A Little More Facism?

Now the Obama administration urges Congress to pass a new sort of protectionist measure unlike any that existed before.  But unlike the failed legislation of the past – including the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which is generally credited with deepening and prolonging the Great Depression – the new measures don’t even pretend to protect workers or consumers.  Their only intent is to protect government revenues and the power of the governing class.





  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama and his cronies are the second coming. They are the 4th Riech.

  2. David Skekabim says:

    I ask SUFA to humor me by giving the best possible answers to a short series of questions.

    First question:

    Which word best describes an unmarried female between the ages of [about]13 and 23?

    • Unmarried, although between the ages of 13 and 17, I would just call them teenagers and from 18 to 23 I would call them smart.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      • David Skekabim says:


        The other term, or synonym, is “Maid/Maiden”.

        Second question:

        What is required for a miss/maid/maiden to become pregnant and give birth?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          That is two questions.

          Pregnant? SPERM

          Give Birth? TIME

          • David Skekabim says:

            Correct again!

            In order for woman to give birth, she must grow the child in her womb. In order for the child to form in the womb, conception must happen. Conception requires the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm cell.

            Third question:

            How does male sperm get into a female womb?

            • I’ll go old school-the sperm must swim very very fast, then penetrate the wall of the egg. 🙂

              • How fast? 🙂

              • He He-Very Very Fast-I’m sitting here having vivid memories of being in health class wayyyy back then-how about you?

              • I was taught by nuns! I’m recalling a more technical explanation…no sperm speed was mentioned that I remember! I don’t even recall the word swimming being used 🙂 🙂

              • They didn’t make sex sound fun at all 🙂

              • LOL-well, in their defense-children don’t really need any encouragement-the human sex drive is pretty automatic.

                But seriously, if one reads about what all it takes to become pregnant-it is truly amazing that we ever do.

          • Ah, for the good old days when the simple uncomplicated answer to that question would have been sex.

            • David Skekabim says:


              Aside from artificial insemination (or an accidental ‘mess’ without penetration), the natural and most typical means for sperm to end up in a womb is through sexual intercourse.

              Fourth question:

              Which word best describes a female who has never experienced sexual intercourse?

              • A virgin

              • And just for fun-virgin means maiden-so everything is coming together nicely. Just waiting to see what path you are leading me down 🙂

              • David Skekabim says:

                You apparently already know where I am going with this. …although semantics and definitions are only part of it. I’ll start there…

                (BTW, thank you for indulging me, as I have had a difficult time finding intelligent Christians to do so. I am apparently an idiot and/or ignorant for questioning things on a deeper level)

                There is an important distinction to be made between the use of the word “almah” and the word “bethulah”.

                Almah means maiden or young woman of ideal marrying age, or a bachelor-ette(if you will). It can also IMPLY virginity as it was typical for unmarried maidens to be virgins. But it doesn’t specifically mean virgin.

                Bethulah( בתולה ,הבתולה, בתולי ), however, is more specific as it means a maiden who is also a virgin.

                The word used is Almah ( הָעַלְמָה )

                But consider the context. It reads;…

                יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם–אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

                …which transliterates/translates to…

                ” Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ”

                If it were specifically about a virgin, it would have read bethulah instead of almah, …especially when considering that it was a ‘sign from God’, and that an actual virgin birth would have been so significant. It stands to reason, that if a virgin birth was the sign, it would have certainly been specified, and probably stressed in the context and/or wording.

                It basically says what I think it means, …which is that Isaiah was told to look for a young woman giving birth to a baby boy named Immanuel.

                When was the last time you looked at a pregnant teenager and thought …”Virgin”?

                Something else to consider is that during the Hellenistic period, words were sometimes mistranslated or lost their meaning in the process. The words Bethulah and Almah were often translated into the Greek word Parthenos, …which, of course, means virgin.

                But let’s not stop there. What is the difference between the name Jesus and the name Immanuel?

                Jesus is Greek and a variant of Joshua, which is the Hellenistic form of the Hebrew name Yeshua. It means “God’s Salvation”. Immanuel is Hebrew, and means “With God” …or… “God [is] With Us”.

                If it is two distinctly different names(apparently), and Jesus is the guy from the virgin womb, then why would God and/or Isaiah say Immanuel and not Jesus or Yeshua?

                Another thing, …if it is describing the circumstances of the birth and name of Immanuel, why would Isaiah be redundant in describing his birth once again in Isaiah 9:6? And why does Isaiah 9:6 seem to be describing a different name altogether? It doesn’t seem to describe either Immanuel OR Jesus OR Joshua/Yeshua. WTH? It just seems so ‘out of place’.

                …And as if that wasn’t enough to make you think, what about the time line?

                The primary reference for the Old Testament is either the Masoretic Text originating from around 700 A.D. and introduced to the Catholic Church around 1000 A.D. …or the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the 1st of 11 caves of the Qumran in the 1940’s, and dated to have been written about 200 B.C.

                Both are very close in wording, and contain information which is thought to have originated as far back as around 800 B.C.

                This tells us that…
                A – The texts remained consistent over many centuries
                B – That it was written long before Jesus was known or even thought of.

                (I am still researching, but it doesn’t seem to fit the storyline of Jesus’ birth either.)

                So, …how do people read a story about an unspecified young woman giving birth to a boy named Immanuel, and say it is a virgin named Mary giving birth to a baby named Jesus many centuries later?

              • 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

                Not sure where you are getting your translations-but perhaps you can take this passage from Luke and see if it means virgin in Hebrew.

                26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

                27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

                28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

                29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

                30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

                31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

                32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

                33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

                34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

                35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                David, when I read your first question, I went through many cultures and terms that normally would be used, like Miss, Lass, Young lady, Young woman, ect. Got to Islam and said “too old” 🙂

              • I’ve been doing a little reading about this passage and the debates about it’s meaning. I found one that I thought was interesting. The word almah can also be translated to mean:

                The verbal root of almah [alam] means to be concealed, hidden, or covered-which from my reading would mean engaged.

                Then we have this:
                Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman.

              • Sorry here’s the link to the article I thought was interesting.


              • David Skekabim says:


                I knew that Almah also means concealed, but wasn’t exactly sure. I agree with your assessment of ‘engaged’. It sounds very reasonable.

                I did some reading too. Here is what I found:

                The Gospel of Luke was written ‘after the fact’ somewhere between 80-110 A.D.

                Luke includes a conversation about and/or with Mary, and was written to describe events that were prior to Jesus’ birth. Given that she was likely a teen when he was born, the conversation probably took place somewhere around 1-5 B.C.

                Oh, …and παρθένου means VIRGIN.


                Isaiah chapter 7 was written in regard to the events during King Uzziah’s reign, which was from 740 – 790 B.C. Thus Isaiah 7:14 would not have been about Jesus, but rather Immanuel as stated.

                (Keeping it real), …Why would God tell Isaiah to look out for something that would not happen for another 700+ years and had nothing to do with current events? Isaiah and Uzziah (and everyone else from that period) were dead and long gone by the time Jesus was born.

                So, I wonder… Is there something that speaks of his birth BEFORE he was born?

              • This is how the Bible scholars explain it.

                View Wesley’s Notes for Isaiah 7:14

                7:14 Therefore – Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign. A sign – Of your deliverance. But how was this birth, which was not to happen ’till many ages after, a sign of their deliverance from present danger? This promised birth supposed the preservation of that city, and nation and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no cause to fear that ruin which their enemies now threatened. Immanuel – God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, #John 1:14|. God and man meeting in one person, and being a mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly he called, as to describe his nature and office.

              • David Skekabim says:

                In recognition of my ignorance, I consider myself a student. Maybe I am in no position to refute a ‘scholar’, but I can certainly appreciate not having too many preconceived ideas regarding religion, as it allows me to have a more objective perspective.

                Forget what others are telling you it means. Read the book and discern for yourself. Be your own scholar. Study in the original respective languages. Thoroughly explore and cross reference any key words, verses, phrases, people, places, dates, and anything otherwise relevant that you can dig up.

                Do this with Isaiah 7 – 9 and you will see what makes your scholarly reference look like another presumptuous straw-man rationalization widely accepted by Christians.

                It all happened around 700-800 BC. It is essentially about the prophecy of a child being born as a ‘sign from God’ in the middle of an ancient political mess.

                …And his name was IMMANUEL.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Sorry, but I must run. Won’t be back until late tomorrow. Will take up your questions then.

    • Girl.
      Young lady.
      Young woman.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    Good, a new topic.

    So lets explore the idea of taxation as it relates to corporations vs. people.

    If we are a nation of “self governed” individuals then should not “individuals” bear the ENTIRE burden of paying the tax for the services they demand?? I say YES, they should.

    This would mean eliminating “income” taxes on Corporate or other business earnings. This would require changes to the corp tax laws that would treat corp income like S-Corps. or LLC’s. Namely, distribute the income and tax burden to the shareholders.

    Eliminate all the convoluted income schemes of executives and shareholders. Income is income.

    Now the Corp’s would not be free of all taxes as there are Govt services they demand. Such as roads, rail, protection of shipping lanes, etc. So it seems to me these services could be handled with a “user fee” or “user tax”. Much like the gas tax.

    Corp’s earning money overseas are not creating a burden on our infrastructure or internal govt institutions. Unless they utilize Govt services overseas they should not have to pay tax on their income earned outside the USA.

    Besides, the net income should be distributed to the shareholders who then would pay the tax IF they live in the USA.

    A little rough around the edges and not complete by any means. But food for thought as we move forward in our effort to STAND UP for America.

    • JAC, I thought it was interesting & we needed a change of subject. From the article:

      “Secretary Lew’s letter is not just another attack on “the rich,” however. It is a significant escalation of this administration’s assault on capitalism. No senior administration official in the history of our republic has ever attempted such a brazen justification of the enslavement of so many by so few. The language of the July 15 letter betrays the arrogance of the administration’s thinking toward business and toward the American people. As Secretary Lew writes, “[w]e should not be providing support for corporations that seek to shift their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.””

      For a supposedly free country, it seems our government considers itself free & the people, our businesses and corporations are their property to dictate too. If nothing else, when did we loose the freedom to leave?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC, we need to totally eliminate many government agencies and begin anew. Taxes are a joke and nothing more than a control tool. If the government needed taxes, they wouldn’t trillions in debt. They need cleansed of their ability to steal from the people and then turn around and screw them sideways. It all needs stopped. Then let’s start over with a group of managers, not tyrants.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    Now this will be interesting to see why it is the USA’s fault that Norway is now a target. Or what that Hegemonic Norway has done to piss off the peaceful Muslims in the Middle East.

    Yes, that was nothing but sarcasm. So BF, don’t get your panties in a bunch over it.


  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Good piece addressing what has happened to journalism relative to holding Govt accountable. What is not told is that “retired” journalists started this all when they began “consulting” with Govt and corporate officials on “how to handle the press”.


  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Dear Government/President Obama,

    I’m writing you this letter because I want a new guitar. I have a lot of guitars, but recently I saw this really awesome Telecaster and I can’t afford it so I think you should make it available to me through my health insurance. I’m sorry if that confuses you; please allow me to explain:

    My mental health is wavering and my happiness is at an all time low ever since I was told I have to wake up before noon. It’s been a downhill slide since. The only thing that seems to help is when I play my guitars, but…well…I can play my old guitars but they are old and not new, and therefore are boring and barely keep my attention, let alone boost my self-esteem.

    As my mental health is not my fault (I was forced to listen to Led Zeppelin and INXS as a child and once a bully pushed me into a CD stand that was full of rock and roll music) someone should take care of my needs, and at this time my need is a new guitar. Because this directly affects my emotional well-being, I expect a change in the healthcare laws so that my demand can be accommodated whenever I start to feel anything less than perfect bliss.

    I would like the option to choose the guitar, too, because I don’t want one that I already have or one that isn’t as helpful to my condition—the price tag on the guitar will be directly tied to how well I get after receiving it. So, if I am to be happy I need something really good. Just make the insurance companies cover the cost, okay? Or maybe start your own insurance company and then you can pay for it.

    Now, before you tell me that I should buy my own guitar I want to remind you that it’s not my fault that I’m super-depressed and clinically incapable of being happy on my own, and that the only cure is a new guitar (or possibly more cowbell); therefore you should get it for me. I realize there are literally a thousand other ways I could improve my emotional condition but I want a guitar and I want it now. Without a new guitar I probably will not ever be well enough to complain about something else, like how it’s not fair that I’m only 5’8″ and should therefore be entitled to a free speedboat (email to follow this one).

    I don’t mean to threaten, but I will have a team of lawyers and a petition with a hundred-thousand signatures on your desk by next week if you don’t do what I demand. Likewise there will be rallies and riots across the nation…you know, in the name of helping the unfortunate. (Plus, my mom once dated a Native American so…yeah, do what is right, okay?)

    Also, I realize that you’re busy (chilling with celebs, watching movies, laughing at Border Patrol and golfing and stuff) but I’d really appreciate it if you’d change the name of the Miami Heat to something way less offensive, as there are literally dozens of us that can’t eat spicy food unless we want uncomfortable gas pain as a result. Consider this a pre-action demand.

    If you need to reach me you can text me on my brand new Galaxy s5, which cost me a fortune but was totally worth it because of all the apps and the sweet, sweet camera features. Either that or come find me at my place of employment—Mondays, Thursdays and Sundays from 1-5pm at the coffee shop. I’d work more hours but it’s bad for my self-esteem to have to do things I don’t want to do, like work hard or not stay up until 2am playing Call of Duty. Which reminds me; please find the time to put a PS4 in the box with the guitar so I have more to do that – it can also help my emotional issues.

    I know I didn’t vote for you—I don’t vote without promise of financial incentive—but I should have (and will next time) because you guaranteed me/everyone a lot of outlandish things and now I’m here to collect. I don’t really care who pays for my needs as long as it’s not me, because it’s not fair to ask that of me as I’m too sad to spend money on things I’d rather get for free.

    Matt Daniels

    P.S. I’m thinking about changing my name to “Thrash Tomahawk” to represent all the bad things happening in the world that no one cares about except people like me. Please handle that for me or expect a letter from an attorney I can’t afford but will retain at your expense.

    P.P.S. Please put some condoms in the box too. I shouldn’t have to pay for my own contraception needs but my self-esteem depends on promiscuity.

    P.P.P.S. If anyone actually reads this and takes offense, shame on them.

    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/free-stuff-list-letter-government/#cm6C4WT2bpHKYqXY.99

  7. U.S. Considering Refugee Status For Hondurans


    Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.

    If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.

    Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
    Continue reading the main story
    Graphic: Children at the Border

    By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.

    Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.

    Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.

    Among the factors surrounding the decision are how many people in Honduras would be eligible to apply for the program, and how many would probably be approved.

    The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well.

    It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.

    Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.
    Continue reading the main story

    The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.

    According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds — known as humanitarian parole — to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.

    That would most likely cause an outcry among critics who believe that President Obama has been too soft on immigration. But officials called it “highly unlikely” that people who were denied refugee status would be considered for parole, which is generally offered in isolated emergencies.

    Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.

    “It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”

    He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”

    The preliminary plan could create a thorny challenge for the administration because the definition of a refugee is legally specific, and children fleeing street gangs could have a hard time qualifying.

    Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

    The only category that would seem to apply is “social group,” experts said, but there is disagreement on what that means. Some contend that children could count as a group, but others say the refugee requirements are stricter, and would not apply to people fleeing general crime and violence.

    “What is a social group?” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of migration policies for the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office. “This is going to create a huge deal of debate. You will see a lot of law developing on it.”

    Still, the draft of the plan noted that 64.7 percent of the unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum this year got it, which suggests that immigration officials have found their claims of imminent danger credible.

    With that in mind, the draft proposal suggested that 35 to 50 percent of the applicants in Honduras could be considered for relief, a figure the White House said was inflated. The early draft, the White House said, was the most generous and least likely of the options the administration is considering. How many people are accepted is critical, because refugees qualify for public assistance upon arrival in the United States.
    Continue reading the main story
    Continue reading the main story

    One of the issues under debate is whether the program should be limited to children who have at least one relative in the United States, so that the government would not be saddled with custodial issues. Whether that relative would have to have legal residency is another issue that was addressed but not resolved.

    Under Senator McCain’s proposal, refugee applicants would be processed at home, and child migrants arriving in the United States illegally could be deported quickly.

    Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Services at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the plan would be welcome, as long as it did not substitute for protections Central American children currently receive under American law.

    “This program would certainly be a formal acknowledgment by the administration that these children are refugees,” Mr. Appleby said. “That’s huge, because they have yet to utter that word.”

    When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.

    Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.

    “It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”

    The Honduran Foreign Ministry referred requests for comment to its embassy in Washington, which said that, due to the president’s visit to Washington, its ambassador was not immediately available for comment.

    On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Here’s a question, what should this country do will all these kids that are here now and still coming?

      • Stop the new ones on the other side of the border (physically).

        Return the ones that are here. Failing that end parental rights (no anchor children), and place them for adoption.

        If these methods seem harsh, then just forget about it and start letting them swarm in from the entire world. I can think of at least a couple hundred million who fit the “refugee” category. For openers, just about every girl in Afghanistan and most other Muslim countries.

      • David Skekabim says:

        Bypass the clogged and broken system and/or improvise to do what you must in order to survive and get along. Forget everything that tells you they’re in the wrong or different. Simply view them as children and treat them accordingly. And watch everything fall into place.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Who will care for these kids? It’s expected to reach 90K by the end of the year, the resources aren’t available at this point in time. Being nice is great, being able is another. I’m not sure if sending them back is the answer either. Seems we have a conundrum on our hands. Let’s send them to Russia, I hear they need some serious immigration to maintain their population 🙂

          • David Skekabim says:

            Instead of thinking in terms of them being illegal burdens as the current status-quot suggests, think of them as extra help. (the older ones anyway)

            For example: Not too long ago, you made a comment entertaining the idea of taking a couple of them in. Okay, feed from that thought…

            If you were to ‘adopt’ a couple teenage boys, teach them to garden, hunt and raise chickens, how long do you think it would be before they earned their keep and started feeding YOU? Hell, they may already know this stuff and teach you a thing or two.

            Do you have a truck? If you were to ride around town scavenging for metals, how long do you think it would take a couple of teens to collect a few hundred dollars worth? How long before you could finance building them a cottage on your property? When they reach adult age, they move out and you rent it to someone for a few hundred dollars a month, ..or maybe use it as a guest house or something.

            Can you start a small ‘family’ business? Would they like to have income to buy their first car or the latest game console?

            Do you want to learn Spanish? They can probably teach you. How can you use that skill to your benefit?

            I’m not suggesting treating them as slaves, but earning their keep and learning.Those may not be the best ideas, but it is more about changing your thinking. What works best is up to you. But I can see the potential for a win/win. Everyone learns something, they earn their keep, contribute to the household.

            And I am sure the government would help you accommodate as it is cheaper and more efficient to let people like you deal with them. How many farmers would just love to have them around?

            Here is another thought… In 20 years they will be grown men, and you will be an old man. They are liable to be the ones looking out for ‘good old uncle Gman’.

            Again, I am only brainstorming, tossing ideas around, …but there has to be some kind of workable solution. And it won’t be found with the current system. Think asymmetry.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I still feel the same way, would gladly bring in a young man to provide a good home to. I like teaching, so that would be fun. Plenty of work for teens on the farms around here, I’m keeping my eyes open to find more info.

              I’m full time healthcare for the elderly , I’m divorced, which may be a negative concerning the legal requirements, don’t know.

              Time will tell if some help can be rendered.

              The numbers are huge when trying to care for kids in this way, going to be interesting to see how things play out as time goes on

            • In a sane world, you would be absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are not in a sane world. Putting on my leftist, statist hat, what you propose would be considered tantamount to slavery.

              Back in the 1800’s orphans from NYC were often sent to families in the West and mid-west to raise. While some surely were abused and needed solely for their labor, the bulk were treated as children of the family who took them in. Such a thing today would be considered barbaric and primitive. God help you if you tried to teach them English and the culture of this country.

            • David Skekabim says:

              Maybe I mis-stated my point a little.

              I don’t mean to make it out like a “Grapes of Wrath” thing, or view them as ‘pets’ for profit, …just that it doesn’t necessarily need to be a big burden, that it is about more efficiently managing time and resources.

              A place like Gman’s house could be good for them. I don’t think there is anything wrong with putting them on a farm somewhere where they can have a stable loving home and a list of chores just like any Midwestern American kid. Or maybe even match them up with elderly or handicap people who would otherwise be alone.

              It’s better than leaving them in a government installation, and especially in a gang or prostitution, for their benefit as well as tax payers.

              How many ways are there to rectify this mess? How many people are willing? How many are fit for it?

              • Do not think I disagree. Hell, those of us over 55 were raised watching sappy ’30’s and ’40’s movies in black and white on TV where the orphan went to live on the farm, acted like a little ass and then had an Epiphany. Probably true in most cases in real life but the Government would NEVER allow it today. Only they are qualified. Just imagine if the family were home schoolers or fundamentalists. Now if Jeff and Bill, newly married and atheists stepped forth. That would be the perfect non-judgemental, diverse environment to place them in. .

        • It would be so much easier to just agree with you-but it seems like a cop out to me. There’s a whole lot more to this than children who are being persecuted. If these children are refugees than so are their parents-so is everyone in these three Countries. WE aren’t talking about taking people in on a temporary basis until a war is over or because of some natural disaster-we are talking about taking them in over a police matter and I assume allowing them to stay forever. Because their government and police force cannot protect them from gangs. On this basis how would we even decide who gets to come and who has to stay. And those figures of 5000 are laughable. Are we to take in the whole population of these Countries. And as much as I hate anyone running the guantlet as it’s been called-isn’t actually going there just gonna increase those who want to leave instead of staying and actually fighting to change their Country. Keeping ones children safe is a powerful motivator.

        • If it was all about the children, then what about all the children of gang members right here in America. American children. We complain about having to support them as it is. Maybe we should just deport them to get them out of harms way.

          It’s because it’s not about the children. It’s more social engineering. Redistribute. Everyone is equal (ly) poor!

          • Anita, Our first African-American president could give two craps (note: I did not say shits) about fatherless, directionless boys standing around unemployed on street corners in Harlem, Newark, Chicago and Detroit. The dark side seeks chaos as their path to complete domination.

          • David Skekabim says:


            I agree. WHAT ABOUT American kids? What does it say about the USA where there are plenty of resources and means to remedy, yet so many issues?

            • What resources? Have you seen the debt clock recently? They’re already robbing from Peter to pay Paul. So what’s really going on is we’re fronting kids cash to live off now…where they’ll have to work for decades to repay plus interest. They’ll never have as good a life as we have. So why the need to pile on more people into an already broken system? Shouldn’t we be worrying about how to fix the system before adding to the problem? How many children are you willing to bring into your home? Personally, I’m not willing to bring any into mine. I’m darn close to being an empty nester. I’m done being tied down financially and physically.

              I’d really like to hear what resources and remedies you have in mind.

              • David Skekabim says:

                ” What resources? Have you seen the debt clock recently? They’re already robbing from Peter to pay Paul. So what’s really going on is we’re fronting kids cash to live off now…where they’ll have to work for decades to repay plus interest. They’ll never have as good a life as we have. ”

                …And you continue to demand YOUR progeny’s misfortune and enslavement with your vote and financial support. Need I quote Einstein?

                ” So why the need to pile on more people into an already broken system? ”

                Why try to maintain an irreparable one?

  8. Obama’s approval rating has gone down 3 more points to 39 per Gallup -and look at this- Carville actually said Obama doesn’t care what the people think about him because the would-be-king things he’s doing a good job.

    James Carville: Obama ‘Doesn’t Really Care’ What The American People Think
    9:24 PM 07/24/2014

    Former Democratic strategist James Carville sounded a little exasperated Thursday when he admitted President Obama “doesn’t really care” what the American people think about his presidency.

    The Fox News contributor sat down with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and “The Five” host Andrea Tantaros to discuss President Obama’s consistently depressed poll numbers.

    Carville noted that the president’s low numbers have been “stable” at about “43.6 [percent approval] — which is not very good, but not collapsing.”

    O’Reilly — seeking to cut through the “technical garbage” — asked Carville whether the public’s perception of a failed presidency was accurate or “fair.”

    Carville tried to dodge a value judgment. “You know what, whether it’s fair or not, that’s public opinion,” Carville said. “And I further think that — honestly — I don’t really think he much cares what we think. And I don’t think he much cares about his poll numbers.”

    “I think he thinks he’s done and is doing a good job and history will record him, that’s he’s going about his business,” he concluded. “He doesn’t really care.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/24/james-carville-obama-doesnt-really-care-what-the-american-people-think/#ixzz38VIy55cB

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Obama is the worst US President in the history of US Presidents, Jimmy Carter is now a happy man. 🙂

      • Jimmy was happy when GB took his place. Now GB is happy!

        • I try so hard not to actually hate people but Obama really pushes the envelope. The only word that comes to mind when I think of this man is But but but but-everything he says is followed by a but-so in reality everything he says is a lie.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Obama isn’t even a good liar, he simply can’t be believed. At least Bush’s lies were somewhat believable.

  9. On taking young immigrants in, is it wrong to be suspicious? Our government is censoring the media from reporting who & what they look like. Mostly I have seen mothers & young children in the pictures. Why then does Pew Research say 84% of them are teenagers? We know there is a gang element & various criminal groups using them for cover. It might be nice to be open & welcoming. It would also be foolish.

    If & when our government/media is open & honest, then we can consider being open & welcoming. Right now this is a lot like someone trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge….


  10. “in the beginning we were so happy to get rid of the government, but yesterday it was like a turning point … Now most of the people who welcomed ISIS started to think more deeply, to think of what ISIS would do in the future.”

    Mosul Residents React to ISIS Bombing of Tomb of Jonah Mosque

    Iraq Militants Blow Up Jonah’s Tomb
    NBC News

    Residents of Mosul worry their worst fears are coming true about Islamic extremists that overran the city following the bombing of the so-called Tomb of Jonah, a mosque and Muslim holy site in Iraq’s second-largest city. ISIS, the Sunni insurgency that has taken control, blew up the site, believed to be the burial place of the Prophet Jonah, earlier Friday after ordering visitors out of the building.

    Following the explosion, resident Abu Abdullah told NBC News, “in the beginning we were so happy to get rid of the government, but yesterday it was like a turning point … Now most of the people who welcomed ISIS started to think more deeply, to think of what ISIS would do in the future. A former Iraqi officer who lives in Mosul also said, “Allah spared Jonah’s life from the whale to be killed by ISIS.” Friday’s bombing is the latest example of ISIS clamping down on residents. The radical Muslim group earlier forced Muslim clerics in the city to broadcast orders that women wear full-face veils or confront punishment, Reuters reported. Shopkeepers have also been asked to veil mannequins in store windows throughout the city


  11. How bloody typical.

    You support fascist law, then complain when that law hurts your own person.

    No brains. No principles.

    • Sorry-who exactly is this aimed at?

      • The OP post.

        “Ouch, we are fascist, oh wait, I want fascism for my benefit

        • gmanfortruth says:

          More and more people in the US are starting to see similarities between our current government and their actions and the Nazi’s and their actions. The only thing that hasn’t occurred yet is having an all powerful leader. Once that happens, things like gun registration/confiscation will begin to take place, Christianity will be sent to the underground, the different government agencies will attack those who oppose the government, they will attack and take over farms and all food sources. This may all happen before the people rise up, or, the people already get it and will intervene as it occurs. Interesting days ahead.

          • Gman,

            I do not see the government of the US becoming like Nazi Germany in it fullest – though, indeed, the US government is constantly moving toward a similar existence.

            In an alternate universe, where the West did repair the Danzig corridor dispute, and Germany was unified, and then by treaty with the West allied against Soviets, it is not likely that Soviets would have expanded West either.

            In this universe, Nazi policies would have eventually bankrupted the State like Communism bankrupted the Soviet State. It would have taken about the same amount of time – 70 to 80 years. The economics dictates this.

            The difference between the Socialist systems of Germany/Russia and the Socialist system of mercantilist/Fascist USA was that the German/Russian systems started with massive overt violent action on the people first. The violence first, then the failure of the economics.

            This is what we notice about the first two cases and that is what we first and almost attribute exclusively to Fascism/Communism – the attack on the freedom of the people. This noticing obscures the economic perversity so it is almost always ignored. The people decry these systems -not on an economic argument – but a political freedom argument.

            The US is the other way. First came the Socialist economics, which slowly aggravated the violence upon society – the violence that is necessary for this economic system to continue to exist.

            As such, the economic failure will take down the Fascist USA state before the overt and wanton violence can come full on. In the US, we are noticing the economic argument before we notice the political argument against US socialism.

            • Hmmm, we have a state (the US government) aiding in a mass migration/invasion of immigrants that do not speak our language. A large number of them are young men with gang ties. Many of our large cities are seeing an increase in gang/youth violence. Our government has made record purchases of ammunition recently. More purchased for civilian law enforcement than was needed by our military fighting two wars? And our police departments are being encouraged to buy tanks for which they have no need.

              Social engineering is possible. Create the right environment, wait for the situation to develop, then act. Fill the cities with poor living on welfare. Import even more such as illegal immigrants. Cut off their water, like Detroit has? Tank the economy causing massive inflation. Watch the wheels come off with riots in every city. Declare martial law & insure there is a heavy handed response. More riots and violence results in more force & abuse by the government.

              Emergency laws will be passed to deal with the crisis. Rinse & repeat.

              • LOI,

                First, there is no cultural history of such a thing in the west, sans post-Wiemer Germany.

                Second, government needs money to do this overt political impositions. You have to pay soldiers. It cannot do this without money. Such a collapse that you surmise will have long bankrupted the government, and your surmise is no longer a government in control, but a revolt and revolution like post-WW1 Russia.

                Again,to reach that point when considering the US case, you must pass thru economic bankruptcy.

                But this is NOT post-WW1 where the biggest losers of that war, Germany and Russia, are reeling. The US has not lost a world war, with its industry and nation obliterated by bombs and shells.

                Thus, the move to revolution has no energy – the nation is not on fire, cities are not bombed to rubble, there are no embargoes, there is not a slaughter of millions of young productive men.

                You cannot intellectual point to a historical situation of revolution while bypassing the roots of that revolution.

                The US is not even close to those roots.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I agree the violence is slowly increasing, and given some of the many laws passed in the last 15 years or so, all the cards seem to point at it only getting worse. When I think of the Nazis coming to power, I remember how it was portrayed by a Austrian woman who lived through it. The economy was already in shambles when Hitler annexed Austria, many good things like jobs became available and things began good, only to devolve into the terror we all know about now.

              Much like the Nazi’s, the Feds have passed many laws that are seemingly harmless and in the best interest of the people. I’ll use the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010 as an example. On it’s face it is to protect against food borne illnesses and outbreaks, but inside the law, the Feds have the power to completely take over everything in large portions of the country. Confiscating vehicles, relocating entire populations, destroying farmers crops and livestock, etc are only a few of the powers that the Act gives to the government. It hasn’t been used YET, but it wasn’t written for nothing. The whole premise of the Act is ridiculous and the threat it perceives has never existed and likely never will. This is but one example of how the violence is being planned by the government. Time will tell.

              • Again, if one references history as an example, one must look at the history in context.

                German Nazis had come to power over economic destruction of a global war, inflicting massive damage to the nation economically, materially and humanity with millions dead.

                This is not the US case.

                Further, Austria had suffered a disastrous defeat in the same circumstances. The Nazi “miracle” was merely exported to Austria.

                Again, this is not the US case.

              • What you point to in the US is a economic policy of Socialism – whose consequence will be the acceleration of economic disaster. This will outpace the political disaster.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I certainly don’t expect the future to mimic history, but many similarities in peoples actions can lead one down that path of history. Humans are a violent bunch, and those with a desire for power can become……..mentally displaced by those desires. It is easy for these kinds of people to make the calls that kill thousands of people, all in the name of whatever their beliefs are. It is quite possible that the political disaster will come after the economic disaster, much like the economic disaster of WWI lead to the Nazis coming to power. Correct me if I’m reading you wrong, but that’s what you are saying, the economic disaster led to the political disaster and WWII. Now, we can see the same sort of issues, economic disaster leads to political disaster which may lead to WWIII. Or, the second Revolution here in the US.

              • No, the massive destruction of WW1, in material and men created the conditions. Economics, yes, but it was all the horsemen running amok, not just economics.

                War – global war and national destruction – leads to revolution. Again, see Russia and Germany.

                It was devastating war THEN economics then revolution post WW1

                Today it is ECONOMICS first. This will not (necessarily) lead to revolution without a devastating war..

                There is no case in modern history (since the French Revolution) where economics created a revolution. But you need to study the French at that time – where there was no economic progress, no capitalism, no free market… the condition of humanity of the previous 2,000 years.

                This is not the modern scenario. We do not have millions starving in the streets.

              • PS: Regardless of the bankruptcy of the government, millions will not starve in the street.

                They may lose their toys, but they will live just fine. Modern society is so productive that the basics of modern society are “nearly free” today. There will be confusion for a small time, but it will quickly reorganize.

                That is the awesome power of modern capitalism and free markets. This did not exist as a core of humanity 200 years ago.

              • The amazing, unprecedented rise of free market capitalism has changed mankind forever.

                This unrecognized game-changer of humanity, we crossed a bridge that never before in 10,000 years has witnessed such a change for humans.

                A man born at the time of Christ magically transported would recognize the world of the 1700’s for the most part.

                Yet, a man born in the 1800’s magically transported would not recognize anything in today’s world.

              • For any man, magically transported to the present from any time before the 1800’s would think we live in a world of magic and heaven.

                Nothing he would see could he comprehend, other than we still have our body features (face, arms legs, etc).

                Everything else in the world would be utterly magic. Speaking into a small box to talk. Watching images on another box. A device that actually makes images.

                He would be wholly unable to describe this modern world to his contemporaries – he would have no words or language to make sense of it

                He would be far closer to Neanderthals then modern man.

              • And all of it — all of it — comes from free market capitalism.

                Yet, so many people -empty brains – decry this system and want to destroy it.

                Neanderthals-brains still populate most of humanity today.

                Fortunately, this mass mob rarely counts in modern human progress, though unfortunately, they certainly interfere with it (yes, that’s you Charlie)

              • Just think of the progress.

                This pre-1800 man would see…
                …food, in massive volumes he could not describe, food he would never have seen from far away places, magically show up in buildings, fresh, everyday. No one he would notice would actually grow food. Yet, by magic, it appears. (grocery stores)

                A person on the other side of the globe suddenly shows up hours from his departure in person (and probably complaining about how long the travel time was – complaining he is “exhausted” when, in fact, he probably physically walked less then a 1/2 mile for the whole 4,000 mile trip). .. and faster then this “old” man could walk to an adjacent town in his time. (jet aircraft)

                A machine that digs dirt -more in 20 seconds then 500 men in his day could do in a day (mine shovel). Another machine that could carry his entire city of people, plus their carry-on luggage (cruise ship)

                Pick anything other then government and he would have no words.

                But government he would recognizethe same brute violence and wanton slaughter … he would understand that perfectly.

                That’s the rub. Mankind has moved infinitely forward, except in its organization of violence.

                Just shows how outdated the concept of government really is

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The progress you speak of comes in other forms, nuclear weapons for example. This has been a big deterent to the next world war. With the threat of a nuclear winter to go along with all the death, the Progressives would have no problem not only getting some serious population control, but solve their insane belief’s about Climate Change. As long as insane people are in the government, this possibility will always exist. It may never (hopefully) happen, but I won’t count on the Elite Ruling class to NOT do something this stupid.

              • Gman,

                Very unlikely they would – they would die too.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Very likely, but nobody has ever accused Progressives of being smart 😀

  12. @ BF……very good !!! Colonel Raptor points are hard to come by but you get 100 of ’em. Continuing on progress, consider the health aspects and what it is beginning to change back. Your same scenario can be used to this…the strides that medicine made from blood letting and leaches to CAT scans and robotic surgery……declining back into medicine by class again. This social engineering that is called ObamaCare, aka ACA, is creating the mid-evil again. However, economics is once again the name of the game. Doctors have realized that all this social engineering of the health services has decimated or is about to decimate their ilk, to use your phrase. Concierge services are cropping up all over…technology is moving into these concierge services. Doctors are not taking Obama-care and they are beginning to NOT take medicare/medicaid. Signs are popping up all over the place in waiting offices giving dates when they stop accepting medicare/medicaid and ACA transformations…pretty soon, the government will outlaw private physicians.

    • Indeed! The “old” man simply would have no way to describe modern medical miracles.

      “They put a man in the mouth of a whale, the whale chews on him and groans then it spits him out, and doctors examine the excrement of the whale and can see the man’s insides! This is barbaric and magical!”

      (Put him in a MRI, and read the printout)

    • “pretty soon, the government will outlaw private physicians.”

      This is a possible response to doctors legally revolting against government controlled health care. I don’t think they will pass such laws. More likely they will pass laws that make it too difficult or impossible to have a private practice & be profitable. Imagine an IRS agent fining a doctor for accepting a gift of cookies or anything else that can be deemed a “payment”.

      The point of passing ObamaCare was not to switch us to a single payer health care system. It was to jump us by leaps & bounds closer to that government controlled health care system that we were getting to in stumbling steps…. A little more fascism…

      And my point to Flag, the riots & violence are meant to require more draconian laws to allow the government more police powers. To have more big government, they need more police. What was Obama’s statement in 07′ about the need for a police force as powerful & well funded as our military? He still needs justification to create this force….

      • But the question is “where will he get the money?”

        • I don’t think he see’s that as a problem. He has plenty of checks left in his check book. He wants four billion to deal with the immigration crisis. He demands congress pass every budget he proposes with constant spending increases. The deficit will be someone else’s problem in 2016. If inflation turns hyper, it will be another “crisis” he will use to demand more government.

          • The money, as I see it, is to come in the later years of the ACA…..if you read the Act….there is a 25% increase in a variety of taxes….AFTER 2016

          • LOI

            That’s my point – money has to come from somewhere.

            No, I have no belief in hyperinflation. The Fed will not kill the money.

            Thus, before tyranny becomes so overt, the government will go bankrupt (as I’ve described in the past what that means).

  13. A North Carolina mayor on Sunday was just a few miles away from finishing his 273-mile walk to Washington to draw attention to the closing of his small town’s local hospital and the plights of other rural facilities caught in financial bind created largely by ObamaCare, a changing economy and less federal funding.

    “We’re almost there,” Belhaven Mayor Adam O’Neal, a Republican, said as he reached northern Virginia ahead of an approaching thunderstorm. “We’re going to make it.”

    The mayor and others argue that an increasing number of small, rural hospitals have been shuttered since ObamaCare was signed into law in 2012.

    Still, O’Neal is equally focused on bringing attention to what he considers Department of Health and Human Services and Justice Department failures leading to the closure of Belhaven’s Vidant Pungo Hospital.

    “They let our hospital close,” he told FoxNews.com on Sunday. “Nobody is helping our people.”

    He argues that closing the hospital, which receives federal funds, is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the closure disproportionately impacts poor black people.


  14. Also…..what ever happened to the “existing illness” section? It has disappeared…..try taking an existing illness to a Medicare doctor today and see what happens.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    Is the US involved in the shootdown of MH17 in Ukraine? http://scgnews.com/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told

  16. Perhaps this was posted earlier. Seems like a legit guy – not that this is new to SUFA since we’ve had our border insider for years.


  17. gmanfortruth says:

    A whistleblower who claims to work inside the Los Angeles Department of Health Services has told Infowars that L.A. officials are planning to forcibly remove homeless people from the streets later this summer and house them in facilities which they will not be permitted to leave.

    The source, an office clerk within the LADHS, said that during a policy meeting on the morning of June 18th last month, his supervisor announced that the Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services had struck a deal with the government to open up “low cost housing” facilities for homeless people, otherwise known as “FEMA camps.” The source said that his supervisor ordered staff not to use the term “FEMA camps.”

    The program is focused around removing or relocating homeless people from the streets of downtown L.A., starting with Skid Row.

    Not anything like the Nazi’s, is it?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      One infected person on top of a train coming North in Mexico and walking across the border would be far worse.

  18. Although the network newscasts aggressively promoted gun control in the wake of the Newtown shooting, ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored a new report by the Washington Times showing prosecutions for gun violence have plummeted under Barack Obama. Times writer Kelly Riddell on Thursday explained, “While President Obama decries gun violence and presses for more laws to restrict ownership, his Justice Department has prosecuted 25 percent fewer cases…”

    She added, “Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with 6,791 during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2008.”

    Riddell added:

    The data contrast with Mr. Obama’s proclamations after the deadly shooting sprees at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school and an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that he would take every step possible to stem firearms violence.

    “We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this,” the president declared in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown tragedy.

    Though the ATF has been the primary agency to combat illegal gun trafficking, the data directly from the 94 federal judicial district offices across the country show that the number of prosecutions of cases from ATF has gone down since Mr. Obama made his promise in January 2013. ATF-related prosecutions fell from 5,935 in 2012 to 5,082 in 2013, and are on track to finish around 4,500 this year, the data show.

    NBC and CBS on Thursday and Friday allowed a combined 43 seconds to the story of a hero doctor in Pennsylvania who shot a disturbed gunman, stopping his killing spree.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/07/25/illegal-gun-prosecutions-plummet-under-obama-networks-yawn#ixzz38n1qvYms

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Maybe this 20 second video will explain the reason this current regime is being compared to the Nazi’s, in Obama’s own words no less: http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2014/07/bos-own-words-in-germany-pulled-in-usa-wake-up-america-must-see-video-2465410.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I cannot repeat what my Pops said after watching this short 20 second video! What can this tell us about future events here in the next two years?

  20. Picture above = Socialism
    Picture below = Capitalism


  21. gmanfortruth says:
  22. I often wonder who coined the phrase…” appropriate response “…….and just what is an appropriate response.

    When you militarize any environment, any……………it becomes a target. A target has no appropriate response…..except to destroy it.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Simple, appropriate response is “if you attack, you better win, because if not, you will die”. Seems simple enough to me.

      • Gman,

        This is the creed of the weak.

        The strong do not need such a creed.

        If I am bigger then you, and you attack – you must win. I do not succeed because I win – that was a forgone conclusion.

        So the weaker power must be ruthless, he has too much to overcome to be ‘equal’.

        The stronger power can be gracious, he need not pound the weakling to a pulp.

        If a kid attack Hulk Hogan, the kid will bite, scratch, kick, punch, spit.

        If Hulk Hogan did that back to the kid, the rest of us would not hold him to hero status, would we?

        But by adopting that creed, it shows that you are weak, not strong.

        “True Power is measured in its constraint, not in its exercise”

        • gmanfortruth says:

          In simpler terms , it’s called self defense. Size doesn’t matter, do not attack. Attack and fail, suffer the consequences. Constraint is for those who a generally non-violent, regardless of size.

          • Again, the creed of the weak.

            In Japanese lore, one of the greatest Samurai’s was attacked by a group of thugs. They demanded he crawl like a dog, which he did.

            They laughed and left, and Japan turned against the Samurai … “he was afraid!”

            Later, a war, and he entered the service of his Shogun and his deeds were beyond fantastic.

            Then everyone understood.

            He could have easily killed all of those thugs, but he chose to save their lives because he knew he was powerful, and had the greatest strength and courage within himself to humiliate himself to save their lives. Their deaths would have been meaningless to him, but their lives would be very important to them and he gave them that.

            That is power.

            Yours is weak.

          • It is not a show of power to beat a baby to a pulp merely because it shits on you.

    • That is why the State AND apologists are evil. They does not understand the word “appropriate”.

      You do not nuke a city because someone else is killed.
      You do not slaughter thousands to avenge 10.

      But things changed in 1990.

      Previously the doctrine was:

      It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.

      Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.

      It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.

      But after 1990, it morphed into:

      the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

      This is change was to support the capability of carnage of US super power action “Shock and Awe”, in other words, the principle changed to suit the desire, instead of the moral case of subjecting the desire to principles.

  23. So apply the use of appropriate response to human shields…..

    • BF……..In your opinion……of course.

    • Like that?

      You don’t shoot.

      If your enemy needs to hide behind the innocent, they are weak. They can’t hide forever.

      This is also a reason why you should undertake such violence without careful consideration. You must be strong enough to avoid these engagements whilst committing to others.

      Doing the right and just thing is hard. It is easy to wanton slaughter everyone. It is very hard to be discriminating.

      • LOL…….yes like that,,,,and like what is happening now….it does not matter who does it…..just wondering. So, your theory is that an enemy that hides behind whatever it is (innocents) and continues to fire…..in the case of missiles….where there need be no advancement….you disregard the missiles even if they are inflicting casualty on other innocent civilians? How do you reconcile this?

        • I attack the missiles, not the innocent.

          Use your brain to figure out how to do this. Just doing a brain-fart and say “Wipe them all out” is no sign of genius, but of utter stupidity.

          • Ok…attack the missiles. I agree. My brain says……do not wait until the missiles are in the air…I might miss and that missile will probably kill an innocent…( particularly in that part of the world because they have no guidance system ). My brain says to attack the missiles on their launching pad before they are fired.

            Does this make me addled, in your opinion? ( you are not going to hurt my feelings ).

            • Sure, attack the missiles on the pad.

              Now think some more, how would you do that without killing children?

              • Hmmmm…knowing the weapons that Israel has…..anything that hits a roof of a hospital with enough force to disable a launching pad….will likely collapse the roof. Air assault would be out of the question….that would end in disaster. Electromagnetic introduction would be feasible but is inactive to the enhanced Katyusha rocket. There is no guidance system as it is an area weapon in the manner it is used…air burst techniques would be a better use of preventative but, knowing the construction methods of Gaza, the resulting explosions would collapse the building. Laser guided missiles is a great alternative but the resulting damage would still collapse a building…..Ground assault is out of the question.

                So, as a second lieutenant, whose task it is to take out the launching pads………….interesting question. Because not taking them out…is still resulting in innocent deaths. ……a dilemma for the young lieutenant.

              • .Ground assault is out of the question.


                Or, pull back out of range and make the emplacement pointless, but observe so when they do move to the open to another location a neat little drone does its thing.

                Sun Tze

                “Attack what cannot be defended, defend what cannot be attacked”


                “Do not defend what can be taken, do not attack what cannot be defeated”

              • D13,


                You see, this is one of my points of modern tactics.

                The modern doctrine seems to have but two modes – “advance” and “rout”.

                If the army is not attacking and pushing forward, it must have been routed.

                The tactics are as Spock once said “Two dimensional”. Lost is the tactical feint.

                The overwhelming firepower of modern armies has removed the finesse of great and subtle tactics of say, Napoleon. When resistance is met, it must be “overpowered and pounded”, and no consideration of other options. Its call in the artillery, air support, armor, and overwhelm all.

                Yet, a simple withdrawal in many circumstances would render the enemy position moot. They would be defending against ghosts.

                It is kinda of funny in a way that Napoleon, whose communications was by messenger and flags could run a complex battle of tactical maneuver, yet today with all the advanced comms, relies on for the most part sheer brute force to overcome resistance.

              • …or simply prevent resupply.

                The eventuality is that the people in place would rebel against the missile guys. The missile guys position would become untenable, not by force of arms directly, but by the carnage they are manifesting by being there.

                It is one thing to say “we all die in a blaze of glory” and another to watch the slow lingering death of innocent people indirectly by your presence.

                If the people there are not as committed as the warriors, the warriors will collapse. Leningrad, where the civilians were as committed as the armed forces endured unimaginable suffering, but that is a rare occurrence = most examples require the “friendly forces” to start murdering their own people.

              • … and when that happens, the 4th Generation Warrior is defeated.

                His tactic is to get you to do the killing of the innocents so to bolster his claim of “justice”, which increases his indigenous support.

                When he starts the killing, he utterly erodes this indigenous support – support that he simply cannot survive without.

              • What I have found about ground assaults and when they are “out of the question” is because of some arbitrary time-line, if the goal cannot be achieved in so many days or hours, it is not undertaken.

                But why this artificial time line? Why not instead a methodical, slow advance instead of taking the whole thing is a day? Yes, logistics comes to play but given that isn’t the issue here for example what is the rush to defeat the enemy “quickly”?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Human shields is certainly a cowards way, not that of a brave man trying to win a war. I have seen pictures of some who are carrying small children and shooting at the enemy. This causes a dilemma, because the child is a complete innocent. Two choices, hold fire or shoot at legs. Take legs out, child could get dislodged then finish the job.

      Missiles in hospitals/schools. This poses quite a dilemma as well. If the missiles can reach innocent civilians (as is the case in Gaza), inaction is off the table. Ground attack is the best way to avoid innocents. If that is not possible, drop leaflets to tell the innocents to leave within a certain time, take out the missiles where they are after time has expired. There are few choices when fighting cowards. None of them are good.

      Maybe if humanity could just get along and share the same planet without killing each other, we wouldn’t have collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians. Most wars are caused by those who are supposedly elected to office by the population. Maybe that’s a good place to start.

  24. So, let’s deal in absolutes.

    You have a hospital….it is full of sick people and children. The hospital is used as a launching pad or storage of ammunition that is used on a daily basis. ( yes, I am referencing Hamas )….

    Now, in military terms, that hospital is now a military target. It has no protection under any convention treaty even if it is filled with civilians and non combatants. it is a legitimate military target because it is hostile.

    Where, if any, does anyone see a moral dilemma? ( Forget how the war started…it started and it is raging )

    • Of course it is immoral to attack a hospital of innocent people no less it is immoral for you to kill all the people in your way to go after a criminal.

      It is not a legitimate target. The missiles are, not the innocent.

      Use your brain and figure something else out.

    • Now, let me be clear…I am well aware that there are some people who feel that the wanton killing of non combatants is a war crime….not caring if they are used as shields or not. There is also a lot of people that say that any target that has been militarized is a legitimate target regardless of who is there…IF that target is either a staging ground or in actual combat. ( Firing missiles from a school yard or a hospital roof is combat ).

      So, what is the consensus on here…..anybody. I know what BF’s and G mans will be….anyone else?

      • Started to reply before but managed to shut down the computer instead. I dug this up.


        100 years later and the Brits still deny it. Their callous use of the ship and the propaganda in the aftermath of the sinking surely served its purpose yet they caused the disaster. They were as guilty as Hamas.

        We have rules of war which seem to be an oxymoron yet they have worked fairly well at least preventing the use of chemical and bio agents in WW 2. Nonetheless, there was the use of Napalm, and the destruction of Hiroshima, Dresden, Tokyo and even Caen home of our Allies!

        If you store weapons in a school or hospital, they become fair game and the blame rests on those who stored the weapons. Same with turning armaments into a cottage industry. When the neighborhoods around the cottages get bombed, the blame rests with those who have put the industry there. I do not think that there were too many people who wanted to wantonly bomb civilians. While it is a bit of a stretch admittedly, the power that started the war, that resorted to terror first ultimately must bear the blame for setting the rules that were followed.

        We at least tried to target, the Brits did not. In that, they were following what the Germans taught them. Same for the Japanese. They set the rules and the rules were not Pearl Harbor, they were set in China.

        • SK,

          That is a very barbaric and immoral position to take – that killing innocent people is justified because it is also carrying supplies.

          This very sickening concept of total war risks all of humanity for extinction.

          As I pointed out, before 1865, war was fought mostly between armies on a battlefield. The baggage train was not considered a legitimate target (though atrocities can be cited)

          It was a sick mind of an alcoholic mediocre general who after a series of battlefield losses convinced Grant to authorize the pillaging of the South’s civilians.

          Union Army General William Tecumseh Sherman’s ‘March to the Sea’ in November and December 1864 destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. General Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln initially opposed the plan until Sherman convinced them of its necessity. It was the first instance of a major industrialized power engaging in an explicit strategy of total war, and would foreshadow the strategies used in conflicts of the 20th century

          Such sick, barbaric doctrines of total war hides the mental disability and lack of intelligence of military leaders. Now, if the battle is difficult, generals destroy the innocent, ramp up the loss of life and ironically are less able to bring any war to a quick end.

          Total war EXPANDS and EXTENDS warfare, it does NOT contain it nor shorten war.

          • As yours truly noted a week ago, journalists who have ventured into Gaza operate under coverage restrictions imposed by Hamas, the terrorist group which controls it. Based on the tenor of their coverage, the New York Times and other organizations are complying with Hamas’s constraints, usually without telling their readers, listeners, and viewers. This of course begs the question of why those reporters and photographers stay there — unless they’d like to leave and are being prevented from doing so.

            A little onsite reality leaked out of Gaza today, in the form of two tweets from Wall Street Journal reporters based there, before they were quickly withdrawn. Twitter user Yair_Rosenberg caught them before they disappeared. They provide evidence that a rocket strike at a Gaza hospital which killed many Palestinians was the result of an errant Hamas rocket, not an Israeli strike:

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/07/29/wsj-journalists-delete-tweets-hospital-damage-inflicted-errant-hamas-roc#ixzz38rTTeh8D

            So maybe they should wait until Hamas kills all the Palestinians?

  25. The reason that I am asking everyone is I have been tasked to teach a crop of second lieutenants on combat and the moral and ethical use of power and compare Vietnam to Kuwait, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. I think I am tasked because I participated in combat in all four of these engagements. ( I did miss Iran, thankfully )

  26. @ BF……by the way, did I see, some months ago, that your arm is permanently damaged and that you have had to adjust to it?

  27. Subject collateral damage…….it is amazing how that term cropped up…..(it has actually been used prior to 1990) but the use of that term referred to battlefield where it was army on army.

    Now, the battlefields of the world have changed to urban….and the use of army on army is no longer viable….weaker powers know this and have changed the battlefield.

    Part of my lessons are going to be on technology and the use of satellites, cell phone cameras, etc. and how information is almost instant and, therefore, the use of such is an interesting weapon in itself.

    • Not so true.

      It was the hegemony who changed the battle field, not the weaker powers.

      The Civil War was the start of “total war” – where the Union, though superior by every measure, was unable to enforce itself on the battle field, instituted a reign of terror upon the civilian population of the South in an attempt to force the Confederates to retreat to their homeland defend their children.

      Union generals, who in the most part were idiots, could not seem to achieve victory upon the out-gunned, out-numbered, and out-supplied Confederate Armies.

      Being barbaric idiots, the only thought that they had was to up the slaughter and not fight the army but the civilians as that was the only battle they could win – against unarmed women and children.

      This absolutely changed the tactics of weaker powers. Instead of set-piece battle of armies, they morphed into vaporous groups of guerrilla fighters, where they could move between attacks upon the power and defense of the home with little notice.

      This turned the moral compass. Now power had to wipe out entire villages of innocent people to a degree that their own citizens would recoil in horror once such slaughter was exposed.

      Overnight, the power was a “bad guy” in their own nation – fighting a political war at home as well as a military war abroad (see Vietnam as a classic example).

    • “Technology”:

      Don’t forget to include the famous “Red vs Blue Gulf War”, where the reliance on technology and tactical use of snooping the enemies technology was used against the Blue team which lost its entire fleet

      Red polluted the comms with fake info, and relied on “comms by foot and bicycle” for their real battle plan. Blue used the fake info, and fell victim to a coordinated surprise attack.

      • Yes,,,,,you are talking, of course, of the simulated war games and the RELIANCE on computers….others on here would think….whaaaat?

      • But do not also forget, that in the first Gulf War…..Kuwait…..Hussein relied on what he thought was great intelligence from CNN and certain news reporting agencies. In the misdirection, Gen Swartzie (nickname) held press conferences leaking beach assault information out to the medias which immediately was “leaked: to Hussein…..who then based his whole defense of beach-heads and approaches…..mining this and that, setting up quite a reception. The imbedded media ate it up…….they got to talk to Marines and get on P boats and everything….only to be left out in the Gulf……brilliant move.

        While, out in the desert, I had NO media with my Battalion at all…..NONE. During the end run, my boys wiped out 88 vehicles with no losses and one broken arm by the time we got to the highway. ( Broken arm was the result of a loader not getting his arm out of the way from the recoil of his main gun ) Everything that Iran had was massed in Kuwait City…..we blocked the highway and then the slaughter really started.

        But a brilliant use of technology deception and news media….not to mention it really pissed off the newsies.

        • Hussein made the classic blunder … “… there is no way they can get through this impassable terrain…”. You’d have thought he saw the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” and the assault on Aquba… 🙂

          • ROFLMAO…..it is too late to laugh this hard……..I just had visions of a camel ride across the desert…..and Hussein forgot that our camels were blackhawk helicopters dropping refueling bladders in our line of march secured with rangers who acted as a gas station and we never stopped….just slowed down.

    • Always was and will always be a fraud.

      It requires a bizarre magical belief that there exists a “unity” of wants and desires that are the same over everyone. Failing that, most. Failing that, those that show up. Failing that, those that, speak up. Failing that, those whose maximum energy output is lifting a pencil.

      The end, an incredibly small minority imposes their will upon everyone, over and over again until tyranny is the norm.

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Just something I have been pondering…

    Natural Law recognizes property rights, and property has boundaries; therefore, if a group of private property owners voluntarily get together and decide to collectively define themselves as a “State” (or whatever you want to call it) and decide to collectively enforce ingress and egress to and from their “State”, then (I believe) that under natural law this would be considered a legally enforceable “border” as it were…

    As far as I am concerned, “borders” and “immigration restrictions” on those borders would be just fine, provided the border was defined in such a way, yes?

    BF seems to argue a lot that borders are imaginary lines drawn on a map, so I am wondering what he thinks of this. Certainly, BF believes in property rights and he believes that his property has boundaries, and he is entitled under natural law to determine who can and cannot cross the borders of his own property… or so I would think. I also think that it logically follows that if he got together with 1000 of his “neighbors” and decided to form a coalition with them under which the boundaries or borders of their “collective” properties were privately enforced, this should, in theory, be acceptable, provided it is all done privately and voluntarily.

    So, perhaps, it is not “borders” which BF thinks are imaginary, but rather governments that are imaginary.

    BF, please feel free to correct anything which I have stated incorrectly above – I don’t presume to speak for you in any way whatsoever, but I feel like my argument above is logically sound…. let me know!

    • Peter, you’re doing that “logic” thing again. (Nicely done, by the way) But all too often, we see perfect logic fail the test in the real world. I see something missing though…

      “it logically follows that if he got together with 1000 of his “neighbors” and decided to form a coalition with them under which the boundaries or borders of their “collective” properties were privately enforced”

      If the neighbors all agree, there is no need for a coalition to enforce anything. The need is to defend against perceived outsiders that would use force to take property already claimed. That perceived threat includes whole nations that would raise an army to take land & resources they desire. And it’s kinda a common theme in world history.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        LOI, I left that part missing intentionally, but it was supposed to be strongly implied 🙂

      • LOI,

        But your reasoning is wrong.

        Again, you offer an unstated posit that criminals – who are violent, untrustworthy, unemphatic and self-serving are better able to cooperate – which requires trust, empathy, and self-scarf icing – traits which dominate in free men and not criminals.

        The reason you hold this confusion is because you have little interaction with free men. Your interactions that you have observed is dominated by criminals.

        • “Your interactions that you have observed is dominated by criminals.”
          OK, I can agree with that…but
          “The reason you hold this confusion is because you have little interaction with free men”
          Let’s see, there’s Pete, D13, G! (can I include the smarter sex?) Anita, Kathy…you don’t think they are free or at least free thinkers? If the world was full of such people, I would agree with you cast off all government. But I see the world filled with criminals, who will band together to form an army & take what they want.

          Your logic is perfect & worthy of praise. But then I’ve heard other such proposals,

          “From each, according to his ability
          to each, according to his need”

          Great logic. Unquestionable sound reasoning. Doesn’t play well in the real world.

          • LOI
            “The reason you hold this confusion is because you have little interaction with free men”
            Let’s see, there’s Pete, D13, G! (can I include the smarter sex?) Anita, Kathy…you don’t think they are free or at least free thinkers?”

            Yes, to a couple but no to most.

            Look, the test is truth. For the most part, the ones you have identified (and the exceptions know who they are) do not accept the truth. The resist it to the fiber of their being. This is NOT a sign of a free thinker at all.

            Most here are dogmatists and quasi-religious in their view of the State. No matter the fact, reason or argument, they seek not the truth but self-rationalization to justify their world view.

            For example you say “But I see the world filled with criminals, who will band together to form an army & take what they want.”

            I have yet to hear your reasoning to why you think a group of people whose basic traits are untrustful, violent, liars and general scum are better able to organize then trusted, non-violent, truthful, honest people

            Yet, you continue your posit endlessly without such reason.

            And no, Marxist dogma was devoid of reasonit was an ASSERTION, merely a statement without basis or identity. Do not mistaken basic ASSERTIONS to be REASON

    • Peter

      The problem is the definition of a “State”. It is not a cooperative of individuals

      A group of free men organizing themselves in a manner to protect themselves does not equal a State, whose essence is to manufacture Law imposing upon free men

      A State exists by its power to manufacture and enforce its laws, primary of all, taxation.

      So, the posit that a organization of men for the cooperation of self-defense from those that wish to impose is wholly different from an organization of men to enforce edicts and impose upon other men within their dominion.

      Remember, it is a fallacy to apply rights of individuals to be the rights of a State

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I knew that you would catch that 🙂

        However, I still want to know what your take on my main point is… If a free association of people band together to enforce and defend the borders of their private property, and this is done so PRIVATELY, then, in your view, would this be a legal “border” under natural law and not just “imaginary lines drawn on a map”???

    • Kathy, What the ‘ell what? Most of us know our federal government is deliberately trying to encourage this mass migration. We know they are using near Soviet era levels of propaganda & suppression of the news to allow this. All we see & hear is about “the children”, and pic’s are of six to eight yr old’s… Reality looks like young adults. I wonder how many are male vs female?

      “Most of our children are 15 to 17-years-old,” she said. “But some stay in our program until they are 22-years-old; if they’re still working on getting their high school diploma, they can stay until they’re that age.”

      The revelation that some of the migrants receiving foster care are adults will likely come as a surprise to many; the mainstream media has largely portrayed the border crisis as involving only children and family units.

      Braiser mentioned that foster families will be given $40 per day to care for each migrant they take in from Catholic Charities. The payments are funded by the federal government, as Breitbart Texas previously reported.

      Foster parents have the ability to collect more than $7,400 per month, considering that they can house six immigrants at any given time.

      Braiser said that the illegal immigrants are provided with taxpayer subsidized education, health care, transportation, and an “allowance.” She was not specific about the amount of such an allowance or how often it is administered.

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    D13, there are rumors of a US military buildup in Ukraine, what say you?

  30. gmanfortruth says:
  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Is our problem with Russia about the dollar?

  32. Crickets!

    Black Flag® says:
    July 27, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    BF..I love this exchange you had with GMan, then your continued convo with the Colonel. I’ve been thinking along these lines lately myself. There’s not going to be some all out armed revolution in America. I think we are living through the worst of things right now, and while prices are still skyrocketing, people are still making it without taking up arms. I’m thinking people are going to start speaking more with their wallets, and start living simpler once again. I’m seeing more and more ‘Now Hiring” signs up around here…it’s been YEARS since I’ve seen those signs out. It’s very encouraging. Don’t know where I’m going with this,,,just that I think we’re going to be ok..without a civil war or other type revolution. It’s all in how you personally decide to view things. I’m the last of the baby boomers. I can’t imagine the older boomers have too much fight left in them and all the Gen X, Y and Z’s are too into their technology to give a damn about revolution. It’s all going to come down to the individual once again..sooner or later. I’m on the sooner bandwagon.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      What’s the point of this post Anita?

      • No point. It was just comforting to hear his take on things and my two cents on how I see things shaking out in the next few years. I may be wrong, but it doesn’t matter. I’m still looking toward a simpler life in the years to come.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Fair enough. Not much I can do more in my life about what the idiots in government chose to do, so I really don’t worry. Being in the boonies is nice and peaceful, nature at it’s finest 🙂

          • Just spent several days on the shores of Lake Michigan. Beautiful! Got me thinking more and more about my future cabin in the woods. Down to two years and counting.

        • Anita,

          Yes, take heart!

          Though the bad is getting worse…
          …the good is getting better faster.

          This race between good and evil is and will be a continuing victory for good, and barring nuclear war or hyperinflation, it is the inevitable road humanity has found itself walking along.

  33. David Skekabim says:


    ” …,Christianity will be sent to the underground,… ”

    Nah. …It will change and evolve though. It is a part of the continuum of progression that has been happening for a long time, the origins of Christianity included.

    The whole industrialized established mega-cult religions who control everything by dogma and claim exclusivity to god, won’t last. Religious empires fall like political empires. Humanity will eventually outgrow them, and arguably already are.

    Look up a guy named Carlton Pearson. Born poor in a line of ministers, became a minister early and achieved great success within the Christian establishment.

    When he started digging into the bible a little deeper, he found something more gnostic in nature regarding ‘hell’. When he shared it with his congregation, he was rejected by the establishment and eventually lost everything.

    Then a bunch of other rejects of the establishment contacted him and asked him to come join them at their church. He is just as popular elsewhere, as it seems the establishment alienates a lot of people from their ideas of god.

    And that’s how it happens. People seek god elsewhere.

  34. gmanfortruth says:
  35. Great start to the day here in WI! Supremes have upheld Voter ID and Act 10!!! This was like the 5th challenge to Act 10 – all have been shot down so hopefully the lawsuit happy left will finally get it. Holder is still coming after Voter ID, but at least this first challenge made it through.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    But there ain’t no election fraud 🙄 Naw, the democrats don’t want amnesty to get more votes either 🙄

    Because before the LAST election, the illegals were handed voter registrations and told they would be sent to states with NO ID check for voting. If they did not show up and vote the democratic ticket, they would be arrested and deported. I am NOT making this stuff up! We have turned over every rock investigating this stuff and have witness after witness after witness testifying to this to it. For the sake of PETE! Pay attention AMERICA!!!”


  37. gmanfortruth says:

    Argentina defaulted again. New Jersey pension fund (for overpaid State employees) in deep trouble. Russia says there will be war in Europe. Ebola still a major problem in Africa (not in the States, YET). ISIS is threatening Christians with death if they don’t convert or pay a tax. Many more killed in Syria. Ten year old caught with suicide vest, was with members of Boko Harem.

    The good news……..the garden is producing and NFL preseason football starts on Sunday. Nice world we live in .

  38. The arguments in this article, for the most part are based on law instead of emotion-now the last paragraph was mostly emotion so I didn’t post it here-thought maybe it would help keep the conversation more centered. So Buck, JAC, and everybody else what say you? Is this a judicial abomination or not?

    This is What a Judicial Abomination Looks Like

    By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | July 30th, 2014 at 02:00 PM | 9

    Whilst everyone is arguing about the propriety of a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit taking the words of a statute literally, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit decided to show the world what a really terrible judicial opinion actually looks like. In a split decision, the Court ruled in Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier that Mississippi H.B. 1390, which required doctors who performed abortions at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, violated the Constitution. The Court’s decision is an atrocity against the law, reason, and the facts of the case before it. If any intellectually honest liberals still exist and would like to know what bad, lazy, partisan and activist judging looks like, they need look no farther than this opinion.

    A little historical and factual background is in order to understand this decision. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO) is the only facility in the State of Mississippi that performs abortions. Two of the three doctors who perform abortions there did not have admitting privileges at any local hospital. As a result of prior orders entered by the District Court, the doctors in question attempted to apply for admitting privileges at several local hospitals. Allegedly, these doctors’ applications were rejected in whole or in part because of the fact that they perform abortions. There is some question per the dissent about whether this action on the part of the hospitals was in fact legal; however, there is no dispute that the reason the clinic faced closure was due to the actions of these hospitals and was totally unrelated to any action taken by the State of Mississippi.

    By way of further background, the Fifth Circuit had previously already taken up the Constitutionality of an identical Texas statute and found that it passed constitutional muster – noting specifically that a) the regulation in question passed rational basis review and b) that it did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s “right” to an abortion even if it meant that she had to drive over 150 miles to attain one. Indeed, both the majority and dissent note the existence of a long line of cases that specifically say that regulations that make abortions more expensive or that have the incidental effect of requiring women to travel distances to obtain one do not impose an undue burden on the exercise of the abortion “right.”

    This makes both practical and legal sense. What the Court purported to concern itself with in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which itself was a judicial abomination of the highest order) was a burden imposed upon the exercise of the right itself, not a burden upon the convenience of finding a location that would aid in the exercise of that right. In other words, a law forbidding any abortion performed after 8 weeks of gestation would at least theoretically implicate the “undue burden” analysis of Casey, or a law requiring a woman to obtain spousal consent before obtaining an abortion. Here, the operation of law directly impacts the exercise of the right itself. Where the operation of a law of general application by happenstance makes it so that fewer locations are willing to perform abortions, that is not an undue burden placed on the exercise of the “right” by the operation of the law of the state.

    After all, theoretically, all the abortion providers within a given state might withdraw from the abortion provision business voluntarily due entirely to market forces (say, hypothetically, if so many Delaware women traveled voluntarily to Pennsylvania or Maryland to obtain their abortions that a clinic in Delaware wouldn’t be economically viable); in these cases, the state would presumably not be required to ensure that some private entity existed within its boundaries that provided abortions.

    While paying lip service to all this precedent before them, the majority opinion, authored by Judge E. Grady Jolly, in fact spit enthusiastically upon them, inventing out of whole cloth a right for a woman to receive an abortion performed within her own home state (even if, as was the case for a majority of Mississippi residents before the passage of HB 1390, an out-of-state clinic is closer and more convenient than the Jackson clinic in question). By tortured reasoning, the majority grafted a case involving equal protection in education – a case that had by its own admission never before been used in the abortion context in the entire lengthy and voluminous history of abortion jurisprudence – to declare that Mississippi had an affirmative obligation to ensure that some private entity in Mississippi provided abortions for Mississippi women.

    Despite vain and empty protestations to the contrary, the majority’s opinion leads to the clear conclusion that Mississippi could pass literally no law that would result in JWHO closing. If Mississippi passed a law that said “Abortions may not be performed in clinics where nuclear waste is stored,” this law would be invalid if JWHO decided to store nuclear waste at their clinic. This may sound extreme and the majority’s opinion strenuously denies that it intends this result, but this is without a doubt the result that is created, in light of the majority’s stated principle that Mississippi cannot pass any legislation – even one that passes a rational basis test and clearly serves a legitimate state interest – that would have the result (even incidental) of closing Mississippi’s last abortion clinic.

    As Judge Emilio Garza (one of the best Circuit judges in the country) noted in dissent:

    The majority concludes by denying that it establishes any per se rule. “Nothing in this opinion,” the majority declares, “should be read to hold that any law or regulation that has the effect of closing all abortion clinics in a state would inevitably fail the undue burden analysis.” Ante at 17. Attempting to narrow its holding to the specific facts of this case, the majority claims to base its holding on “the entire record and factual context in which the law operates,” including “the statutory provision in question,” “the ability of the Clinic to comply with H.B. 1390,” “the reasons cited by the hospitals for denying admitting privileges,” and the “nature and process of the admitting-privileges determination.” Id. In so doing, the majority professes to leave open the possibility that some law, such as the “hypothetical sanitation regulation” discussed in the State’s briefing, could cause the closure of all abortion providers within a state and yet still be constitutional. Id. at 16–17.

    The majority’s attempt to cabin its holding to the facts of this case betrays its awareness that crossing Mississippi’s borders cannot be dispositive. Yet notwithstanding this attempt, today’s opinion concludes in no uncertain terms: “Gaines instructs us to consider the effects of H.B. 1390 only within Mississippi in conducting an undue burden analysis.” Id. at 18. The majority simply cannot have it both ways. So long as the undue burden analysis is confined by Mississippi’s borders, the closure of that state’s sole abortion provider must be an undue burden.

    Even accepting that the majority’s factors somehow narrow its holding, I find its ad hoc approach to be unworkable. The majority does not even attempt to explain how this case’s “factual context,” the “statutory provision” at issue, and the “nature and process” of the admitting-privileges requirement purportedly combine to make this burden “undue.”Ante at 17. The message for future courts and litigants is that a law causing the closure of all abortion providers in a state imposes an undue burden—unless it does not impose such a burden. The use of such an unprincipled approach to strike down as unconstitutional a state’s exercise of its sovereign power to protect its citizens
    is particularly troubling.

    I suspect that, like Halbig, this case will be heard by the Fifth Circuit en banc and likely overturned. In the meantime, JWHO will continue to operate without safeguards enacted by the duly-elected representatives of the State of Mississippi and properly passed into law.


    • Just make it up as you go along. The Constitution is, after all, a living, breathing document subject to the whims of the moment.

      • I thought there were many avenue’s of discussion about this article. But it was especially interesting to see how the court tried to narrow it’s ruling to just this case-it showed quite clearly that their purpose was to base their decision on what they personally thought was best instead of basing the decision on consistency in law -to give them an out-if they wanted to rule differently the next time.

        I noticed the same type thing in the Halbig case -they talked more about ruling based on the consequences that ruling that Federal created exchanges couldn’t get subsidies would have on Obamacare instead of basing their decision on the actual facts in the case.

        I thought the argument that they were going after the wrong entity-that if there was a case to be made it would be against the hospitals practices was interesting too.

      • SK,

        Constitution is an example of LAW pretending to be RIGHT. It ain’t, never will be.

        I find it surprising you believe otherwise.

  39. Russel Brand has a way to cut through the rhetoric.

  40. plainlyspoken says:

    Well now, how is everyone? I am alive and relatively well…..won’t bother boring you with my ongoing medical mess, it gets depressing. 😉

    @BF – Thank you for your well stated points on the Gaza conflict and war in general. I strongly agree with you.

    @GMan – don’t worry, one day the government will collapse and you will be right, but I doubt we’ll notice much if we are still alive. 😀 Personally, I and my family live as peacefully as we can and leave the direction of the world to those who are happily entrenched in the misery and misdirection of the lives of people gathered together in a society – whether all of us want their interference or not.

    In the end my friends, tomorrow will be like today – maybe a bit better or maybe a bit worse. Birth, death, taxes, government, abortion, Christianity, etc., etc., etc., will continued to be argued about – with no solution. 🙂

    Be content to control your own small slice of the world and make it the best you can – it’s really all you have.

    Take care all. Be well.


  41. No, not because of a problem with the concept I believe you are trying to describe, but because of the way you are describing it.

    “Legal” is a concept derived from “Law”. It can be “legal” to steal, merely because the “Law” says so.

    Rights and Law are not synonymous.

    You can certainly codify Rights into Law, but making a Law does not make a Right.

    Codifying Rights into Law is not “bad”.

    It offers definitions to what is an interference in property and offers remedies to that interference so that everyone is clear of when a violation occurs and what are the consequences.

    But whether a Right is codified or not, you still have that Right.

    Property is not an arbitrary line in the map. It is physically defined. It can be mapped out with lines, but those lines exist by your physical use of that property and not by mere claim (ie: plant a flag and declare all land west from here to the next ocean is yours).

  42. The Truth About Israel and Palestine

%d bloggers like this: