A Nation Divided

Liberals claimed Obama would bring us together.  I think he made those same claims.  With his record before the election, today’s reality should surprise only the gullible.  America is more divided on race, the economy, health care, foreign relations and on nearly every issue.  Pick one and tell me it’s better now than under Bush or Clinton?  We just looked at Ferguson and the race/violence issue.  How about a look at foreign affairs.

First, what is Obama’s policy?  Damned if I Know?  Our military announced a shift to Asia, meaning possible confrontations with China.  Meanwhile things are going to “ell in the Middle East & with Russia.  At the same time, defense spending has been cut while entitlement spending is increased.. 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/hillary_clintons_foreign_policy_failures.html

 

The new immigrants being distributed throughout the US are claiming benefits in what should be a surprising manner.  Register & go to school.  Tell them you are 16 or 17.  SO what if you have gray hair & wrinkles & no one will believe you are a teenager.  It doesn’t matter how old you are if the federal government say’s you get to go to school & collect, just take the money and welcome to America….

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382483/adult-illegal-immigrants-posing-children-enroll-high-school-ryan-lovelace

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    😎

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    Bad news for the LEFT who so often try to use “public opinion” to shove their Socialist Utopia down our throats. It seems that “popular opinion” is supporting the bombing of Syria. Maybe this will remind them that the MAJORITY also supported our invasion of Iraq. At least up until the Dems started carping and the going got a little rough.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/29/syria-poll_n_5736468.html#comments

    • FOX was really agitating for this this AM. Brian K went on at length that to eliminate the ISIS threat, we would have to go into Syria, where their main base is located. I was thinking, are we not unhappy with Syria’s current gov.? Why should we fix this for them? If we decide them invading Iraq is our business & in our interest to stop, why does that have to include them in Syria?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If one remembers, Obama wanted to bomb Syria when the chem weapons were used. He would except we all knew the rebels used the chems.

        Fast forward, Obama gets the support because of the actions of the very people he has armed and supported to over throw the Syrian government.

        I don’t support any action in Syria or Iraq. This is all CIA bullshit. Obama should be tried, convicted and hanged.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Added thought on our getting into something we should leave alone. Put the shots at H.R.C. aside and focus on his arguments about involvement itself.

      Thought: Mr. Obama is single handedly destroying any chance of the Libertarian view of foreign policy from ever getting mainstreamed. You see, you cannot move suddenly to “we rule” to “we don’t care” without a solid strategy to get from one to the other. Then of course the “we don’t care” changes daily depending on “how I feel today”.

      http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/has-hillary-ever-been-right/

  3. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/white_house_scrambles_to_clarify_obamas_no_strategy_remark.html

    I’m thinking maybe we don’t want Obama to have a strategy. Isn’t that what created this mess to begin with? Wasn’t it his strategy to have Amb. Chris Stevens smuggle weapons into Syria to support the rebels that now include ISIS? If the Repug’s keep applying pressure, there will be significant land forces committed to Iraq & he will lay the blame on Republican demands.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      LOI

      Don’t forget that the House investigation into Benghazi determined that there was NO weapons smuggling/sales to Syria operation going on in Libya.

      • JAC,

        Forgive me but I am not trusting on this issue. Obama has been able to cover up damned near everything even when they had some proof. IRS, Fast & Furious, VA, EPA…. If the Repugs say he’s innocent it makes me think they were in bed with him on that particular issue.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yea, I have some Oceanside property in Colorado to sell you if you believe that BS.

    • No, mostly it was his strategy to have an “Arab Spring” he wanted to unleash democracy just like Jimmy Carter did in Iran. Had we and the West kept the hell out of Syria and stopped our meddling and back-channel supplying of weapons to the “freedom fighters” Assad would have put this baby to bed by now with a whole lot less carnage.

  4. Before anyone asks……yes, we are aware of ISIS in Mexico…..Yes, we know where most of them are…..Yes, we have informed the Mexican Government where they are….No, the Mexican Government will not do anything….Yes, the White House and Homeland defense knows where they are….Yes, we are profiling….Yes, the Texas Guard is patrolling the remote areas of the border….I cannot vouch for Arizona nor California…..If I were California, I would worry.

  5. Did anyone catch Putin’s little speech today? Europe needs to be wary because we control oil/gas shipments…economic sanctions will not hurt us and we are increasing our nuclear defense capabilities….leave us alone….do not forget we are a nuclear power.

    Translation: Europe, if you do anything, gas will be cut off…..and has ANYBODY anywhere heard of a NUCLEAR DEFENSE? DEFENSE???? Really? I know of NOTHING that is defensive about Nukes….they are designed for one thing…..offense and MAD is no longer an option, with Putin in power. ( And MAD does not stand for Mother’s Against Drunks or Drunk Driving ) It stands for mutually assured destruction.

  6. http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

    Should not matter if you like the guy or hate him, his opinion deserves respect.

  7. Texas schools found a way to combat the illegal status of enrolling in school. Since there is an issue of teenagers and grown men claiming different ages in order to get into schools, the Texas school system has said:….if you want to come to school, we need a verifiable phone number, address, name of mother/father or both, and birth certificate to verify age and in the absence of a birth certificate, you will need proof of age from Mexico, with verifiable phone numbers. We also need next of kin or closest relative for emergencies, with working and verifiable phone numbers and addresses.

    It is amazing how many of these “children” disappear when this type of information is required. In addition, Texas schools are about to re-introduce immunization records with the applications at sign up. This will take place next year. Also, a grown parent/guardian MUST accompany the child at registration.

    The same rules that apply to citizens.

  8. Good Grief-if this isn’t a great illustration of just how stupid our government believes we are and how controlling they have become-I don’t know what is. What’s next-no shoe strings in our shoes-hell if the string comes untied we might trip and fall into the fire.

    Government publishes detailed instructions on how to safely roast marshmallows
    Aug. 29, 2014 4:11pm Pete Kasperowicz
    12.2K
    Shares

    The U.S. Forest Service on Friday published a nearly 700-word article on how to safely roast marshmallows, all in preparation for Saturday, which is National Roasted Marshmallow Day.

    As one might expect, the article is riddled with safety tips that might make you think twice about even carrying matches into the forest at all, let alone actually igniting a marshmallow and putting your family’s life at risk.
    campfire

    Authorities said it’s unclear how many survived the incident.
    Photo credit: Shutterstock

    “First, let’s talk safety,” the article says. “Never start a campfire when there are fire restrictions in place. The restrictions are put in place for your safety and for the safety of others.”

    It also warns that children should be given a stern talking-to before any of the “fun” begins.

    “Some experts advocate a 10-foot rule between young children and a campfire,” it reads. “For more information about campfire safety, let Smokey Bear guide you.”

    Finally, the article gets down to “marshmallow basics,” and starts by recommending the use of a roasting stick “of at least 30 inches.” That’s two and a half feet, or about half as long or more as the children roasting the marshmallows.

    The article doesn’t recommend a maximum length for a roasting stick.

    The Forest Service admits that most people use roasted marshmallows to make s’mores, and even offers detailed instructions for making one. But it then suggests ways to make s’mores healthy.

    “Think fruit,” it suggests without any hint that it’s joking around.

    “Grill thin slices of pineapple and substitute chocolate for the sweet, warm fruit,” it reads. “You will still get a tasty treat but by substituting with fruit, it is healthier – as long as you watch the amount of marshmallows used. If you want to cut down even more on calories, try using slices of angel food cake instead of graham crackers.”

    It offers several other ideas, a possible sign that even the U.S. Forest Service has been caught up in First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.

    “Grab a small bag of chocolate or peanut butter chips – or a combination of the two,” it says. “Take a banana and slice one side open, exposing the fruit but leaving the peel intact. Slice the banana, add a few chocolate chips then top with tiny marshmallows. Or substitute the chips for blueberries from the local farmer’s market. Place the banana in aluminum foil and wrap tightly. Place the foil-wrapped fruit next to but not on the flames. Wait five to 10 minutes or enough time for the chips and marshmallows to melt. Open and enjoy with a spoon.”

    And if a whole marshmallow is a little too much for your overweight kids, the article suggests scrapping the whole idea of roasting marshmallows, and instead using marshmallow creme out of a jar.

    “Put a piece of fruit on a roasting stick, dip quickly in the crème and roast over indirect heat until a delicious golden brown,” it says. “You’re still having campfire fun, but the focus is on a healthier evening snack.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/08/29/government-publishes-detailed-instructions-on-how-to-safely-roast-marshmallows/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      This is what White House meddling in Agency affairs looks like. There is no way in hell the USFS would have published such an article if not getting “emphasis” from the top.

      Now on the other hand, the USFS has been “dumbing down” much of its literature on nature and recreating in the woods because the population is becoming “dumber” when it comes to such things. You know, the folks who think 2.4’s grow at the lumber yard and steaks grow at the grocery store.

      Hell, the agency even has a “special program” trying to get young people to “camp” and “experience the outdoors” because they see the recreation use diminishing. The biggest increase is in the “motorized” uses, which generally conflict with the agency’s goals for land management.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    NoDak State ROCKS. The lowly FCS once again………. yeehaw.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      More football:

      Lil JAC’s school mate did very good and looks like he made the Seahawks team:

      Brock Coyle: The biggest surprise of the preseason. The undrafted rookie from Montana led the team in tackles with 22, including 11 solo stops and one quarterback hit, while filling in for Bobby Wagner at MLB.

      Kellen Moore “hangs on” according to the experts. They admit he “outplayed” the back up yet Detroit supposedly viewed him as “worthy of more development”, so they decided to hang onto him for one more year.

      This ladies and gentlemen is a good example of how preconceptions and bias affect objective analysis. It happens in all walks of life.

    • http://therightscoop.com/must-watch-the-covert-origins-of-isis/

      Check the comments…they are pretty hard on the video. I didn’t watch the video but sounds like it went off the rails toward the end. The SCG crowd seem to be pretty far left.

      • The video, as I see it, is just showing how the US government “made” ISIS what it is today. Much of what is said about their beginnings is what I have said all along, so it just verifies what I have believed. The stuff in the video seemed more anti-government than left wingish, but that’s just how I saw it, others key in on one thing and claim to understand one’s thinking.

        I’m far from Left, I’m just Far Out 🙂 But I agree the Bush was wrong on invading Iraq, they were no threat to anyone after what the “Highway of Death” taught them. That event can be called “true terrorism” if one really looks at it deeply. Our Federal Govt is made up of criminals, and that has been that way for many decades. ISIS is what the Govt wanted in Syria , they also didn’t like the current leader in Iraq, as he was an Iran supporter. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the whole ISIS invasion of Iraq was pushed by the US to oust Maliki. That is Obama’s real strategy He has no desire to do anything else and I doubt he will do much more. Watch the videos of the bombings closely, some of the targets looked like balloon mockups, others look old, like from other events in the past and then passed off as new by the MSM.

        • While it may be a game plan of some, you are giving credit for being shrewd to some of the dumbest SOB’s that ever walked the planet. Nothing new here, they have been getting it wrong since at least The Spanish-American War. International politics is not out forte. Some famous rich guy once said, “The business of America is business”. He was so right we are absolute dummies and the good old dead, white, slave holder guy Washington knew it when he advised against those foreign entanglements.

  10. Went looking for info on SCG and came up with this guy’s take. He takes Aaron Hawkins to task while jumping right on BFs bandwagon. He’s pretty far right for me, almost a jerk….but…he makes interesting arguments. I don’t know what to think anymore, but I’m seriously feeling John Galt Syndrome.
    http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/02/anarcho-capitalism-storm-clouds-gathering-wrong/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      The author makes the mistake of being honest about what anarcho-capitalism looks like:

      “If irresponsible people can’t afford protection services (which would likely be very inexpensive in a free market, as softer personalities would spend hours explaining) then let them live by the law of the jungle while civilized people produce and improve the world around them. If the problem is something other than irresponsibility, say a disability, then we can expect family members to assist each other. SO THE POOR ARE ON THEIR OWN. SO WHICH GROUP DO YOU SUPPOSE WILL THEY WIND UP BEING ALIGNED WITH? THE PEACEFUL RICH OR THE CRIMINAL GANGS?

      Poverty in the world stems mainly from two things, and contrary to popular belief, capitalism isn’t one of them. It is the State, and irresponsibility, which feed off of each other in perpetuity. I AGREE CAPITALISM IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE, BUT THEN NEITHER ARE THE STATE AND IRRESPONSIBILITY THE ONLY MAJOR CAUSES. BLAME THE STATE AND JUST MOVE ON. THAT IS THE PROOF PROVIDED BY THE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST.

      The State over regulates economies, driving out competition, and prints money, driving up inflation, which puts tremendous upward pressure on prices. The worse this gets, the more irresponsible people rush into voting booths demanding assistance and illusory “fairness” laws, which drives up regulations and taxes putting greater upward pressure on prices, leading people back into voting booths to ask for more of the same, wash, rinse, repeat.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      ANITA

      The response by the SCR author. I love it when the anarchists and almost anarchists get into a pissing match over whose logical fallacies are more fallacious. 😉

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Kathy

    What the hell happened to the Badgers last night?? Looked like somebody let the first string head home at half time.

  12. When the gun grabbers want to debate (even the Limey’s in the UK), give them these facts:
    http://americangunfacts.com/

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Ah yes, the Israeli strategy of take 2 and give back 1.

    Now how can anyone think that any good will come from this? And OUR TAX DOLLARS are going to support the theft.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/world/middleeast/israel-claims-nearly-1000-acres-of-west-bank-land-near-bethlehem.html?_r=0

    • Israel’s Decision to Declare 988 Acres of West Bank Territory as State Land

      Filed Under: Israel, Palestinians
      136 245

      There is considerable confusion about the recent action of Israel’s civil administration declaring 988 acres of West Bank territory as state land. In general, West Bank territory may be divided into three legal categories: state land, private land, and land whose status is to be determined. The territory in question had the status of territory whose status is to be determined. Before the declaration of the land as state land, an investigation had to be undertaken by Israel’s civil administration that took several years in order to ascertain its exact status.

      Those who oppose the recent declaration have 45 days to appeal the Israeli decision. When Palestinians have brought proof of ownership of contested territory to Israeli courts, including Israel’s Supreme Court, the courts have at times issued decisions calling on the Israeli government to restore the property in question to its Palestinian claimant, even if that requires dismantling the private homes of Israeli citizens. The determination of territory as state land as opposed to private land is a necessary action which helps avert errors in the future when these areas are developed.

      But looking at the decision of Israel’s civil administration in a wider diplomatic context, it should be remembered that the Oslo II Interim Agreement, signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat at the White House in 1995 (and witnessed by the EU), established a division of the West Bank into three areas: Area A, where the Palestinians had full control, Area B where there was mixed Israeli and Palestinian security control but full Palestinian civil control, and Area C, where Israel had full military and civilian control. Israeli responsibilities in Area C included the power of zoning and planning. The territory which Israel declared as state land is within Area C.

      It should be stressed that the architects of the Oslo Agreements understood, as a result, that Palestinians would develop areas under their jurisdiction while Israel would develop areas it controlled as well. That is why there was no settlement freeze in the original Oslo Agreements. Over the years the Palestinians witnessed that what will determine Israel’s borders are negotiations and not construction; after all, Israel dismantled all its settlements in Sinai when it made peace with Egypt in 1979 and it withdrew all its settlements from the Gaza Strip as part of its Gaza Disengagement in 2005.

      Moreover, looking to the future, the territory in question, at present, is part of a settlement bloc, south of Jerusalem, known as Gush Etzion, which was settled by Jews prior to 1948, but lost by Israel when it came under attack by Arab forces. During past negotiating rounds it became clear to Israelis and Palestinians alike that at the end of the day when a territorial compromise is reached, Israel will retain the settlement blocs (UN Security Council Resolution 242, drafted after the Six-Day War, never envisioned a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines in any case).

      The determination that Israel will retain the settlement blocs is reflected in U.S. diplomatic communications like the 2004 letter by President Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the statements made by President Obama in 2011 about demographic changes on the ground and changes in the 1967 lines. The least controversial of these settlement blocs in past negotiations is, in fact, Gush Etzion.

      Finally, there is the question of legality which has been a point of disagreement for many years. The question of legality comes from Article 49 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits moving the inhabitants in any occupied territory out of the occupied territory. The final section of the article also prohibits the transfer of the occupying power’s population into an occupied territory. The view of Israeli jurists, and important U.S. jurists as well (like Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School), is that this section relates to the forcible movement of an occupier’s population into an occupied territory. This language was incorporated after World War II as a reaction to Nazi German policies of forcibly transferring German Jews to Occupied Poland for extermination. It is no wonder that the Israeli Supreme Court never ruled that settlements are illegal, despite the announcements of a number of foreign ministries around the world.
      Gush Etzion
      – See more at: http://jcpa.org/israels-988-acres-of-west-bank-territory/#sthash.eTQjhzI6.dpuf

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        It is still theft of land. And it will only fuel the continued tension.

        The ONLY land that Israel should be considering is that land granted under the ORIGINAL agreement of the United Nations. Notice how the “Jewish” lawyers then try to find wishy washy language to rationalize their expansion?

        As I said, take 2 and give back 1.

        • The original agreement? There have been many agreements so what specifically are you referring too?

          As far as wishy washy, maybe, but only if the details put forth aren’t true.

          As far as fueling the tensions that seems to be the case no matter what Israel does. And the only reason I can find for worrying about fueling the tensions would be if I believed a two state solution was possible.

          I did read about disagreement about what the exact wording of Resolution 242 means-which is a problem. I even admit that Israel is using their security pass to keep a tight hand on the Palestinians-but I really can’t blame them for doing so since they’ve been basically at war for years. And quite frankly if the Palestinians want a true State with borders-they have had ample opportunity to have them.

          I guess right or wrong, I just don’t blame Israel for trying to control the situation-if Israel was the US-I don’t think their would be any Palestinian controlled areas in the West Bank or Gaza, if they were used to attack us.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            The STATE of Israel should have NEVER been created. But it was and when it was there were distinct boundaries placed upon that GRANT by the Brits and UN.

            The Zionists, who were the first to gain a foothold, immediately broke the terms of those agreements. It was they that waged war against the Brits and then the Arabs who lived in the area.

            So those are the boundaries I am speaking about. Boundaries long lost in the desert wind, and under the careful plotting of the Israeli Govt. We tend to only look at the latest rocket or car bomb attacks as the cause of tensions. BF is correct in his broader argument that Israel has a long history of poking the Palestinians and its other neighbors trying to goad them into some stance that Israel can then use to justify its next aggressive move.

            Notice how the “we need secure borders” is used to rationalize EXPANDING the size of Israel beyond its original grant. And of course to stymie any legitimate peace effort.

            Do not get me wrong. The Palestinian leaders have not been very “honest” players either. That is assuming that a “negotiated settlement” is in fact desirable and achievable. I doubt that it is, at least in the foreseeable future.

            Israel can do what it wants, the USA should ELIMINATE ALL SUPPORT to ALL PARTIES in the conflict. My TAX DOLLARS should be spent on things that matter to our national interest and security. The preservation of Israel has nothing to do with either of these objectives. Our unwavering support of Israel actually works against those goals.

            Offer up our SOS or Ambassadors to act as facilitators in any peace talks. But NO MORE funding support…………..end this and watch the side quickly sit down to talk.

            If nothing else, it would finally make the USA a Legitimate and Honest broker of peace in any such talks.

  14. Just A Citizen says:
  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Please take note of the “reasons” given by the No Scotland crowd. Kind of says it all when it comes to the tragedy of the Welfare Mindset.

    The cry from the gallows should have been FREEDOM………….but only if it doesn’t cost us anything.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11069121/Scottish-Independence-Yes-camp-closes-the-poll-gap.html

  16. In reading the things above….someone tell me, please, the difference between Russia taking Crimea and parts of the the Ukraine, ISIS taking Syria and parts of Iraq, Libya taking parts of Chad, Somalia taking parts of Kenya, Liberia taking a part of Sierra Leone, Sudan now beginning to move on Eritrea, and Israel taking parts of the Palestinian area….

    Why is it that Israel is an expansionist regime and the others are not? Why is it that Al Queda and ISIS linked terrorists organizations are not being singled out…..for example, President Obama has known about ISIS for a year. the UN knows that the Libya is financed by Iran and is taking big swaths of border areas of Chad. Why is it that Iran backed Al Queda units based in Liberia are taking control of Sierra Leone…..why is it that Israel is singled out and the United Nation knows and condones Islamic terrorism moving through Africa and controlling thousands of miles and says nothing……The Somalian terrorists are linked to ISIS and have been for 7 months and no one cares. Millions are dying in Africa from starvation, rape, kidnappings, be-headings, theft of food aid that is sent North to Islamic strongholds, slavery of the likes that rivals the old slave days of Roman and Islamic states…..but we do nothing and it does not even make headlines……but when Israel takes and holds lands from a war that was thrust upon them in 1967 and then wants to expand its security zones and territories…..what is the FRIGGIN’ difference.

    I am NOT saying that either is right……but Israel is singled out and the others are turned a blind eye. WHY?

    • For the record, again, I AM NO FAN OF ISRAEL…….never have been…..but it needs to be called out when one is singled out and a blind eye is turned towards an Islamic issue that is growing and growing very fast and it is very violent.

      I recommend that some of you take a look in the South China seas, and islands such as Fiji and others that are losing their autonomy to Islamic militant movements,,,,no one seems to care about that either..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      My first thought is that Israel is the only issue that fits the Liberal talking points. They claim that anyone talking bad about Islam is racist, but Jew bashing seems to fit their bashing the racists attacking the weaker group talking points. Similar to how they covered the Furgason issue, until it blew up in their faces and made fools of them, again!

    • Because it’s not about politics or economics or freedom or liberty for anyone. It’s about religion…as in Caliphate.Caliphate = New World Order = fear for your life. What better way to control the masses.

      Geez, I sound like a RWNJ 😦

      • But it is about politics……religion may be a focal point but the whole thing stinks of political gain. It is not a Caliphate that bothers me…..it is the fact that heads are turned when violence is threatened. I should say heads stuck in the sand. It is the same in the United States….the rallying cry is racism when racism is not even present. However, if someone publishes or speaks against Islam….some radical will kill you or threaten you and people, instead of standing up…..do nothing. Not even speak out because they are afraid. I am glad that England is finally doing something but the Progressive movement there will shut him up….and England, or I should say, the United Islam Kingdom of Great Britain, has a real problem. ( I am quite sure that will get an Islam-o-phobia response but I do not care )..

        For the second time, there we are seeing activity along the Mexican border on the Mexico side. It does not appear to be cartel related but we do not know for sure but the river is being observed on a daily basis now…..vehicles driving the river very slowly and binoculars glassing our side….we cannot tell who it is but it is not normal…..there was one report of a Hamas flag being sighted but unconfirmed and one report of a “black flag” (no other insignia) being sighted but also unconfirmed. There is a significant presence of these recon units ( my words ) in the more remote areas….but they are finding visible armed Texas Guard troops everywhere……despite the objections of Eric Holder in that Texas is not supposed to be doing this. ( Up his nose with a rubber hose ) We simply do not care and will respond to reality and reality is what we see…..not what we read and not what we are briefed on by sanitized briefings from a government does not care.

        ( Yes, I am pissed and a retired pissed of TEXAN Colonel is not a pretty sight )

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good Morning Anita. 🙂

        Fear gives the Govt the ability to continue to take more liberty away. ISIS is a result of our Govts desire to have greater control of ME oil and NG reserves. When we are attacked again by what the government built , terrorists, then the fear excuse comes home. That should happen soon, the masses are getting fed up with the failed authority all over the place at every level, time for a clamp down to shut people up, fear has worked well in destroying freedom

        • Mornin G.

          What difference (at this point 🙂 ) does it make if we’re attacked again or not. We will be. Fact is..all this ‘happen soon’ talk is BS if you ask me. We’re in the middle of the plan as it is. And everybody who is sooo ready to fight back when ‘it’s time’ is full of shit too. They may be able to launch another 9/11 type attack and claim an upper hand. But let them try some face to face shinanigans. I’d like to see a handful of extremists walk into Detroit and behead just ONE brother. It would be on like Donkey Kong. The brothuhs don’t play and there are many other groups who won’t play either. Malitia members, KKK types, bitter clingers, gang bangers,TEXANS, etc..all of them armed. All of them are pissed. Maybe that’s why the extremists have pretty much left us alone here on our soil, they know there’s a bullet with their name on it.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I’m not too worried about face to face stuff, I don’t think the radicals have the balls for it. Like you said, lots of guns around. Not being scared takes their power away, stick with it. I’m not worried so much about an attack as I am the response, too many “oh big brother, protect us” types out there.

            On a different note, the games start Thursdsy night, can’t wait, Go Dolphins. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Hello all.

        @Anita, religion and politics have gone hand-in-hand for centuries. Why is it any different now? Also, wonderful comment on the bad guys coming to Detroit. Made me smile.

        @Colonel, good point on the indifference in one place and the hell raising about the same thing in another. But, regardless of who it is, why does it have to be our concern? I’m waiting to see where the next deployment of US ground troops will be sent to “right the wrongs” and then leave a mess behind, seems that’s all we succeed in doing – and again I say, why do we bother?

        As to your comments about the border with Mexico and what is going on, I say “so”? As long as they’re on the south side of the river they can do what they want or what the Mexican government lets them do. Not our problem till any terrorists, or whatever we want to call them, cross over to our side. If the Texas Guard scares them off, then at least the State of Texas (unlike the US govt) is doing the job of defending Texas and, by proxy, a part of the US. Internal politics will destroy us long before any foreign power can by invasion. lol.

        Well, y’all have a great day.

        • Hi Plainly. Never did get my salutations to you last time you drove by. I really would like to see one black guy get beheaded on the streets of Detroit..feel bad for the beheaded guy but his ‘fam’ would definitely seek and destroy.

          Yeah, politics and religion have always been the way, but looks like PC has trumped politics leaving religion as the last one standing,cause ya know, you can’t hate on the religion of peace…. 😎

        • Hi Plainly…I am not advocating concern at all….just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation and the world. Israel is no different other than being a pain in the ass to the Muslim community as a whole.

          Now, as to the Mexican border, you and I will differ here. It is our concern and bears watching and controlling the border and entrance procedures…..I also feel that if we identify terrorist organizations in Mexico, I would be totally in favor of preemptive strikes…..there is no reason to believe that the Mexican border is secure and that no one will cross it.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Colonel, you misunderstand me – I said as long as they are on the Mexican side of the border “so”?

            That does not mean that the US doesn’t monitor them. Pre-emptove strikes? Nope, that would be an act of war. We need no more “wars”. I mean, why not just grab some Muslim extremist cleric and behead him in the streets, video it and send it to the yoyo’s in the ME?

            Nope, no action outside the borders of the US. Period. End of story. That kind of thing has caused a lot of our problems.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      D13

      Good morning my Texican friend. I most certainly hope all is well in the Republic this fine morning.

      Two reasons, one of which is my theory.

      1. The UN is CORRUPT, and has been for a very long time. Simply notice which nations sit on the committees for human rights and child welfare. Some of those you mentioned above.

      2. Anti Semitism. Here comes my theory. Israel was created out of a combination of guilt for the slaughter of, and the deep dislike of the JOOOOS. I think much of the world was happy with the idea of a Jewish State in the middle east because they hoped the Jews would relocate there. Much like some in our country thought that sending the Africans back to Africa or to Haiti would solve our problem.

      Well those pesky Jews did not get overrun by the Arabs and due to their continued expression of their “superiority” over the Arabs, they have managed to create problems for the rest of the world anyway. The issues identified in Mein Kampf remain in the minds eye of much of the world.

      Now those two go to the heart of the “hypocrisy” of the UN and other International organizations.

      Combine this with a growing awareness that Israel is not the “victim” that it tries to play and you get increasing demonstrations against Israel’s actions. It seems that the American population has not caught on to this as much as the Europeans.

      Israel’s arrogance is beginning to erode any good will that existed in much of the world. Then of course there is the fact that much of the rest of the world is Muslim and thus has no love for a Jewish State located in what they view as the Muslim heartland.

      I disagree with your characterization of the 67 war being “thrust upon” Israel. I think they helped create the situation that then allowed them to justify the “pre-emptive” strike. We could call that the “Before Bush, Bush Doctrine”.

      Your broader point is sound, however. There is much hypocrisy in the world. It is becoming ever more evident each and every day. Just further proof that the UN is a pretty much worthless organization.

  17. Have you heard of this case? Good links on the story. It’s what happens when PC and phobias rule the day.

    http://twitchy.com/2014/08/31/rotherham-child-sex-scandal-case-of-not-wanting-to-rock-the-multicultural-community-boat/

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Was just reading an article and the commentary about the “pledge of allegiance” and the inclusion of “under God”.

    All the “conservatives” going ape on the few atheists and howling about how stupid we “liberals” are on this matter.

    I always find it humorous how the Conservatives denounce Socialism, and all its cousins, then grab onto slogans and symbols created by the Socialists and PROGRESSIVES of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

    Before these social engineers came along Americans loyalty was to freedom and liberty. NOT a Nation State in and of itself. The nationalization of patriotism is a key trait of Fascism in fact, not Enlightened Liberty of early America.

    Anyway, here is some background. Please note who wrote the original.

    http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Just to add to the history lesson, from Wikipedia:

      “Prior to Flag Day, June 14, 1923, neither the federal government nor the states had official guidelines governing the display of the United States’ flag. On that date, the National Flag Code was constructed by representatives of over 68 organizations, under the auspices of the National Americanism Commission of the American Legion. The code drafted by that conference was printed by the national organization of the American Legion and given nationwide distribution.

      On June 22, 1942, the Code became Public Law 77-623; chapter 435.[23] Little had changed in the code since the Flag Day 1923 Conference. The most notable change was the removal of the Bellamy salute due to its similarities to the Hitler salute.[24] “

    • One point- whether or not the pledge includes under God is a different conversation than should we have a pledge at all.

      I think we should do both 🙂 patriotism is important to bring us together as a people whether we come together to protect our Country or to start a revolution.

      I’m assuming you are against having a pledge at all, you aren’t just bothered by the specific words in ours.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I am not against a pledge per se’. I do, however, oppose it being used to instill blind patriotism among our population.. That was and is its purpose. Just look at the name of the group who pushed for the legislation.

        I do have a problem with the current pledges wording. And not the God part but the swearing of allegiance to a flag of all things. I would much prefer the pledge be to the Constitution and the concepts of Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All, than the Flag or the Nation for which it stands.

        The former are incorruptible principles, the latter may or may not have anything to do with the former.

        In fact, it is our common belief in these principles which has bound us together so far. NOT our allegiance to the NATION STATE. That is why our military and elected officials swear allegiance to the Constitution. The document represents the principles on which the Nation State is supposed to stand. It is the sharing of core principles which binds us as one people.

        Allegiance to a Nation is not enough to bind a people together. It will eventually be torn by allegiances to some other “state” based on the tribalism of that area.

        I go back to a comment I made here long ago. If the USA is no longer free, if it looks like every other socialist/fascist State, then why would you have any special allegiance or fealty towards the USA over any other country? If the USA were not free but some other nation was free, would your allegiance still be to the USA or would you move to the nation that was free?

        My point was not so much about the concept of Pledges but aimed at the Ignorance and thus hypocrisy shown by many Conservatives who make typical “knee jerk” responses to anything perceived as “liberal”. Conservatives express their spite for Progressives constantly yet wrap themselves in Patriotic fervor that was invented by the Progressives.

        The concept of allegiance or patriotism of Nation State or Nationalism is an extension of tribalism which existed in Europe. Thus it can be a good thing but it can also feed evil.

        • JAC! Not trying to rain on your parade because you make a good point. But I doubt many people have (over)thought it to the point you have. It’s a few simple sentences, not foreign policy. Do you really think the people on Watters World can even grasp the meaning of freedom and liberty?

          ……and to the republic for which it stands

          a republic is a form of government in which power rests with the people………

          That’s the part that I think about as I say the pledge. I’m not worshiping a flag or an author. I have an allegiance to an idea. The republic.

          And so what about who penned it originally. ‘We’ took ‘their’ pledge..and ran with it, tweaking along the way…kinda like how the blacks took the N word and turned it into their own badge of honor by making it ‘nigga’. Disclaimer: I totally hate that word too. At the risk of taking you to the woodshed, or… you may think I’m sliding left..NOT.. but this is one thing we can agree on with the progressives. It’s one thing that can keep us together, and that ain’t such a bad thing.

          • Interesting who things change over time. The left are anti-patriotism, not pro, just ask Charlie our resident Commie. If one was educated to understand that the flag was a symbol of Liberty and Freedom, as I was, then the Pledge is a good thing. However, the left want folks fooled intro believing that the pledge was intended for the State (government). That has only recently been claimed. That, however, is not what I was taught in my school years. Wikipedia is used quite often as a propaganda tool for the progressives and should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to history and claims of “leftism”.

            I know what I was taught, JAC, it is not anything as you claim.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              That is my point. You think you were taught the truth when you were not.

              You think you know why or what you were being taught. Yet you do not know the history. In all likelihood neither did your teachers.

              You howl about evil Govt and now sit here telling me that your memory of the what the pledge stands for has nothing to do with the very Govt you howl about. Yet those who established the pledge were the same STATISTS you hate today.

              The information I provided Is not some left wing trick played on Wikipedia. This is all information that I saw decades ago. Things like wiki just make it readily available. One does have to cross check references these days, however.

              I am not sure how what you viewed as the symbology of the flag was changes my comments or refutes my statements. The pledge is TO THE FLAG and as Anita says, the republic for which it stands. In other words, the Nation State.

              If the pledge is to freedom, liberty and justice then why should you or anyone have to try and create rationalizations for what it STANDS FOR? Why can’t you point directly to the principles in the pledge??

              Why is there no caveats to the pledge? By speaking the pledge do you not place your HONOR on the alter? Are you not compelled by your HONOR to adhere to the pledge you have given??

              The Pledge of Allegiance was a LOYALTY OATH created by a Socialist and implemented by those who thought Fascism was a good way to fight communism and secure a “100% American” culture. Which of course was up to them to define.

              Gman, you and Anita make my case. You will defend something as good when it was created by those holding values you believe are bad. Your response is to reject the history in favor of the legend.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            I am sure most people have not thought about it. That is why I find it so humorous to watch the knee jerk Patriotism of the “conservatives” while spouting slogans created for them by Fascists. There is a serious disconnect between the principles we claim we hold and our actions, or this case reactions.

            Now lets address your view that “the republic for which it stands” encompasses the principles held in the Declaration and Constitution.

            I give you one thing to ponder. The Soviet Union was also a REPUBLIC.

            Thus the use of the word Republic alone is not much of an anchor when it comes to principles of freedom, liberty and justice. So the “republic” the flag stands for in your mind is not the “republic” it stands for in the mind of Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.

            Another reason I don’t like the existing wording. To many possible interpretations. And yes, I know that even the words freedom, liberty and justice can be interpreted differently.

            But at least holding to these concepts would force us to constantly revisit what they meant when they were written.

            One more thing. We did not take their pledge and run with it. We were conditioned by them to accept the pledge as they described it to us. The pledge was one of hundreds of gimmicks, tools, etc used by those who wanted to mold our National thinking as they believed appropriate.

            That is the reason for Loyalty Oaths. To get us to accept something without thinking. First comes the oath, then comes the ridicule and accusations of traitor if you question the oath.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            Sorry, forgot to address your question about the people on Water’s World.

            I think some of them grasp it. He was interviewing folks who were stoned on the streets next to hookers in Hawaii and on the streets of San Francisco. Those folks certainly understand the freedom and liberty part.

            They are just missing the responsibility part, which requires them having half a brain. There were a large number who would have no clue, however. If pressed I am certain you would get the Obama INTEPRETATION of Rights and Freedoms, rather than those of our Founding Fathers.

            • All good points JAC. I think we can both be right. I doubt Ben Franklin would be offended with the pledge. He was the one saying we are ‘a republic, if you can keep it’. So I don’t see the harm. I’ll let you to continue harping about our lack of civics knowledge though.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                It is not lack of civics knowledge but understanding our history and how it relates to our world now.

                Civics lessons are themselves part of the Progressive attempt to indoctrinate “good citizens”. We all had them when young and see no harm. For the most part there is no harm. Until conflicts arise and we find ourselves “reacting” to another person’s views based on the “civics lessons”, aka indoctrination, without first applying reason.

                Classic example is the response you get on left wing sites when you propose cutting taxes to the bone. You will be immediately faced with a barrage of “CIVICS” lectures. Most Progressives will attack me for even using the title “citizen” in my name, because I do not fit the CITIZEN model taught in Civics Classes.

                So much like the Pledge, we see “Conservatives” ranting about Progressives and calling for more “Civics Lessons”, not realizing that it was the Progressive desire to control and force conformity that created Civics in the first place.

                That does not make the concept of a pledge or civics wrong. It should make us question the motivations, though. And perhaps the details of what is included. Such as “Good Citizens pay their taxes” and “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization”. Gems from Civics in a nation whose foundation included a hatred of taxes.

                Remember, even the most harmless looking phrases or sayings can have a corrosive affect on our minds over time. Especially when the ideas contained within those sayings are reinforced by teachers, preachers and Govt. representatives.

                I apologize if I came across as “harping”. I am only trying to share information and help people to THINK in hopes of gaining greater understanding. All of which is needed to find solutions to the challenges we face.

                Now before leaving the Pledge issue let me ask one more question. Why would we allow, let along force, our children to “PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE” to anything or anyone?

                First of all, children lack the cognitive skills and historical knowledge to make an informed decision about making any such pledge. Secondly, they are not of a legal age to be making a “pledge”, especially one of allegiance.

                Perhaps we should focus on teaching them history and the values of principles such as HONOR. Then when the time comes they will take the Pledge seriously, instead of just mouthing the words.

              • I dunno JAC. I guess different things just affect people differently. A pledge, or THE pledge doesn’t bother me. I’ve taken other pledges..for Girl Scouts, for my church (confirmation), heck you could break it right down to the softball team if you want to think it out that far. Doesn’t mean I’m indoctrinated to them. I shook the church off as soon as I was able to not get in trouble for not attending. In the meantime a pledge meant nothing more than a sense of belonging, fellowship, a common thing to rally around. I understand your heartburn, I just doubt the majority has thought about it as anything more than I’ve stated. It’s not like marriage vows where it’s til death (and we see how that sticks)..or a sworn oath to the country as the CIC or service guys swear to (and we see how that sticks). Does make me think that an invitation to live in JACville needs to be earned, and that’s not a bad thing either. 😉

              • Anita, I with you on this subject. A pledge or an oath are what an individual makes of them. I feel the Pledge is about supporting freedom and the ideals that our National Symbol stands for. I have never once thought it as a pledge to the government. This also falls with my feelings about the military oath I took several times. To me, it was never an oath to protect the government, but to protect the freedom of the people, through the Constitution. If our Federal govt was acting as they were intended, we would not be discussing the “State” as a part of the subject.

                To clarify, I would defend the people before I would defend the elected officials (we can always find more people to elect, and if I have to choose, the elected ones don’t deserve to be the priority). Just sayin 🙂

                JAC, if you recall way back when I wrote a guest article, I questioned our past teachings, such as “what if the Cold War was just a lie”. I’m sure you recall that article, don’t you?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I have made some harsh statements about the linkage of Progressives, Fascism and the Americanism pushed by those who established the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1920’s. The American Legion being one of the primary groups involved in the effort.

      Here is a little ditty from Wiki regarding the American Legion’s views of the period. Note, the Legion HATED all things “socialist” and “communist”. Yet they supported a system that was simply Nationalized Socialism.

      “In 1923, American Legion Commander Alvin Owsley cited Italian Fascism as a model for defending the nation against the forces of the left.[52] Owsley said:

      If ever needed, the American Legion stands ready to protect our country’s institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy!… The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens our democratic government — Soviets, anarchists, IWW, revolutionary socialists and every other red…. Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.[53]

      The Legion invited Mussolini to speak at its convention as late as 1930.[53]”

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Major lesson on what STUPID looks like. The assumptions of the author are bad enough, but STUPID goes on steroids when you read the comments. Lemmings……….freaking stupid Lemmings.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/01/1325155/-Rising-income-inequality-costs-middle-class-families-18-000-a-year?showAll=yes

  20. Good grief. Abolish the IRS, put this woman in the pen, and unions? Just another redistribution network of the left.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/01/email-reveals-lois-lerner-ignored-political-expenditures-by-unions/

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day:

    Watched O’Reilly last night on Fox. A full hour of Water’s World. While laughing so hard it hurt I was also saddened by the abject IGNORANCE of The People.

    No wonder the Democrats push so hard to get every single American to vote. Stupid is as stupid does. The future of the Democratic Party is apparently dependent upon this truth.

    • LOL! I love Jesse Watters – he is a brave soul for sure!

      Keep People Stupid and They’ll Vote for Us! Haha! Great campaign slogan for the Dems!

  22. It’s being reported that the second journalist , Steven Sotloff has been beheaded. Video hasn’t been authenticated yet.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Very interesting. And supports my previously stated opinion that it is impossible to separate religion from govt. Because Govt is run by people who also happen to have religious views.

    http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/08/27/politics-american-churches-religions-one-graph/

  24. Lots of legalese and I sure don’t understand it all, but here’s what national and state dems are throwing at Walker here. He was never under investigation, but all we hear about is Walker/John Doe.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/09/exposed-how-prosecutors-targeted-scott-walker-and-conservatives/

  25. Some good news in the NFL. Mike Sam will take a physical for Dallas and likely sign onto the practice squad. Considering how bad the Cowboys defense is, Sam could be a star in Texas if he moves into a starting role 🙂 Good move by Dallas!

  26. Soon, many Liberals will face this when it comes to their child’s healthcare, Obamacare will become this: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/brits-arrested-seeking-cancer-treatment-child-outside-country

  27. I have a question, looking for opinions only. Are you concerned that ISIS will act in the US?

    • David Skekabim says:

      My guess, …ISIS is bullshit.

      It is politically motivated operating under the guise of religion. There is evidence and credible witnesses that points to governments creating ISIS as a means of destabilizing the region, to be used as an excuse to intervene.

      Who benefits?

      They are not what they say and have no real interest in actually invading the USA. That is bullshit to cause fear and hatred and division, in order muster support from the sheeple. They know that if they tried to invade the USA, they will be slaughtered.

      Most Muslims don’t want to kill infidels any more than Christians and Jews want to stone people to death for adultery or working on the sabbath. If Islam is obedience to Allah, and if Allah is merciful, then obedience is to demonstrate mercy, which is an act of love.

      When this type of bullshit starts, if the Muslim world wholly rejected such groups and essentially boycott them, if they sent a unanimous message to “cut the shit” because “we’re trying to build a better world and not wreck it”, ISIS would not be able to function in any effective capacity.

      When powers seek to play both sides to pit them against each other and start wars, etc, if the world reached out to each other, it completely negates their whole strategy.

      When enough people band together in peace and righteousness, those who seek the opposite are exposed. THAT is how to identify the real enemy.

      • When this type of bullshit starts, if the Muslim world wholly rejected such groups and essentially boycott them, if they sent a unanimous message to “cut the shit” because “we’re trying to build a better world and not wreck it”,

        The key word is “IF”, because they don’t, it makes your post more of a rant rather than anything factual.

        When enough people band together in peace and righteousness, those who seek the opposite are exposed.

        I’m pretty sure that the exposure happened long ago. What are you waiting for?

        There is evidence and credible witnesses that points to governments creating ISIS as a means of destabilizing the region, to be used as an excuse to intervene.

        The evidence is overwhelming. The US trained and armed these clowns to overthrow Syria. Maliki in Iraq is a friend of Iran, which only strengthens their political actions under orders of their handlers. The Islamic State they want is their prize for their work, but will always be controlled (or wiped out when they can’t be controlled, see Mommar Qadafi, Saddam Hussain, as examples). As I said , those who want violence have long been exposed 🙂

        • David Skekabim says:

          “The key word is “IF”, because they don’t, it makes your post more of a rant rather than anything factual. ”

          But they do. Average Muslims and clerics alike are publicly denouncing them everywhere.

          ” I’m pretty sure that the exposure happened long ago. ”

          Sure, the information is out there, but the trick is getting people to actually see it and the subsequent answer.

          ” What are you waiting for? ”

          Nothing. My hands are tied. All I can do is change the world. But I would probably die a martyr, and maybe take a ‘few’ with me.

          During a private conversation, you once asked me “Which part?”, and my response was “All of it.” Well, I wasn’t bullshitting, and I had only found a small portion at that juncture. It means something completely different, and if the world ever sees it, all hell breaks loose for no other reason than because people are too brainwashed to accept truth, and too selfish to get over their hang-ups and learn how to love.

          The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.

          Humanity is hell bent on running off of the ‘proverbial’ cliff in the rye field.

          Fuck ’em.

          • All people are different. I don’t have much love for Muslim’s, but as long as they don’tget involved in my life, at all, then I’m OK with them.

            A mark of a mature man is to make sure the other guy dies for his cause. Basically, don’t come to my front door expecting me to do as you demand, that will cause a reaction that the man with the cause will certainly not like. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      ISIS will try to act in the USA. That is a given. Especially now that we have engaged them. Although I suspect they would have anyway.

  28. JAC posted:

    “saddened by the abject IGNORANCE of The People.”

    “No wonder the Democrats push so hard to get every single American to vote. Stupid is as stupid does. The future of the Democratic Party is apparently dependent upon this truth.”

    This is the really sad part of our world now. Everybody is buried in social media, cell phones, I phones, computers…..and all harp on the importance of such. All think they are smarter than before because of the wealth of so called “knowledge” espoused on the internet. Just like newspapers, it is truth…..in the minds of the addled. The sad part of that I see on the ignorance of people that I thought were smarter than the average. Take a look at what is happening out there. How many times have you gone to a restaurant and left your cell phone in the car? Probably none in the last few years. When I look around in restaurants, I am really saddened by the fact that families are buried in their cell phones. The children are playing games, the parents are checking email and texts…..no one is interacting or talking. People drive around checking emails and texts, sitting through traffic lights, weaving across the road from one lane to another……go to a ball game or watch one on tv and watch the people in the stands….all buried in their cell phones. And we wonder why the masses are dumb?

    Obama won the Presidential race not because of his views but because he figured out how to use technology to reach the mind numbed robots tied to technology. It is one thing to have technology but it is another to know how to use it. The progressives figured it out first and the conservatives are beginning to catch up. I am amazed how many people will tell you…just a minute, let me verify it and then pull out an internet linked cell phone and access some site and assume that the information there is correct.

    I saw some interviews of people in San Francisco the other evening…and it is amazing how many people do not know…..nor, for that matter, do not care what is going on in the world much less in their own country or city…..if their ox is not getting gored, it is not a problem. They have no concept on what drives prices, what drives employment, what drives economics…..no concept at all. All they cared about is the money in their pocket and if it runs out, how to run to the nearest government agency and get more. IT IS A SHAME.

    I even saw one interview where the young man was questioned about not working and his answer was, the system allows me to not work and I make money. That is, unfortunately, a pervasive attitude that is happening….a European attitude that is slovenly and unproductive….and they laugh.

    So, treat the masses like mushrooms……keep ’em in the dark and feed them shit.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      And the irony of all their attitude is that it is a CONTRADICTION of the philosophy which the left espouses. Notice how those in SF expressed “self interest” rather than the “greater good” view points.

      I see you picked up on my hidden reference to Liberty Valance. You are a sharp one Colonel.

      Hope the family is as well as can be expected. By the way, how did your son do at his Frisbee tournament.

      • Got his ass whooped……….he did well until the final day and then the pressure took hold….afterwards I told him to go out and shoot some targets…..he would feel better. He and I are a shooting team in skeet, trap, and long rifle.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Well I hope he enjoyed the Emerald City while he was there. Shooting teams sounds like great fun. I am jealous.

          • He did enjoy it and I wish that I could have competed with him….but my, **ahem**, “allegiance” to the Great State of Texas trumped that….not to mention my contractual obligations…. however, I have not given up on you…….spousal unit and I do want to get to your part of the country….she has never seen it.

            • As to shooting….he is a very good shot and, being Dad, the Colonel….I cannot let him out shoot me….however, in the last Grand National Quail hunt…..he did tie me and we had to be on different teams that time……I have not heard the end of it either…….the horror.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Do not forget that I am now in Coeur d’Alene and not Portland. LOL

              There is a great links course here. Well at least there was when I last played it, some 7 yrs ago. Guess I will have to scout it for you.

              It had one Par 6 hole.

  29. David Skekabim says:

    RE: The pledge of allegiance.

    However it is worded, it is worshiping statist idolatry.

    It is to pledge allegiance to an idea which is predicated upon coercion and violence and an inherent violation of rights.

    And the US Constitution is not about building government around protecting rights and liberty. Nope, that is more propganda horseshit to fool you into thinking you are free.

    The US Constipati …err…umm Constitution, is a construct of governance, and the bill of rights is not about protecting your rights. The US Bill of Rights is rather a set of guidelines about how government manages or limits your rights as it relates to the state.

    • ok. So where do you plan to move that is any better? I’ll wait……………… Now who’s talking horseshit?

      (no offense intended)

      • David Skekabim says:

        You are.

        Your argument is that the USA is the lesser of all the statist evils, thus ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’, and therefore not as I claim.

        Try actually refuting my claim instead, so that we can begin to systematically go through each and every article of the constipation. (if we must)

        I will give an example of what I mean;

        You have the natural inalienable right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones against any and all threats, and by any and all means necessary or available.

        The second amendment is thought to protect this right, but in reality, it manages your right to gun ownership by limiting it to the right to own guns to form a militia to protect the ‘state’.

        By framing it within a specific set of guidelines, it is restricting or limiting a right, thus violating.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          David

          Your claims are nothing but mushy fallacy.

          Somehow, per you, the fact that the Constitution is a document which forms a Govt is proof that it is not what it says. But that is exactly what it does say. It is the document which outlines a Govt. That is the purpose of a Constitution.

          The Bill of Rights was added to make sure there was some references to important rights where the Govt was not to be imposing. It includes the statement that not all the rights are outlined. Yet you claim that because all rights are not listed this makes it a lie.

          Your example of the second displays your twisted thinking even more. And perhaps lack of knowledge surrounding the document. It does not limit your right to bear arms in any manner. You confuse the decisions of Progressive judges with what is actually written.

          • David Skekabim says:

            ” Your claims are nothing but mushy fallacy. ”

            Then refute them with something other than random criticism and a rationalization of why and how you are a happy slave.

            ” Somehow, per you, the fact that the Constitution is a document which forms a Govt is proof that it is not what it says. ”

            No. I use exactly what it says to demonstrate how it is as I suggest.

            ” But that is exactly what it does say. It is the document which outlines a Govt. That is the purpose of a Constitution ”

            Government is predicated upon coercion and violence for sake of an edict, and has a monopoly on the initiation of force. Therefore, government (including the US Government) is an inherent violation of rights as per the constipation.

            Where does the constipation specifically state that the government is to never use force?

            ” The Bill of Rights was added to make sure there was some references to important rights where the Govt was not to be imposing. It includes the statement that not all the rights are outlined.”

            How can it make sure not to impose on rights that are not listed or addressed? How can it effectively protect rights with ‘SOME REFERENCES’, and not clear and concise language? If it includes all the rights not listed, what are they, and how does that apply? Does that mean US residents can do whatever they want and claim that it is an ‘unlisted right’?

            ” Yet you claim that because all rights are not listed this makes it a lie.”

            Show me where I made such an assertion.

            ” Your example of the second displays your twisted thinking even more. ”

            Your statements display your twisted thinking even more.

            ” And perhaps lack of knowledge surrounding the document. ”

            …And perhaps lack of knowledge surrounding the document.

            ” It does not limit your right to bear arms in any manner. ”

            It specifies that the right of the people to keep(own) and bear(carry) arms shall not be infringed(violated or encroached upon) because forming an armed militia is necessary to the security of a free ‘state’.

            What about everything else? What EXACTLY does it mean by “state”?

            Read it. It does not protect your right to defense. If it did, it would read much differently.

            What if it read something like… “Necessary to protecting the right of the people to defense of themselves loved ones and property against any and all threats, the right to keep and bear whatever necessary tools to do so shall not in any way shape or form, either directly or indirectly, be infringed.”?

            Then where’s your protected right?

            ” You confuse the decisions of Progressive judges with what is actually written. ”

            I couldn’t care less what any judge on any ‘side’ thinks or says. As far as I am concerned, judges are just people who think they have a right to forcefully dictate people’s lives because they have a robe and a big stack of coercive bullshit on paper.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              David

              I provided the refutation required. But as with much of your arguments you simply claim I did not and move on. Seems to be a trend among you anarchist types.

              Your condemnation of the Constitution lies with your definition of govt.

              In your world, Govt is the instrument of violence, since the Constitution creates a govt the Constitution is nothing but an instrument of violence.

              Change the terms of Govt and the entire equations changes. Your conclusion rests upon your pre-determined explanation of Govt itself.

              This ignores the fact that our Constitution attempted to create an entirely different type of Govt in that time.

              I have no problem with claiming it failed. But to assert that its purpose was to create violations against our rights is ludicrous. Purpose and eventual affect are not always aligned.

              You claim you don’t care what Progressive judges think yet it is their arguments you use to deride the Second Amendment. You claim it is placing a caveat where it does not. If it did we would have seen immediate action by Congress to control “arms” among the people.

              As I said, you either do not understand the history behind it or you ignore it on purpose.

              Remember, Madison thought the inclusion of a Bill of Rights could threaten those rights. Because people would come along, like you have, and try to mince/parse the wording to create illusions that were not intended.

              All rights not included were retained by the States and the People. Self Defense was “self evident”. It did not require explanation. However the importance of the Militia as opposed to the Standing Army was not self evident among some. It posed the greatest threat in Colonial times, as it does today.

              • David Skekabim says:

                ” I provided the refutation required. ”

                No you didn’t. You made baseless assertions without supporting arguments, and otherwise criticized my position with meaningless nonsense.

                ” But as with much of your arguments you simply claim I did not and move on. ”

                I am not moving on. I am waiting for you to come up with something thought out and reasonable.

                “Your condemnation of the Constitution lies with your definition of govt. In your world, Govt is the instrument of violence, since the Constitution creates a govt the Constitution is nothing but an instrument of violence. ”

                Exactly.

                “In your world…”

                I take this to be as implying that ‘my world’ is somehow different from the real world,

                …as if in the real world people do not vote and pay taxes to support governments which make laws that are enFORCED through coercive means, up to and including deadly violence against them.

                What world do you live in? The one created on TV with statist propaganda that lies to you and tells you are free? …the one that tells you to worship a piece of cloth that symbolizes said ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ to do as you’re told? What year is it in your world? …1984?

                ” Change the terms of Govt and the entire equations changes. ”

                Again, exactly.

                ” Your conclusion rests upon your pre-determined explanation of Govt itself. ”

                It rests on facts, observation, and reason.

                ” This ignores the fact that our Constitution attempted to create an entirely different type of Govt in that time. ”

                Indeed it was an attempt to create a different type, hence “The Grand Experiment”. …Attempted… with a completely inconsistent and unprincipled set of standards.

                ” I have no problem with claiming it failed. But to assert that its purpose was to create violations against our rights is ludicrous. Purpose and eventual affect are not always aligned. ”

                It was coercive from the start by it’s inherent nature and defines rights as they relate to the state, not the real world. In the real world, you have a right to defense against any and all threats by whatever means necessary and/or available. In US statist-ville, you have a right to own guns and form a state militia.

                ” You claim you don’t care what Progressive judges think yet it is their arguments you use to deride the Second Amendment. ”

                I don’t. They can agree or disagree. Until their nonsense affects me in a threatening manner, they can think and do whatever they want.

                If it were required for me to register my firearm, or if it would have cost money to get a background check, or if I was denied, I would have bought my gun on the black market.

                If someone tells me what to do with MY property/tool of defense, I will tell them to “fuck off”. If they insist on being forceful about it, someone will likely die or experience critical injury.

                ” You claim it is placing a caveat where it does not. If it did we would have seen immediate action by Congress to control “arms” among the people. ”

                Are you blind? Go buy ‘arms’ without state sanctioned parameters or permission. Get caught with it. What happens?

                ” As I said, you either do not understand the history behind it or you ignore it on purpose. ”

                Show me how that is relevant to what it actually says. Show me my misunderstanding in specific terms.

                ” Remember, Madison thought the inclusion of a Bill of Rights could threaten those rights. Because people would come along, like you have, and try to mince/parse the wording to create illusions that were not intended. ”

                The wording is what it is. And it seems pretty clear to me. If there was concern for misinterpretation or skewing of the meaning, why did they not take further measures to make it crystal clear and/or idiot-proof?

                ” All rights not included were retained by the States and the People. Self Defense was “self evident”. It did not require explanation. ”

                So you argue that it indeed does cover the right to defense against any and all threats by whatever means available and/or necessary, on the grounds of ‘rights not outlined’?

                If so, show me how this is real and not just some rationalization. Show me how I have a legal right to defend myself against coercive government or anything threatening me. Show me how I can buy a tank or assault rifle or whatever, …and without permission. Show me how I can go anywhere in the USA and do so.

                ” However the importance of the Militia as opposed to the Standing Army was not self evident among some. It posed the greatest threat in Colonial times, as it does today. ”

                Okay.

        • Your argument is that the USA is the lesser of all the statist evils, thus ‘good’ or ‘acceptable
          YOU CAN PUT IT THAT WAY IF YOU WANT. I’M JUST SAYING THAT THERE IS NOWHERE LEFT TO RUN.

          and therefore not as I claim NEVER SAID THAT. YOU ARE CORRECT, SO WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO RUN?

          so that we can begin to systematically go through each and every article of the constipation
          NO NEED IN THAT EITHER. AND YOUR DISGUST FOR THE CONSTITUTION IS NOTED.

          We all have a wish list, and we can all work to fulfill our wishes. But you’re not going anywhere better because there is no such place that suits you, or you would be there. You’re an anarchist, big deal when there is no land to suit you. So I’m just saying you’re talking shit too.

          I swear I don’t mean this the way it sounds. I’m just sitting here, on the second day of school, all by myself, enjoying the peace and quiet. 😉

          • Sometimes peace and quiet can be deafening.

          • Anyone who knows me knows I do not like our Federal Government. It is corrupt to it’s very core and needs replaced (with some changes to the Constitution that provides for it’s existence). I fall more inline with many of the Anarchist’s ideals, but not all, mainly because even they will have rules and enforcement (aka government). We can have government if and only if, it has NO power over the people, basically, it manages several areas like highways and defense of the country as a whole (not this bullshit mess we have now).

            Dave’s post is similar to the current teachings of the Left, as I read it. Not unusual to read such things, it is the fallacy of the current propaganda machine called education. Dave most certainly does not understand the 2nd Amendment. But, sadly, he is far from alone. Life shall go on and folks like me will continue to carry both concealed and openly (I have begun to carry openly into business’s that I have frequented, as they know I’m no threat). In fact, man business owners carry openly as well, which makes me very comfortable doing business with them!

            JAC, I agree with your response on this subject 🙂 Hope all is well with you and yours this fine day.

            Not to be rude, I extend my best wishes to Anita, Dave, D13 and Plainly as well 🙂 It is all of you and many others that make the Pledge important to me. To me, it’s about the people 🙂

            • David Skekabim says:

              ” Dave most certainly does not understand the 2nd Amendment. ”

              Then refute my claims. Show me how the second amendment protects your right to defense.

              It does not. It defines specific parameters, thereby limiting your right to exercise defense under specific circumstances.

              There is a real possibility that the system is going to crash, which will inevitably cause people to become desperate and possibly violent in order to satisfy their basic needs such as food and clothing, etc. So it is not unreasonable to plan on protecting yourself and property with something that could effectively wipe out an armed gang of violators.

              Go try to buy a Bradly in the same manner you would a car or rifle, and/or without any permit or taxes. Go try to buy a few hundred pounds of explosives for homemade anti-personnel mines.

              Government extorts money by use of force through involuntary taxes and fines for victimless ‘crimes’. Shoot them when they exert force. What happens?

              Does the government support or protect you in doing so?

              NO!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                David

                The second amendment does not address “self defense”. Its purpose was not to address self defense.

                So claiming it does not address self defense and therefore it places restrictions on self defense is a fallacious argument.

                “It does not. It defines specific parameters, thereby limiting your right to exercise defense under specific circumstances”

                It defines NO PARAMETERS regarding ownership of weapons or your right to exercise defense of your life or property.

                No law governing application of self defense was written under the authority of the Second Amendment. Said Amendment has only been tested relative to ownership of weapons. And those tests were NOT made prior to late in the last century.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The Right to KEEP and BARE (this is the self evident use of self defense) shall NOT be infringed.

                It seems quite clear that owning AND using arms cannot be infringed by the Government. Basic English language for those who want read stuff into it that don’t exist.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                In addition Dave, self defense/self preservation cannot be regulated by any government, the tools most certainly can. History has clearly shown that the slaughter of tens of millions occurred AFTER they were first disarmed. I guarentee you that Americans will never be disarmed by our govt. The 2nd a Amendment makes that illegal for them to do so. The gun owners know this, the military knows this. Any attempt by the Feds will result in armed conflict and they will be routed in short time and who ever survives will be jailed. See the Bundy’s Ranch standoff if you need a small example.

  30. “natural inalienable right”…….this comes from where?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      heh, heh, heh, clever Colonel.

    • David Skekabim says:

      Nature. …or god, if you recognize that all things of the natural world originate from a creator.

      We are, by order of nature, human. Generally speaking, everything we do as per our natural inclinations and behavior that does not violate others, is a right.

      In other words, we have a right to be as nature dictates we are, to be happy humans, with the exception of violating or encroaching on the rights of others.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        David

        How can there be restrictions on rights if these rights are inherent in our nature as humans?

        Have not humans violated other humans since our creation?

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    I saw this interview last night and loved it. Now look at how it is being twisted to feed the Lemmings the bull shit they expect. Oh the irony of the Lemmings always playing the Cognitive Dissonance card against those who disagree with them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/phil-robertson-isis_n_5756928.html

    • “Convert them or kill them”……..seems as if Robertson attended the University of ISIS.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        You fell for the headline, just as the Lemmings at Huff Po did.

        The context of the entire discussion was “Given this groups stated desire for violence”, what should we do.

        Robertson starts with “it is probably do late to do anything”, BUT.. his “conversion” statement makes sense if we recognize his Jesus story is one of PEACE and faith in God.

        The convert or kill was not offered in the same context as ISIS or other such groups. It was, if we cannot convert their thinking THEY will give us no choice but to kill them.

        • No sir, I got that from the beginning. I still see no difference in his Jesus reference than to the reference of Allah and his followers. Perhaps I missed something?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            His comment was aimed at ISIS. Not all Muslims or people who are not Christian.

            ISIS’ cry of convert or be killed relates to ALL Infidels.

            I do think you missed something. The response is to what do we do about a group who has sworn to attack and kill us.

            Answer……… you can only convert them (change their belief system) or kill them. Why? Because that is their stated goal……. to kill or be killed.

            I do think one option was overlooked. Leave them be and let them rot in their own creation.

            But what if we do that? Will they really just rot or will they continue to spread the disease around the world?

            Will we eventually be forced into the same two options……….. convert them or kill them?

            • There is no conversion….if we have to fight them….they die.

              • I am convinced that this type of behavior…the type that is espoused by Hamas, Palestinians, Al Queda, Isis, Saudi’s, Iran…..( all the same to me ) and, no, I do not suffer from Islam-o-phobia is incapable to conversion of any type ( and why do we have to convert anyone )….they know and respect but one thing…….the sword. ( Yes, I have read the Q’ran ( translated) from cover to cover )….as I have read the bible ( King James cover to cover) and as I have read the Vedas and the Tanakh (cover to cover). This does not make me any kind of expert but I always hate it when someone asks if I understand Islam or understand the religious aspects of some.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13

                That is what I believe Mr. Robertson was saying. Although he offered the option of “talking” the reality is there is nothing to discuss with these types.

                As Phil said, if it is only a gun fight they wish to have then we need to be prepared to kill them.

                This leaves the only remaining question. Can these groups be isolated to the extent they will not try to kill the rest of us. Is there really anything that we or the western world can do that would cause them to STOP trying to spread their brand of Religious Violence?

                I personally do not think so. And like you, I do not need to understand all the nuance of Islam to understand that if a man is screaming that he is going to kill me in the name of Allah (or the Spaghetti Monster), I am going to kill him first. His reason is irrelevant to me unless it contains some chance of sitting down and talking.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    More food for thought on the ISIS and middle east fires. Note how this fits the scenarios that the Colonel and others here have expressed. Namely, this is a Civil War and we need to stay out of it.

    Only problem is if the wrong side wins…………… then what happens to the rest of the world?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html

    • Yes, it is a civil war…..but as I have also stated….it is not confined to that area. Look at the African continent…England, France, and the South Pacific and South China Sea Islands….you will see a great influence being spread. We are not the world’s policeman and it is tie for countries to stand up for themselves…..but somewhere…………we will have to face it, I am afraid. And I am sorely afraid of the Southern border if we do not control it. This is something that I live with and see it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        We agree. A civil war in the ME region, but those same factions are vying to EXPAND in other parts of the world.

        And those under attack need to step it up.

        And yes, we had better face reality, which includes the fact we will have to be engaged in supporting those that resist. Which means we will be dragged into more “conflicts” directly.

        I am, however, open to arguments by anyone who can show that by changing the “nature” of our support to others we might get a better outcome. I don’t think that BF’s strategy of simply withdrawing, or abandoning Israel, is going to protect us in the long run.

        The one author I read this morning cautions us against waging war against ISIS directly, mano e mano. His fear is that we will lose ourselves by doing so. That is in fact a risk. As is the reality that we will continue to give some young nutjob the excuse to join the Jihad cause.

        As POTUS of the VDLG USA, I would be sitting with Russia and China right now discussing how the world powers are going to JOINTLY fend off this threat. Of course I would be having those discussions knowing that I had the worlds most powerful military force just beyond the horizon. 🙂

        Interpretation? The world is not all Koombya as some would wish it to be. We must deal with the reality of NOW.

  33. And then there’s these two article that shows we’re going to be alright. A little long, but something for everyone here. It all connects with BFs theory of decentralization by voluntary cooperation, leaving heirarchy preaching to…nobody. And it is happening now, and happens every day weather you realize it or not. It would really be cool if we are already ‘collapsed’ but civilization manages to continue for the better…with no bloody revolution.

    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-end-of-politicspart-one
    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-end-of-politicspart-two

  34. @ David….is this where you are coming from?

    According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Other natural rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and press.

    • David Skekabim says:

      ” According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. ”

      I concur, with the exception of the word “taken”. Inalienable means inseparable. If you waiver your rights, you still possess them. You still reserve the right to exercise them at will. Rights cannot be taken nor given, only respected or violated. They simply are yours from birth because you exist as a natural creature of the universe.

      ” As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Other natural rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and press. ”

      I concur that rights include liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but do not include life per se’. If you had a right to life, you would be immortal. You DO have a right to protect your life though.

      I would(and do) argue that the bill of rights does not necessarily protect rights but rather seeks to manage them as they relate to the state.

      For example; There is no right to freedom of the press. That implies that we have the right to someone’s labor or that we have to be hired by media or something. You are not born with a journalist attached or a job position.

      However, you and journalists DO have a right to freedom of speech and of expression…and like every right, …so long as it is not violating or encroaching upon others.

  35. David Skekabim says:

    Just A Citizen says:
    September 3, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    ” The second amendment does not address “self defense”. Its purpose was not to address self defense.”

    So you concede to my original argument that the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to defense?

    ” So claiming it does not address self defense and therefore it places restrictions on self defense is a fallacious argument. ”

    JAC – ” The second amendment does not address “self defense”. Its purpose was not to address self defense.”

    ” It defines NO PARAMETERS regarding ownership of weapons or your right to exercise defense of your life or property. ”

    Indeed it does not cover your right to exercise defense of your life or property. It indeed does define parameters regarding ownership of weapons(‘arms’) in stating the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.

    The language focuses on arms and militias, and therefore excluding anything else….unless you want to include those rights not listed.

    And it does so in the context f free ‘states’ and militias.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    gmanfortruth says:
    September 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    ” The Right to KEEP and BARE (this is the self evident use of self defense) shall NOT be infringed. It seems quite clear that owning AND using arms cannot be infringed by the Government. Basic English language for those who want read stuff into it that don’t exist. ”

    ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    It specifies you have the right to keep and bear ‘arms’, which, I am sure we agree, are weapons. And we can safely say that it implies their possible use. But what is the rest of it about? And what about other means of defense?

    It mentions a well regulated militia, so we can argue that it is listing the right to form a militia.

    Okay, then why even mention being necessary to the security of a free state? Is that not evident? Is it necessary to state it? And what exactly does it mean by “state”? Does it mean a free state of being, or a state government?

    Is it saying that arms are a necessary part of a well regulated militia as the reason for the people to keep and bear them? Or is it saying that a militia and an armed population are necessary for the security of a free state? Or is it mentioning all three as each being a right not to be infringed upon?

    “Necessary to the security of a free state…” is a reason, not a listed right. So we can say that it is giving the reasoning for one or both of the other two things listed.

    So does it pertain to either or both?

    What does forming a militia have to do with personal protection of self and property? What does a militia have to do with the security of a free state [government]? What does a free state [government] have to do with personal defense?

    If you want to argue commas, then you have to determine whether it is in the form of a list, or separating the ideas conveyed.

    If it is a list, then why list a reason as a right?

    If it is separating ideas, then it suggests that A well regulated militia is supported by being necessary to the security of a free state, and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms and forming a militia is described as things that shall not be infringed.

    Play with the order of the segments to see how it effects meaning…

    A well regulated militia, shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

    Shall not be infringed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, necessary to the security of a free state, a well regulated militia.

    Now exclude the ‘security of a free state’ part.

    A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

    Exclude the ‘security of a free state’ part and also move the comma.

    The right of the people to a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    But it doesn’t state it like that. It says;

    ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    It is saying that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and that the people keeping and bearing arms is necessary for a well regulated militia, and therefore shall not be infringed upon.

    …which goes back to what the word “state” means.

    If it is to arm the people to protect the state government, then how does that apply to the standing army that is already protecting the security of a ‘free’ state government?

    If it is to protect the people from a standing army, then why have an army at all if it is a potential threat, or if you want to protect the security of a free state government or state of being with a militia of the people?

    Oh, and if you are going to criticize my interpretation of the English language, at least try not to confuse me by arguing exposed extremities in place of carrying firearms.

    😉

    • Mostly wordgames, but to play let’s just make it simple: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      That makes things quite simple, because all of your semantics rely on this simple sentence. The design of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the people have arms to defeat a tyrannical govt. The militia, as you mention, was for the same purpose, which requires the people to be armed. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to provide defense of the nation (the United States), nor any government. It was, in fact, to fend against a rogue govt when the need should arise. The self defense issue was a given.

      • David Skekabim says:

        Don’t get me wrong. IMHO, you have the right to defense by whatever means, and should be able to buy whatever necessary tools to do so without having to answer to anyone.

        You should be able to purchase an A1 Abrams tank like you do anything else. And the only thing you should hear is “Thank you for shopping at Bob’s tank emporium.”

        The whole point of my post was to analyze the dynamic of it in order to highlight it’s meaning.

        If it simply said ” The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “, then it would clearly be protecting your right to possess weapons, and presumably to use them for defense.

        (I would still argue that it is framed around possessing weapons and is thus limited to weapons and not really about the right to defense, which can apply to much more than firearms/weaponry.)

        But that’s not what it says. It does so in the context of militias and a ‘free state’.

        It is saying that A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and an armed populace is necessary to a well regulated militia, and therefore shall not be infringed upon.

        The whole reasoning is based on forming a militia to secure the ‘state’. Otherwise, it would not be mentioned. It would list militias and arms. It would read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, to form a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.”

        If it were about protecting against a standing army or whatever else, it would state as such.

        But it doesn’t, and it therefore is limited to the right to weapons and to form a state militia.

        Further, the 2nd is just one amendment used as an example. I can pick at the rest to continue my point. The Constipation is about statism and not really about protecting rights.

        For example; Since when do you have a right to not be subject to illegal search and seizure? BULLSHIT! You have a right to protect against ANY search and/or seizure. It is the right to privacy and property.

        • It is the Right to keep and bare arms, nothing more. Your are applying today’s definition of State, aka government. That’s your undoing, as State did not mean the same in the 1700’s. But you also omit the word FREE, which also is your undoing, as your definition of State would have never been combined with free, because they would contradict each other. Can’t have it all I guess. Semantics, just semantics, with zero substance. That’s one of the problems I have found with the Anti-Constitution folks, they pick and choose the words to play their silly games, which, are, SILLY 🙂

          • David Skekabim says:

            Indeed, it is the right to keep and bear arms, nothing more, …except to form a militia.

            What about the right to defense? Does it protect it, or nothing more than keeping arms?

            Scroll up. I clearly used the word “free” in combination with the word “state”, more than once. And I did so by asking you to define the use of the word “state”. I have yet to get an answer.

            You make accusations of semantics and silly games, but you are yet to address my points or demonstrate how it protects your right to defense. Just semantics, with zero substance?

            …And my undoing started the moment I was borne.

            🙂

            • except to form a militia. Negative! There is nothing within the Constitution that grants rights to the people, in any form what so ever. It ONLY establishes a government and restricts it’s authority. If you claim otherwise, you know nothing about the Constitution and any claims you make would be foolish, on your part.

              • David Skekabim says:

                ” There is nothing within the Constitution that grants rights to the people, in any form what so ever.”

                My original argument was that the constipation does not protect rights but rather outlines how it manages your rights.The second amendment was an example thereof.

                ” It ONLY establishes a government and restricts it’s authority ”

                Indeed it does define a government, but does not really restrict it. There are a few restrictive statements, but for the most part, it outlines how the government manages your rights, or when and how it can violate them. It is full of listing exceptions.

                …things like unreasonable search and seizure. (I mistakenly used the word ‘illegal above’ – oops)

                WTH is unreasonable? And why and how does a piece of paper and an oath give authority to violate privacy and property rights? You have the right to privacy and property EXCEPT if there is a REASON or if a piece of paper is signed by a man who has uttered magic words?

                Yeah, that limits government.

                ” If you claim otherwise, you know nothing about the Constitution and any claims you make would be foolish, on your part. ”

                Quit making hollow statements and debate me, Gman. Show me how I know nothing of the constipation.

              • Dave, your are fixed in your world view, which is fine. I would suggest digging into some history books about how the Constitution and late, the Bill of Rights came to be. I’m not a history teacher, nor do I choose to waste time trying to educate those who have already decided what things are. I’m cool with the Anarchist ideology, and with few exceptions, think it can work on a small scale.

                As far as the 2nd Amendment, it was worded from State Constitutions already on the books in the several States. It was written because of the actions of British Rule. The history is easy to find with a quick search on any search engine, I suggest you check it out. AS far as where I live in Pennsylvania, open carry of any weapon is legal. Conceal carry is by permit (must give) by County Sheriff’s (I totally disagree with licensing, as I have argued in the past). With the exception of age requirements, being a convicted felon or certifiably nuts, there is nothing that keeps the people from having a firearm on their person most anywhere (Federal laws make some places “No Gun Zones” like Federal Buildings and Post offices).
                I took the time to go to a seminar on the subject with local politicians, Sheriff’s and Prosecutors. Hence, my knowledge is first hand.

                Different States have different laws about guns and how they are carried. The differing laws are legal because the 2nd Amendment only restricts the Federal Government from infringing on the Right to keep and bare arms. It changed with the advent of the 14th Amendment, but only on how the individual States can legislate and regulate gun ownership and the ability to bare such arms. This is currently be played out in courts today, with State and local laws being thrown out as unconstitutional.

                Your beliefs and arguments are known, although most of your understanding of the Constitution is not consistent with historical reality. I would suggest that you show the historical evidence that supports your position. JAC has suggested the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers as a start.

                I wish you and yours all the best this fine day, PEACE 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      David

      I am detecting a potentially dishonest debate on your part. But maybe I misunderstand your intent on linking to the second amendment in the first place.

      So lets start with your claim:

      “You have the natural inalienable right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones against any and all threats, and by any and all means necessary or available.

      The second amendment is thought to protect this right, but in reality, it manages your right to gun ownership by limiting it to the right to own guns to form a militia to protect the ‘state’.

      By framing it within a specific set of guidelines, it is restricting or limiting a right, thus violating.”

      Now lets address key points.

      1. You have the natural inalienable right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones against any and all threats, and by any and all means necessary or available. I DISAGREE WITH OUR PREMISE THAT “ALL MEANS NECESSARY OR AVAILABLE” IN PART OF YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. YOU ARE IGNORING COMMENSURATE HARM. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL A MAN FOR PICKING UP YOUR GARDEN HOSE. HOWEVER, THIS DISAGREEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. SO LETS AGREE THAT HUMANS HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST PHYSICAL HARM.

      2. The second amendment is thought to protect this right, but in reality, it manages your right to gun ownership by limiting it to the right to own guns to form a militia to protect the ‘state’. “THOUGHT TO PROECT ….”. THOUGHT BY WHOM? NOT ME, NOT THOSE WHO WROTE IT. SO WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT OR LINK THE RIGHT TO DEFENSE TO THIS AMENDMENT? SINCE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF DEFENSE PER SE’ I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT YOU RAISED THIS IN ORDER TO LATER CLAIM IT “IMPEDES” YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. SINCE YOUR NEXT CLAIM IS THAT IT “MANAGES YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS”.

      BUT THE SECOND ACCUSATION IS ALSO FALSE. “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW”……….PERIOD. THE MENTION OF THE MILITIA DOES NOT PLACE A CAVEAT ON THE “RIGHT” TO BEAR ARMS. NOBODY INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTING THE CONSTITUTION THOUGHT THAT FEDERAL LAWS LIMITING GUN OWNERSHIP FOR PERSONAL REASONS, SUCH AS SELF DEFENSE, WAS DESIRABLE OR EVEN RATIONAL. THUS IT DID NOT REQUIRE DOCUMENTING IN THE CONSTITUTION.

      AT THIS POINT YOU NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE “BILL OF RIGHTS’ CAME FROM EXISTING STATE CONSTITUTIONS. AT LEAST ONE OF THESE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE “RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE”. BUT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS DEALING WITH RESTRICTIONS ON FEDERAL POWER IN THIS INSTANCE.

      3 By framing it within a specific set of guidelines, it is restricting or limiting a right, thus violating. IT IS NOT “FRAMED WITHIN A SET OF GUIDELINES”. SUCH A VIEW DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME NOR FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER. NOT UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR AND THEN THE ACTIVIST LEGAL SCHOLARS WHO CREATED IT TO RATIONALIZE GUN CONTROL BY STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVT.

      Now to address a couple of your prior questions regarding the militia.

      Militia= The citizenry.

      State = States, not the Federal Govt. However, the Militia being necessary to the preservation of each free state within the union would necessarily also protect the free Republic comprised of those free States.

      Summary: YES, the second amendment does not protect your right of self defense. However it does not impede it either. Not directly or indirectly via some caveat for “managing” your right to bear arms. At least NOT AS WRITTEN nor as INTENDED by those who constructed the statement.

      As to another question you raised about why they did not clear up the apparent ambiguity. Because they did not see any. Later generations created ambiguity on purpose and because of changes in the style of writing and use of language.

      The meaning of “commerce” is a prime example. The framers had an understanding of what comprised Commerce that is different than ours. But as the meaning changed, nobody amended to document to keep in consistent with its original intent. Now it has come to mean any commercial activity and those activities which might affect commercial activity.

      Now to address my comment about YOUR WORLD. All debates over philosophy rest on definitions of concepts. Your stated definition of Govt is not the same as mine. I think it is in fact in error, since anyone can commit violence against another. The use of force or violence is not what separates “govt” from the rest of us.

      But to the question at hand. If we do not agree on core definitions then yes, we come from separate worlds. Debate or argument on point B is fruitless if we do not share the foundation that A = A.

      Just so you know, it is my view that it is the concept of “legal” or “lawful” that separates Govt’s use of force from the rest of us. Because it is the “law” that defines what is allowed and not allowed.

      So the existence of Govt. does not sanction “unjust” force in and of itself. The real issue is how are those laws developed and constructed. Who decides, a King, the Church, or the people served by said Govt. How do we recognize just law from unjust law?

      The Constitution was developed to protect our freedoms and liberty. Contrary to your claim. This is quite obvious if you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. While the two sides argued vehemently over the details of the new Govt, they shared the belief that they were building a govt to protect our liberty. Their arguments were over the details and potential affects.

      As I said before, one can argue correctly that in the long run much of their effort failed. But that does not negate their intent or purpose.

      And here we again come to the issue of “different worlds”. Because they did not hold the same definitions or views of freedom and liberty that you probably hold. So you make your determination on your definitions. That is not a fair or honest claim against what they hoped to achieve.

      • David Skekabim says:

        My original claim was that the Constitution is not really about protecting your rights, but rather managing them as they relate to the state. The second amendment was just an example to demonstrate.

        Think of it like this, JAC. The Constipation is not to define a government structured around the protection of unalienable rights, but rather to define a government that has a section for how government manages your rights or what it allows.

        It doesn’t really protect your rights, which, if I am not mistaken, you agreed with.

        If it were about rights, there would never have been amendments for things like the ‘right’ to be denied alcohol, or the ‘right’ to quarter a soldier in a time of war as prescribed by law, or the ‘right’ to have money extorted from you.

        Now, to further clarify my statements about the right to defense…

        I typed;

        ” You have the natural inalienable right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones against any and all threats, and by any and all means necessary or available. ”

        You do not ONLY have a right to own and carry guns, or to form a militia. You have the right to defense of yourself, your property and your loved ones against any and all threats, and by any and all means necessary or available.

        God/nature does not limit your right to defense to this or that method. The Constipation does, as it defines parameters. If you go beyond those parameters, you are subject to coercion and violence. This is what “By framing it within a specific set of guidelines, it is restricting or limiting a right, thus violating.” means.

        Hell, you don’t really even have a protected right to bear arms. You have a ton of regulations dictating what when where how and why you can own or carry or use guns.

        By a tank without permission. Forget to register an automatic weapon in some states. What happens? A right to bear what? Where does it say “except for …”?

        I also typed;

        ” The second amendment is thought to protect this right, but in reality, it manages your right to gun ownership by limiting it to the right to own guns to form a militia to protect the ‘state’. ”

        People argue in favor of the constipation as if it were their statist bible. They fall for the bullshit feel-good patriotic propaganda and make all these claims about how it protects their rights, when in reality, it doesn’t. People cry freedom and brag about being an American as if it were something special or affords them special protections.

        It doesn’t. It’s pure bullshit, …nothing but a rationalization to protect their egos they have attached to a fucking piece of cloth, parchment, and a way of life that doesn’t exist.

        You can argue intent or idealism or federalist papers, but at the end of the day, it is what the constipation, a bunch of paper, and men with funny clothes and guns say the voters demand of them.

        As far as the definition of government, I suppose we can define it however you like. But unless it includes a monopoly on the initiation of force and the use of coercion and violence for edicts, it is incomplete, because that is what makes the distinction between social order and governance.

        Social order does not require violence. It requires valuing of and respect for freedom, rights and responsibility. It operates on the concept of mutuality, free market principles and what is universally beneficial. Social order does not restrict, GOVERN or violate your rights. It honors, respects, and celebrates them.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Your constant use of “constipation” is CHILDISH.

          It adds to the appearance you have little understanding of what the Constitution is, how or why it is written as it is.

          You assign some value to it that it was never intended to have then denigrate it because it doesn’t meet your criteria. That Sir is a STRAWMAN fallacy.

          I have explained to you at least twice today how the Bill of Rights work and why the Second addressed militias and places NO CAVEAT on the ownership of weapons.

          You continue making the same claims, despite the explanations I have offered.

          So until you complete your studies of the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers and the Notes from the Constitutional Convention, there appears there is little to discuss with you on this matter.

          “Social Order” is another concept which depends on the eyes of the beholder, or in some cases the person who beholden the gun. Be careful in how you throw these concepts around as if they have one and only one meaning. They do not.

          That includes the concepts of Freedom and Liberty.

          • David Skekabim says:

            ” Your constant use of “constipation” is CHILDISH.”

            …coming from a man that consistently resorts to personal attacks?

            I don’t claim to be above anyone, I have made lots of mistakes in my life, and I am fully aware of what a regular human piece of shit that I am. But I’ve seen the content of your character, and you are no better. You’re the type to hit someone while they are down and in their darkest hour.

            And I think the word CONSTIPATION is rather appropriate, as it is just another construct of coercive governance, a faulty frame of reference that does little in the way of progression to a peaceful existence. It stifles freedom and rights and creativity and love and everything that humanity needs to build on in order to break free from the archaic and barbaric means of managing our world.

            If it allowed things to get this far, it is time to burn it and start aNEW.

            ” It adds to the appearance you have little understanding of what the Constitution is, how or why it is written as it is. ”

            It doesn’t take a genius to read, analyze and interpret it. I am well endowed to understand it just fine.

            ” You assign some value to it that it was never intended to have then denigrate it because it doesn’t meet your criteria. That Sir is a STRAWMAN fallacy. ”

            No. I refute the popular fallacy that it somehow protects rights, enables people to be free, or adheres to the daydream of what is American exceptionalism.

            ” I have explained to you at least twice today how the Bill of Rights work and why the Second addressed militias and places NO CAVEAT on the ownership of weapons.

            You continue making the same claims, despite the explanations I have offered. ”

            Your explanations are inconsistent and marginally relevant.

            ” So until you complete your studies of the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers and the Notes from the Constitutional Convention, there appears there is little to discuss with you on this matter. ”

            …Assuming I have never read them.

            Until you throw out the idea that the federalist papers are a reference to idealism and intent, and not an active legal document, there appears little to discuss about what the constipation actually reads.

            ” “Social Order” is another concept which depends on the eyes of the beholder, or in some cases the person who beholden the gun. Be careful in how you throw these concepts around as if they have one and only one meaning. They do not. ”

            I merely posit that social order does not require violence and coercion as statism does.

            ” That includes the concepts of Freedom and Liberty. ”

            …coming from a statist who advocates coercion and violence by default?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I said, study not read.

              And I doubt you have read them.

              • David Skekabim says:

                JAC,

                I totally get your point about original intent of the second amendment. It was originally supposed to be a means to balance power and protect gun ownership. They knew that a disarmed population is a conquered population, and that an armed society is a polite one where government fears the people rather than the people fearing government. But that does not negate the point I have been trying to make.

                Regardless of the original intent and arguments presented by the founders, the wording is what it is. And the wording is inadequate. Otherwise, state and federal governments would not be able to impose so many restrictions claiming that it does not “infringe” on your right to keep and bear arms.

                Yeah, you are free to own guns, except …blah …blah…blah. You are free to own guns under the conditions of …etc, …etc, ..etc…

                Instead of framing the bill of rights around rights, it’s framed around government and CALLS it rights. And it is clearly not about protecting rights. It is a frame work that serves the state and allows for only nominal protection of rights.

                I kinda look at the whole US Government like you do the pledge of allegiance.

                I call bullshit on all the people claiming to be free while citing the usual patriotic catch-phrase propaganda that differs from reality, …just as you call bullshit on conservatives mistakenly praising socialist ideas and ceremonies.

                Sometimes I don’t know which is more frustrating, …saying nothing while watching people praise their faux-reality prison, …or screaming with a keyboard only to be dismissed in favor of what they’ve been brainwashed to believe.

                C’est la vie

              • Regardless of the original intent and arguments presented by the founders, the wording is what it is. And the wording is inadequate. Otherwise, state and federal governments would not be able to impose so many restrictions

                Good paragraph: What Federal restrictions? If your speaking of inside Federal buildings then you are correct, but that doesn’t change the Rights under the 2nd Amendment. The States, many have far reaching restrictions and that’s legal because the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government. However, lawyers are using the 14 Amendment to get gun laws struck down in many States, as is happening as we speak.

                Just curious, what Federal law restricts the 2nd?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              David

              Much better reply and now we can agree on much more.

              The INTENT of the entire experiment was to devise a Govt that was built around protecting our rights and Liberty. For many reasons it did not work out as well as they hoped.

              But much of that was due to TIME. Changes in attitude, desires and even definitions of words.

              Frankly, the Second Amendment could have just addressed guns and I think the activist judges would have found a way to skirt it. Because they later invented this “living document” theory by which to “interpret” meaning.

              The Founders even recognized this hazard. Thus all the comments and warnings about an educated population and the need for the people to remain diligent.

              One point to clarify in your comment about the Feds and States imposing on gun ownership. The Second amendment, as with most of them originally ONLY restricted Congress. Because it was the States that proposed/demanded the Bill of Rights and those States had provisions in their Constitutions.

              We must remember that the Founders envisioned DECENTRALISED Govt as a means of ensuring Liberty. That Liberty was up to the people of each town and State to define.

              My challenge of your comment yesterday was over the PURPOSE or INTENT of the Constitution as originally formed. I not only admit but have written here often of how it failed to live up to expectations. Some due to unresolved issues, like slavery, and others due to deliberate manipulation over time.

              What I will also admit is that the Founders did not share the “total Liberty” views of anarchists. While they feared and fully understood the potential threat of Govt, much more than people today, they also recognized its benefits and need for it. Albeit, it was much smaller than anything we see today, even at the State and town level.

              This is why I claim it a fallacy to say it was not designed to protect our Liberty or Rights. It was constructed in that way, but not for TOTAL Liberty or all rights that might be conceived. Because it did not directly address them, it left much of that up to the People through their State Govts.

              Now I hope that you admit that despite all its flaws, the Constitution of the USA and the cultural norms established from it have provided far more protection of Liberty in the USA than anywhere else.

              Just try to own as many guns in any other country. In Germany you cannot even discuss the Nazis. I do have to give the Aussies credit for coming pretty close.

              So now that we agree it does not work the way we want, what is the solution?

  36. Problem for POTUS brewing…..democratic senators are apparently lining up to pass an authorization on their own to allow air strikes in Syria. Some very powerful Democratic Senators are very displeased ( probably because it is an election year ) but some are beginning to see the reality, I think. Very interesting times.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Also major problems for his media spokespeople. They are having a tough job keeping the talking points on track when their boss is mumbling all over the place.

      I wonder if Biden realizes that claiming ISIS will live in hell carries with it a CHRISTIAN view that could be tied to the Crusades??? Or is that now OK to make those types of references because it is a Democrat?? Inquiring minds want to know….. bwahahahaha.

  37. LOLOLOLOL! Your laugh for the day. Besides all this guy’s past issues, what is NBC thinking putting this stooge on TV every night?

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/09/03/funny-fox-nation-counter-tourism-al-sharpton-vs-teleprompter-part-iii

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Given our brief discussion about blaming global warming the other day I thought you would love this headline from a story on MMalkin.

      UN kicks off ISIS probe that will end up blaming the whole thing on global warming

      Share

      By Doug Powers • September 2, 2014 09:28 PM

      Don’t ya know? ROTFLMAO

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Now that we have had a little fun over Mr. Obamas public statements about ISIS, etc, etc., I would like to bring up a “Right Wing” hypocrisy.

    Not long ago the R’s were crying foul over the D’s criticizing Mr. Bush during our engagements in the Mid east. It aids the enemy by making POTUS look weak they argued.

    I happen to agree, to a limit. Obviously we don’t want to be “muzzled” during war time, because the ass hats may be wrong.

    However, the issue here is the pot calling the kettle black.

    So Republicans/Conservatives/Fox News etc, etc……………SHUT THE HELL UP.

    If the POTUS is in fact weak and struggling, then step up and offer your help. DO NOT work to make him look ineffective while we have PUTIN on the loose and ISIS going through Iraq like shit through a goose.

    Just Sayin…………………

    • JAC>>>JAC<<<>>>NONE>>>NADA statesmen left. These kids do not understand the object of team work……LBJ killed that long ago. It is Democrat against Republican and the country be damned. The only person that brought that back was Reagan. He is gone.

      It is unfortunate that party and idealism is first and country second or even third….or in Obama’s case…not at all.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Good morning Sir. I agree and you are one of the few I have met that recognized LBJ’s role in all this.

        Just as few remember that the fiasco that has become SCOTUS confirmation hearings was started by the Dems over their public scorching of Robert Bork. The two sides are now locked in a game of tit for tat.

    • JAC,

      Now what kind of message are you trying to send with “shut the hell up”? Free speech & open, honest debate, etc…. OK, I agree with you. I have been getting more & more disgusted with FOX as of late. Started with their coverage of Ferguson where they kept flashing a headline about M. Brown being “gunned down”. Could argue that it was technically correct, but sure a loaded way to express a supposed “News report”. More like they were wanting to incite outrage.

      I think Obama has been making very poor choices in how he words his/our response to ISIS. I don’t think it would matter if he went “Gladiator” on them and ordered the military to “Unleash Hell”, he would still get bashed. Reality is he is correct in what he describes. If we re-invade & conduct a full scale war in Iraq & even Syria, some of them will escape. We will not eliminate this threat, just diminish it for a time.

      I also think you are right on Russia & us presenting a united front. FOX reported this AM that we had aircraft active in the Western Ukraine & were sending some 200 military personnel there for joint training. Hope somebody has really thought this out…..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        LOI

        Saw some “expert” the other night, ex military/state dept, state that all we can do is react. Make a decision, act, adapt and react again and again. He also claimed that is what Putin is doing. I disagree with his assessment of Putin. I perceive Putin as a chess player. He may have to adapt on a given move but he has an overall strategy and each move is designed to fit that strategy.

        As for the media, I have been watching Blaze TV and AlJazeera lately. Blaze is actually pretty good, especially all the younger folks Beck has hired to dive into the news.

        I have noticed a “slight” toning down at MSNBC lately. Maddow even chastising Mr. Obama, while at the same time trying to defend him. Notice I said “slight”. 🙂

    • I don’t think he wants anyone’s help or advice nor would he take it. On the other hand, I have my doubts about US re-involvement at this point. There comes a time when, as in Yugoslavia, when I think you just create a cordon sanitaire around the place, give everybody all the weapons they want, stand back and let them kill each other. My son, the moderate in the family seems to think that we ought to basically Nagasaki the bastards. While not necessarily advocating the use of nukes, he thinks we should use the fuel air bombs (accepting civilian casualties as we did in the big wars) to stop this shiot.

      With the anniversary of the A-bomb’s use in Japan just dropping I heard an interesting thing the other night while watching a classroom lecture from the Air Force Academy. The Prof told the youths that the Purple Hearts being handed out today in Afghanistan, yesterday in Iraq, Kuwait, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam and Korea, were all manufactured in 1945 in preparation for the invasion of Japan. Lesson to learn: things can get a lot worse unless you have the guts (like Truman) to end them.

  39. Wow…..my whole post did not appear…….

  40. @ David………you claim “Social order does not restrict, GOVERN or violate your rights. It honors, respects, and celebrates them.”

    I would like to discuss your view of this if you can do it without name calling and disparaging remarks….. I think you can.

    So, the first thing that I have done is research the different meanings of “social order” because the words “social order” scare the hell out of me, From the definitions that I have read and the various sociological descriptions offered by academia (which is a huge problem), show me where we are not already in a social order.

    Please, sir….what is your definition of social order? Everything that I have read are infinitely more restrictive. Perhaps I am missing something? I cannot make a connection from natural or god given rights to social order at all…..they are mutually in conflict.

    • David Skekabim says:

      Social; as in interaction of a group[s] of people
      Order; as in the opposite of chaos

      There are a number of ways to achieve social order. I posit that none of which require violating rights.

      Everything social is a collection of people, the interaction of which is dependent upon the free will choice of each and every member.

      Choice is the product of our thought process, which is largely governed by our nature. That is to say that we, as humans, exhibit certain typical behaviors and thought processes.

      Our nature is is largely(or arguably wholly) dependent upon our DNA. It is what defines us as human.

      Humans are naturally selfish creatures. At the core of our psyche is the basic instinct of self preservation, the self serving competitive reptilian mode of thinking. It is what tells us that if it feels good, do it, to hell with the next guy. Our “Id”, if you will.

      The antithesis is the Super Ego, our selflessness and awareness of how we effect others. It is the part of us that allows us to function within a group.

      The same thing that drives us to survive as individuals is, ironically, what serves as a weakness within a group. Likewise, the thing that allows us to function within a group, is what serves as a weakness to our individual needs or survival. ‘To hell with me, what about the next guy?’ …doesn’t work either.

      Typically, by default, we’re more selfish than we are altruistic. We’re imbalanced as a species, flawed, possessing a built in social handicap that stifles our capacity to evolve. It is what is preventing us from a peaceful coexistence.

      So what is the balance? Love, …as love is the common denominator.

      Love of self, to serve the self up to the point where it adversely affects others is one side of the balance, which is governed by love and compassion, consideration for others.

      As it is, the whole world is based on systems that are geared toward promoting and appealing to our selfish side. It divides us as individuals as well as groups. It provokes fear and hate and everything ugly about who we are.

      The antidote is Love. If we can figure out how to love one another as much as we do ourselves, we needn’t worry about which political idealism to espouse, or how to define or manage rights. We wouldn’t need to write a thing down, or even use words like “law” or “enforce”.

      …Because everything would simply fall into place to work in perfect balance and harmony.

      So how do we do that? I am not sure we can. But we can sure as hell try. It would take a unanimous effort on the part of all of humanity though.

      I recommend starting with a wide spread promotion of The Golden Rule. It’s universal, so simple an idiot can understand, the antithesis to our core flaw as it switches our Id for our Super Ego, and is therefore the key to world peace. That’s why it is The Golden Rule.

      If every time we, as individuals, sought to take steps toward actions that may adversely effect others in favor of self, instead took a moment to consider, the world would at least be a better place than it is now.

      It may sound awkward, corny, or sissified, …or whatever word you prefer. But what does that say about where and who we are if we cannot accept something so simple and righteous?

      So, to answer your inquiry, social order doesn’t require any of the garbage we’re used to thinking. …nope, …just love.

      Because with love comes consideration, respect, compassion, understanding, and brings us to everything righteous that we’re capable of.

      “All you need is love” – John Lennon

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Respectful ambivalence will do just fine.

        Since Love is linked to chemical reactions in your body, who is going to supply drugs needed to maintain this exhausting state of human condition?

        I would also suggest that “love” of others, in the general sense, is largely dependent on the other factors you claim come with love. In other words, your equation is backwards. Love is the outcome not the catalyst.

        Research is also showing humans to have much more of a “compassion” and “empathy” trait than a “self interest” trait.

        Bottom Line……….. I agree that force is not required for “social order”. However, most social order to date has involved some use of force. When that force becomes unjust and then intolerable, it loses its “sanction” or “authority”.

        All FORCE and COERCISION is not bad. The use of these to IMPOSE your will against others is where it goes astray. That is if the others are not causing harm to their neighbors.

        • David Skekabim says:

          ” Since Love is linked to chemical reactions in your body, who is going to supply drugs needed to maintain this exhausting state of human condition? ”

          Very funny.

          ” I would also suggest that “love” of others, in the general sense, is largely dependent on the other factors you claim come with love. In other words, your equation is backwards. Love is the outcome not the catalyst. ”

          Love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, etc …originates from within and extends outward. If you are the recipient of an act of kindness, it had to originate somewhere, which would be from the person acting in kindness toward you. They had to make a conscious decision to act.

          ” Research is also showing humans to have much more of a “compassion” and “empathy” trait than a “self interest” trait. ”

          While there are indeed genuinely good honest selfless natured people in the world, I have to disagree that it applies to the majority of humans. If most people are genuinely selfless, the world would be a bit different.

          Under most circumstances, people will simply pursue their interests without ever coming into conflict with others. But as soon as there is a conflict of interest (mutually exclusive or not) or even a minor or idle threat to said interests, many will act on the part of self over another.

          They look for the win/loose instead of the win/win.

          ” Bottom Line……….. I agree that force is not required for “social order”. However, most social order to date has involved some use of force. When that force becomes unjust and then intolerable, it loses its “sanction” or “authority”. ”

          I agree. How many revolutions have there been? How many times can you turn your cheek before it is considered self-violation?

          ” All FORCE and COERCISION is not bad. The use of these to IMPOSE your will against others is where it goes astray. That is if the others are not causing harm to their neighbors.”

          Again, I agree. Coercion in the context of defense is acceptable.

          Something like; “Quit stalking and harassing me and violating my privacy or I will hunt and kill you.” …is completely justified and righteous.

          I would even go so far as to suggest that giving a warning, thus allowing a choice to do the right thing, is rather humane. …as opposed to just killing the violator[s].

      • Thank you, David. A very concise explanation of your definition and beliefs. I cannot find fault with what you write or say. All social order that I researched was not based on the premise that you defined. The social orders that I read, and there were several, are all based on enforcement of some form and none were based on total cooperation that was not forced.

        Now, to your post. I can agree with your principle. That would, indeed, be a nice world to live in. The problem, obviously, is getting the entire world to agree to it at the same time. This is not a simple strategy of, if I do it others will follow. You and I both know that is viewed as weakness and the tiger will pounce. Past history does not support your view either. This world has never, at any time, lived in peace and harmony. Humans are incapable of such. so, while your idea is utopia in theory, don’t you feel that the application of it is impossible?

        I will use myself as an example. There is no way that I can sit back and not want to be the best that I can be. I want to be first and if I cannot be first, I want to be second but first better watch out because I will not settle for second best. That is not my way. I follow my basic golden rule..( stolen from the movie The Shootist )…” I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. ” I will also add this….” I will not turn the other cheek, all that does is get it slapped the same way.”

        But, I will say, (and thank you for an intelligent conversation) you view of social order would be great….but, I fear…..impossible and I would not know where to start.

        • David Skekabim says:

          Colonel,

          I have dedicated a great deal of thought and observation to what I espouse. I am acutely aware of the dynamics and truly believe in it. …and I contradict myself quite regularly.

          It isn’t easy, even with such self awareness. It is a struggle against our own nature, an internal battle, a jihad with the self, …if you will.

          It is perhaps a lofty goal what I suggest, but I believe that a conscious effort does make a difference. It at least limits the amount of selfish and/or evil actions one will perform. Done collectively, it can have a measurable effect.

          And to clarify, what I suggest is not a fantasy of expecting everyone to be shiny happy people holding hands and singing kumbaya. When I speak(type) of acts of love, it applies to a wide range of actions that can be great or very subtle and simple.

          For example; You are going out to run a couple of errands. You know the old lady next door has a difficult time getting around, so you stop by and ask her if she needs an errand taken care of. While at the gas station/convenience store, you put your loose change in the children’s charity jar on the counter. On your way out the door, you hold it open for someone with their hands full. When you are sitting in traffic on your way home, you let the guy pulling out of a parking lot slip into traffic in front of you.

          You just demonstrated several acts of love, all of which were completely selfless, and although small, still managed to make the world a little bit better of a place, …simply because you were thinking in those terms and were willing to act on it.

          What if everyone thought that way? How do you convince everyone to think that way? How do you popularize it in a way that it becomes a social norm?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            David

            “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a SELFISH principle.

            Treating others with kindness is not Selfless. You do not sacrifice anything of yourself in such an act. In fact you feed the internally wired desire to be compassionate and nice. Again a SELFISH act.

            If we do not love ourselves we will not love others. If we have to sacrifice ourselves, which is what selfless really requires, we will not love others. We will grow to despise them.

            I understand what you are saying but we often use the wrong concepts to put it all together.

            Acts of violence against innocent people are not caused by self interest alone. Because millions of people act in their own interest every day while also displaying kindness to others. I believe that much of that violence is due to psychological issues. These can be biologically caused or created by outside factors, such as child abuse.

            Those seeking power to lord it over others is an interesting case. Supposedly selfless people seeking the power to force others to adhere to their view of selfless. A truly psychotic bundle of contradictions.

            I am not arguing against your concept, just nitpicking the use of words as you know I would do.

            You also need to keep in mind that what we see every day in terms of the BAD is not even close to the majority. The vast majority of humans live in peace on a daily basis.

            The ugly comes out in the masses when the masses are stressed to the point of actual survival. But even then there are great displays of compassion.

            • David Skekabim says:

              “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a SELFISH principle.

              No it isn’t. It is quite the opposite.

              ‘Do unto others as I please’, or ‘Do unto others in a way that benefits me’, …would be examples of selfishness.

              The Golden Rule counter balances the selfish aspects of our psyche by switching the Id for the Super Ego. In order for you to treat others as you would have them treat you, you must consider their position. It prompts you to put yourself in their shoes. It orients your thinking around the needs of others. When weighed against your personal position, it often works toward a win/win outcome.

              “If I were an old lady with bad knees, I would certainly appreciate someone running errands for me on occasion.”

              What part of that was about serving my needs?

              ” Treating others with kindness is not Selfless. You do not sacrifice anything of yourself in such an act.”

              The fallacy in your reasoning is that an act of kindness or selflessness requires personal sacrifice. It does not. It could be as simple as giving someone a compliment.

              ” If I were having esteem issues, I would appreciate a genuine compliment.”

              I suppose you COULD argue that you sacrifice 5 seconds of your time and however many calories you burn expending the energy to move your mouth, tongue, lungs and vocal chords. But c’mon.

              ” I am not arguing against your concept, just nitpicking the use of words as you know I would do.”

              Yeah, I know. You’re helping me express my position by challenging me to clarify and define it. Thank you.

              ” You also need to keep in mind that what we see every day in terms of the BAD is not even close to the majority. The vast majority of humans live in peace on a daily basis. ”

              Living in peace is not exclusive to selfless decisions or actions.

              ” I am not going to try to rob that store because the clerk/owner has a gun, [the right to use it for a state militia], and will probably shoot me. ”

              (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist)

              ” The ugly comes out in the masses when the masses are stressed to the point of actual survival. But even then there are great displays of compassion.”

              Not only does the ugly come out in the masses when they’re stressed to the point of survival, but also any time people can justify to act toward a goal of win/lose over others in a way that encroaches upon or violates their rights, or otherwise causes offense.

              From my observation, it usually comes out whenever there is a perceived attack on anything people have attached their ego to.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                David

                I treat others with decency because I want to be treated with decency………SELFISH.

                The motivation is based on what I want………….to be treated decently.

                You use of selfish and selfless is inverted. It may match up with the left wing thinkers but it is inverted in root concepts.

                Self less………….without self. Focused on others first and foremost. So who is focused on you?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                David

                Kindness and Selflessness are not synonymous, in my view.

                One deals with how you interact while the other is a core value system that affects many things. Especially how you view yourself.

                Remember, the concept of selfless is integrally tied to the concept of “Altruism”. And yes, that does in fact require sacrifice. By definition.

              • David Skekabim says:

                ” I treat others with decency because I want to be treated with decency………SELFISH. ”

                Strawman – operative word “BECAUSE”. It implies a solely selfish motive.

                “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

                “Do unto others” is describing your outward approach toward others.

                “…as you would have them do unto you. ” is describing an outward approach from the position of another.

                It is clearly describing putting yourself in another’s position as if it were equal to your own.

                While it speaks to the selfish side of your psyche, it is not in favor of selfish motives.

                ” Remember, the concept of selfless is integrally tied to the concept of “Altruism”. And yes, that does in fact require sacrifice. By definition. ”

                Then I recommend changing the definition, as an act of selflessness does not necessarily require sacrifice as demonstrated above regarding a compliment.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Great example of GRACE???

    Also a good example of how to deal with causing a death, without years behind bars at tax payer expense. In other words, a more “self organizing” method.

    http://t.sports.msn.com/jerry-brown-jrs-mother-very-happy-josh-brent-is-getting-a-second-chance

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    ISIS and the trap we face in the middle east………….from a very different perspective. But one I find very interesting and with some good points. Especially the conclusion about the danger of losing ourselves if we face them on their terms.

    I mentioned it yesterday but thought some might like to read the whole thing.

    WARNING: Get a cup of coffee or your favorite beverage. It will take a while to finish.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vlahos/what-homers-iliad-tells-u_b_5759312.html

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Ya just gotta love it when these intellectuals attack others for erroneous assumption, using their own assumptions as the justification for their criticism.

    Perhaps this supposed “lifetime” Libertarian should study the cause/effect relationships a little harder. And he should look at Rand Paul’s actual statements. He has never expressed zero war or that we only engage after being attacked. That was his father’s view, but Rand has stated that engaging in killing bad guys is sometimes needed.

    In other word, the author resorts to some of that Strawman strategy we see so often these days.

    http://www.hoover.org/research/rand-pauls-fatal-pacifism

    To follow up on this a bit, I watched some 20 somethings from California on the Blaze TV last night. They have formed the “Liberty Caucus” within the Republican party in California. The admit they are Republican Libertarians.

    One of them was the child of Iranian immigrants who discussed the connections of what we see today to actions the USA and other nations took decades ago. The above author simply does not understand the history. He ignores the key question of why we should be involved in the Civil War of other countries. He also ignores the long term costs of doing something now vs. waiting to see if an actual threat occurs. He simply assumes acting now is easier and cheaper. But that is not necessarily the case.

    Frankly, I think the crazies over there are not crazy. Their goal was to poke us and get us to bleed ourselves to death. One GREEN drop at a time. Seems we have not learned our lesson and continue to be willing players in our own demise.

  44. Morphing Into ‘Conventional Army,’ Boko Haram Poised to ‘Explode Any Day, Like ISIS’
    Terrorist group’s new “caliphate” makes lightning-fast gains, closing in on a state capital that, if seized, would tear Nigeria apart and create a huge al-Qaeda base.

    by
    Bridget Johnson

    Bio
    September 3, 2014 – 5:08 pm

    WASHINGTON — As the world’s attention is captured by the terrifying determination and bloody modus operandi of the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda affiliate that declared a caliphate last week is sweeping across northeast Nigeria with lightning-quick efficiency and equally brutal means in a bid to break up the most populous nation on the continent.

    Boko Haram was on a steady march through Borno state when it overran Gwoza, a city of about 275,000, declaring on Aug. 24 the town now had “nothing to do with Nigeria” — and declaring it “part of the Islamic caliphate.”

    Borno state is the region where the kidnapping of Chibok schoolgirls in April touched off the #BringBackOurGirls campaign. The campaign continues in activist circles, but the global attention to the plight of all civilians being terrorized by Boko Haram quickly rose and fell in the scope of a news cycle. At least seven of the girls’ parents have since been killed in Boko Haram attacks.

    It’s this inattentiveness from the world community that’s allowing Boko Haram to make such drastic gains while their brothers-in-arms, ISIS, build the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    “Boko Haram’s attacks on the people of Nigeria have become more vicious. Their wicked deeds are devastating men, women and children, Christians and Muslims. Everyone is a target for Boko Haram,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), who has steadily led a daily Twitter campaign for the Chibok schoolgirls, told PJM today.

    “Boko Haram has the potential to explode any day, like ISIS. Now we have a major international crisis to deal with in Iraq. The international community must not let this terror continue,” Wilson said.

    “We still tweet daily, #BringBackOurGirls, for the safe return of the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls. We have a large and supportive following and our purpose is to show the world that Boko is a major threat.”

    On the heels of the capture of Gwoza, Boko Haram seized Gamboru Ngala near Lake Chad at the Cameroon border. The terrorist assault was so fierce that, in a historical first for the large West African nation, it drove about 480 Nigerian soldiers into Cameroon. The fight for the strategic location gave Boko Haram a valuable transit point to stock their new caliphate with arms and other necessities.

    Boko Haram seized control of Buni Yadi in late August, a city in neighboring Yobe state that signified a westward outpost for the terror group. In February, jihadists slaughtered 59 boys at a boarding school here and torched the educational facilities.

    In the first days of September, Boko Haram has gained even more momentum.

    The terrorists seized control of Madagli, a town in Adamawa state near the Cameroon border. The Catholic diocese that covers Yobe, Borno and Adamawa states told reporters Thursday that parish priests were fleeing for their lives and churches were being burned to the ground.

    “Christian men were caught and beheaded, the women were forced to become Muslims and were taken as wives to the terrorists,” said the diocese statement to the media, according to Nigeria’s Daily Post. “The houses of Christians that have fled are now occupied by the Haramists. Their cars are used by the terrorists. Some Boko Haram sympathizers around the town showed the terrorists Christian homes, and Christians hiding were also identified and killed. Strict Sharia law has been promulgated, as observed by a woman who luckily escaped from the dead zone.”

    And the status of Bama, a town in Borno state, was in flux after a Monday assault by Boko Haram, with both the terrorists and government claiming that they held the city. Borno state deputy governor Zanna Mustapha said in a statement, according to Reuters, that the attack “was very unfortunate, but I want to reassure our people that government is on top of the situation.”

    The Bama assault put Boko Haram just over 40 miles from Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state with more than a million residents.

    Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield arrived in Nigeria on Tuesday to attend a regional ministerial meeting on Boko Haram. Before she leaves on Friday, Thomas-Greenfield will sit down with Nigerian government officials to discuss 2015 elections and will meet with alumni from President Obama’s Young African Leaders Initiative, according to the State Department.

    State Department press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters today that there were no updates from the Boko Haram meeting.

    “I believe that she has been in Nigeria for the past couple of days. And certainly addressing the threat of Boko Haram is a part of those discussions,” Psaki said. “We can see if there’s more of a readout to offer. Sometimes, we deal with time changes and things of that sort.”

    The Nigeria Security Network, a collaboration of security experts and academics, issued a chilling report Tuesday that warned of no less than the severing of Nigeria — with Borno state as Boko Haram’s new “country.”

    “Boko Haram have hoisted flags over many of the communities they have overrun, and are reported to be imposing their interpretation of sharia law on the population. They have been accused of beheading Christians and carrying out other atrocities in the affected towns and villages,” the report states.

    “Nigeria is on the verge of losing control of Borno state, including the state capital Maiduguri. Boko Haram have seized territory along at least two of the main approaches to the capital and are reported to be preparing to strike the city. Their seizure of Dikwa and attacks on Bama could indicate a two-pronged assault from the north-east and the south-east. Attacks from elsewhere also cannot be ruled out. If Maiduguri falls, it will be a symbolic and strategic victory unparalleled so far in the conflict.”

    The group called that no less than “the realisation of Boko Haram’s ambition to establish a caliphate in north-east Nigeria.”

    In a July video, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau included the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, among his “brethren,” as well as al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban chief Mullah Omar. Tweets from ISIS-affiliated accounts at the time of Shekau’s caliphate declaration showed appreciation for Boko Haram’s tenacity and tactics.

    The Nigeria Security Network report stressed that Boko Haram’s military strategy, including the destruction of key bridges, has hampered the Nigerian military’s response. “If Borno falls to Boko Haram, parts of Yobe and Adamawa can be expected to follow. Parts of Cameroon along the border area would also probably be overrun. Unless swift action is taken, Nigeria could be facing a rapid takeover of a large area of its territory reminiscent of ISIS’s lightning advances in Iraq.”

    That would result not only in a humanitarian disaster as civilians flee, but even more atrocities against the populace unable to escape. “Attacks against government workers and others in Maiduguri are very likely should the capital fall,” the report adds.

    It marks July as the point when Boko Haram’s advancements entered “a dangerous new phase” — and the point when the terrorists began “to operate like a conventional army.”

    While Boko Haram units outside of the northeast continue to stage “hit-and-run assaults” largely for “psychological effect,” in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe states they are now “aggressively challenging the Nigerian military through direct confrontation in open and sustained battle,” including the reported use of tanks and artillery.

    As in Iraq, some government soldiers have fled from Boko Haram assaults. Units lack proper equipment or enough rounds of ammunition to take on the terror group. The report urges immediate reinforcement of Maiduguri to keep the state capital from falling, and urges Cameroonian forces to prepare for a border assault.

    The international community, the report recommends, should “consider providing the Nigerian government with non-lethal military assistance, including reconnaissance and transportation” and “continue to facilitate and strengthen regional cooperation to tackle the Boko Haram threat, following agreements reached at the recent conferences in Paris and London.”

    Boko Haram began its attacks in 2009 with bombings, assassinations and kidnappings, moving into a guerrilla-style insurgency in 2011. The Obama administration declared Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization this past November.

    The fall of Borno state would give Boko Haram’s regional partners and fellow al-Qaeda affiliates a new place to train, along with whatever foreign fighters want to come join the movement. U.S. Africa Command noted in summer 2012 that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was inviting Boko Haram and Somalia’s Al-Shabaab to train in an area the size of Texas controlled in northern Mali.

    Boko Haram’s latest mention at a White House briefing was a month ago during the Africa Leaders Summit, which the administration pulled together to focus on economic development opportunities for the continent.

    In a speech a year ago at Camp Pendleton President Obama said al-Qaeda has been “decimated” yet “from Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse.”

    “And while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based,” Obama said.

    While in D.C. for the leaders’ summit, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud told PJM that “the risk is always there, everywhere.”

    “Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, all of them, these are terrorist organizations — they are linked, they live for each other, they support each other and they are connected globally,” Mohamud said. “It’s not just an issue of one country or one region — it’s a global phenomenon that needs to be addressed globally.”

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/morphing-into-conventional-army-boko-haram-poised-to-explode-any-day-like-isis/?singlepage=true

  45. This isn’t new, but getting better, 🙂 http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=4958

  46. Just A Citizen says:

  47. I found myself agreeing as I read this article. But the last line fills me with confusion. “A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.” I don’t know how one goes about protecting vital interest without nation-building. I keep reading that our leaving Iraq too soon allowed ISIS to move in and that our messing around in Libya and then just leaving- left them weak. And I don’t know what to call what we did in Syria.

    Rand Paul: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

    Sen. Rand Paul @SenRandPaul

    11:56 AM ET

    If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS

    Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

    I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

    As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.

    Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?

    And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

    This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.

    And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.

    If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.

    This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.

    Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skilful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

    The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

    There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.

    The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.

    The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.

    We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.

    Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.

    We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

    Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.

    We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.

    Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.

    ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.

    This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

    To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.

    Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.

    Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.

    Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leaves few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.

    http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I agree, the last sentence creates confusion.

      The only way it makes sense is if it applies to the broader long term desired policy.

      The criticism of Obama then fits, for leaving Iraq, because we had already “broken that plate”, so we “owned it”.

      What is missing is that under Paul’s proposal we would not have had to deal with Iraq because we would not have gone there. Or Libya, or Syria.

      Afghanistan is a better example to test his views, although we can’t really answer the questions because the water has gone under the bridge. But the theory by many Libertarians is that we were right to go after the Taliban and bin Laden. We should have used everything required to destroy them. Then we should have simply left.

      This begs the question of what is it we leave behind and what responsibility do we have for it. In Afghanistan I think it would have been OK to just leave, since our offensive efforts did not destroy most of the institutions and infrastructure.

      Iraq was different.

      I think Paul’s criticism of “nation building” is more specific to the same criticism Bush II leveled against the Dems when he first ran for president. That is the deliberate destabilizing of nations for the purpose of “imposing democracy” upon them. This seems to be where Bush II wound up in his foreign policy thinking. I don’t think it was his own, but he was moved by the Neo-Cons who dominated his administration.

      I would like to see some journalist without an axe to grind do the needed follow up with Rand Paul on this question.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Lets tackle the real question. One that only a few politicians have even mentioned. One which I think Paul alluded to with his comment about going to Congress.

      It is this: WHAT IS OUR NATIONAL INTEREST WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS?

      How do we define it? How do we know what it is so that we can clearly and easily determine when it is ACTUALLY THREATENED.

      I think I mentioned that I watched a history lecture at the Naval Academy some time ago. The topic was our involvement in Central and South America. The principle which kept driving the analysis and comments was “protection of our national interest”. The Plebes kept tossing it around without ever defining it.

      At the end the professor left them with this: “Yes, we should defend our national interest. And since you are the ones who will be asked to do this, perhaps you should give some thought as to what that means”.

      Wise words we should all consider, I think.

      • I’d be happy too-but I can’t define what I believe that means. I think national interest but then an example of just pure evil happening in the world comes to mind, like the holocaust and I think we should stop that whether it directly effects our national interest or not. It would be in the interest of all of humanity. But I also know there is only so much any Country can do-so I’m back to-I don’t know .

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.

          Think about that for a minute. You are an educated, well informed and thinking person.

          You cannot define it.

          YET…………….it is used time and again to motivate the Citizens to support some war/war like action.

          “We need to protect our National Interest” howls the Politician. “HELL YES” scream the Citizens, “lets git er done”. And off we go again.

          As for the Evil that is not a direct or indirect threat, I suggest that is the role of the “international” community. Which is one of the primary purposes of the UN. To muster International Force to counter evil. This prevents the US from being painted the bad guy by acting unilaterally.

          Because almost every EVIL has a counterpoint. While we view ISIS as evil, those fighting with them and supporting them obviously do not. So if we alone defeat EVIL, what do the survivors do after wards?

          Problem was we gave Evil Veto power in the UN.

          • This brings a question to mind then-Is fighting evil simply because it is evil defined as in our National Interest. You say this is when we go to the International community for imput-this would seem to be implying that us going to war isn’t based solely on our national interest.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.

              I was responding more to your scenario, of another Hitler as an example.

              The broader response might not be us going to war directly, but supporting others.

              ISIS, for example, is currently nothing but and EVIL player. They are posing no direct threat to American Interests, as I see it.

              However, if their stated goal is real and if they continue to pursue it they could pose a direct threat to our interests later.

              So following the principle of self defense and retaliation only, we should not be attacking ISIS right now. That is on our own.

              If ISIS is so Evil that it motivates most in the world to take action then we can decide to join in.

              This violates the core principle if we hold it as inviolable. However, by only engaging when the World agrees, we satisfy the next level of moral/ethical standard. We are all party to the hanging and because we all agreed it is presumed to be morally and ethically correct.

              Quite frankly, I don’t know why we need to provide support to anyone over there. Except maybe the Kurds. These Arab nations are floating in oil profits. Why should we be the ones to conduct air operations or coordinate and support their ground forces???

              Sorry, almost forgot to give you a direct answer to your question.

              I do NOT believe that simply fighting evil is in our National Interest. If Americans wish to go fight the evil on their own they should be free to do so. But our “military” power should be used to protect our interests.

              I define those as defending our boundaries and territories, as well as protecting our lanes of commerce. That is why we created a Navy in the first place. To keep others from stopping and stealing our commercial ships.

              It does not include attacking some country who decides to nationalize the property of an American company doing business there. Or manipulating a country to gain favorable trading conditions for some American corporations.

              One way to evaluate the issue of using military force is to ask the more basic moral question.

              Is it moral to force a young man or woman to sacrifice their life for the sake of someone they do not know, have no interest in, and who will never give two hoots about them? To give their life when their own freedom and liberty is not jeopardized?

              I say forced because while our military is voluntary, those enlisting are not volunteering to fight and possibly die in the next war of convenience or geo-political gamesmanship. They enlist to “protect our freedom”. That is a noble and honorable thing to do. We should honor them by holding the line on that criteria.

              I do want to address what may look like confusion. I have said we need to take action on ISIS among some other things. This is because what I describe as our ideal or proper role has not been reached. We have helped create some messes and in my view we owe to others to help clean up the mess.

              The alternative is to simply pull Americans out of harms way around the world. Then start with the new moral/ethical standard. That may be the best thing to do but right now it seems it could be far more problematic than withdrawing in a more strategic manner.

              How would you define our “National Interests”, excluding the issue of just Evil players?

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Is that a flying pig I see to the east???

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/09/finally-the-fed-blames-itself/

  49. JAC says: I suggest that is the role of the “international” community. Which is one of the primary purposes of the UN. To muster International Force to counter evil. This prevents the US from being painted the bad guy by acting unilaterally.

    What is wrong with being painted as the bad guy?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Depends on who is painting you. If it someone with the ability to enrage millions against us then maybe we should share the paint party with others.

      Then of course we could just resort to “being the strongest tribe”. 🙂

  50. As to the minimum wage walkout and demand,,,,,,let it happen. If a state wants to raise minimum wage,,,,do it. Let the law of supply and demand function. The price of fast food now is so high it is not worth the calories to eat it. If someone wants to pay 10 bucks to eat a hamburger…..let them. Higher wages mean higher prices and that equals higher unemployment.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Agree. It is a STATE issue and let the States decide. They can suffer their decisions.

      Home care providers are being recruited into this fiasco. So lets see what could possible be affected by Home Care workers getting $30,000 a year plus benefits??

      Hint America: WHO pays for the Home Health Care? I have to tell you, it is not 100% paid by the consumers directly.

      • I dont know who it is that’s getting 30k /yr for that JAC. I’m a caregiver for one of my former employees. I get a monthly check for $563 for my time, which I hand directly back to her for her for whatever it is that she needs, I don’t keep a dime. Haven’t for 8 years. The check comes from State of Mich. SS taxes are deducted. SEIU used to get a cut for dues but some judge nixed that.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          Nobody does now, unless they are certified medical staff.

          But SEIU is trying to get home care providers unionized and part of the demand for $15 per hour. That would equate to $30 thousand per year.

          So if SEIU succeeds and the minimum wage for home care rises to $15 per hour, guess where the added cost is going to come from? Same place it does now.

      • I pay 100%. With the new overtime rules here in CA, I now must pay overtime for any time over 9hrs/day. I wish it was only $30K/yr.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TRay

          Why don’t you get some Medicaid help on the home care? I think I know the reason but maybe you could explain it for everyone else.

  51. Tonight begins the start of the NFL season! Many of you, like myself are fans and enjoy the entertainment the games provide. I’m going to try and make things a little fun here, by challenging my fellow SUFA football fans to a weekly pick-em contest. For the sake of simplicity (much needed for the SUFA ladies 😀 ) here are the parameters. Games are picked straight up, no betting lines and picks are due before gametime. I’ll post mine prior to Thursday nights game, but all picks can be changed before game start time. I’ll start the show here and now:

    Packers upset the Seahawks. The game comes down to last seconds, great opener!
    Saints trash the Falcons
    Bengals shock the Ravens
    Bears destroy the Bills
    Texans shut down the Redskins
    Titans upset the Chiefs
    Dolphins upset the Patriots
    Raiders crush the Jets
    Eagles beat up the Jaguars
    Browns blow out the Steelers- upset special
    Vikings handle the Rams
    Cowboys beat 49ers in a shootout
    Buccaneers slam the Panthers
    Broncos destroy the Colts
    Lions beat Giants in a close one
    Cardinals upset Chargers in another shootout

    Let the games begin! 🙂

  52. Very interesting interview with CIA guys actually on the ground at Benghazi. They were directly ordered to stand down….and after 30 minutes…..decided to go to the aid of the Ambassador in violation of stand down orders. All three say that the lives could have been saved.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Colonel

      Looks like it was the Station Chief who gave the “stand down” order. Yet the agency still denies any such order was given. I am guessing that this dispute is the use of “precise words”.

      Tell a soldier to stop and sit and he has been told to “stand down”. Whether those exact words were used or not does not matter. The order is the same.

      This dispute over orders is the result of the Democrats, primarily Clintons, strategy of dealing with controversy. Meaning of is…is type BS.

      Now if only some of the others in other units would spill the beans we might finally find out just how many incompetent leaders we have in the military/CIA cluster.

      Hope all is well this fine morning.

  53. Here I thought Hillary was the worst: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/kerry-biblical-responsibility-protect-muslim-countries-global-warming

    Do these asshole know that the Global Warming scam is totally destroyed?

%d bloggers like this: