skills or education, are flocking illegally across the border after largely taking the amnesty cue from Barack Obama, but because they are doing so in such dramatic fashion that the influx has aroused the ire and worry of the American people and exposed illegal immigration to be a callous and illiberal enterprise, promoted by a coalition of self-interested political operatives, commercial concerns, and ethnic chauvinists.

    So why will we not see true comprehensive immigration reform?

    Such legislation would first have to make border security the top priority. And that would entail three unpalatable requisites.

    The first step would be the completion of the fence. Fences do work. That is why, for example, former mayor of Los Angeles and open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa (“We don’t need to build walls, we need to build bridges”) became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to insist on a six-foot-high security fence around his official mayoral residence in Windsor Square, or why the White House, the homes of Silicon Valley billionaires, and the vacation homes of the elite on Martha’s Vineyard all have security fences. How odd that we are lectured about the Neanderthal nature of secure borders by elites who are about the only ones in America who demand them around their own estates.

    Second, the Border Patrol would have to turn back all who crossed illegally and then let that be known. Border “Patrol” is now a misnomer. A more accurate term for the present agency would be “Border Access.”

    Third, until deterrence is established, more guards would have to patrol the border and its environs. And the more the border was made sacrosanct, the more underworked operatives in the interior could be redeployed to the border.

    The second element of concrete comprehensive immigration reform — meritocratic legal immigration — is equally an anathema to those who call for it in the abstract. If legal immigration were to be ethnically blind, and predicated on merit rather than proximity to the southern border, the ethnic industry would rise in revolt.

    La Raza affiliates do not believe in true diversity, racial or otherwise. They do not want legal immigration to be predicated on skills or college degrees, which might result in a million Kenyan doctors, Czech engineers, Chilean nurses, Mexican architects, Punjabi programmers, or Korean dentists entering the United States.

    Think of all the classical-liberal ramifications of ethnically blind criteria that would drive liberals crazy. The ethnic chauvinists might see the end of huge influxes of poor and uneducated Central Americans and Mexicans. Without such a large and perennially replenished pool, assimilation, integration, and intermarriage — the now-hated melting pot — would make “Latinos” in a generation or two the equivalent of Italian Americans. In other words, ethnic heritage would be incidental, not essential to one’s American identity, a fact that would mean to the Latino elite an eventual end to affirmative action, Chicano Studies, and the bilingual industry.

    There are no Italian-language mega media conglomerates, no La Razza pressure groups, and no affirmative action for those surnamed Giuliani or Cuomo. Seeing people as individuals is exactly what the Chicano grievance industry does not wish. Yet the end of grievance politics is what would occur if we did not have a million Latinos crossing illegally each year into the U.S. but rather a manageable number, legally and in accordance with the ethnically blind criteria applied to any other immigrants.

    Nor would the liberal elite in general like such merit-based immigration. They are happy to have cheap unskilled labor for janitorial work, landscaping, nannying, field labor, and construction, with such a pool driving down the wages of distant others. But skilled professionals in law, medicine, business, and other professions would compete with the native elite. Paying a high wage for an American citizen to do housework while competing for a job with a foreign-born stockbroker, professor, reporter, or lawyer may not be what proponents of comprehensive immigration reform had in mind.

    Finally, comprehensive immigration reform would have to deal with the un-Dreamers (for every Dream Act, there by logic is an unspoken un-Dream Act for those who do not qualify). A minority of the estimated 11 to 15 million illegal aliens have no work history in the U.S., but more or less came north to receive public assistance and never got off it. Thousands more have committed crimes beyond illegally entering and residing in the United States. A third group opportunistically came very recently, sensing an impending Obama amnesty. In other words, the un-Dreamers are a small percentage of a vast pool — and thus quite a large number.

    If just 10 percent of the existing resident-alien pool had criminal records, or no record of gainful employment, or less than three years of residence, that would mean perhaps 1 to 2 million would have to be deported. That fact is never mentioned by supporters of comprehensive immigration reform, who assume that amnesty comes first, the border is left insecure, few new arrivals are turned away, and the un-Dreamers simply stay and fade out of the collective consciousness.

    Many Americans would support giving aliens who came here years ago, who have always been working and paying taxes, and who have been crime-free a chance at a green card. With mastery of English, the payment of a penalty for their illegal residence, and certification of self-support, many would be eligible for a pathway to citizenship. However, the open-borders alliance wishes no deportation of anyone. Business leaders who might support deportation do not wish to be called racists. Ethnic activists do not wish to lose any constituents, especially those currently deeply dependent on government social services. And liberal politicians want constituents regardless of their particular circumstances.

    The next time a politician drones on about “comprehensive immigration reform,” a few questions have to be asked: How is the border made secure first? Is it desirable that legal immigration be meritocratic and ethnically diverse? And does anyone get deported, and if so who exactly?

    Silence will follow — or, if not silence, a long string of invectives.

    • Another term that is used continuously that might need an actual definition with specifics-is Open borders.

    • Again, more nonsense arguments by the author.

      “Fences work around the White House….” – the continuing fallacy the individual property is the same as national borders

      • Personally, I think the discussions about immigration have been limited to one perspective-why don’t we move in a different direction instead of covering the same ground over and over -like define open borders-what does that mean to you technically-just let people freely walk through-or set up stations to process them-is there any basis used to not allow them entry-or just to do medical exams to stop the spread of disease or we could discuss Congress’s refusal to actually address real immigration reform as the article highlighted.

    • ” a few questions have to be asked: How is the border made secure first? Is it desirable that legal immigration be meritocratic and ethnically diverse? And does anyone get deported, and if so who exactly?”

      No, first is to understand the root question “Why do you want to interfere with immigrations?”

      Unless you understand the reason you want to do that in the first place, you are doomed to create circumstances that absolute do nothing to achieve the goal.

      • Like I said -same ground-it’s been covered enough recently and if you go back and reread all the posts you too will find the answers to your questions-me-I’m moving on.

        • V.H.

          Sorry, no, you have no provided any coherent position to your immigration argument.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          VH, only a person who claims that voting is evil would want more potential voters to project that evil. That’s a serious contradiction. Me, I’m not against immigration, as have clearly stated in the past. The current situation is nothing more than the Dems (Statists) wanting more voters to legitimize their theft and oppression. The stated number of 11 million is hogwash, it’s more like 25 million. That’s a huge voter block, even if only 30% actually vote.

          One interesting thing, how does one know that these immigrants are non-violent? Is there any guarantee they won’t vote for violence against non-violent people? The answer to both questions is NO. Some are violent and many will vote if the law allows (and sometimes when the law don’t allow). Neat how philosophical ideology and reality can contradict one another when simple common sense is applied 🙂

          • “VH, only a person who claims that voting is evil would want more potential voters to project that evil.”

            More nonsense.
            You have to show that your vote has meaning. But it absolutely does not, for reasons you I have given that you cannot dispute.

            “That’s a serious contradiction”

            The contradiction is yours, not mine, to declare something that has no meaning has meaning.

            “The current situation is nothing more than the Dems (Statists) wanting more voters to legitimize their theft and oppression”

            Whilst it may be true that they may think that does not make what they think true.

            Voting has no more effect for “Dems” as it does for you.

            The stated number of 11 million is hogwash, it’s more like 25 million. That’s a huge voter block, even if only 30% actually vote.”

            You are mathematically ignorant – it 3% of the US population – if you argue they all vote as a block which they don’t, and if you argue they vote which they don’t

            how does one know that these immigrants are non-violent? Is there any guarantee they won’t vote for violence against non-violent people?”

            How do you know “citizens” are non-violent? Is there any guarantee?
            If you cannot know this here, how do you think your argument holds a drip of water extending it upon others???

            “when simple common sense is applied”

            Your common sense is merely ignorance.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Was Obama APPOINTED to office? How about Pelosi, Reid and all the others??

              Reid won Nevada BECAUSE he took large majority of Hispanic vote.

              • You, like the other unthinking people, cannot explain how you vote denied him nor made him.

                YOUR VOTE is meaningless

                You cannot create any voting “block”

                Ron Paul had a voting block that put him Congress for decades.

                None of his bills past; any bill that past with his vote would have passed anyway and none of his no votes stopped anything.

                If you can’t learn from his example, you are purposely not paying attention

                Your HISPANIC case is dumbfounding example of the brain tornado. You have NO EMPIRICAL CASE, but merely mouth an empty conclusion

              • Just A Citizen says:
              • Further, leaping into fantasy that you can create a voting block, the best you can achieve is a single issue.

                Like the TEA party block – yet, you do not create any circumstance to institute control over more than one issue but the “representative” continues to impact endless issues out of your control.

                Like the TEA party who utterly crumbled once issues out of that single perspective disappeared.


                Look, JAC, you are trapped into the same stagnant mindset as the bumbling masses.

                The State manufacturers a single particular problem, which may or may not exist or may or may not affect you.

                They focus you on that issue, with “their plan” to fix this “non-issue”. You are memorized into believing their plan will fix it.

                Then they go and do whatever they want – as anyone in politics beyond civic politics has already been vetted to maintain the status quo.

                There is not one thing – NOT ONE THING – you can do to influence this cartel.

                You have a cartel of a political class that is immune to anything you demand.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF things don’t change because most of those who take time to play don’t want change.

                Voting is not the weakness. It is those who vote.

                Russia did not collapse because people did not vote. To many oil fumes I think. You should seek cleaner air.

              • “Voting is not the weakness. It is those who vote.”

                So now you switch your argument to be “stupid people”, who, by some magic you will provide will be smart enough to vote “your way”.

                Russia collapsed regardless of voting, JAC. Keep the story straight. Their vote was as meaningless as yours

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I did not vote in Nevada.

              Reid controls the Senate’s agenda, Ron Paul was an outlier, like Kucinich.

              Trying to use a renegade Congressman to make your case is irrational.

              Would Obama be president without the large Block voting by blacks and browns???

              • You are going slowly insane, JAC. You do not know what is irrational any more, and simple throw up more word-salad to pretend it is an argument.

                He is an example of a renegade– which is what you are insisting your vote can create.
                Now, you invalidate your own strategy; creating renegades…. you are irrational.

                You do not know who voted for who, JAC – you are making empty assumptions.

                You could equally say Obama is president because women vote.
                You could equally say Obama is president because men vote.
                Both are true

                But those statements are worthless.

                Obama is president and Romney is not.

                Do you believe the US would be different if Romney won?


                It mattered not one wit if Clinton was Prez or Bush.
                The US changed none of the status quo. Fringe issues, where one leaned more foreign policy and the other more domestic – but neither changed either policy.

                It is your blindness to believe that whoever sits in the Big Chair changes the status quo.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF I’ll grant you one thing. If your criteria for voting having an affect is whether you non govt system is the result then yes, voting will not matter for you. But then neither will not voting.

              And where did I claim any particular outcome from voting other than to stat that voting clearly does matter. I have never claimed that a radical change would happen due to any recent election. What I did claim was that replacing the old with new would help slow the rate of decline. That if we maintain diligence and deal with other things, like educating our children in truth and reasoning, voting will be the final step in affecting change.

              Just like the Progressive movement did this very thing.

              Proof voting matters?? The asshats running the USA in the ground were all elected.

              Your comment about vetting once again reveals your lack of knowledge about how candidates are selected. Trying to claim some mysterious group is pulling the strings is silly. There are people involved I persuading others to run and even helping. But these people are as diverse as the issues we deal with.

              Oh, accusing me of not understanding how our govt works is bizzare. You seem to forget who was posting how the TARP and Stimulus was being handled once approved. Who has accurately predicted the problems this administration would have governing or who would cover for them?

              • “But then neither will not voting.”

                Completely untrue.
                Voting in East Germany did not change East Germany, nor Soviet Russia, nor China.
                No vote changed these places.

                When the people stopped their support of the status quo change happens.

                “Proof voting matters?? The asshats running the USA in the ground were all elected.”

                That is not proof, JAC. They were already there selecting which pea in pod is not “proofing” that voting for what pea makes a difference.

                “Your comment about vetting once again reveals your lack of knowledge about how candidates are selected”.

                You are the ignorant one, JAC. The fact that the status quo continues betrays your lack of understanding on the process, not mine.

                You are captured by the theater of it, not the essence.

  19. Nothing there demonstrates your point at all – you have census stats, not voting stats.

    13.5% of Nevada is Hispanic, with 1/3 of that number eligible to vote.
    64.5% are not Hispanic, with 20% can vote.
    So what?

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    The neo-con/world order wing of the Republican party is very visible lately.

    Just keep your eyes on who keeps piling on Rand Paul’s foreign policy views. Some of the accusations border on lies by the way.

  21. July 15, 2014
    Losing Our Liberties, One Degree at a Time
    By Thomas K. Lindsay

    Does democratic liberty depend on civic education? America’s founders thought so. While we expect students to acquire job-relevant skills in college, we also hope for something more, something higher, than employment training alone, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson’s cautionary remark, “Any nation that expects to be both ignorant and free … expects what never was and never will be.” Our freedoms are not guaranteed. They must be re-earned, through being relearned, by every generation.

    Forget all that now. Harris Pastides, president of the University of South Carolina, has sparked a conflagration by refusing to obey a state requirement that public universities instruct students in the “essentials of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.” His justification for flouting the law? It’s “archaic.” This is but the latest example of American higher education’s abdication of its responsibility to do more than provide job training (which, by the way, it’s also doing poorly, say employers).

    It would be unfair to focus our indignation on Pastides alone. Today, most colleges fail to require even one introductory course in American government. The result? Department of Education statistics show that only one-third of graduates ever complete such a course. More disturbing is the reason for this academic turnabout. Carol Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, reported that “after five years of active discussions on dozens of campuses,” she found “not just a neglect of but a resistance to college-level study of United States democratic principles.”

    Required courses constituting a “core curriculum” of studies in American government and American history, as well as economics, philosophy, and “Western Civ,” were attacked in the late ’60s and early ’70s as irrelevant, producing a decades-long dismantling of such requirements and with them, the study of the Great Books. The effect has been all too predictable: The landmark national study of collegiate learning Academically Adrift employed the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to measure how much undergraduates increase their mastery of fundamental intellectual skills during college. The study found that 36 percent of students showed “small or empirically non-existent” gains in “general collegiate skills” — critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills — after four years invested in college.

    A new program at the University of Texas-Austin is standing athwart this national decline, crying “Stop!” UT’s Thomas Jefferson Center for the Study of Core Texts and Ideas, under the direction of professors Thomas and Lorraine Pangle, has launched the Jefferson Scholars Program, a rigorous, six-course, unified sequence in the “Great Books and ideas of the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds,” open to incoming freshmen in all schools and divisions of UT.

    The initial rush of applications for the program from high-school seniors is pleasantly surprising. Two-thirds of applications to date are from students who will be enrolling in schools other than the liberal arts — nursing, architecture, engineering, business, geophysics, and the natural sciences.

    It’s easy to see the reason for this enthusiasm. A survey of the Jefferson Scholars Program’s six courses will cause famished seekers of genuine liberal education to salivate. The first semester’s classes, “The Bible and Its Interpreters” and “Classics of Political and Social Thought,” focus on the theme “Justice, Human and Divine.” Together, these courses examine “some of history’s most profound reflections on good and evil, on human nature and the character of human excellence, on whether there is a God and what can be known about him, and on the principles that should guide our collective lives as political communities.”

    The second semester’s courses, Discovery of Freedom and Era of the American Revolution, examine the theme “Freedom, Ancient and Modern.” The two classes compare the discovery of political freedom in Greek antiquity with its modern understanding and implementation by America’s Founders.

    The final semester’s offerings, America’s Constitutional Principles and Masterworks of World Drama, center on the theme “Leaders and Leadership.” America’s Constitutional Principles provides an “intensive study of the U.S. Constitution, the vision of justice and liberty that it embodies, and some of the leaders and movements that have subsequently worked to realize that vision.” Masterworks of World Drama examines “classic plays from antiquity to the present, with a focus on the theme of just and effective leadership.” As in the prior four courses, students read a number of the Great Books, here including those of Aeschylus, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Luther, Hobbes, Locke, the American Founders, Tocqueville, and Nietzsche.

    Lovers of intellectual and political freedom can only hope that the Pangles, not Pastides, represent the future of the American higher education. “Whenever the people are well-informed,” wrote Jefferson, “they can be entrusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”

    However, if we fail to restore to American universities their proper task of enhancing critical thinking and civic education, in short order we shall lose the capacity for self-government on which individual liberty and limited government ultimately depend.

    • V.H.

      “Does democratic liberty depend on civic education?”

      Democratic liberty is an oxymoron.
      Liberty is freedom. Democracy destroys your freedom by collectivism – that a group has more rights then you do.

      As usual, the author bundles two contradictions – “democracy = freedom”, and the rest of his article continues to use the arguments of freedom to defend democracy which is which is anti-freedom and use arguments of destruction of freedom to argue for more democracy, which destroys freedom.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes, as to the primary question. But education is not enough. The educated must then take action.

      • JAC,

        False education, JAC, does not make you free.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          True education, BF, will help you become free.

          Otherwise why do you spend so much time trying to “educate” us yokels.

          • JAC,

            Government controls the schools, so your goal is hopeless.

            You expect government schools to teach kids how to change government status quo, even though is that status quo that runs the schools.

          • What is hopeful is that the grip on the mind’s of the children is being lessened by parents who are waking up to the decrepit conditions in schools.

            From another blogger:

            I have written a lot about Salman Khan and the Khan Academy. I will continue to do so.

            Today, I want to talk about what he has done to modern theories of education. For over a century, there has been a mass illusion that has been fostered by beneficiaries of tax money. This money has gone to teachers and educators. This illusion is as follows: state certification is necessary to be a good teacher.

            This illusion has been basic to the creation of the teachers’ union. It is this commitment to what is laughingly known as professionalism that has been the basis of legal barriers to entry. Progressive educators fostered this illusion early in the 20th century. They created a theory of education out of whole cloth, except this whole cloth was tattered cloth. There was never any scientific or any other kind of evidence that indicated that going through a teacher-training program designed by men and women on college faculties would in any way improve the education of children.

            This is a classic case of people who had little or no personal experience in teaching school children, who sat down and designed a series of theories about what it takes to teach children. The theories kept changing. There were always rival theories. But they all had this in common: most of the people teaching these theories in university classrooms had never had personal experience or success in teaching school children.

            This is the classic example of how universities work. People who teach in MBA programs have never owned businesses. People who teach psychology have never worked as full-time psychologists. Professors get themselves licensed by their own group, few of whom have had any experience in the free market, where profit and loss determine who survives and who fails. Then, having created a state-mandated barrier to entry, they earn above-market wages paid by taxpayers. This starts at the university level, and then it moves down to the very lowest levels of the educational system.

            It is all a farce. It is summarized by the slogan we have all heard: “He who can, does. He who can’t, teaches. He who can’t teach, teaches teachers.”

            Without any warning, Salman Khan in 2006 began posting his mathematics screencast videos that he produced for his nieces and nephews. People began to come to his website to see the videos. He kept producing more videos. He offered them free of charge.

            By now, you know the story. Today, 10 million students are using his videos. They are using them in school systems and also in homeschooling environments all over the world. The students must speak English. That is the main barrier to entry, other than Internet access. Internet access is going to get cheaper. Learning English as a second language is going to get cheaper. And, before too long, there will be automatic translation programs that can be applied to videos. Khan will someday be teaching 100 million students.

            The faculty at Oakland Unity High School began using his videos and exercises. The performance of the students dramatically rose. It is a charter school, so I don’t think it is representative of the standard inner-city high school. But the point is this: a charter school drastically improved the performance of the students, which will make the charter school a pot full of money. The charter school is going to be able to defend itself against the critics inside the inner-city schools, who hate the idea of charter schools being able to siphon off the best students. The hostility of the teachers’ union against charter schools is legendary.

            Khan has proven that 100+ years of educational theory is wrong. With no training whatsoever in a formal program of education, he became, almost overnight, the most important teacher in the history of the world. The teachers’ union can scream bloody murder, but it won’t do any good. His program is clearly better than anything that the typical tax-funded public school has to offer. Other charter schools will pick up Khan’s program. Why not? It’s free. They get all of this educational support material, and it does not cost them a dime. All the school has to do is buy used computers, add Wi-Fi, and let the students loose on Khan Academy’s site.

            His site is living testimony to the fact that 100+ years of rival educational theories, all insisting that you have to have professional training to be a good teacher, were fake from the start. The most important teacher in the history of education had no training in this regard. His program is better than anything that has been produced by people who have gone through the screening process of dumbed-down education — a system that is taught in the colleges and universities of the world. It is simply a way of screening out candidates for teaching jobs. It is a way for moderately intelligent people, who have gone through certification, to keep out rivals who are really good teachers, and who would be willing to work for less money. The whole system of automatic payments based on seniority and the number of semester hours earned in night school programs and summer vacation programs is about to come to an end. The teachers’ union is on the defensive, and it will never again get on the offense. Three words give the lie to the whole illusion: “What about Khan?”

            The teachers’ union is by far the most powerful single union in the United States. It is the most powerful politically. It is the most powerful economically. It is based on an illusion. That illusion is being statistically undermined every day by the Khan Academy. The foundation of the entire public school system all over the world is being undermined free of charge every day. A man with no training as a teacher is clearly the best teacher in the world. This is demonstrated by the number of students he has.

            Any high school mathematics teacher in the United States could now set up a rival program. There are probably 100,000 of them. If these teachers are any good, or if 10% of them are top-flight, then any one of them could do it. Nobody has done it. They are lazy to the very core of their being. They are not confident about their own abilities. They refuse to sit down with $200 worth of equipment and post videos free of charge on YouTube. They have surrendered the entire field to one man, and this man is not a trained educator. It is too late ever to catch up with him. He has the financial support of Bill Gates, and he has the trust of Bill Gates. Nobody is going to displace him in this generation.

            This means that the public schools of the world can either ignore this revolution, or else they can integrate it into their programs. If they ignore it, they are basically turning over education to the charter schools. The charter schools are going to use it. It’s a free resource which improves student performance and cuts expenses.

            Because one man has single-handedly proven that the entire theory of progressive education is wrong, and that you don’t need to have specialized training in order to be a great teacher, other institutions can now get involved. Institutions that are not certified by the educational establishment will be able to provide top-flight educational services. Churches will be able to do this. Charitable groups will be able to do this. I hate to think about it, but inner-city gangs will be able to do this. Anyone who wants to gain a following in the community can do so by offering top-flight educational services free of charge, simply by providing low-cost computers to students, and a minimal place to house them. The state will still regulate square footage, and the teachers’ union will still try to convince people that these alternative routes to education are substandard, but Khan Academy’s success at Oakland Unity High School is proof that an uncertified teacher and his educational program are better than what the inner-city schools, or regular public schools, are capable of providing. That is the affront of the Khan Academy.

            This message is going to spread. It’s going to spread to universities. It already has begun. The entire structure of education, based on false theories of what constitutes top-flight education — state certification — is being undermined by one man and a support staff of statisticians, whose salaries are paid by Bill Gates and other donors.

            The World Wide Web is undermining newspapers. They are dying. It is killing network television, which is also dying. The last bastion has been education, and while it is not dying, its executioner is deploying a digital guillotine every day, 24 hours a day, free of charge. He has proven, statistically and technically, that the number-one theory of modern education is wrong, namely, that you need training in a state-certified educational institution in order to be an effective teacher.

            I don’t know what Khan’s politics are, and I don’t care. I don’t care what his educational theory is, either. I care about this: he was never formally certified as a teacher. This represents a threat to the public school system like no other in history.


            Note, JAC, none of this was accomplished by “voting”.
            Neither will the rescue of the mind’s of the children be accomplished by “voting”.

            It will be accomplished by families first rescuing their kids from the government not cramming their heads with working with government.

            No one achieves principles of freedom without reason. Khan is providing a way to sidestep the great destroyer of both freedom and reason = government education.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You get more ridiculous by each additional argument.

              Now you want to assign values to voting that have nothing to do with voting, or at least to do with the point we were discussing, and then use those values to prove voting does not work.

              EXCEPT, some public schools are using Khans programs and that was done by pressure from voters. BECAUSE, the school board is ELECTED by the citizens via VOTING.

              Now show me where I stated that ONLY GOVT EDUCATION was valid or that it would turn things around. I do believe I specifically used the phrase “true education” as in teaching the truth, along with critical thinking skills (reason).

              STOP creating FALSE accusations then trying to knock them down with personal insults.

              It makes you look arrogant and ignorant. And it is not a solid method of argumentation. Despite what you think.

              If I or someone states a fact and you think it is false simply present your better information. Of course it would be nice if you presented it in the same context as the person you are arguing with.

              If I or someone else poses a question or challenges your assumptions don’t try and project some bizzare view point on the one asking the question. It is YOUR position. You should be able to defend your position by and of itself.

              Much of your arguments lately look distinctly like scarecrows.

              • JAC,

                You are malfunctioning. Go see a doctor, something is wrong with your brain.

                Now you want to assign values to voting that have nothing to do with voting, or at least to do with the point we were discussing, and then use those values to prove voting does not work.

                Utterly incomprehensible. You make some sort of claim about “nothing about voting”, but point to nothing.

                No, unlike you are lately, I have held a consistent and coherent viewpoint about voting.

                EXCEPT, some public schools are using Khans programs and that was done by pressure from voters. BECAUSE, the school board is ELECTED by the citizens via VOTING.

                Again, read my post – which I know confounds your intellect. I said, and I quoteother than civic government

                But you cannot discern an argument nowadays. Did you bang your head on a wall lately?

            • BF…please tell me that you do not follow nor support Salman Khan…..I have read him extensively and I cannot agree with him at all. This person is more scary than the left is right now. He has given in to the Common Core issue but you may support it…I do not know….never have asked you the question…so here is the question. As a home school advocate…..are you using Common Core as your directive?

              • Common Core, absolute not.

                But Khan isn’t promoting Common Core – he merely makes videos; parents pick and choose which they wish to use.

                We use Khan a lot ourselves (and other resources).

                The point of the article was the popping of the balloon of government schooling. Expect more popping.

              • I am not so sure……about his view on common core…..but aside from that……I agree that he is poking a finger in the eye of government schooling……..ok….so he says ( and he is a great philanthropist )…..use videos (which he promotes and makes )…..but he references his videos in most of the things that I have read….ok….fine….he is a visionary and salesman….but doesn’t that make him just a dangerous IF…IF he promotes only that….videos that he produces……he simply replaces government.

                So if you line up with his side of things, his videos have the same potential (possibility) of doing the same thing that government does….presents his sanitized side of things that he feels is proper……

                However, if I am reading you correctly, like the writings of..say Karl Marx….it is just another viewpoint and reference for parents to decide to use to teach their children. So, if I understand you correctly… a home school advocate, you favor a variety of sources, whether sanitized or not, and that it is a choice of education that you make to home school.

                Your viewpoint is that “government schooling” is a form of brainwashing because boards select the criteria that is to be taught and that particular criteria is not absolute…..

                Do I read you correctly?

              • D13,

                As the original blogger said about Khan “…I utterly do not care about his politics…”. Whether he supports “Common Core” or not is irrelevant to me (right now, anyway, as it has no effect). He could support a mission to Jupiter for all I care.

                “but doesn’t that make him just a dangerous IF…IF he promotes only that….videos that he produces……he simply replaces government.”

                He is very dangerous already as he is undermine government control. Dangerous not to me, though

                “So if you line up with his side of things, his videos have the same potential (possibility) of doing the same thing that government does”

                The use of media has long been the tool of government for its manipulation. This does not disappear because another uses the same tool to educate.

                “So, if I understand you correctly… a home school advocate, you favor a variety of sources, whether sanitized or not, and that it is a choice of education that you make to home school.”

                I will say “No”, that is not what I do.

                I advocate for parents to make their own choices – I do not, personally, care to measure the quantity of choices, more or less, as significant. One can get a very fine education with merely an arm full of very good books. A million more books might not improve such an education.

                “Your viewpoint is that “government schooling” is a form of brainwashing because boards select the criteria that is to be taught and that particular criteria is not absolute…..”

                It is brainwashing but not because of a criteria (I have a criteria upon the education of my daughter), but because of what is taught

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    For those scratching their heads over the comments that a declining cost of labor combined with free trade has improved our standard of living.

    Just ponder the data you can find. US REAL wages have been flat to declining, with a small drop in the median.

    Meanwhile the cost of living indexes, including CPI have dropped even more, leaving all of us with greater purchasing power. ROTFLMAO

    If only the second were true.

    • JAC

      “For those scratching their heads over the comments that a declining cost of labor combined with free trade has improved our standard of living.”

      It is economic law, JAC, no need to hurt your brain.

      “Just ponder the data you can find. US REAL wages have been flat to declining, with a small drop in the median.”

      This is independent to the above stated Economic Law.

      Since Americans by the whole earn more than the immigrants this decline is not part at all to cheap labor, but due to the decrease in productivity vs costs of expensive labor

      Because you are economically clueless, you convolute two, independent, issues as one causing the other.

      Because you do not know economics, you make up stories.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Productivity at an all time high. Real wages in decline.

        Apparently it is you who does not know economics. Because your free trade will only increase the standard of living IF the cost of living drops faster than the wages.

        But they have not so you need to explain why not.

        And who is it that benefits from declining cost of labor? What about those who no longer can find work? Those who must now reinvent themselves, but are now in their 50’s or 60’s. See, your theories work only if you try to use averages applied to society. Yet you claim society is not real. It is the “individual” that matters alone.

        So you deny the REAL negative impacts by claiming some societal benefit. Yet when it comes to societal issues, you claim I, me, you alone matters.

        • “Productivity at an all time high. Real wages in decline.”

          False! Don’t try to push nonsense, JAC, it is so unbecoming and irrational.

          U.S. Productivity Drops at Fastest Rate Since 2008
          By Justin Loiseau | More Articles | Save For Later
          June 4, 2014 | Comments (0)

          American workers are less productive and more expensive than originally estimated, according to a newly revised Q1 Productivity and Costs report (link opens in PDF) released today by the Labor Department.

          After first-quarter GDP estimates were revised down from an initial 0.1% growth to 1% contraction last week, analysts had expected tougher times for these two metrics, but their estimates still proved overly optimistic.

          For nonfarm business sector labor productivity, an original -1.7% reading dipped down to an annualized -3.2% for Q1, its largest quarter-to-quarter decline since Q1 2008. Analysts had been estimating a smaller 2.9% decline. Productivity suffered from a double-whammy of 2.2% more hours worked, as well as a 1.1% decline in output.

          Unit labor costs also took a turn for the worse, increasing at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.7%, instead of the previously published 4.2%. Analysts had been hoping for a middle-line 5.2% bump.

          “Apparently it is you who does not know economics.””

          No, apparently you need manufacture falsehoods. My economics is just fine.

          ” Because your free trade will only increase the standard of living IF the cost of living drops faster than the wages.”

          Again you muddle two, independent, concepts – gawd, man, grab a few economic courses!!

          Free trade allows the delivery of the cheapest goods for consumption.

          No matter what your income, getting MORE for your money ALWAYS improves your lifestyle

          Your WAGES are a condition of the Law of Supply and Demand.
          You are too expensive for the quality (production) you are creating.
          So, either you must:
          1) Accept a lower wage
          2) Improve your productivity
          3) Move to where labor is in higher demand.

          Since situation (1) exists, and (3) seems to be out of the question for your ilk, (2) is your only cure for the condition YOU deem “unsatisifactory” (condition (1)).

          “And who is it that benefits from declining cost of labor?”
          You are. Goods you need to live are decreasing in pricein free trade.

          But you and your ilk pervert this, too.
          Since you do not like free trade, and institute barriers to it, the benefit of lower prices is lost to you. The goods of less quality and/or higher price are all you get

          This is the arrangement you suffer with your errant ideas. It is NOT free trade’s fault when you destroy free trade and its benefits.

          “What about those who no longer can find work?”

  23. George Galloway on Palestine

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Error alert. The Brits did not take a nation of “Palestine” away from anyone and just give it to the Jews.

      They took territory away from others and their right to do so was rooted in the same rights of imperialistic nations of the time. Wonder why nobody points out that Turkey had no right to the same territory before it was taken from them? .

      This does not mean it was right, but I find it interesting how SELECTIVE memory is common among those castigating the creation of Israel.

      • JAC,

        Get a history lesson.

        You proclaim a “right” where none existed.
        Everyone outside your ilk DOES point to the abuses of the past. It is your ilk that has convenient amnesia.

        1945, the Nuremberg Resolutions under international law (which has nothing to do with “rights”, JAC) forbid conquest of territory. If you want to raise that argument about conquest, etc., you still lose.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The fellow mentioned pre WW II, so at that time nations were still taking by conquest. The Brits claims go back farther. And these do in fact deal with rights, as in the rights of nations at those times.

          • First, as a matter of principle, do you believe a nation has the Right to seize a people and their land, even before WW2?

            If your principles on the first are twisted, regardless, do you believe a nation has a the Right to seize a people and their land after WW2?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Some time before, don’t remember the cut off right now, they had a right but not a Right.

              After WW II all such “r”ights were abolished via the same method they were established. Agreement among people as to what “norms” were acceptable.

              Conquest and imperialism was the rule for a very long time. Whether by tribes, clans, kingdoms or nation states it does not matter. Humans accepted this norm.

              The key point here is that we cannot lay claims, arguments or judgments upon people of history who did not share our views on things like Rights, freedom, liberty or justice.

              To do so may make us feel righteous but it does nothing to inform the FACTUAL and TRUE nature of History. Thus it does not help us inform our current values. That is we don’t understand the evolution of human behavior that led some humans to change their view on these values.

              Now since you used Rights and not rights in your question, you should explain once again how Rights can exist separate of humans. How can Rights be absolute and concrete when they are conceptual and unique to humans.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                P.S., whether I personally believe they had a right is irrelevant.

                THEY believed they had such rights. It was the rule of Survival of the Fittest.

              • You are merely plying the Barbarian code, not one of civilization.

                You accept Barbarians, you justify Barbarians, you get barbarians.

                Woe to you.

              • 2nd, we are talking about YOU

                What others may or may not make a case is irrelevant, you are defending their actions

                If you take upon yourself their creed, you defend from your position, not try to avoid the arrows by pretending to be merely their parrot.

              • JAC
                ” time before, don’t remember the cut off right now, they had a right but not a Right.”

                There never was a right – you confuse self-justification to be the same as Right

                The key point, JAC, is either accept it never was a right, or if you (bizarrely) think it was, it did not exist after 1945.

                Either position destroys your argument

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You confuse man declared rights with your view of Natural Rights. Not the same.

              And humans held the right of occupation and the right of conquest for thousands of years. Even if they did not call it such it most certainly was their belief that they could take what ever land they could hold and defend.

              I certainly know the difference between rationalization and rights.

              Also, to once again point out how you jump to conclusion and project upon others, my only argument was that whether any nation had a right to take territory from some other people depends on when in history you make the argument. Genghis Khan certainly thought he had the “right”, as did Alexander, the Romans, the Persians the Ottomans, etc, etc. If nations at the time in question viewed such imperial behavior as acceptable then a “right” existed. Because they were the ones who decided what were rights and what were not rights.

              So you see, there is nothing you have stated nor anything in my comment that undermines the REALITY and TRUTH of History.

              • JAC

                I make no confusion. You are confused to think there are two different Rights

                There isn’t, never was. It is a fantasy you hold, not I

              • JAC,

                And, one more time, since you still don’t get it.

                If one (bizarrely) accepts your argument pre-1945, that argument does not exist post-1945

                Yet, your position demands the argument extends post-1945, whilst denying it does.

                Again, you are in contradiction, even if your bizarre argument is assumed

                Montcalm’s fork, sir, has skewed you nicely.

  24. Just A Citizen says:
  25. Ok Obama…….ball is in your court….or is it? You wanted Congress to act and they are…

    Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, would like to change that law and implement an expedited process that applies to all unaccompanied children who cross the border. Called the Helping Unaccompanied Minors and Alleviating National Emergency (HUMANE) Act, their bill would require that all unaccompanied children who entered the United States see an immigration judge within seven days of entering the country, after which the judge would determine whether the child could stay within 72 hours.

    **** Now, on the other hand, you have Senator Reid who has said that he will not allow the bill a vote and that there needs to be no bill…..just give Obama his $4 billion, which does not in one single dollar address the problem and all will be fine…..then this stupid son of a warthog says…….THE BORDER IS SECURE. THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

    Krauthammer has it right….Reid needs his medicine…the man is senile.

  26. Holy polar vortex! I’m all for 55 degrees, just not in the middle of July, when I went to bed with windows open and summer jammies on! Kathy and G, what say yous?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Perfect sleeping weather! It’s 54 here this morning and only getting to 67. Warming up later this weekend. At least it’s sunny today, may have to go whack a deer this evening!

    • I’m loving this reprieve! Although had to pull out some long sleeve stuff for biking, which was weird! It won’t last – global warming will be back next week.

  27. it is shortsighted to assume that illegal immigrants are only in the U.S. to provide votes. They are primarily here to bring state and Federal benefits to their communities, which in sanctuary cities are Hispanic supermajority communities.

    Juvenile illegal immigrants are the most lucrative source of human political capital. Each one in Chicago, for examples, brings $15,800 to the public school system, and $3,400 in Federal block money to the county and state.

    Public spending supports and perpetuates DNM growth, since it is immune from the constraints of private sector growth. Obama’s focus is not on job growth but borrowing money to support the DNM. It reflects his priorities.

    • LOI,

      It is arguable that political forces are using immigration to further other agendas.

      Those agendas are not the fault of immigrants.

  28. ” Juvenile illegal immigrants are the most lucrative source of human political capital. Each one in Chicago, for examples, brings $15,800 to the public school system, and $3,400 in Federal block money to the county and state. ”

    YES……it is about federal money.

  29. Now you need to check this out…..Weslaco, Texas…..Palm Aire hotel…..indoor outdoor swimming pools, wifi, free internet, free cable, color tv’s….

    The Obama administration through a Baptist organization will pay to house 600 illegal immigrants to the tune of $50 million dollars of your tax payer money……$50 million given to a faith based organization that he hates…..During the interview with the Baptist organization, it was asked how are they going to be fed….the answer was EBT cards will be issued to all immigrants for as long as they are there….

    And the incentive to leave all this free stuff is what?

    • oops…..saw the above posting too late……do not think that this is going to go lightly…..we, the veterans groups, are gearing up for a fight on this.

      If Congress grants Obama this money……I will have to admit that BF is right…talk about forcing evil……..holy shit a rooney…….

  30. Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, California ( even LA ), North Carolina….all fighting the illegals…..

    • And BF is correct, it is not the illegals fault but they are caught in the middle and must suffer the consequences of politics…and this is political, make no mistake about it…..

      I bet even New York will fight the busloads…..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        To some extent but it is the illegal alien and/or their family which sends them here knowing it is ILLEGAL. They are BETTING their very life on somebody allowing them to stay due to political pressure.

        So their hands are not clean either.

        • JAC,


          You betray root principles by appealing to immoral law.

          Do you believe you should obey immoral law?

          If you do not, why do you even declare disobeying immoral law is “getting your hands dirty”??? Is it not, then, “keeping your hands clean”?

          • Just as you shouldn’t be able to appeal to moral law. The choices are legal or illegal. You want to vote present. Nonsense.

            • So if the law says you must turn a Jew into authorities to die, you would obey, since your morals “cannot be appealed to”….

              Again, hypocrisy, Anita.


              • Just A Citizen says:

                Argumentum absurdum. Something you are always chastising Mathius and Buck for doing.

              • More empty word-salad from you.

                You ply some moral principle, then shrink away when it is applied upon you in a manner you dislike.

                Sorry, the principle still follows you. You cannot avoid the application of a principle you place upon yourself merely because, darn, it makes you look like an idiot.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Obeying the laws is not a moral principle. It is more in line with an ethical principle.

                We humans have laws and most of us will try to follow those laws. For a few hundred years there have been National Laws and most people understand this and try to comply.

                Some decide they don’t care and they deliberately violated those laws. Thus, these people are partly to blame, maybe mostly to blame, for the situation they find themselves in when they deliberately break those laws.

                Whether the law is moral, ethical or what have you does not matter. The question is one of responsibility.

                You decide to run the stop sign you are responsible for what ensues.

              • JAC,

                What happened to you? Did you eat some poison, take LSD, or what

                Obeying the laws is not a moral principle. It is more in line with an ethical principle.

                You proposed it as a moral principle, not I.
                Further, the difference between ethics and morals disappears in any argument on principle, since principles are individual.

                If you argue “we” as individuals need to obey immoral laws, is a argument that binds ethics and morals – rules vs ones own principles.

              • Here, for you to clarify your arena.


              • Just A Citizen says:


                I REJECT your constraint on my arena.


                Sorry pard, but ethics is the action of carrying out what one thinks is right and wrong as in your interaction with other humans. Your MORAL principles form the foundation for your ethical standards of how to live your daily life.

                And there is no requirement that one be subjective and the other objective. If both are not based on rational thought, objective, then they are based on nothing but whim or handed down by dictate of some other authority.

              • BF

                “I REJECT your constraint on my arena.”

                So you post a definition which absolutely confirms me, for you to declare you reject it.

                “Your MORAL principles form the foundation for your ethical standards of how to live your daily life.”
                …which is exactly what I said.

                Your morals makes the rules.

                I attack your morals because your rules are immoral.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                What is your basis for claiming that I equated morality with compliance with any law?

                I said you OBEY immoral laws so why can’t the rest of us.

                You claim a law as immoral. It may or may not be immoral, but you claim ALL Govt law as immoral. Yet you OBEY these laws because to do otherwise will cause you harm.

                I never even said you have to OBEY all laws or what you think immoral laws. I said that if you do not, by choice, then you are responsible for the consequences. YOUR CHOICE.

                YOU CHOOSE TO OBEY……..TO COMPLY…………… most of the time.

                Well guess what? So do most of us.

              • JAC
                “I said you OBEY immoral laws so why can’t the rest of us.”

                I said I do NOT obey, so try to keep at least MY argument straight in your little brain.

                “You claim a law as immoral. It may or may not be immoral, but you claim ALL Govt law as immoral. Yet you OBEY these laws because to do otherwise will cause you harm.”

                I have made my case repeatedly and it is unrefutable.

                ALL GOVERNMENT LAW is immoral as it requires violence on the non-violent.

                Man, you are degrading by the day….
                Look, NATURAL HUMAN LAW and GOVERNMENT LAW are not the same thing.

                A peaceful man subject to NATURAL LAW creates no effect upon this peaceful man – he is oblivious to the LAW.

                What effect does a law against murder place upon a peaceful man? None
                What effect does a law against theft place upon a peaceful man? None
                What effect does a law against rape place upon a peaceful man? None

                This is how you know these are NATURAL HUMAN LAWS.

                What small brains do not comprehend is that this does not change if some legal system codifies these natural laws. They do not become “government” law merely because they are written down, that processes of resolution are established, the means test of distinction are developed.

                So codifying “murder”, prescribing a difference between accidental killing, negligent killing, emotional killing and premeditated killing, developing processes and remedies for each, does not turn the Natural Law of Murder into Government Law. Nothing about this codification changes its effect on “the Peaceful Man”. He remains oblivious

                Government Law absolutely effects the peaceful man. In fact, its absolute creation is utterly and only for this purpose, to create an effect upon a peaceful man

                Government law creates a criminal of a peaceful man to be of equal merit of a criminal of Natural law. That is the sole purpose of government law – to make peaceful men risk being criminals unless they submit to edicts and declarations

                Small minds do not understand this. They hold one “Law” – and cannot discern.

                This is why you and Anita are all twisted about the law you hide behind. You will support one evil law because you believe it benefits you and argue that everyone must follow you because “obeying the law is necessary” – yet when challenged about an evil law that confounds your benefit or want, you will argue you get to follow your morals, the very thing you denied to others when the law happened to benefit you



                Again, you perversion of choice – that a man with a gun to his head has a choice.

                No, choice is only real if it is without violent coercion, no matter how confused you are about the situation.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You obey immoral law every day. Why can’t I?

            • I do not obey immoral law, JAC.

              I suffer it.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                And how is there a difference in REALITY?

              • Vast, but I understand you cannot understand it.

                As I said to Anita, your position believes if I surrender my wallet to a thief, I agree to the theft.

                Moral principle does not equal martyrdom

                Actions are immediate, ideas grow in time.

                It took 300 years from the first Jesuit monks postulated human rights to the global awakening to their existence.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Actually the difference lies in the meaning of the words.

                YOU do in fact Obey IMMORAL laws, per your own declaration that such laws are immoral.

                You suffer because you obey those laws in contradiction to your own principles. You may not suffer much in terms of physicality but you do suffer moral degradation forced on you by others.

                So your claim is purely Bull Shit my friend. You do in fact OBEY the laws. I am sure you skirt a few as well but it doesn’t change the fact that you OBEY.

                Neither does this reality cause me or anyone else to have a position which only YOU claim is ours. That you Obey the law does not mean that I think your paying taxes is voluntary or that you agree with them.

                Your argument that this is the case is resoundingly absurd.

              • JAC

                You are absurd.

                Again, you ply the bizarre argument that if I surrender my wallet to a thief, I must agree that theft is not immoral.

                What happened to your brain??? Do you visit Mathius and drink some of his magic koolaid??

                No, I submit to immoral law, not obey. I dare say I am now strained to believe you understand the difference.

              • Then we suffer and submit just the same. Still doesn’t change the fact that things are legal or illegal, which is the point you keep ignoring.

              • Anita
                “Then we suffer and submit just the same. Still doesn’t change the fact that things are legal or illegal, which is the point you keep ignoring.”

                I do not ignore it. As you said, it is a fact.

                It is immoral which is what you ignore.

                You argue for immoral law. It is you who is ignoring the morality

              • Just A Citizen says:
              • JAC,

                More abuse of language.

                You therefore claim you giving your wallet to a thief is a sign of obedience, and as such, give right to the thief to command upon you.

  31. Separation of Church and State
    Why does the church support Statism today?
    …and we are a “Theocracy”.

    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received $69,377,785 (a little over 31% of total revenues) from government contracts and grants in 2010, up from $58,327,207 (40% of revenues) in 2009, per their latest financial statement.

    Also controlled by the bishops, Catholic Charities USA, the umbrella organization for all the diocesan Catholic Charities, received $2.90 billion (62% of revenues) from the government in 2010 and $2.64 billion (69%) in 2009; Catholic Relief Services received $517 million (56%) in 2010 from the government and $361 million (61%) in 2009, according to Forbes list of the 200 largest U.S. charities.

  32. Just A Citizen says:
  33. Strike a blow….not lethal but it hurt the establishment, for Texas freedom….and it is a result of the vote last year. In the last Texas elections where conservatives ousted many RINOS and liberals…..

    The Texas Cottage Law survived the Austin onslaught of non revision……The Texas Cottage Law now allows home bakeries to produce and sell baked goods, candy, coated and uncoated nuts, unroasted nut butters, fruit butters, a canned jam or jelly, a fruit pie, dehydrated fruit or vegetables, including dried beans, popcorn and popcorn snacks, cereal, including granola, dry mix, vinegar, pickles, mustard, roasted coffee or dry tea, or a dried herb or dried herb mix and that has an annual gross income of $50,000 or less from the sale of the described foods; and sells the foods produced directly to consumers at the individual’s home, a farmers’ market, a farm stand, or a municipal, county, or nonprofit fair, festival or event or delivers products to the consumer at the point of sale or another location designated by the consumer.

    A cottage food production operation is exempt from the requirements of a food service establishment and does not have to comply with the Texas Food Establishment Rules. Health departments do not have regulatory authority to conduct inspections of a cottage food production operation.

    It was a battle but it was won…..a small step for sure and all due to a change in the legislature that believes in freedoms. The next step is to eliminate the $50,000 rule. Watch for more changes in restrictive laws designed to only benefit the elite.

    It is possible but it takes work starting at the local levels…..and the Austin establishment was delivered a knock down punch…..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Hate to say it but watch how fast a case of serious food poisoning is found among the consumers. PANIC will ensue and demands for a LAW to FIX the problem.

      • Gotta start somewhere JAC……..if someone gets food poisoning, then that Cottage will die. If a person wishes to take a chance….so be it.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Don’t take me wrong my Texican friend. I am all for your efforts.

          Simply offering an opinion of what those whose Ox has been gored will stoop to in order to get their protection reinstated.

          Hope ya’ll hold the line.

          • This is true…..sir….we will hold the line…..we even have more conservative freedom thinking people in line for the election this year…..hope we are successful…..

      • What has prompted this resurgence is the fact that in the last four years, food prices have risen at astronomical rates. Inflation will breed this type of action…so it is profitable to can now and then sell it. Farmer’s markets have been around since Joseph bought the mule for Mary…so really nothing new….Everybody can get int the game now. We shall see….but the important part was getting government out of regulation at any level…..

        • …any level, including immigration, Colonel.

          • If possible, yes…but eliminating borders…..I am not there yet..

            • Why?

              D13, a principle, in philosophy and science (search for truth), by its existence applies universally, otherwise it is a choice not a principle. In science, the term is “law”, such as the “Law of Gravity” – it is more accurately stated “the Principle of Gravity” if one wanted to be a stickler.

              Philosophy of Freedom is a principle; it can be applied to all people universally. Deviations from the principle do not make a principle such as a man who destroys the freedom of others claiming it is his freedom to do so. His actions is contrary to the Universality, that is, he has destroyed freedom of another. Being contrary to the principle is not exercising the principle.

              Government regulation is contrary to this principle. You do not exercise the principle by destroying freedom, which is what government does.

              You argue that principle “here” regarding government action – but why do you contradict yourself “there”? What principle are you invoking “there” that overwhelms the principle “here” while remembering and holding that this new principle must be universal as much as the former?

              • The use of the word “Law” in science comes from the remnants of religion in science. Since “God” only knows why gravity does what it does, it is “God’s Law” – hence “Law of Gravity” – or “God’s Law of Gravity”.

                Slowly science is purging the religious dogmas and more and more are using the correct term “Principle” – such as the “Principles of Flight”, etc.

      • D13 is correct.

        People do not have an overwhelming desire to die.

        Case in point, one hamburger of Jack-in-the-Box almost killed a kid. Facts, it didn’t. Facts, it was one hamburger.

        Within a week, Jack-in-the-Box suffered a 30% drop in sales. They were, literally, almost bankrupt. They amassed new standards and advertising campaign to stem the losses.

        They were lucky. Two years later, they regained their lost market share

        The Consumer is King and is vicious when unhappy.

  34. Gman, JAC and others try to use this in their ideas about Immigration, called Theory of Second Best

    In economics, the theory of the second best concerns the situation when one or more optimality conditions cannot be satisfied.

    The economists Richard Lipsey and Kelvin Lancaster showed in 1956, that if one optimality condition in an economic model cannot be satisfied, it is possible that the next-best solution involves changing other variables away from the values that would otherwise be optimal.

    Politically, the theory implies that if it is infeasible to remove a particular distortion, introducing a second (or more) distortion may partially counteract the first, and lead to a more efficient outcome.

    Essentially it is the idea that another government intervention, another imposition, will correct a previous government intervention and imposition to the degree that will improve the situation.

    It’s basically that two government interventions, each wrong, may produce a better situation than one of them.

    In any situation, the second best theory will typically be used as an argument in favor of more regulation.

    But the problem with second-best solutions is that is assumes that the second imposition will avoid the issues that made the first imposition intractable – that is, the same root error that justified the first is not used to justify the second.

    But the contradiction. The second imposition is an equal response to the same use as the first – that is, the problem that justified the first attack still exists and is used to justify the second attack. In other words, the same root error is repeated

    More regulation in the name of a supposed second-best improvement surely perpetuates a bad regulatory situation, namely the reliance on freedom destroying regulation, and obscures the option of creating a better situation, one of greater free entry and more freedom for all.

    There’s little hope of ever getting freedom by endorsing more control by a government agency.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Sorry mate, but I don’t use that at all. For any reason.

      • JAC,

        But you do. You are in favor of more border control in response to the failure of border control, but with changes of methodology, and no change of intent.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF I am in favor of border control because I believe we as a Nation have the right to control the inflow of immigrants to this country. I believe that massive migration has a serious detrimental affect on nations which are overrun.

          So my support of border control has nothing to do with the failure of border control.

          I support changes because the current controls are not adequate or are not working. But that is not the same argument you are trying to make..

          Just because YOU claim Nations do not have such rights does not change MY position nor negate my reasoning. I do not accept your assumptions or claims on lack of sovereignty..

  35. Honduras wants ‘mini-Marshall plan’ for U.S. aid on migrants
    By By Gustavo Palencia 3 hours ago

    By Gustavo Palencia

    TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – Honduran officials on Wednesday called for U.S. aid to Central America to reduce violence that has fueled a surge of child migration to the United States, with the foreign minister calling for a “mini-Marshall plan” to attack the broader underlying problems.

    Honduran President Juan Hernandez said Washington should help Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras fight gangs with a plan similar to U.S. anti-drug programs in Colombia and Mexico, as well as funds to lift growth in the impoverished region.

    “One has to recognize that our countries can’t do it alone,” he said at a conference about the unaccompanied minors fleeing for the United States. “We need help from the United States, from Mexico, because this is everyone’s problem.”

    Honduran Foreign Minister Mireya Aguero told the conference that efforts to step up security at the U.S. border were not working and that U.S. aid would be better spent in Central America.

    “It’s much more practical for the United States to launch a mini-Marshall plan, as they did after World War Two, to create opportunities and really get to the root of the problem in Central American countries that is fueling migration,” she said.

    Named after top U.S. General George Marshall, the Marshall plan was a U.S. aid program to help rebuild shattered European economies after the destruction wrought by World War Two.

    Hernandez, who took office in January after pledging to crack down on crime, said U.S.-backed battles against cartels in Colombia and Mexico have pushed drug traffickers into Central America, increasing violence, which is causing the exodus.

    Yet he underlined the success of U.S. efforts in Colombia.

    “Today, for example, Plan Colombia is showing major success. It was worked on together, those generating demand for drugs in the north and those producing drugs in the south assumed joint responsibility and it was effective,” he said.

    Honduras now has the highest murder rate in the world.

    Gang-related killings have increased in recent years since Mexico’s drug cartels expanded into Honduras, enlisting local street gangs and using the country’s Caribbean coast to transport South American cocaine to the United States.

    Thousands of Central American migrants have been streaming into the United States through Mexico, and those caught are being held in overcrowded detention facilities.

    The United States deported a planeload of women and children to Honduras on Monday. The country’s first lady, Ana Garcia de Hernandez, said another U.S. charter flight containing 80 families would arrive in San Pedro Sula on Friday.

    President Barack Obama has asked lawmakers for $3.7 billion to pay for more border security, temporary detention centers and additional immigration court judges to process asylum cases and speed up deportations.

    A local U.N. official who also spoke at the conference in Honduras said that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is “deeply concerned” about the child migrants. He urged the governments involved “to urgently protect the human rights of migrant children.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      So this is just another organized EXTORTION by another country against the USA.

      Any remaining questions??

      • Nope….just more extortion. What is interesting…everyone lines up and asks the United States for help…says it is our problem and the problem of all nations and the world…(which is utter bullshit )…they want our money but they expect the money with NO STRINGS…..the world does not work that way. You want our help, you get our help but you get the strings that go with ( exploitation of natural resources, military bases whatever the US decides it wants in exchange for our help )….you want a particular trade agreement? Ok great but this is how I want it… dont agree with it…DON”T FRIGGING TRADE WITH ME…..

        You don’t like the strings attached to money loans….don’t ask for my help? If I decide to help you with no strings…that is ok….but if I attach conditions, don’t bitch. Take it or leave it.

        Business is not built on charity….it is built on the premise that “I win”….We do not go into business with the idea of what is fair…..we go into business to profit and better our position. A good business man/woman understands what fairness is and what it promotes but

        If Guatemala or Honduras want and need our money it is because they have failed as a country and failed at practice. Our money comes with a price ( like interest )….and hegemony is a payment……

        That is one way to look at it…..success will always have its detractors….that is the way of the world…..

        BF and I differ greatly on immigration in how to handle it….he wants no borders and feels that will solve the problem…a one world view…..I oppose that. I like autonomy and I do not want a “Star Trek” world. I fully understand the law of economics but I also understand that it does not solve all problems.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good morning my Texican friend. I hope all are well in the Colonel’s castle this fine day. Another warm and smoky day here in north Idaho.

          It seems that the rest of the world is getting more clever at manipulating us while our “leaders” grow denser by the day. I am beginning to think we have lost our ability to think long term and strategically. Maybe we were never really good at it, but our underwear is really showing these days.

          Scanned the CNN site comments on immigration articles this morning. CNN was trying to drum up “sympathy”. All but one comment can be boiled down to shut down the border, send them all home and let them solve their own problems. Even people from Australia who suffered an Asian invasion until their Govt changed hands and started enforcing immigration restrictions.

          Watched Anderson Cooper try to accuse the AZ Sheriff of lying about Obama not enforcing immigration laws. Cooper is obviously clueless, as are all others on the leftwing media sites, about how this administration is really handling the enforcement of our laws. Turning people loose at the border or releasing them from custody on a promise they will return for a hearing is not really deportation.

      • I don’t seem to ever run out of questions 🙂

        What exactly was the Plan Columbia? And is it really “showing major success” ?

        And don’t you just love people/Countries who “ask” for help because they have failed to do their job, while blaming you for the problem.

      • The piper gets played, quid pro quo.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    Good News Flaggy! 🙂

    In the CT world, your desire for NO borders may come true very soon. Trying to keep things short, in 2017, out government will announce it is no longer functional and the borders no longer exist, hence, the making of the North American Union. Canada, the US and Mexico will merge to become one. This should please you, except for the bad news about this. The Feds will default on the debt, the country will experience a major economic crisis, passports will be cancelled, nobody will be allowed to leave. Tens of millions will likely die in some way, whether by disease or the crackdown on dissent, but that should be OK, we’re gearing up with an extra 25 million or so who are already here and/or coming 🙂

    Just thought you’d like to know. That’s of course from the very strange world of Conspiracy Theory. This story comes from a USAF 4 star general (so says the radio host) who walked away from his shot at the Joint Chiefs. These folks have some imagination, don’t they?

    I was reading about how Israel came to be a country. I went back to one of your posts on the immigration of Jews to the area in the early 1900’s. The Brit’s were in control of the region till after WWII if I read correctly. When the State of Israel was announced, there was no war prior to that, just a whole lot of immigration, which by 1939 made the Jews 33% of population. I have not seen or read anything that could fall under conquering being the cause of the State of Israel. but more of a government edict from the UN. However, I’m not a historical expert on the subject like yourself, so could you suggest a good read on how all this came about, at least as to where your version of events are concerned.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning to you as well. I re-read some of that history myself yesterday. Thinking, OK maybe I missed something. Interesting how Britain is accused of “taking” Palestine away from Palestinians and giving it to the Jews while Britain was trying to restrict Jewish immigration to Israel in hopes of not pissing off the Arabs. Whose oil Britain needed.

      Funny how the PM who made the comments ignored that the British proposal included both Jewish and Arab states along with an International administration of Jerusalem. So by what right did they dare propose an Arab State??

      I am no fan of Israel’s behavior since 1948 but I do find it strange how the hate on Israel crowd suffers from selective memory. Sometimes very, very selective.

      How is this years tomato brandy looking?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It is a strange story about Israel, there seems to be many different versions of things. It would be nice if the whole issue could just end and everyone can get along. Maybe Flag can fix the conquering confusion, I just don’t see it.

        The garden is booming, too early for harvest still. Began making Apple pie moonshine this Spring, now building a stock of that to go with the Brandy stock (about 8 cases). Best natural sleep aid ever! 🙂

        • Gman

          “It is a strange story about Israel, there seems to be many different versions of things. It would be nice if the whole issue could just end and everyone can get along. Maybe Flag can fix the conquering confusion, I just don’t see it.”

          They did get along for centuries until Russian Zionists began their assault.

          It won’t get fixed until the Zionist extremists, funded and support by the largess of the USA, are stopped. They will not stop until Ersatz Israel is complete.

          As I’ve posited before, The Hegemony must stop FIRST, and in this matter, it is not, it is accelerating its actions.

          So do not expect resolution.

      • People are talking about allowing the Kurds to have a State-how is this different from Israel being allowed to form a state?

        • The Kurds live there for most of history.

          The Jews in Israel are Russian. They never lived there. They lived in Russian for most of history.

          If you want a homeland for these Russian Jews, give them Alaska. Strange, you don’t advocate for that.

          • BF,

            I find it almost funny that you-the one who raves about immigration and open borders is upset that Jews immigrated to the Middle East. And lets just ignore the fact that Jews have always been a part of the population of the Middle East and some of that immigration came from the other Countries that were formed by all these new borders. And lets ignore the fact that Israel wasn’t the only state formed at the time. That’s what all the people screaming that Israel is occupying land tries to do-make the creation of Israel as some single action-it wasn’t -at the time the British created many different Countries by laying out borders. But it is only Israel that is a problem.

            So lets look at some facts-facts that one would think you would think was wonderful and the way it should be done. Some Jews bought land in the Middle East and they built and formed communities. The Jews who immigrated and those who were already there just wanted to form their own communities so they could be FREE. So they worked within the system to be able to keep that land-the land they bought and paid for-their personal property-they were allowed to keep their land and a state was created. Now some people didn’t like this so they started a war -not over the whole idea of all these new Countries and borders-just this one little part of the whole created mess. The Palestinians weren’t forced out -they left-they left to start a war against Israel. They have no right of return. No one has the right to tell any Country they must allow people who tried to kill them in war to live in their communities.

            Now the poor Palestinians-what happened to them. Israel took in all the Jewish refugees that were displaced because of the war against the Jews-But the Palestinians, well, they’re still refugees after what 60 years because the haters of Israel would rather let them suffer -than allow Jews to have a State.

            All of this is about hate-nothing else but hate.

            • V.H.
              “I find it almost funny that you-the one who raves about immigration and open borders is upset that Jews immigrated to the Middle East. ”

              What is most disturbing about idiots like you V.H., and yes, IDIOT, is that you attempt to create a made-up story about my position, and then work to ridicule your own fantasy about it

              Such a person as you is utterly worthless intellectually.

              Nothing you say improves any position.

              You are utterly unprincipled, you are ignorant, you are brainwashed, and you do absolutely nothing to correct these serious deficits.

              Here is a great example of your ignorance.

              “But it is only Israel that is a problem.”


              BECAUSE Poor IGNORANT ANITA, THEY WERE TERRORISTS – they were blowing up buildings and slaughtering people wholesale

              Jordanians weren’t setting off bombs, Egyptians, nor Syrias…NOR THE PALESTINIANS,etc.

              It is the Zionists who were TERRORISTS.

              How about you get some god damn education, woman.


              1937, March 2 Arabs killed on Bat Yam beach. [12]
              1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, (“Black Sunday”) [13][14]
              1938, April 12 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa. [14]
              1938, April 17 1 Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa [14]
              1938, May 17 1 Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road. [14]
              1938, May 24 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa. [14]
              1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel Aviv. [14]
              1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa. [14]
              1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa. [14]
              1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem. [15]
              1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
              1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [14]
              1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem. [14]
              1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded. [14][16][17]
              1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem. [14]
              1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
              1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][18]
              1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [14]
              1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [19]
              1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem. [14]
              1939, May 29 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar ‘Adas. [14]
              1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. [14][20]
              1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing [14]
              1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
              1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][21]
              1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period. [14][22]
              1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
              1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. [14]
              1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][23]
              1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
              1939, July 20 1 Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa. [14]
              1939, July 20 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
              1939, July 20 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot. [14]
              1939, August 27 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem. [14]
              1944, September 27 Unknown number of casualties, around 150 Irgun members attacked four British police stations [24]
              1944, September 29 1 Senior British police officer of the Criminal Intelligence Department assassinated in Jerusalem. [24]
              1945, November 1 5 locomotives destroyed in Lydda station. Two staff, one soldier and one policeman killed. [25]
              1945, December 27 3 British policemen and 4 Sotho soldiers killed during the bombing of British CID headquarters in Jerusalem; 1 British soldier killed during attack of British army camp in north Tel Aviv [26][27]
              1946, February 22 Destroyed 14 aeroplanes at 5 RAF stations. [28]
              1946, July 22 91 people were killed at King David Hotel bombing mostly civilians, staff of the hotel or Secretariat,
              41 Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. [29][30][31]
              1946, October 30 2 British guards killed during Gunfire and explosion at Jerusalem Railway Station. [32]
              1946, October 31 Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured. [33]
              1947, January 12 4 killed in bombing of British headquarters. [34]
              1947, March 1 17 British officers killed, during raid and explosion. [35]
              1947, March 12 1 British soldier killed during the attack on Schneller Camp. [35]
              1947, July 19 4 locations within Haifa are attacked, killing a British constable and injuring 12. [36]
              1947, July 29 2 kidnapped British sergeants hanged. [37]
              1947, September 26 4 British policemen killed in Irgun bank robbery. [34]
              1947, September 29 13 killed, 53 wounded in attack on British police station. [34]
              1947, December 11 13 killed in attack on Tireh, near Haifa [38]
              1947, December 12 20 killed, 5 wounded by barrel bomb at Damascus Gate. [39]
              1947, December 13 6 killed, 25 wounded by bombs outside Alhambra Cinema. [40]
              1947, December 13 5 killed, 47 wounded by two bombs at Damascus Gate. [40]
              1947, December 13 7 killed, 10 seriously injured in attack on al-‘Abbasiyya. [40]
              1947, December 16(ca) 10 killed by bomb at Noga Cinema in Jaffa. [41]
              1947, December 29 14 Arabs killed by bomb in Jerusalem. [34][42]
              1947, December 30 6 Arabs killed and, 42 injured by grenades at Haifa refinery, precipitating the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, which lead to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre. [43]
              1948, January 1 2 Arabs killed and 9 injured by shooting attack on cafe in Jaffa. [44]
              1948, January 5 14 Arabs killed and 19 injured by truck bomb outside the 3-storey ‘Serrani’, Jaffa’s built Ottoman Town Hall [45]
              1948, January 7 20 Arabs killed by bomb at Jaffa Gate. [46][47]
              1948, February 10 7 Arabs killed near Ras el Ain after selling cows in Tel Aviv [48]
              1948, February 18 12 Arabs killed and 43 wounded at a marketplace in Ramla [49]
              1948, March 1 20 Britons killed and 30 wounded in the Bevingrad Officers Club bombing [50]
              1948, April 9-April 11 107-120 Arabs killed and massacred (the estimate generally accepted by scholars, instead the first announced number of 254) during and after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, by 132 Irgun and 60 Lehi fighters. [51][52][53][54][55]
              1948, April 6 7 British soldiers, including Commanding Officer, killed during an arms raid on Pardes Hanna Army camp.

              • BF

                I realize that you were busy throwing an immature tantrum-but at least have the emotional control to yell your insults at the right person and leave Anita out of it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                As a bit of àn old school type of person, I will state that if Mr. Flag EVER talked to a person in real life, not the cyber person, he would be receiving a solid education on respect by getting a skull creaking ass whooping.

                Sadly, people act this way when there on cyberspace because there are no repercussions, it’s very different in real life with real people. One day he’ll slip up and pay a heavy price.

                On the subject of Zionism, many folks believe it’s mostly a conspiracy theory. I’m neutral on the matter. As far as all the killings mentioned, I’ve read somewhere that they were in retaliation from previous attacks. I’ll search for a link later, but only relying on memory and could be mistaken. 🙂

                Cheer up VH, your plenty smart. 🙂

              • Gman,

                In dealing with idiots, there can be no patience.

                This is not merely ignorance, which deserves patience because if you simply don’t know, how do you know?

                The volumes of knowledge on the topic is there, but when it is refused, that’s when ignorance turns to idiocy.

                You, like many, are so darn brainwashed and muddled, and utterly refuse to educate yourself, and when information is provided that is contrary to your muddled brainwashing, you ignore it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Like I said, I’m neutral on the matter. There are many different views on the matter, seems both sides have a story that contradicts the other. None of which is my problem, and I don’t desire to involve myself in their conflict.

                In all seriousness my pirate friend, many , many people would consider you the idiot, just prior to stomping you teeth down your throat for talking to people with a complete lack of resect, The idiot is simply the perception of one person towards another. Not being highly educated on the Isreali matter would never likely result in violence towards me, disrespecting people however is quite different. You can get away with being that kind of idiot on thè net, hopefully your smart enough to not do the same in public.

              • Gman,

                Knowledge is not neutral.
                Ignorance is neutral.

                There are not “different views” on the matter. That comment demonstrates you haven’t a fog of a clue.

                Zionism exists and is exercised there is not “two sides to Zionism”.

                You are involved in their conflict – you do not condemn the actor and blame the victim. You support the conflict by remaining ignorant to its designs and intent.

                Like I said, Gman, idiots get no pass. If idiots like you are your ilk wish to enforce your ignorance by attacking the likes of me for pointing out your stupidity, it merely demonstrates the type of persons you hang out with.

              • Gman,

                Yep, the Zionist doctrine is a conspiracy theory in your small mind.

                I bet you think Mein Kampf was a conspiracy theory too.

                Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tsiyonut) is the national movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel. A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation..

                The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is a biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                You should try understanding my post as it is written, not what you make up. Retread it, then I’ll accept your apology for you blatant , and common, misrepresentation of the sentence.

              • Bullshit.

                You do not understand, nor do you wish to understand.

                You wish to remain “neutral”, because the position you want to hold is terrible, but the position that is truth confounds your mindset.

                So you, cowardly, set on the fence.

                This way you think you can avoid commitment to truth, because it means you were wrong, and not have to admit your error.

              • Gman

                “..heavy price…”

                Long been paid.

                In the land of idiots, it is folly to be wise.

                As I said Gman, you merely ignore the knowledge that does not fit your brainwashing. If it is contrary, you make up an excuse and pretend the knowledge away. Anything, including nonsense, that supports your brainwashing you seize as if it was a fundamental truth, immune to anything contrary.

                You build up your little ideology on lies and ignorance.

                Then -bizarrely- wonder why the world unfolds in a way you do not like.

                Reason takes hard work, Gman, and you and your cabal do not do the work.

              • Gman,

                Though I know it cannot penetrate your brain and you will not understand “Eretz Yisrael”, I will try again to help you.

                When you look at the map of Eretz Yisrael, do you understand why Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt so easily?

                Do you understand why Israel never crossed the Jordon River in any of its wars?

                Do you understand why Israel refuses to return Golan Heights? Pushes into Lebanon and supports wars and conflict in that country? Why it continues to seize Palestinian territory on the West Bank, and Gaza?

                If you look at the map and marry it with Israel military action and political decisions, clarity in the terminal goal of Zionists is perfectly clear.

                But obvious things, to you, is a conspiracy theory.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Let me once again restate my position on the matter in sixth grade English that you can comprehend better. ” I don’t give a flying fuck about the Israel/Palestinian issue”. . Can you comprehend that ?

              • Then Mr. Grade Six,

                Shut up about it if you don’t bloody care.

                But you won’t.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                BWHAhahaha! No fucking narcisstic sociopath will EVER be man enough to make me, including your sorry ass! You need to grow up BOY!

              • Gman,

                So you are liar.

                You do care, otherwise, you wouldn’t make such a fuss.

              • You’re right.

                Add your name to the rant, though I doubt it will dent your thinking.

              • How about You quit picking and choosing your history and look at the whole picture.

              • Hoohohohoo!!

                You are too funny!

                You, the ignorant, who knows little to nothing of history!


              • gmanfortruth says:

                Flagster, Despite what you may perceive about todays chat, I only wanted to get you to aim your vile opinion at me and away from others. That’s called manipulation and you are quite susceptible to it, despite your belief your are superior of mind to the rest of us.

                I do care about the Israeli issue, mainly because it’s gone on fro way to long and peace needs to be found somewhere, far too many dead innocent people, regardless of which side they belong. It’s very sad to see this continue, but, as of early this morning, there is evidence that the original killing of the 3 Israeli teens was done by those who spoke Hebrew, which leads to a possible false flag to provide a reason to invade. This, I found credible enough. I don’t trust any government, period. I also know of all the natural gas that is near the coast of Gaza, which should belong to the Palestinians, that I do believe.

                So, you see, I’m not that blind to what is going on, the past is only a precursor to the future. The future of the Palestinians is bleak. The world is still a “only the strong will survive” world, it’s the nature of animals, which we are. Sucks, but we will have our own battles here at home soon, possibly not much different than the Palestinians, except I think things may not turn out quite the same.

                Flag, I like you. You have a great deal to offer those of us who post here. The vile attitude serves no purpose to no one, including yourself.

          • I will…they can have Alaska……I will sign it over right now.

            • Sitka, Alaska – a plan for Jews to settle the Sitka area in Alaska, the Slattery Report, was proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in 1939 but turned down.

              According to Ickes’s diaries, President Roosevelt wanted to move 10,000 settlers to Alaska each year for five years, but only 10 percent would be Jewish “to avoid the undoubted criticism” the program would receive if it brought too many Jews into the country.

              With Ickes’s support, Interior Undersecretary Harold Slattery wrote a formal proposal titled “The Problem of Alaskan Development,” which became known as the Slattery Report. It emphasized economic-development benefits rather than humanitarian relief: The Jewish refugees, Ickes reasoned, would “open up opportunities in the industrial and professional fields now closed to the Jews in Germany.”

              …so close. But imagine what that would have done for Alaska, with all those Jewish business men and bankers….

      • JAC

        Bizarre argument.
        ” So by what right did they dare propose an Arab State??”

        … ah, no. They proposed a Jewish State made OUT OF Arab State. The latter was already there, the former did not exist.

        • Wow-now you acknowledge states not people.

          • Arab STATE, yes, the Ottoman Empire was a STATE, V.H.

            And no, they states created were NOT based around a people – exactly opposite as per Imperialist Doctrine

            All these states throughout the Middle east and Africa were created to manufacture internal conflict, so that unity of a people was disrupted. Fighting among themselves is the best way to avoid the Empire having to fight for control.

            This is why the Kurds have been so abused, as a sample case. Their land was divided into three countries – to disperse the Kurds.

    • Gman,

      Again, confusion.

      Expanding centralized government over MORE borders does not OPEN borders

      • Peace for the Holy Land-Indemnity for Palestinians

        By Dr. Robert John

        Once there was peace in Palestine between Christians, Jews, and Moslems. That was last in 1915, when Britain offered to support Arab independence if they would revolt against the Turks.

        Two years later, Britain promised to support “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” With another pledge: ” it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The US Congress also made these commitments.

        When the inhabitants were informed of this Anglo-American dispossession of their country on September 11, 1922, there were demonstrations of opposition by the Palestinians that continue to this day. With millions of Jewish immigrants now in Palestine as a result of these pledges and the ‘Holocaust,’ can there be peace again?

        “Since renewed Mideast violence erupted in September 2000, the United States has thwarted every effort by the Palestinians to get the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would condemn Israeli actions and create some kind of outside monitoring to help cool tensions.” E. M. Lederer UN — Associated Press, 12 March 2002.

        On March 12 the United States endorsed a Palestinian state in the Security Council, introducing a resolution that also called for a cease-fire in the escalating Mideast conflict. Associated Press reported–“the resolution, the first offered by the United States since the latest round of fighting began in September 2000, was circulated hours after Syria introduced a Palestinian-backed measure.”

        This démarche was considered a positive diplomatic gesture, although a check of U.N. resolutions will show the U.N. said the same back in 1948 and reaffirmed it many times since. It came at a time when Sharon’s policy of attempting to crush Palestinian resistance by terrorizing the population, was clearly resulting in more deaths and damage on both sides.

        Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Yehuda Lancry said it was “not a new development,” noting that Sharon has envisioned a Palestinian state and Israel entered a process in 1993 to end its occupation. But he stressed “we have to negotiate it.”

        Also on the diplomatic table was the peace overture by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah. When Arab foreign ministers met in Cairo to prepare for a March 27-28 Arab summit meeting in Beirut, where the Abdullah initiative was to be considered, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, was asked about the Abdullah proposal. He said that in return for Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 lines, and creating a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its shared capital, the Arab League would offer Israel “full peace.”

        In their interest, the Saudi rulers are under the pressure of anger of their people, and Moslems everywhere, to show some independence from the United States and its support for Israel. So Palestinians may realize that their interests are beyond those of Saudi rulers. And there is the context of Israel’s occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights to be considered, among other Middle issues that affect all countries there. But what could be an acceptable solution?

        The Mitchell plan is not a solution. It calls for a period of calm, confidence-building measures and a return to negotiations whose collapse in 2001 was followed by a return to fighting.

        A ‘solution’ cannot restore to Palestinian Arabs what they lost when the British offered a national home for Jews in Palestine, and the US congress passed a similar declaration, at Palestinian expense, in 1922. Palestinians revolted many times during the British occupation of their country, attempting to stop the alien immigration and colonization that Britain and the United States promoted. It was so oppressive before World War II that German chancellor Hitler declared, “Victory by the Axis Powers will liberate the lands of the Middle East from the British yoke and give them the right of self-determination.”

        Only a small minority in Arab countries recognized the opportunity offered by that struggle between great powers to free themselves. But in the tradition of Making Facts –as they call it, Jewish organizations in Palestine used the war period for skirmishes against the British, to prepare to expel them. Now, as then, when the US needs their support or acquiescence, there is an opportunity for Arab states to demand a timetable for British and American withdrawal from their region, and commitment for reparations.

        After the Second World War, members of the UN critical of a partition of Palestine and the admission of Israel as a member, were pressured by the American administration to change their vote to support it. Alfred Lillienthal, a German-American Jew who had worked in the State Department, documents this in his book What Price Israel? As a paperback, this could once be bought from bookstalls in New York for example, until pro-Israel pressures banned it.

        Britain and the United States are responsible for the losses that the Palestinians have sustained, and for Zionist Jews gaining territory, homes and property of the Palestinians who became refugees. Both countries pledged in the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate proclaimed on September 11, 1922, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”

        Britain and the United States carried out their pledge to the Jews, but failed to perform or honor their pledge to “Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” They are liable and have resulting obligations as have the named beneficiaries, “the Jewish people.”

        How can damages be assessed for losses sustained in breaches of an international obligation, treaty, or contract? How can payment be assured?

        While the loss of life, and the loss of Arab land in the area of Palestine allotted to Israel in the UN partition, cannot be restored, some financial compensation is appropriate and much needed by Palestinians. The World Jewish Congress has established precedents, with enforcement backed by the might of the United States that can be followed.

        In 1952 the Luxembourg Agreement between Israel and the German Federal Republic bound the Republic to pay the Jewish people in money and kind as collective reparation. In legal terms, the treaty was res nova, a precedent in international law for a claim by one state (Israel) on behalf of individuals (European Jews dispossessed or dead) who had not necessarily been members of its own citizenry. Ultimately, West Germany’s debt and Israel’s claim could only be based on some idea of international morality. But it was a good German investment, allowing Volkswagens and Mercedes to drive the roads of America without a Jewish boycott. Since then, the World Jewish Congress, backed by supporters in United States Government, has exacted payments from other governments, and corporations.

        To assess reasonable payments from Britain and the United States, and from Israel — the beneficiary of Palestinian dispossession and destruction of thousands of Arab homes and hundreds of Arab villages for example, one might consider the $200 billion that Israel has received in different forms from the USA, since its founding. A good basis could be $200 billion each from Britain, America, and Israel, payable over ten years. This would go with Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, rather than those of the original U.N. partition plan. Enforcement could be assured by the possibility of boycotts by the international community of UK, US, and Israel, with the p recedent of the Jewish boycott of Germany from March 1933.

        This should be in a content of a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and normalization of relations with Iraq, and recognition of its rights of sovereignty and possession of weapons for self-defense.

        Details of Palestinian rights to be included in final peace agreements were set down by a committee of 20 countries. The UN Secretary-General presented the Report, “On the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,” to the Council. The Report was considered in the course of eight meetings of the Security Council in June 1976. It would have passed, but there was one veto — the USA. The Secretary-General was Kurt Walheim.

        Israel’s allies in the State Department got busy. Unsubstantiated charges were made against Waldheim (although former British servicemen testified that he had saved their lives), and he was put on the ‘Watch List,’ banned from entering the United States.

        American presidents and most politicians represent special interests–not justice, in Middle East policy. President Bush frequently talks of “bringing terrorists to justice.” With many vetoes in the Security Council, the United States has obstructed justice for the Palestinians. LET US DEMAND OUR REPRESENTATIVES RESTORE HONOR TO OUR COUNTRY AND JUSTICE FOR PALESTINIANS.// © 2002 ================ Dr. John is the author, with Sami Hadawi, of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention 1914-1948. He is a member of England’s Middle Temple, Inns of Court, where five signers of the Declaration of Independence also studied law.

        Dr. John is a leading foreign affairs expert, and diplomatic historian. In his foreword to The Palestine Diary, Arnold Toynbee, the outstanding historian of the 20th century, wrote, “I hope this book will be widely read in the United States, and this by Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. If the American Government were constrained by American public opinion to take a non-partisan line in Palestine, the situation in Palestine might quickly change for the better.” John K. Cooley, Middle East Bureau, The Christian Science Monitor, wrote, “It is a most illuminating and useful book. It should be in universities and libraries, and especially in the hands of historians, throughout the world.

        After lecturing to serving, reserve, and retired officers at the Army and Navy Club in Washington D.C., The Military Order of the World Wars presented Dr. John with a citation “For his courage and dedication to Truth in giving the American public a scholarly analysis of the complex problems confronting our nation in its political relations with the nations of the Middle East.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Away from computer, but a quick remark. It seems that the British and US governments are responsible for the original problem. They invited immigration, then after enough immigrants (Jewish) they gave them a State.

        You say borders are wrong, immigration is great, but then want the Palistinians to have their occupied land inside imaginary lines. OK, now we have our Government inviting immigrants, who are here/coming. What’s next, establish a new Zlatino State in the SW and kick out the current residents? Seems to be quite similar events. 🙂

        • “It seems that the British and US governments are responsible for the original problem.”

          As Galloway stated above.

          “They invited immigration, then after enough immigrants (Jewish) they gave them a State.”

          Immigration was not an issue until the British made it an issue. Hundreds of thousands of Jews settled there long before, with no problem.

          “You say borders are wrong, immigration is great, but then want the Palistinians to have their occupied land inside imaginary lines.”

          Huh? Palestinians are having their homes destroyed and being pushed into a corner. How do you think this is me saying I want lines???

          Gman, you are a badly dishonest debater. You make up stories about other positions, make idiotic connections – all in an attempt to justify your horrific ideas.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            So let me get few things right about this issue with Israel. They immigrated and were given a State via govt edict. The Palistians were pushed out of the area by who and why? It seems the more they shoot missiles, the more the problem continues.

            Going back to the early part of 1900s. How was it that they were pushed out snd by who’s army?

            Don’t be concerned my horrific ideas, I only bring up the minor ones, you wouldn’t want to hear the really bad ones. 🙂

            • “They immigrated and were given a State via govt edict. The Palistians were pushed out of the area by who and why?”

              Pushed out by the Irgun, funded by the US interests, supplied by Czech weaponry.

              ” It seems the more they shoot missiles, the more the problem continues.”

              Yes, but you have the cause effect backwards.

              You believe the hegemony only reacts, the inferior power acts.
              It is the other way around. Because the hegemony acts, the inferior power reacts

              The missiles are not the cause but a reaction to the hegemony violence.

              Israel stops their attacks and destruction of Palestine and retreats to their prescribed borders, the inferior power stops their attacks.

              To demand the inferior power stop means surrender – they will not surrender.
              The hegemony stopping is not surrendering – they are the hegemony, not the weak power.

              • According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

                When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

            • And oh, the why.

              I keep posting but you simply ignore it.

              Look up Zionism and Ersatz Israel, and understand the goal.

              Note: this is not from some “fringe”.


            • Gman,

              But I know that won’t dent a thing about your position.

              As one modern politician said:
              “Today, a Jew is man upon which nothing can be blamed”

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    D13, Good Morning 🙂

    I asked about the amount of private property Texas has along the Southern border, you answered with 93%. I ask because of an idea that came to mind reading one of Flag’s posts about associating private property with the border. Since the border is mostly private property and the other 7 % is surrounded by private property, the solution to the border is solvable, by getting the landowners to come to an agreement to allow a 10 foot high fence with copious amounts of razor wire at the top and a sensor controlled electrical system that will push about 15K volts through any section of fence being messed with.

    The problem is funding. If Texans want the border secured in Texas, then they would be willing to vote for a temporary sales tax to fund it and establish a moderate maintenance account, then end the sales tax. Non-border States could do the same in the name of securing the border to help offset the cost, a coalition of States for border control. This don’t fix the other States borders, but would be a good gameplan for them to follow.

    Just a thought 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Is it not the responsibility of Govt to help protect private property rights? Even a VDLG govt would recognize this as a LEGITIMATE role of Govt.

      Maybe we should just build windmills with low hanging propellers along the border. Generate the electricity while scaring away the trespassers.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The idea was to get government out of it, except for collecting the tax and distributing the funds accordingly. They would have no decision making authority, as it is all on private property.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I got that. Just pointing out this is a legit role of Govt but it is not doing the job it is paid to do.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I can agree with that 🙂 The job would be done better by the people anyway, the Feds can’t do much of anything right. Can’t save Emails, can’t tell the truth, can’t spend the peoples money without waste, can’t do much of anything at all, except “F” things up 🙂

          • JAC
            “I got that. Just pointing out this is a legit role of Govt but it is not doing the job it is paid to do.”

            By what principle, do you declare this is a “legit” role?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              If it is legit for me to do then it is legit for Govt to do.

              • JAC,

                Government does so by violent force – it must steal, first, before it gives.
                You do not need to such.

                Hell’s Angels ability to give toys is predicated on their stealing and killing to fund themselves first. They don’t steal, they ain’t around to give toys.

                Again, you fail with the fallacy of individual action equates to collective action.

              • What is so funny is now JAC is a supporter of Hell’s Angels because they give toys!!

                How far you have fallen, old friend.

          • JAC and GMan,

            You guys, lately, are a hoot.

            This is your line of thinking.

            Hell’s Angels legitimate role is providing toys to underprivileged kids at Christmas. We want Very Damn Little Hell’s Angels so that they can provide this legitimate role because other wise kids won’t get Christmas presents.

            Yeah, yeah we know BF will go “huh?, and say “did you miss the root principle the founded the Hell’s Angels, and that Christmas presents to kids is not their role at all”, but BF is a weirdo and not a realist. He thinks we don’t need Hell’s Angels at all.

      • JAC

        “Is it not the responsibility of Govt to help protect private property rights? ”

        No, it is not. You are making up a definition of Government on the fly to suit your conclusion.

    • G Man….we are already doing that. Texas has been punished by the Obama administration for the last 5 years because we do not toe the proverbial line. Federal funds have been slashed by over 70% and that is ok with us.

      Through the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Guard and the Texas Rangers, we have set up with the private land owners a “virtual fence”…Texas has provided the land owners satellite phones and radios connected directly to command posts set up along the border. Each command post is directly tied to the DPS, Texas Rangers, and the guard units for response, ( All of this funding is provided by Texas ). In addition, we have supplied the land owners with NVG’s, GPS, and GSU’s ( Ground surveillance units much like motion detectors ). They have effectively been an added set of eyes and ears and intel. The other main thing is that the Texas border, sans Eagle Pass, Laredo, McAllen, El PAso, and Brownsville is so remote that the desert and empty ranch land alone provide “fencing”….The other factor is that, in Texas, land owners still operate under the trespass laws of the old West. If you are on our land uninvited, you are not there by accident, you are there by choice. You are a rustler. You will be shot on sight…….legally. It is not murder and will be considered protection of private property as our version of the Castle Doctrine extends to land and vehicles as well.

      However, before we outfitted the land owners, we did require fence posting on the barbed wire fencing, every 500 feet a sign in English and Spanish properly posting the land and warning that it is private land and it will be defended. We did this three years ago….we had homes broken into, people and school children kidnapped, line shacks burned to the ground, cattle killed, horses stolen, and property vandalized by illegal immigrants. Since we took the law into our own hands, in the last two and one half years, not one single ranch house has been broken into..NOT ONE……not one, NOT ONE single line shack has been burned, no longer are rural school buses being stopped because they are now armed, cattle deaths due to slaughter have dropped by 90+ percent, no more “water stops” being provided by amnesty groups because they were treated the same way when they crossed fence lines. Ranchers patrol their own fence lines with deadly force and it is used. Once the word got around, all the activity shifted to the city areas previously mentioned.

      In addition, since we instituted armed river boats, as I previously told you, robberies on shared lakes have stopped, the Mexican snipers in the Big Bend area are no longer around. and the campers in the Big Bend area have not been robbed in the same two and one half years. Rafters are once again rafting the Rio Grande without being raped and robbed whereas, two years ago, rape was prevalent along the border by Hispanics…no longer does that happen. We are taking care of our own at no expense to the US taxpayer.

      So, other than the metropolitan areas, fencing is not necessary.

  38. BF…..let’s banter some economic theory here. You are the thriving little country of BFland and I am the thriving little country of Coloneldom….we are roughly equal in population but distance is an issue…(does not have to be but in my little game it is) Neither of us have an army or navy. We mind our own business. You are rich in oil and I am rich in tin. I have the technology to produce produce oil while you do not. And you need tin badly or your housing and transportation industry is in trouble…. you have the industry to produce things from tin but no supply. Right now, we are both have a trade item,,,,a commodity. Now a minor monkey wrench…I have some oil but want more. You have no other trade route at the moment and you need tin badly.

    How do you view your trade situation between you and I?

    • D13,

      “How do you view your trade situation between you and I?”

      First, a common economic fallacy – the reducto of an economy to be one economic good each.

      To address your question, go back to economic law of Supply and Demand.

      1) lower my price
      2) improve the quality
      3) do something else that provides value

      No, if you don’t need my oil, and I desire your tin,
      I drop my price lower than you can produce your own oil (like Canada to the US, which is why so much oil comes from Canada – it is the cheapest for the US)

      OR get a better oil product then you find yourself (like Arabia to the US, which is why so much oil comes from Arabia, it is sweet light crude, easy to get, and easy to use)

      OR sell something else (like Japan that has no oil, sells cars etc. to the US).

      • I know, BF, I was trying to keep it simple..onw economic good is not reality…I was wanting to know how you would view trade between you and I….

        Ok…take your Japan issue then. You need tin to keep one of your main industries alive…I desire and want your oil but I really do not need it as bad as you need my tin with no other suppliers close by….so you and I can enter trade talks….bartering. Correct? tin for oil at some measure that you and I can agree upon….with me so far? ( I am sure you are )

        • No international law, courts, or taxes….just pure and simple trade. You have a commodity, I have a commodity and we sit down and draw out a deal….what ever it may be. Correct? So far, we are conducting trade among ourselves free of coercion and free of law or courts….just you and I.

          • D13,

            That is how global trade works right now

            You have no enforcement upon anyone in Korea. Yet, trade occurs.

            • We will need to debate global trade after this….there is no global trade going on that is free right now……at least not in a global scale.

              • D13,

                Actually, all of it.

                There is no law enforcing trade between sovereigns – it is a real case of real “anarchy” in action. There are “rules” but no enforcement by a superior party.

        • D13,

          “…I was wanting to know how you would view trade between you and I….”

          Whoa those horses.

          It wasn’t between “just you and me”, but others as well in between the distances.

          That’s the problem with argument by example – it is:
          -arbitrary, you add and subtract things willynilly to support your argument
          -deny your opponent to add or subtract things willynilly that do not support your argument.
          -ignores fundamentals of real world in favor of fantasy

          No, start with an argument from a principle.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    Speaking of lost emails:

    The odds of winning the Florida lottery are 1 in 22,957,480.

    The odds of winning the Powerball is 1 in 175,223,510.

    The odds of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 258,890,850.

    The odds of a disk drive failing in any given month are roughly one in 36. The odds of two different drives failing in the same month are roughly one in 36 squared, or 1 in about 1,300. The odds of three drives failing in the same month is 36 cubed or 1 in 46,656.

    The odds of seven different drives failing in the same month (like what happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails targeting conservative and pro Israeli groups) is 37 to the 7th power = 1 in 78,664,164,096. (that’s over 78 Billion) In other words, the odds are greater that you will win the Florida Lottery 342 times than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month.

    It also doesn’t even mention the fact that these hard drives crashed right after people were demanding to see the emails, making the odds that much more crazy. The fact that so many liberals are buying this hard drive crash lie shows they are either brain-dead or purposefully choose not to care. I can’t decide which is scarier.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag


    More abuse of language. NO, JUST AN ACCEPTED DEFINITION.

    You therefore claim you giving your wallet to a thief is a sign of obedience, and as such, give right to the thief to command upon you. THEIF POINTS A GUN AT ME AND DEMANDS MY WALLET. I “OBEY” HIS ORDER. THIS RATIONAL ACT IN NO WAY VALIDATES OR CONVEYS A RIGHT OF THEFT TO THE THEIF.



      A slave obeys his master because the slave believes his master has the right

      A slave who does not believe his master has such a right submits by coercion, NOT CHOICE.

      • Just A Citizen says:



        verb: submit; 3rd person present: submits; past tense: submitted; past participle: submitted; gerund or present participle: submitting

        1. accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

        “the original settlers were forced to submit to Bulgarian rule”

        synonyms: give in/way, yield, back down, cave in, capitulate;




        • Just A Citizen says:

          verb: obey; 3rd person present: obeys; past tense: obeyed; past participle: obeyed; gerund or present participle: obeying

          comply with the command, direction, or request of (a person or a law); submit to the authority of.

          “I always obey my father”

          synonyms: do what someone says, carry out someone’s orders; More

          submit to, defer to, bow to, yield to, give in to

          “I was honor-bound to obey”

          comply with, adhere to, observe, abide by, act in accordance with, conform to, respect, follow, keep to, stick to

          “NRA activists point out that criminals don’t obey gun laws”

          carry out (a command or instruction).

          “the officer was convicted for refusing to obey orders”

          synonyms: carry out, perform, act on, execute, discharge, implement, fulfill More

          “he refused to obey the order”

          behave in accordance with (a general principle, natural law, etc.).

          • JAC,

            You want to pervert a definition to support your irrational position.

            No game, sir.

          • JAC,

            Either you accept that acquiescence has two forms, coerced or Voluntary

            Your puerile attempt to argue that coercion is acquiescence by voluntary choice of not dying vs living promotes your stupidity.

        • JAC,

          You cherry pick whatever definition suits your moment.

          Chew this

          “1.yield to a superior force of another person.

  41. @ BF,,,,,you said :”There is no law enforcing trade between sovereigns – it is a real case of real “anarchy” in action. There are “rules” but no enforcement by a superior party.”

    Interesting analogy…so you refer to “rules” as treaties, trade agreements, etc and that there is no enforcement of the rules should a nation decide not to abide by an original agreement. In other words, no international police force. That means that treaties and agreements are actually null and void You can enter into one but if you decide not to abide by it later, there is no recompense other than choosing not to do business with that country or entity any longer.

    I always thought that you were an advocate of treaties and trade agreements and world courts..

    Hmmmmmmmm…have to mull this over a bit.

    • D13,

      Whoa those horses some more!!

      So a “handshake” deal between you and your friend is null and void because there is no cop to force one side to perform??

      Is that your argument?

      No, it is significant, just not forced. What do you do the next time with your friend if this time he does not perform? Well, you don’t either – you don’t deal.

      But you miss the unstated – you deal because it benefits, so it benefits if the deal happens, which is why those deals happen, because the outcome is better.

      Same in international trade. The traders make more money trading then not, so they absolutely tend to make good their deals.

      One of the exasperations of the 2008 crisis was a collapse in this trust. A German bank was an intermediary in a transaction, and instead of forwarding the funds, kept it to maintain its own solvency.

      Literally, overnight, international trade stopped. Trust was broken, and no one was willing to enter into 3rd party arrangements. It took desperate months to reestablish this trust, and of course, few people deal with that German bank any more.

      • First… answer your question…..LEAVE my horse alone……it is doing just fine….NO NO NO…sir. My argument has nothing to do with cops and force….I simply will not deal with that entity again….

        I did not miss the unstated..I will offer a deal or accept one ONLY if it benefits. I am not charity.

        • D13,

          Whoa those horses!

          It is more than that – you will only enter into the deal if you believe you will get his part of it

          Your belief of this comes in two, opposite, means.

          One, by violence – yourself or a third party violently enforces his part
          Two, by trust – either by experience or by recommendation (due diligence) his past dealings have been honored.

          You do not (usually) enter into a deal when you know the other side will renege.

    • I do advocate treaties and agreements, I do not advocate force.

      You can hold two (or more), independent, ideas at the same time.

      • If there is no enforcement mechanism….why even have a treaty…just shake hands and do it. Every treaty and/or agreement I have seen always had remedies for non compliance. It did not matter if the remedies worked or not,

        So, why would you advocate anything written? Or any “international treaty”? In a free market, just do it. A hearty handshake is all that is needed. Recompense? Do not deal again if it did not work.

        • Treaties and contracts in this realm are vitally important.

          First, it clarifies the duties and actions of the participants.

          You “know” what you need to do and what he needs to do. Variance outside of the document is not covered.

          Second, it creates a history.

          If you do what you said you would do, and then challenged by unbelievers, you have your document and your fact (fact of action) and equally, if the other party reneges, you equally have document and fact of action (or non-action, in this case).

          Trust is history of action and documentation is vital to such proof

  42. Saw a very interesting movie last night…..America: Imagine a world Without Her………very interesting piece.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Saw that last evening as well. Yes, very interesting. Seemed to me the producer had been hanging out here at SUFA getting info for his film.

      The audience was applauding at the end.. I am told by others that happens every time.

      Other interesting thing was the make up of the audience. Mostly folks in our age class with a few younger ones brought by their parents or grandparents. But then I went to the late afternoon showing.

      Those long of tooth not watching America were going to the Grateful Dead movie. LOL.

      • Yes, I saw very few young people at the movie. They simply are not interested. I went to the afternoon matinee also….lots of gray hairs….some, like me with little hair,,,,

        However, I learned something from the movie that I am going to check out….the author was quite right about what is left out of history and left out of classes that are being taught. I was totally unaware that some of the largest slave holders PRIOR to the Civil War were from the Northern states and the largest prewar slave holder was from Ohio, I think, and he was a black man that was more ruthless than the white southern slave holders. And that the first millionaire woman was a black woman that started out selling door to door hair products. Somehow, these things are not brought up.

        The other interesting fact that I noted about slavery, was the notion that there were more whites in slavery than blacks at one particular time and that it is all in the definition of slave. For example, the Irish and children that were pressed into slavery and “indentured servitude”. I was always under the impression that indentured servitude was voluntary….a repayment of labor for being brought to America or some such issue. I DID NOT know that there was forced and kidnapped whites SOLD into indentured servitude. Also, that the first slaves that were actually sold in America were whites. Very interesting… going to do some research on this.

        the other thing of note was that the world, throughout history, has been primarily based on conquest. The examples were startling to me, including the comparison of conquest to the plight of the Native American Indian and the misconception that they were “thrown” off their land and that America’s expansionist policies were the beginning……when they were not. Just the strongest.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Re: The Indian conquest issue. You must have missed my many posts here making the same point. One that is simply ignored by those disposed to accepting the “modern” narrative. One only has to imagine the American Indians having the same tech as Europe and the Europeans still using stones to realize the results would have simply been reversed. Thus my claim long ago that our ancestors stole it fair and square.

          The Black woman ……….. FIRST FEMALE MILLIONAIR in America……….. I had never heard of her either.

          As for the manners issue, I know……….. but it is nice to set an example for others. 😉

          • JAC,

            As always, your selective amnesia boils over.

            The US government made over 500 treaties with the natives, and every single treaty that the US made with Native Americans was broken by the US government.

            Your concept of “fair and square” is as distorted as the rest of your thinking, lately.

            • Does this not prove my point as I asked? Without enforcement methods, why have them? Treaties and agreements have been broken throughout history since time began all over the world….and yet…..people still want them….boggles my mind as to why?

              • Enforcement is not merely “violence”. It is trust (or breach of such).

                If one agrees, then reneges, his history becomes his enforcement. No one deals with him.
                The enforcement on this deal is the participation in the next deal.

                He fails here, he gets few, if any, ever again.

                This is how international banking works today. They earn by selling trust because in the past they honored their deals. Trust is profitable – indeed, incredibly profitable, which is why they never screw each other. (exception; that German bank – and boy, did they pay for it).

            • Also, I reread my post and it needs a little further ‘splanation. What the author brought out was that the native Indian did not have selected boundaries….he gave many examples like the Souix Nation, for instance, conquered other smaller tribes, took their lands and captives and expanded their territories through “indian hegemony”….or expansion by violence. Many tribes conquered the peaceful ones in order to expand their influence.

              The author did not advocate violence…but merely pointed out the complete argument. All you hear about is how the US “took” the land from the Indians….who “took” the land from other Indians, who “took” the land from other Indians.,,,and so on and so on.

              He asked the question, as to why it is ok for indigent peoples to take from each other but when faced with a stronger foe that is not indigent and they lose…….it is theft.

              He also issued another point using Mexico and Texas as an example. He points out that history has been changed in the classrooms that Texas was “stolen” from the Mexicans. What is not pointed out that Norte Mexico ( Tejas ) was a Mexican state inhabited by Mexican citizens. It was Mexican Citizens that rebelled against Santa Anna’s despotic rule when he confiscated land and abolished free trade. It had nothing to do with the United States at the time…and everything to do with freedom of choice and forming a Republic. He was pointing out that history is not being told truthfully.

              • D13,

                While it is a fact that “territory” was gained or lost by battle, to use this to excuse US government atrocity is sickening.

                If such a tribe acquiesces to the political and legal authority by agreeing to treaty, and then such treaties are reneged and broken, not by the tribe, but by the hegemony cannot be claimed as Righteous by saying “well, they lost the battle”.

                It is an example of gross hypocrisy.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              One of the last treaties was broken by the Indians. Who supposedly broke these treaties is mirky however because the Indian and American view of how Treaties work differed.

              The Laramie treaty was broken by a few young Indians who raided white settlement (I think it was the Laramie treaty). A young Lt. Pursued and punished these young braves.

              To the Lt. the Indians broke the treaty, shared by the settlers. To the Indians it was the US Govt, even though the Lt. was acting on his own. In their view it was up to them to punish the crime. The treaty did provide for each side to police its own, but less minor crimes were envisioned. This little scuffle led to the last Great War against the Plains tribes, culminating in Little Big Horn.

              Now to your usual habit of projecting or creating strawmen to justify calling people ignorant.

              Not once in all my discussions or commentary on this subject have I ever denied that the US Govt BROKE its treaties. However, the US Govt did not initiate breaking 100%.

              Furthermore, who broke the treaties and which treaties really has nothing to do with the comment I made. You see, conquest was the NORM of Humanity. In some respects, the US notion of signing Treaties was the NEW attempt at a more civilized solution. One I believe was rooted in the early American view of the Indians. Which was mixed but included a great deal of respect by many American leaders. Including Washington and Jefferson.

              However, the Conquest of America, if that is your choice of wording, means we took it by FORCE and because that was the way of the world it was FAIR. Just as the Sioux took land from the Cheyenne and the Comanche from the Navaho and Kiowa, etc, etc,..

              By the time we got around to dealing with the western tribes we had already stolen the land fair and square.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Forgot my manners this morning. Good day to you Sir and hope all is as well as it can be.

      One more thing on the movie. Not sure about you but my eyes sprung a leak listening to Bono’s speech.

      • Manners not necessary among friends, JAC….although welcome, it is an unwritten code that the manners are implied until told otherwise. Tip O th Hat back to ya….

  43. Anti-immigration is government intimidation unleashed against consumers to oblige them to buy labor that they prefer not to buy.

    Anti-immigration is force that enriches the politically powerful at the expense of the politically impotent.

    Anti-immigration is political people capturing rents from receiving special favors from the state rather earning profits from giving good service to the public.

    Anti-immigration is the myth that money belongs not to consumers who earned it peacefully but to suppliers who steal it coercively.

    Anti-immigration is the corrupting lie that absurdly and insult​ingly insists that mass flourishing results from monopoly and dearth rather than from competition and abundance.

  44. Back from an interesting drive to Ft. Leavenworth Kansas to visit my son. Been giving a lot of thought (driving makes that easy) to the kids crossing the border. Again here is something I’d like others to chew on.

    If a Mom and Dad put their two kids age 14 and 8 on a Greyhound from Chicago to NY City. with the instructions, that they should go to the NY authorities and ask for aid since Chicago was dangerous, exactly what would happen to the parents? Would the courts place the children in foster care and remove the parents as unfit guardians? Would NY City invite the parents to come, join their kids?

    This is an interesting analogy to what is going on. It seems that the intent was to send the kids to the US. Thanks to that great Conservative thinker and leader George Bush, the kids have status in the US and have become the anchor upon which the parents may follow and reclaim them.

    Does this not seem criminal? Should the parents not lose their rights for acting irresponsible? If the children, under the law must stay, should not the courts place them under supervision, offering them for foster care and possible adoption? Does this not stem the tide?

    What say you?

%d bloggers like this: