Romney Reflections

During the last presidential debates, I strongly thought Romney would do a superb job managing our economy.  He  is a money guy, a self made millionaire with a record as govern that  shows it wasn’t luck.  But he lost the debates and election.  I remember Obama ridiculing him on his statement on Russia.  I think current events speak volumes on that subject.

He also warned about unrest in Tunisia.  I was unaware of anything newsworthy there, but not long after the election, the French suppressed a rebellion with US assistance.  Romney learned from 9/11.  Threats to the US and our interests are not the same as in the good old days.  The planning and preparation for the 9/11 attacks took place mostly while Clinton occupied the White House.  The media would portray Clinton as a peace seeking President.  Why then did Islamics attack the US?  Bush had not started any new wars or conflicts.  More to the point today, what does America need to concern itself with & what actions NEED to be taken?


  1. By Mitt Romney September 4 at 2:09 PM

    The writer is the former governor of Massachusetts. In 2012, the Republican Party nominated him for president of the United States.

    Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.

    Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.

    The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.

    It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.

    • Obama is a flaming moron 😀

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Biggest error in the argument, one perpetrated constantly by both sides, is that moving to a new paradigm “requires” a weak Defense.

      I am not convinced Mr. Obama is far off track with his “vision” of the new order. But then I am not sure because he has never articulated clearly what that vision is all about.

      I do believe is was Naïve and blinded by his left wing upbringing. While I desire a peaceful world where all get along I am grounded in the reality that there is still much violence and some of those crazies wish to upset the global apple cart. Not as many as the croaking class would have us believe, but there certainly are some.

      As I raised with V.H. yesterday. What is our real interest? Why should we care what goes on in the world if it is not a direct threat to the USA??

      Why should we care if Russia invades Ukraine or Poland for that matter? Could it be that our view that we need to help is still being fed by the “collective guilt” of the holocaust in Europe?

      Question and food for thought: Notice how Hitler is often used as to why we should fight evil in the world before it can spread. WHY do we always cite Hitler and not JAPAN?

  2. As usual, the minions that populate the mindless masses, like LOI, confuse themselves.

    Rommeny cannot manage the economy any better than anyone else – that is, not at all.

    It is a sign of massive lack of economic understanding to pretend a guy who for the most part participated in an open market place sans violent force somehow can translate that participation successfully in a closed market place using only force.

    In all causes from history, guys like him have been as disastrous as anyone else.

    Further, he would be as war-like as all his predecessors and like Obama. The US mindset of the warfare/welfare State does not abate simply because another ass sits in the Big Chair.

    This post is just another typical pray for a messiah to lift the ignorant masses out of their demise.

    You remind me of one of Aesop’s fables.

    “The Frogs Desiring a King” tells of a group of frogs who live happily in a swamp, free of any cares. One day, a few of them decide they want a proper leader and plead with Jove, their god, to send them a king.

    He laughs and sends them a rather large log.

    Terrified at first, the frogs don’t know what to do, until the strongest of them jumps on the log and mocks it.

    Soon, the rest join in, and they complain to Jove that they wanted a strong ruler, not a weak one. Jove listens and sends them a stork, which promptly gobbles them up.

    • Flaggy,

      Have to admit, you got it right saying I am confused.

      “As usual, the minions that populate the mindless masses, like LOI, confuse themselves.”

      I am a minion, mindless and part of the masses that make up our population because I think Romney was/is better on economics than most who seek that office. Hardly mindless.
      I gave it some thought and even though he’s not a true free market advocate as I would prefer, he’s a lot closer than most & is not a deficit doesn’t matter budget-er.

      “This post is just another typical pray for a messiah to lift the ignorant masses out of their demise.”

      And now I’m ignorant? Isn’t name calling the last refuge of some, something? We do not agree on government. I advocate small, limited government. VDLG! You say any government is wrong and a continuation of the problem. Disagreeing does not make me right or wrong, ignorant or informed. I posted this recalling Romney was correct in several notable statements on foreign policy/events. Where am I wrong it that statement?

      • LOI

        “I think Romney was/is better on economics than most who seek that office.”

        What possibly could give you such a thinking? Just because he is a business man?
        Business men are no more capable of economic thinking then anyone else.

        Look, arguably Warren Buffet is an excellent business man. His economic thinking is horrific.

        Buffett has formally endorsed and made campaign contributions to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

        He loves the inheritance tax and would raise it.

        He hates gold and loves the Fed.

        So why would you assume simply because he can makes lots of money he understands economics??

        “I advocate small, limited government.”

        You advocate a contradiction – that’s mindless.

        • How would you balance a budget in a deep blue state? Romney is way to my left on most things, including fiscal policy. That said, I can see us having a much more prosperous economy under him than Obama, McCain and a few others.

          • “How would you balance a budget in a deep blue state?”


            He platformed for tax cuts.
            Reality: Taxes revenue highest, ever.
            The average rate of state and local taxes in Massachusetts rose from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent (compared to the national rate, which rose from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent)

            He platformed for budget cuts.
            Reality: Highest budget expenditures, ever.

            He platformed on job growth:
            Reality: Job growth in Massachusetts rose at a rate of 1.5 percent (compared to the national average of 5.3 percent),

            Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state,

            proposed to institute full-day kindergarten in schools

            funded a program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to the state’s public universities or colleges

            declared his opposition to same-sex marriage.

            supporter of the federal assault weapons ban,

            sought to reinstate the death penalty

            deny every request for a pardon or commutation

            protect the current pro-choice

            increase benefits for Massachusetts National Guard members

            indexing the minimum wage to inflation

            allowed Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants (what rule of due process, none.)

            supported regulation of “greenhouse gas emissions”


            So, where is this brilliant economic thinking? Utterly void of it.

            Yet, you think he is better than Obama, who IN FACT, nearly did all of the same things, and in a lot of areas, a lot less damage to the economy.


            You continue to pretend some political messiah will correct the problems created byf the previous political messiah.

  3. US concern? End their reliance on their own government.

    What should the US do? End the warfare/welfare State.

    But you can’t conceive of doing that, so you will argue for more the State and its welfare and its warfare to solve the problem created by such things.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Black Flag

      Good day my old friend. Did you get buried in the very Cold Rain recently. Temps are far below normal here for August and September….so far. July was hot on the other hand.

      Now I would like you to address a question directly.

      WHAT should the USA National Interest be in your view?

      How would you describe it so everyone would clearly understand when that line has been crossed?

      Hope all is well with you and the family.

      • There is no such thing as a “National” interest. Such a mind tornado to believe such a thing exists pretends that there exists an interest that is the same for everyone, which simply does not exist.

        There are only individual interests.

        But even if you don’t understand that, I then ask this:
        What is the “National Interest of Switzerland”?

        Absolutely nothing outside of its borders.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Yes and there are 300 million “individual interests” in the USA who all have an interest in how the USA interacts with the rest of the world.

          Each one dependent upon a world of trade and agreements reached with other nations.

          I am not interested in your view that Nations are bull shit lines on a map. They EXIST in this world of today.

          Since the USA trades globally, since we are subject to global agreements and treaties, then WHAT is our National Interest?

          At what point is our “INTEREST” threatened enough to justify some type of Force in response?

          • JAC

            So your bizarre argument now condenses to:
            “Because some bizarre people think there exists a “national” interest, though really it is merely their own interest, and these people act to promote their own interest under the pretense its mine too, and takes action that risks my own individual interest and welfare, that means there must have been a National interest in the first place”

            Man, you are losing it.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Apparently you don’t want to offer up an opinion on the matter. Just say so.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Because your answer was incomplete. I accept it but it needs more meat on the bones.

              And you fail to explain why we have no interest in protecting our trade outside our borders.

              If our commercial ships are seized is that an issue of interest? National or just Private? What is the proper response to one ship, two ships, or a blockade against all ships?

              You need to flesh out your ideas in relation to the current existence of the Nation States, including the USA.

              If another Nation State takes action against trade, commerce or things that are of significant interest to the US Citizens, then what is the appropriate action. Embargos, raising import taxes, etc, can suddenly be used against us. What is the proper response.

              You also say, “nothing outside our borders”. So how about the border itself? Is loss of those borders an interest worthy of Force to fend of the aggressor?

              As I said, you need to explain your opinion in greater detail.

              I am curious. If another Nazi Germany arose today, invading other nations at will. What should our response be to that?

              • JAC

                It is not incomplete.

                I do not need to posit a “National Policy” when such a beast does not exist, nor do I need to dictate what action a nation must utilize outside of its borders when its hypothetical interest is contained within its borders.

              • Further, your mythical example, as usual is baseless.

                You start, as you and others always do, on the pretense that “out of the blue” a nation suddenly, for no reason, covets the trade and resources of another. Suddenly, embargoes and seizures of goods are undertaken for no cause – then you ask “What will you do?”

                Sorry, no – I don’t pretend answers to fairy tale problems.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So what is our National Interest WITHIN our border.

              And is our border of interest or not? Is it in our interest to defend against INVASION or not?

              • “So what is our National Interest WITHIN our border?”

                There is no such thing as a “National” interest, JAC.

                It is in the interest of the people, as individuals, to defend themselves.

  4. Russia is not “invading” – what a laugh.

    As the leader of the rebels said in a press conference, “If Russia was invading, we would not be talking about the siege of Donetsk, we would be talking about the siege of Kiev”

  5. Why does Islamic radicals attack the US?

    Gee, no matter how many times explained, you still cannot learn. You learned nothing from 9/11 either.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      That seems a bit hypocritical on your part. If the US had advisers, soldiers and hard assets in a country helping the rebels would you not be accusing the USA of “invading” said country?

      • Just like in Iraq, huh?

        It is not hypocritical. Look at a map one day, JAC.

        You pretend sending troops 3,000 miles away is the same as placing them on your border next to a civil war.

        It is undeniable that the discourse in the Ukraine is due to US and EU instigation against Russia. There is no difference in the Russian position and power today then a year ago.
        If Russia wanted Ukraine, they would take it whenever they wanted it.

        So what is the cause of the ruckus now? You won’t entertain the truth because, heck, in your head, the US is clean and Russia is dirty

        • Surprise Flag, I totally agree with you. Poke the bear in the eye often enough and be surprised that he swats you back? Anybody with half a brain knows that the original deal involved keeping the border states nominally neutral, NATO membership and “defensive” missiles stationed in those countries not exactly neutral. Not to mention that we all know part of our financial deal with Ukraine was to gradually put the screws on Russia’s access to the Black Sea. F—— Cold warriors have nothing else to do with their time but hearken back to the thrilling days of yesterday like October ’62.

          I see we are planning to lead a rapid response contingent to Eastern Ukraine. God Almighty!

          • The strange idea its Russia’s fault dominates the government-run Western media.

            For those that are lost in the mental mush, here’s a recap.

            The Ukraine government prior to 2013 was dominated by Western Ukrainian power, who worked to try to get money from the EU to pay for its internal corruption that was bankrupting the nation.

            EU made a condition on Ukraine that it had to essentially become a defacto member of the EU and leave the Russian sphere and centuries of alignment with Russia behind.

            The government agreed. The next election saw a massive uproar about this matter and the government in power was tossed, replaced by a government dominated from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, whose first task was to begin eliminating the Ukrainian corrupt bureaucrats and cancelling the EU deal in favor of a Russian economic deal.

            Western Ukrainians protested in Kiev and disposed their president who fled to Crimea, resulting in a coup of the Western Ukraine powers to once again take over the Ukraine, maintain its corrupt bureaucracy and once again move Ukraine to the EU.

            Crimea and Eastern Ukraine said “fine, you go, we stay” – but since the economic strength of the Ukraine actually sits in the East part and not the West, the Ukrainian government began a pogram of violence on the Eastern Ukraine.

            As we see now, that isn’t working out too well for the Western Ukrainians.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Black Flag

          Fallacy of diversion. It is YOUR claim that an invasion is not happening.

          Yet you claim the USA invaded other countries doing the same thing.

          That is YOUR contradiction and has nothing to do with my views or whether the USA did nor did not invade another country. In fact is has nothing to do with actual reasons.

          The issue is your consistency in making your accusations.

          You also commit the fallacy of Straw Man once again. You create “my view” from thin air then attack it while ridiculing me as ignorant, stubborn, pig headed, etc, etc.

          Now if I recall you once chastised the USA for reacting to Russia when it wanted to put missiles in Cuba. What business was that of ours and why should we start hostilities against Russia or Cuba. It was not a direct attack on us, after all.

          Yet now you blame the USA for “provoking” Russia. We “caused” Russia to act as they have. Is that your view? That we “made them do it”?

          And are not the Ukrainian people free to decide who they will associate with?

          Seems to BF there are a lot of players in the Russia/Ukraine and Russia/Europe issues. It also seems to me you are confusing rationalization provided by some of those players with actual “cause and effect”.

          Now to make it perfectly clear, since you apparently did not read my previous comments on this. Russia vs. Ukraine is none of our business. It is up to Europe to figure out whether this is a real threat or just some more internal BS among the various factions within the RUS.

          • JAC,

            It is NOT happening, and never happened.

            As the separatist leader said “We would absolutely be delighted if Russia intervened, but that is absolutely impossible politically”

            But as I know you only get your info from the Western media, I can see why you are so confused.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So Russian troops, trucks and tank within the Ukraine border is NOT an invasion. But US troops, trucks and tanks within any other border IS an invasion.

              Do I have that correct now?

              • They are not Russian troops. Russia does not command those troops.

                US soldiers are in command of the US.

              • Second, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER except from the Western propaganda machine, that Russia is supplying anything but civilian supplies.

                The fact that many of the Ukrainian Armed Forces have joined the rebels doesn’t register in your head, right?

              • As the rebel leader said,
                “We have Frenchmen fighting with us, we have Germans fighting with us, we have lots of different nationalities fighting with us, and, yes, we have Russians fighting with us too – but we do not have the Russian Army fighting with us”

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So you agree with PUTIN that those captured Russian Soldiers that were in uniform and carrying guns were actually on vacation.

              Is that right?

              • They weren’t Russian Army soldiers. Putin did not command them to go, no less the French soldiers were commanded by France to go.

                I guess you blame Putin for those French army soldiers too, huh?

              • Because if Russia invaded on Thursday morning, this is what the situation on the ground would look like by Saturday afternoon.

                1. Ukrainian artillery fell silent almost immediately. They are no longer shelling residential districts of Donetsk and Lugansk. This is because their locations had been pinpointed prior to the operation, and by Thursday afternoon they were completely wiped out using air attacks, artillery and ground-based rocket fire, as the first order of business. Local residents are overjoyed that their horrible ordeal is finally at an end.

                2. The look of military activity on the ground in Donetsk and Lugansk has changed dramatically. Whereas before it involved small groups of resistance fighters, the Russians operate in battalions of 400 men and dozens of armored vehicles, followed by convoys of support vehicles (tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, field hospitals and so on). The flow of vehicles in and out is non-stop, plainly visible on air reconnaissance and satellite photos. Add to that the relentless radio chatter, all in Russian, which anyone who wants to can intercept, and the operation becomes impossible to hide.

                3. The Ukrainian military has promptly vanished. Soldiers and officers alike have taken off their uniforms, abandoned their weapons, and are doing their best to blend in with the locals. Nobody thought the odds of the Ukrainian army against the Russians were any good. Ukraine’s only military victory against Russia was at the battle of Konotop in 1659, but at the time Ukraine was allied with the mighty Khanate of Crimea, and, you may have noticed, Crimea is not on Ukraine’s side this time around.

                4. There are Russian checkpoints everywhere. Local civilians are allowed through, but anyone associated with a government, foreign or domestic, is detained for questioning. A filtration system has been set up to return demobilized Ukrainian army draftees to their native regions, while the volunteers and the officers are shunted to pretrial detention centers, to determine whether they had ordered war crimes to be committed.

                5. Most of Ukraine’s border crossings are by now under Russian control. Some have been reinforced with air defense and artillery systems and tank battalions, to dissuade NATO forces from attempting to stage an invasion. Civilians and humanitarian goods are allowed through. Businessmen are allowed through once they fill out the required forms (which are in Russian).

                6. Russia has imposed a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine. All civilian flights have been cancelled. There is quite a crowd of US State Department staffers, CIA and Mossad agents, and Western NGO people stuck at Borispol airport in Kiev. Some are nervously calling everyone they know on their satellite phones. Western politicians are demanding that they be evacuated immediately, but Russian authorities want to hold onto them until their possible complicity in war crimes has been determined.

                7. The usual Ukrainian talking heads, such as president Poroshenko, PM Yatsenyuk and others, are no longer available to be interviewed by Western media. Nobody quite knows where they are. There are rumors that they have already fled the country. Crowds have stormed their abandoned residences, and were amazed to discover that they were all outfitted with solid gold toilets. Nor are the Ukrainian oligarchs anywhere to be found, except for the warlord Igor Kolomoisky, who was found in his residence, abandoned by his henchmen, dead from a heart attack. (Contributed by the Saker.)

                8. Some of the over 800,000 Ukrainian refugees are starting to stream back in from Russia. They were living in tent cities, many of them in the nearby Rostov region, but with the winter coming they are eager to get back home, now that the shelling is over. Along with them, construction crews, cement trucks and flatbeds stacked with pipe, cable and rebar are streaming in, to repair the damage from the shelling.

                9. There is all sorts of intense diplomatic and military activity around the world, especially in Europe and the US. Military forces are on highest alert, diplomats are jetting around and holding conferences. President Obama just held a press conference to announce that “We don’t have a strategy on Ukraine yet.” His military advisers tell him that his usual strategy of “bomb a little and see what happens” is not likely to be helpful in this instance.

                10. Kiev has surrendered. There are Russian tanks on the Maidan Square. Russian infantry is mopping up the remains of Ukraine’s National Guard. A curfew has been announced. The operation to take Kiev resembled “Shock and Awe” in Baghdad: a few loud bangs and then a whimper.

                Armed with this list, you too should be able to determine whether or not Russia has invaded Ukraine last Thursday.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Black Flag

              So then to be clear, the only countries that the USA has invaded in the past 30 years are Iraq and Afghanistan.


              • You can’t even get your history straight – here’s more:

                Grenada. Grenada on Oct. 25, 1983

                Panama. December 1989

                Iraq 1991, 1996, 2000, 2003

                Somalia 1992, 1996, 2003, 2007, 2013

                Haiti1994 and 1995sending 20,000 troops at the peak

                Bosnia and Kosovo 1990

                Libya 1981,1986, 1989, 2011

                Sudan 1998

                Lebanon 1982

                1983–89 – Honduras
                1983 – Chad
                1984, 1987, 1988 – Persian Gulf – Iran

                1989 Phillipines

                Bosnia -1994

                1996 – Kurdish region

                1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan

                1999 – Serbia

                2001 – Afghanistan

                2002 – Yemen

                2004 – Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea

                2004–present: Pakistan

                2014 – Syria:

              • JAC…useless argument….the term invade is subjective.

              • D13,

                Not subjective at all.

                Actively use national armed forces to attack another country that was not attacking the former.

          • “Now if I recall you once chastised the USA for reacting to Russia when it wanted to put missiles in Cuba”

            What nonsense! I never said that!
            Talk about “Classic Straw man!”

            The fact of the crisis was absolutely caused by the US putting missiles in Turkey. Russia saw this as a existential threat and demanded their withdrawal. The US refused. Russia responded by attempting to place missiles in Cuba to extend the existential threat to the US, which the US responded to that with a threat of war.

            To pretend “i can threaten you, but get all huffy when you threaten me” is bizarre.

            The crisis ended when the US agreed to withdraw its missiles if Russia did the same, but the US did not announce or publicize such a withdrawal. S

            Since the media was focused only on the Russian missiles on ships – as it was a visible- that withdrawal was seen as a statement of US political might over Russia, and not a mutual withdrawal.

            But the mindless masses of the US are clueless as usual.

            And your straw man is clueless as well.

  6. off topic-but I found it interesting

    Ask Andrew W.K.: Prayer Is Stupid, Right?
    By Andrew W.K. Wed., Sep. 3 2014 at 3:44 PM
    Categories: Ask Andrew W.K.

    Photo by Ashley Eberbach
    [Editor’s note: Every Wednesday, New York City’s own Andrew W.K. takes your life questions and sets you safely down the right path to a solution, a purpose or — no surprise here — a party. Need his help? Just ask:]

    Hey, Andrew.

    Thanks for doing what you do and helping people. I’m going to make this short and to the point. My older brother was diagnosed with cancer last week. My whole family is freaking out and trying to deal with the news. Everyone is trying to find different ways to help, but something my grandmother said has really got me angry. She said we should all just “pray for my brother,” like prayer would actually save his life. Just thinking about it now makes my fists clench with frustration. We need to actively help my brother and do actual things to save him, not kneeling on the ground and mumbling superstitious nonsense. I got into a fight with my grandmother and the rest of my family about this and now I feel worse than ever. I need to get them to see that praying and religious mumbo jumbo doesn’t help. How do I explain this to them?

    Thanks for reading this,
    Not Gonna Pray

    See also: Ask Andrew W.K.: My Dad Is a Right-Wing Asshole

    Dear Not Gonna Pray,

    I’m deeply sorry to hear about your brother’s diagnosis. I’m sending you my thoughts, and my heart goes out to your brother and your whole family. Guess what? That was me praying for you. I think the idea of “praying” is a lot less complicated, a lot more powerful, and a little different than you may realize. In fact, I’ll bet you’re already praying all the time and just don’t realize it.

    Prayer is a type of thought. It’s a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there’s a special X-factor ingredient that makes “prayer” different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. “Getting down on your knees” is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it’s about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it’s about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means.

    Being humble is very hard for many people because it makes them feel unimportant and helpless. To embrace our own smallness is not to say we’re dumb or that we don’t matter, but to realize how amazing it is that we exist at all in the midst of so much more. To be fully alive, we must realize how much else there is besides ourselves. We must accept how much we don’t know — and how much we still have to learn — about ourselves and the whole world. Kneeling down and fully comprehending the incomprehensible is the physical act of displaying our respect for everything that isn’t “us.”

    This type of selfless awareness contains a contradictory aspect that sets the tone for true immaterial experience. It’s the feeling of power in our powerlessness. A feeling of knowing that we don’t know. A feeling of gaining strength by admitting weakness. We work so hard to pump ourselves up and make ourselves believe that we know all the answers and that we have the power and strength to do anything — and we do — but the fullest version of that power comes not from our belief that we have it, but from a humbling realization that we don’t.

    The paradoxical nature of this concept is difficult, but it is the key to unlocking the door of spirituality in general, and it remains the single biggest reason many people don’t like the idea of prayer or of spiritual pursuits in general — they feel it’s taking away their own power and it requires a dismantling of the reliable day-to-day life of the material world. In fact, it’s only by taking away the illusion of our own power and replacing it with a greater power — the power that comes from realizing that we don’t have to know everything — that we truly realize our full potential. And this type of power doesn’t require constant and exhausting efforts to hold-up and maintain, nor does it require us to endlessly convince ourselves and everyone else that we’re powerful, that we know what we’re doing, and that we’re in control of everything.

    To know that you don’t know is the definition of a spiritual awakening. And keeping that realization at the front of our mind and in the core of our being informs the rest of our existence. It takes a deeper type of strength to admit to ourselves that we don’t have it all figured out than to run around keeping all our plates spinning. It seems strange to think that turning yourself over to your own bewilderment would actually bring clarity, but it does. Solving this riddle is the beginning of any true spiritual journey.

    Many people feel threatened or uncomfortable with this sort of gray area. They like things to be “yes” or “no,” “black” or “white,” and “right” or “wrong.” They want to live in the “real world” that they can touch and make sense of. When things “don’t make sense,” they retreat. These people will have to allow themselves to fully admit that they don’t know, in order to actually begin knowing and that’s often too frightening of a task. It can be too painful to even imagine, after all those years of effort, simply abandoning our carefully crafted structures and stepping into the immense chasm of the uncharted and unknowable.

    Many of us worked for years to build up our idea of the world and who we are in it. We’ve clung ever more tightly to the idea of what is true and what is false. We’ve toiled and schemed to get what we need to “be happy,” and to gain the sense of security that comes with “figuring things out” and “making it.” We do that by building a better and stronger protective shell to shield us from the painful horrors of the unknown.It can be too painful to even imagine, after all those years of effort, simply abandoning our carefully crafted structures, and stepping into the immense chasm of the uncharted and unknowable. And now, it’s time to take it.

    I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn’t exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.

    I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don’t need to ask to get anything. You don’t need to try and fix anything. You don’t need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you’ve ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.

    Think about him more than you’ve ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you’ve ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.

    Andrew W.K.

    • Typical religious blubbering with bait and switch tactics.

      “Praying to the pie in the sky for hope is irrational, I won’t do it”

      But Prayer is not that, it is an act of meditation focusing you on what you have now, and not on what you are losing.

      “Oh, well, I can do that”

      See, you do believe in the pie in the sky!

      • I see you missed the humility part 🙂

        But seriously where did it say “focusing you on what you have now, and not on what you are losing.”?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          He also doesn’t realize the response was written by an “atheist”.

          Now question for you.

          Why is the notion of “Humility” so important to you in this response?

          • Atheists don’t promote prayer.

          • I think the man did a pretty good job of answering that question. And BF’s reaction was a pretty good example of why humility can be a good thing, nothing shows it’s need more than a complete absence of it.

            But in this instance I think it is important because the questioner was not facing his fear and anger. He was attacking his grandmother instead because he wasn’t able to humble his self enough to face his own feelings of helplessness.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Thanks for the succinct and great answer. And great “wise Mother” comment. I can see her there with only a faint smile, hands on hips, and those eyes saying “get it now?”

              I was wondering if it was linked to your Christian faith as I see so many Christians seem to emphasize the notion of humility. My Catholic spouse has played that card on me several times.

              I agree totally with your application of it in this case. I would only add that the young man was also so focused on his position that he felt compelled to lecture or teach his family in this time of distress. Instead of focusing on the family and helping everyone get through it.

              A man with a serious lack of solid ego in my view…………….. yes, I did that. 😉 Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

              I think you use a broader meaning of humility that I think of when I hear it. Much of what you said here I would categorize as simply “good manners” and “thinking about the needs of others”. My convictions are strong enough and my ego healthy enough that I do not feel compelled to try and preach my values at others who are in distress. A little human compassion does not undermine ones ego or values, if they are both solid.

            • He wasn’t attacking his grandmother – that is the problem with such idiocy presented.

              He was upset about his grandmother’s thinking that “.. we should all just “pray for my brother,…”

              It isn’t about “humility” at all. It is about stupidity.

        • “I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don’t need to ask to get anything. You don’t need to try and fix anything. You don’t need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you’ve ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.”

          Yeah I know the nonsense of his post is lost in his verbosity, so its hard for some to sort down to what he was saying to one sentence, so I did it for you.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Turns out your not so smart after all.

            Let me help you.

            Stop focusing on your dislike of prayer, focus on nothing but your brother then tell Grammy you prayed for your brother. Because you should show some respect for Grammy and your statement will bring her comfort as well.

            Short: Get over your self for a minute and think of others.

            • Nonsense.

              Promoting mysticism as the path to health is exactly what the questioner was commenting about.

              What Grammy might thing or not think does not change reality. The use of “prayer” is a way of ignoring that reality, of a way of weak minds to hide from the harsh reality of the situation.

              Fine, if you have a weak mind. Not fine if you have a strong mind.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Point to anything “mystical” in the guys response. The only thing remotely close is the use of the word Prayer itself. Not once does he suggest asking for a cure, not once does he mention a God or higher power, not once does he mention anything “mystical”.

              • Okie dokie,

                So now you have to pervert the concept of prayer to suit your bizarre understanding of it.

                “Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication”

                “Yep invocation of a deity or spirit isn’t mysticism at all. It’s reality!” Yep, let’s use prayer, but call it meditation, so that you can pray. “Bait and Switch”

                Ah, you can’t read the post either.

                “Everyone is trying to find different ways to help, but something my grandmother said has really got me angry. She said we should all just “pray for my brother,” like prayer would actually save his life”

                But to you, this isn’t asking for a cure in prayer at all. It’s merely a way of “helping”…
                *roll eyes*

          • Well, we read those words a lot differently-I hear concentrate on what you might lose-face the fear and pain that you are feeling instead of using your disagreement about prayer as a way to deflect from your pain . Acknowledge how great a loss it would be-then go out and love and support your family during this difficult time.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              May I add an Amen to that??

            • Yep, you read words and in your heads it becomes mush.


              You really don’t understand what is written and make up your own version of nonsense to cover your lack of comprehension.

              Because Granny is a moron, you believe others should continue to support these moronic ideas, give them credibility, all to the determent of the truth of the situation.

              • Granny is humble, which is why she prays. No wonder why you’re fighting it. It’s ok to let go BF. It won’t hurt a bit.

              • So, you believe “praying” is an act of humility? Humility to what?

                No, it is an act of “giving up” and avoiding reality. It is a mental sop for those who believe there are no further actions that matter.

              • Humility to the fact that you are not the HMFIC. I don’t care if that being is Budda’s great grandpap. There is a reason you are here, a purpose. Sort it out with yourself from there.

              • I laugh incredibly out loud when people who pretend fantasy is real make a claim on people who live in reality that the reality people are missing something from their lives!!


              • ooooh kay! 😉

            • AMEN!!!!!

              Good grief, BF. You are just one angry, sarcastic, egotistical man! Saying a prayer for your wife and daughter, that they have the strength to put up with you.

              • Oh, what rubbish.

                You pretend a guy who lives in reality is ‘ angry, sarcastic, egotistical’.

                No, deary, you are just irrational and full of nonsense. If someone doesn’t buy into your fantasy and fairy tales, you are disturbed.

  7. So, you believe one must be humble to a fantasy. Okie Dokie.

    I don’t need to sort out a damn thing.

    • I believe there is more gained from being nice, polite and considerate of others than to show contempt of their beliefs. Can I prove there is a God? No. Can you prove there is not a God? Only death will bring that individual answer.

      • No one can prove a negative – don’t blubber irrational nonsense, LOI.

        Look, you can’t prove God exists because – you can’t!
        Everything you preach about how God exists is how he does not exist.

        He can’t been seen, but he is there.
        Can’t hear him, but he speaks.
        All powerful,but he can’t change a thing.
        Everywhere, but can’t find him.

        It’s just utter nonsense.

        Be nice to stupidity and you will get more stupidity.

        • Still waiting for you to prove he doesn’t exist. And while waiting, I suggest being nice to others is it’s own reward. You will feel better about yourself. I think you need it today. Capitol K cranky!

            • LOI,

              I know its a rare feat by you to actually think, but do you claim that fairy godmothers exist because I point to the Universe and say “Where are they?”

              Do you claim Peter Pan can fly, simply because I point to reality and say “Where?”

              Do you claim pink, one-eyed unicorns exist because, well, they don’t?


          • If you are waiting for such, you are an idiot. You are asking for an irrational response from me because, I guess, you are irrational.

            Sorry, the burden of the incredible proof lies with you, not me.

            As such, as I already described, you posits of existence lies in the non-existent. I do not need to prove anything – your contradictions already voided your position.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Question at large, and back to defining our “National Interest”.

    If we assume a policy stated by G. Washington, no alliances and enemy of none, then how do we deal with Tyrant Nations?

    Currently we utilize Govt to establish trade agreements and to facilitate such trade., Thus our Govt can also try to prevent trade, ie. embargoes.

    The result is that in order to be an “enemy to none” we wind up trading with and thus supporting tyrants. The population of said country then comes to hate us because we dealt with the tyrant.

    Should our “interest” be defined by our own values relative to Freedom, Liberty and Justice? In other words, NO TRADE with any nation that does not meet OUR CRITERIA? Of course this raises the issue of “our criteria”, but lets assume for now it is “just”.

    Should this be our policy or should all trade be only “individual”?

    If we do not trade as a Nation then there are NO import or export taxes/fees. People are free to trade with whom they wish, and assume all risk associated with it. If your ship is captured by pirates or taken by the Burpamese you are own your own to “defend” it or to pay the “ransom” to get it back.

    If you wish to support some warlord or the Zionists that is entirely up to you. Our Govt will not interfere.

    I wonder how the people of those impacted by the tyrant will now view the USA?? Will they still assume a negative view of the Nation and its people or recognize that we are “different”. That it is “individuals” who need to be held to account. Then of course who holds an American shipping arms to Somalia to account for the butchery done with her weapons??

    Much food for thought.

    • “If we assume a policy stated by G. Washington, no alliances and enemy of none, then how do we deal with Tyrant Nations?”

      Uh, the way ol’George said – what so confusing about that?

      “Currently we utilize Govt to establish trade agreements and to facilitate such trade., Thus our Govt can also try to prevent trade, ie. embargoes.”

      Ah, no. Government prevents trade by agreements and blocks it. Trade agreements is not about making more trade, but about limiting it.

      Look a trade agreement with Japan sets out the maximum number of cars to be imported! It does not ELIMINATE trade barriers, it manifests them.

      Again, using the fairy tale of what you THINK government does is not WHAT government does.

      “The result is that in order to be an “enemy to none” we wind up trading with and thus supporting tyrants.”

      So what? Right now you are paying them billions for free as a gift. Why not get some goods in return?

      The population of said country then comes to hate us because we dealt with the tyrant.

      “Should our “interest” be defined by our own values relative to Freedom, Liberty and Justice?”

      No, why should YOU define MY interests, and then because of some brain fart, pretend you can force me to follow your definition of such.

      How about I define my own interests and exercise my own action to achieve them?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am fully aware of what Govt does and how it relates to trade. You simply chose to focus on the negative aspect and only look from YOUR perspective of what is right.

        Fact remains, Nation States exist. Govts execute agreements and then enforce them. These can open markets closed by other Govts or restrict markets.

        What the details are do not matter to the larger question. That is if we continue to utilize Govt to facilitate, negotiate, manage, regulate trade, then how do we as a Nation deal with Tyrants.

        Should our policy be to simply ignore what other nations do to our traders? They can ship here unimpeded but if they tax the hell out of our trade then we do what??? Nothing I presume is your answer.

        I am curious what others think.

        • “I am fully aware of what Govt does and how it relates to trade”.

          Well, that is just strange.

          First you posit what you merely “hope” government would do, while admitting it does no such thing, but you want others to join your “hope”, and posit nonsense to somehow derive some value out of it.

          ” You simply chose to focus on the negative aspect and only look from YOUR perspective of what is right.”

          It is not a perspective. It is a FACT. That is the problem with you, JAC, you can’t figure the difference between your fantasy and wishful thinking and the actual facts of the system in play.

          “Fact remains, Nation States exist. Govts execute agreements and then enforce them. These can open markets closed by other Govts or restrict markets.”

          No, it always closes markets. Your economic illiteracy is at work here. You do not “improve” free trade by prohibiting it. You are confused between the principle at large with perhaps one persons gain at the loss of everyone else. Because you do not apply economic principles, you focus only on the “seen” that you want – your gain, and ignore the costs as they are unseen.

          “What the details are do not matter to the larger question. That is if we continue to utilize Govt to facilitate, negotiate, manage, regulate trade, then how do we as a Nation deal with Tyrants.”

          It isn’t a larger question. “We” as a “nation” does not exist. There is no “we” here.
          There is you and there is I and individuals everywhere else.

          One group will seize the policy and pervert it to their benefit at your loss (unless you are the party to the policy). It doesn’t matter in the larger picture because the economic principle does not change simply because you hold the policy or D13 executes his policy.

          At issue is the even larger issue of economic illiteracy here. You have no grounding to understand the question you are even trying to ask here.

          Look, try to learn.

          There is a current debate to whether the Import/Export Bank should be funded (currently around 3 to 5 billion a year). It subsidizes exporting firms so to sell their goods internationally.

          Economic idiots say this is a good thing, since it promotes exports and improves the economy.

          But they cannot explain why stealing the income from Joe improves Joe’s lifestyle so that Paul can sell his goods at a set price to Chan?

          Same here. You cannot explain why a policy “on trade” is necessary economically. You mumble about as if it was a given but not for the life of you can you make an economic claim about it.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            “You cannot explain why a policy “on trade” is necessary economically. ”

            Why would I, since I never said it was.

            I simply stated how it has and currently works. That being that Govts regulate trade.

            I know this is hard for you but try to understand that if I have NO trade with a nation and then the Govt cuts a deal opening up some trade, then it has “increased” trade.

            Nobody is ignoring that it did not open all trade nor free trade. It simply increased the trade from zero to something.

            I never said it was necessary. Except that the other country is regulating its trade and does not allow person to person trading.

            You seem to be ignoring the fact that other nations also regulate their trade. We currently have to operate within that paradigm.

            I take it that you think the USA should UNILATERALY remove all trade barriers and stop negotiating with other Nations on trade agreements.

            Meaning that INDIVIDUAL Americans will have to negotiate their own trade arrangements . Whether directly or via third party contracts.



              You act as if this is something out of the ordinary and incredible! Yet, you do it dozens of times a day yourself.

              Why do you believe this is impossible to do with someone somewhere else?

              Yes, as Adam Smith vividly pointed out in his “Wealth of Nations”, the utter removal of trade barriers and the ending of government perversions to such trade massively increases the wealth of the nation that does this.

              It makes utterly no difference to what another nation imposes upon itself in trade – whether they institute a barrier or eliminate it. The nation that has the freest trade prosperous the most, that is, the one where government is voided from the deal.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I did not ask you how it works.

                I asked you if your view was that the US UNILATERALLY end all trade agreements/treaties.

                Then just step back and let PRIVATE people conduct all trade.


              • JAC,

                You can’t muster any thinking yourself?

                What my opinion -one way or another- is irrelevant.

                You are asking an economic question, and I gave you an economic answer.

                The question of “what should ‘WE’ do” is irrelevant, there is no “WE”.

                If you want to improve YOUR CONDITION as the “common man”, then trade barriers are bad for you, and their removal is good for you.

                If you are a lamp post manufacturer, then using the evil of government to create a trade barrier for you is a better outcome FOR YOU, then not.

                If you are principled, then you will abhor placing an undeserved cost on your neighbor merely to benefit yourself.

                If you are an unprincipled cad, you are more then willing to shift undeserved costs to your neighbor for your benefit.

                Make your own choice between a principled man or a cad.

              • Look, JAC, the real question is:

                “What do YOU want to achieve?”

              • Private people ALREADY CONDUCT TRADE.

                Asking the question pretending that private people are not conducting trade right now when they are conducting trade is ridiculous.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I thought English was your first language.

                I am not asking anything other than what I asked. And it seemed to me it was a pretty simple question.

                Is it your view that the US should Unilaterally end all trade agreements/treaties and end the Govts involvement in international trade?

                Yes or No?

              • You have a hard time understanding lately.

                Look, JAC, Economics is a valueless science. It does not tell you WHAT to do, it EXPLAINS consequences of choices.

                Do no ask me “what I will do” – it is utterly irrelevant.

                Ask YOURSELF… “What kind of person am I and what do I want?”

                If YOU want more prosperity, then you advocate for NO trade barriers.

                If YOU want to gain prosperity by passing your cost onto your neighbor, then you will advocate for Trade barriers.

                So what do YOU want, JAC? Answer that, and pick your action.

              • *not valueless science….

                “value-free” science…. it is not philosophy.

              • JAC
                …and you already know my view.

                All government action is evil, so why do you bother asking me a question you already know my answer to?

        • Look, open your eyes.

          You trade with the nation that is willing to trade with you. How they are politically organized is irrelevant.

          As all trade improves the economic condition of the participating parties, the increase in prosperity of the people under a tyrant improves. This is no small thing to do for them.

          You have no recourse to “fix” the tyrant, so your act of trade is the utterly superior to help those downtrodden.

          What else do you want to do?
          Punish the downtrodden by refusing to economically benefit them???? Gee. that worked really well against Saddam and the Iraqi people, huh? Starve a few million kids so that you can “screw” Saddam….. Geez….

          Yet, you ignore China. As soon as trade began between China and the world… LOOK AT CHINA! Getting richer every day, the people become prosperous, cities growing …look at Shanghai! As people can economic prosperity, they gain economic freedom, they then gain more political freedom.

          Singapore lives under a tyrant, and the live a lot better then you, JAC!

          It is utterly irrelevant what “the other guy’s politics” are. I couldn’t care one wit if the other guy is a Communist, Socialist, Marketist, or whatever “ist” you want.

          I care about the trade, because the trade makes me richer.

          • You may say:
            “Well, making a trade deal with Japan to accept more US light posts benefits us”

            So what if Japan prohibited the importation of light posts in the first place? So don’t trade light posts with them – obviously we are trading something else to get the cars here. They ain’t sending them over for a gift.

            But by instituting a trade barrier saying “We will prevent the cars from coming until you allow light posts benefits no one.

            Instituting a trade barrier saying we will allow only 10,000 cars if you allow 10,000 light posts punishes everyone in the US from getting good cheap cars that they want so to benefit a massive MINORITY of light post manufacturers.

            Instead, simply say “Don’t give a hoot what you ban, let’s trade for them cars!”, since as I said, they are trading FOR SOMETHING already.

            So what if it is green pieces of paper? Works for me! A good cheap car is a great benefit to me in trade for paper. And what will Japan do with all that green paper? Dollars are useless unless they are used. Japan will have to buy somethingthat is trade the paper for some goods.

            So who cares who else puts up a trade barrier? All they are doing is hurting their own people with it. And equally, if your policy is to respond with a trade barrier, you are hurting everyone “here” the same way.

            • …and more.

              So Japan is sending millions of cars over whilst prohibiting certain US goods themselves.

              The lobbyists push a policy to force Japan to accept “this good” by threatening the importation of cars. As above, this hurts YOU from getting an economical good.

              So Japan says “Fine, we will allow X number of that good for Y number (less than what was previously being imported) of our cars” and the lobbyists cheers.

              BUT YOU STILL LOSE.

              The cars jump in price, costing you more.
              This benefits GM, they sell more of their junk, since the Japanese cars are now priced higher.
              This benefits the lobbyists and their client, they sell their stuff to Japan.
              This benefits Japanese car companies, they still have a market, and they can raise their prices as the demand now outstrips supply.

              But you are the big loser, the common fellow. Your cars are more expensive (either in price or in quality). You don’t make “this good” so your income doesn’t change.

              Where the hell is the common fella’s benefit? It does not exist. It is a huge cost.

              • …and a little more.

                Additionally, this benefits Japan at your cost. Now the Japanese get this US “good” that was now prohibited.

                It wasn’t the trade deal, but the removal of the Japanese trade barrier that improved their condition.

                In other words, the removal of all barriers to trade improves the condition of the common man, and equally, the creation of barriers to trade decreases the condition of the common man.

    • Don’t know what happened to the old JAC who used to use his brain, wish he’d come back.

      Look, if I want to trade with a nation that has pirates, then that’s my choice. I’ve already calculated the costs of ransom (if necessary) into the bargain, OR by my own choice, I don’t trade.

      If my trade is desired, the other side will deal with the pirates. I don’t need to do anything.
      If they don’t, they don’t get their desire. If they are willing to suffer that, so be it.

      Pretty damn simple.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Wouldn’t it be the shipping Co/owner who is responsible for protecting the ship from pirates?

        How can you defend your goods when yours is only one of thousands of containers on a ship. How is your buyer of the once container going to protect it?

        Strength in numbers………….

        I am the same JAC as always. But I am trying to engage people in thinking and getting new ideas, not just lecturing them about their views. I am trying to reduce the lecturing and increase my listening and thus learning.

        • “Wouldn’t it be the shipping Co/owner who is responsible for protecting the ship from pirates?”

          Why? If he wants to, he can – if he doesn’t, he doesn’t have to. It’s up to the agreement I set with him, independent of what ever you may think or believe.

          “. I am trying to reduce the lecturing and increase my listening and thus learning.”

          You need to be more discerning then. It seems you are learning more nonsense a lot faster.

  9. ROFL

    Prank: “Spider-Dog” Terrorizes Random Pedestrians in Poland

  10. David Skekabim says:

    If you do not know what this is in reference to, ignore it, because it does not apply to you.

    ” we were with you from the beginning ”






    “with me” means in alliance with, which requires us to have a mutual understanding and interest of some kind, which requires us to communicate openly and clearly.

    As far as I am concerned, the ‘beginning’ of ‘with me’ is when you pay me the basic human respect of coming to me in person, looking me in the eye and start answering the above questions.

    Consider my position…

    The last twenty years that I should have been finding stability and pursuing happiness, I instead(pun intended), have spent trying to avoid and/or rectify the situation between me and whoever the people are who have been stalking and harassing me with sick games and bullshit, violating my privacy, interrupting my life and wasting my precious time driving me fucking crazy.

    Because (given their capability) it is impossible to run from them, because they apparently have no intention of ceasing their bullshit, because they refuse to approach me in any forthright manner, because they are a threat to my welfare and sanity, I must identify, hunt and kill them as a prerequisite to the continuation of my rightful existence.

    Because you people exhibit the same patterns of behavior and methodology, because you do not approach me in a forthright manner or distinguish yourselves from them, I must take the safe route and assume you are full of shit in your claims of alliance, a part of their operation, and therefore consider you an equally responsible and valuable target.

    Understand that I am a goal oriented borderline genius with a utilitarian mindset, a tendency to simplify my answers, a potential of 4 billion enemies, a long shit-list of people, organizations, corporations, governments, a need for rectification, a just and righteous purpose, and an intolerance for bullshit.

    What this means is that because I am in a completely fuct up situation with no foreseeable way out except death, being denied discernment between friends, foes, individuals, groups, or clarity of what the hell is really going on, …because it prohibits me from being discriminant, my answer is to destroy everything that could possibly be remotely related as an act of defense.

    If you’re truly ‘with me’ then cut the shit and start talking straight.

    BTW, as far as I can tell, the beginning started at the end. Are you gonna did that? …or will it already happened someday?


  11. Just A Citizen says:

    There is a politics related truth in this map. Anyone guess what it is??

    I will submit that part of the reason for certain boundaries is TV coverage. Especially as it relates to the Seahawks, Broncos and 49rs. Poor Raiders…………

  12. Lady!!! What the heck! You have weapons on your feet…..use them! Nice good thug on the head with the heel of one of those pumps will make them back off!

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H., Anita, Kathy

    A picture of God? Or maybe just God’s little finger stirring the pot! 🙂

  14. Just A Citizen says:


    Remember next time someone accuses us of invading a country because our troops are there………. choices:

    1. They are on vacation.
    2. They got lost.
    3. They are there on their own, we did not give them orders. After all, it is common practice to allow your soldiers to volunteer to fight in another country and then let them back in the army if and when they return.

    I am wondering if “using a national military” includes advisors. Does attack include helping establish targets for the locals or building and supporting command and control?

    • JAC,

      You are crazy.

      So, to you, an American mercenary somewhere is an invasion by the US into that territory… geez….

      The mental craziness you have to provide to support your crazy ideas is amazing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Not crazy at all. A mercenary is a mercenary and NOT part of the military.

        Now care to explain why some Russian mothers were asking how their Russian Army children wound up coming home dead from Ukraine?

        Or is that just more Western Media distortion.

        When asked about Russians captured in Ukraine the “official Russian” response was “they were lost”, then it morphed to “they were on vacation”. Does that sound like reasonable responses if they were in fact nothing but Mercs?

        Are you going to sit here and tell us the Russians have a long history of telling the truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to this stuff?

        What are your sources that confirm there are NO regular Russians in Ukraine? No military hardware and assets handed to the resistance?

        Why can’t you just be honest about Putin’s involvement in supporting the rebellion and his desire to gain control over eastern Ukraine?

        • JAC,

          If Putin wanted the Ukraine, he’d take it.

          Does he support the self-determination of a people in Ukraine? Sure.
          Is he sending troops? No.
          If he wanted it, he would take it in 3 days.
          Would he negotiate a cease fire if he wanted it? No.
          But he negotiated a cease fire.

          You need to do some thinking on your own instead of wearing the headphones of Western propaganda.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            We all know he doesn’t want to look like he took it by normal invasion. He may not even want it as part of Russia at all.

            He wants CONTROL. You know it but for some reason just keep pretending it isn’t true.

            Long ago you stated Russia’s goals of securing deep water ports. I give you Crimea, which happens to be kind of isolated, unless you have unfettered access via east Ukraine. Not to mention the advantages of having east Ukraine loyal to you and treating you as a preferred economic partner.

            Putin has never threatened anyone over his stinking gas lines and markets. Nope, he is just a fair, free market truth teller.

            Yeah, he negotiated a cease fire after claiming he could not do that since he was not party to the conflict. Bazinga!

            Why don’t you explain why the rebels keep referring to the Ukraine govt as NAZIS.

            • JAC,

              If he wanted “control”, he’d take it. He didn’t take it.

              “Long ago you stated Russia’s goals of securing deep water ports. I give you Crimea, which happens to be kind of isolated, unless you have unfettered access via east Ukraine”

              You have a geography problem. Crimea is not “isolated” – it is kinda surrounded by the Black Sea on three sides.

              Further, its been a Russian port for, oh, 300 years or more. It still is, still was, nothing changed.

              Ukraine was already a preferred economic partner.

              “His” stinking gas was being stolen by the Ukrainians. He sold gas to Europe, but it didn’t get there. Russia hasn’t been paid. They cut the debt by a 1/3, then by a 1/2, still no payment. They asked $3.2 billion – didn’t get it.

              Yet, Ukraine was able to spend $3.5 billion in buying new military hardware. Wonder where that money came from?

              So, you think -as a non-participant – he gets a cease fire, suddenly proves he has troops in the Ukraine. You are one crazy-coot.

              “Why don’t you explain why the rebels keep referring to the Ukraine govt as NAZIS.”

              Because the Western Ukrainians formed a number of SS battalions under Hitler that preyed upon the Eastern Ukrainians in WW2. To add insult, a number of Ukrainian troops put those SS emblems on their uniform when they attacked Easter Ukraine rebels.

              • Curious……..”His” stinking gas was being stolen by the Ukrainians. He sold gas to Europe, but it didn’t get there. Russia hasn’t been paid. They cut the debt by a 1/3, then by a 1/2, still no payment. They asked $3.2 billion – didn’t get it.”

                Under this scenario,,,,,does this justify military response?

              • He didn’t respond militarily.
                He would have merely cut of the gas.

    • JAC……it is simple. If there is a T72 or a T80, T 90 or a BMP (Version 1,2,3), a gaz, or a BDRM anywhere in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea……they are not mercenaries or insurgents, they are Russian Army, led by Russian officers, with orders from Russian Headquarters. The Russians do not sell this type of equipment on the open market. So, look at the equipment and where it is…..

      Remember one other thing……insurgents are surrogates. Pretty simple actually.

      • The other thing JAC… the misconception of the term ” self determination” …..”invited in”….and whatever else any world power wants to use to justify incursion. In some minds, it is not an invasion if you are “requested”…..this is bull dookey but that is the misconception out there…..or a “helping hand” to support self determination. It is all semantics and all a ruse.

        The United States uses this all the time. We are there to help….here is military equipment, here are our advisers, here is our diplomatic corps…….so, consequently, we are not “invading”. The Russians are no different. What is the saying? A rose by any other name is still a rose.

        It is in Russia’s best interest to take the Crimea ( which they have and it is not self determination….they took it with uniformed troops ) and now, they are going to take Eastern Ukraine. When the hoopla dies down and the press stops covering it, they will take Western Ukraine….it will not stop there and NATO and the UN and any coalition does not have the balls nor the presence of mind to stop it.

        But….it is Europe’s problem. Not ours….national interests be damned.

        • D13,

          More nonsense.

          As the rebel leader stated in a news conference, the hypocrisy of the West:

          “If Estonia votes to leave the Federation, the West cheers this an act of democratic self-determination. But when Crimea, with 85+% voter turnout that vote 96% in favor of joining the Federation, the West moans this as an invasion”

          As he went on to say, the Eastern Ukrainians are not like the Western Ukrainians; they have a different culture, different language, different religion. They want their own nation free from the corrupt Westerners.

          “Go your way, we go ours. Come at us with a sword, and by a sword you will be vanquished”

          • As he went on to say, the Eastern Ukrainians are not like the Western Ukrainians; they have a different culture, different language, different religion. They want their own nation free from the corrupt Westerners.

            This I agree with….totally. They are free to establish their own corruptness, as you have stated all governments are….but I agree. The only place you and I will disagree is in the troops…..I know that there are mercs and I know that there are insurgents and I also know there are Russian troops. Both in uniform and without uniform. Everyone knows this or should.

            If you believe that the Crimean vote was legitimate,….then fine….but you do not support the vote….you say all voting is useless but you seem to support his one. I do not believe that the Crimean vote was legitimate but what the hell….I do not care either. I do not care what happens to Ukraine or the Balkans….I do not care what happens in the ME…

            But I do know the world and how it operates…..and the Ukraine and the Crimea is no different than any other conflicted area.

            • D13,

              Correction. My argument of voting is the political arena HERE, not over there.

              Further, there is a difference between voting for either side of the same coin HERE and a vote of independence OVER THERE.

              • Come on, BF… cannot have it both ways, sorry, but the flag gets thrown on this one. If I am understanding you correctly… have argued, if I remember correctly, in the past that any meddling in any country regardless of the reason is wrong, I agreed. It seems to me that you are indicating that Russia was NOT meddling in Crimea/Ukranian affairs You have chastised the United States for rigging or influencing foreign elections in the past….under the guise of freedom but you seem to be giving the Crimean/Ukranian issue a pass….if I am understanding you correctly.

                Why would this be any different? Many times you have said that the US has influenced elections and governments…surely you are not advocating that only the US does this?

              • “you have argued, if I remember correctly, in the past that any meddling in any country regardless of the reason is wrong,”

                You do not remember correctly.
                First, it is the US/EU that is meddling – all of those nations are a thousand or more miles away. This is on Russia’s borders and is their legitimate concern.

                Second, you have no facts other then propaganda to any Russian Army involvement.

                You make baseless assertions, relying on misinformation tactics.

      • Bullshit.

        That equipment was absolutely in the hands of the Ukrainian army already.

        The mechanised and armoured forces are equipped with T-64[17] and T-64BM “Bulat”[18] main battle tanks; BTR-4, BTR-60, BTR-70 and BTR-80, wheeled armored personnel carriers and BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMD-2 infantry combat vehicles.

        Rocket and artillery troops are equipped with: missile complexes of operational-tactical and tactical missiles; Multiple rocket launcher rocket systems, such as the Smerch, Uragan, Grad; also, Giatsint, Pion, Akatsiya, Gvozdika howitzers; and, Konkurs, T-12 antitank gun anti-tank weapons.

        air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor. While anti-aircraft missile and artillery complexes that are of regiment level are equipped with the Tunguska-M1, Igla MANPADS system, Strela, and Shilka anti-aircraft missile systems.[28] While the army’s only separate radar system, meaning it isn’t a part of any anti-aircraft system, is the Ukrainian Kolchuga-M.

        They have 10 T-84, 100 T-80, 1,000 T-64 and 1,300 T-72’s.
        4 BMP-3, 1,400 BMP-2, 1,000 BMP-1

        600 BDRM-2, 450 BDRM-1, and 2,000 “Gaz”


        • Mostly true……the T84 is the main battle tank but it is a hybrid and t1990he insurgents (surrogates) do not have it. It is a bastardized version of the T80 not produced by Russia.

          However, I stand by my original assertion……look at the equipment….if it is newer than 1990 and it is very easy to tell….it is Russian equipment, supplied and manned by Russians. The Ukranian air defense is mostly show and it outdated and is falling apart as is most of their mechanized equipment due to lack of parts. It is significantly decreased. The Ukranian army could not stop a Boy Scout troop. Most of the equipment listed is getting fast beyond repair. The have a real problem.

          I will agree that the Ukranians have managed to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, with the old equipment and even kept some of the same nomenclature but inserted the word Ukranian.

          All regimental level equipment of every single Ukranian Army Regiment is pre-1990/91…..anything new was bought outside the Russia….and there is not much of that. They do have some AMX-56 French tanks but not in the hands of insurgents. Although, I am told, that there is an order for the Leopard II German battle tank……I doubt they will get it…..

          But…what I should have said and did not…..was that any Russian equipment newer than 1990/91 is not Ukranian captured equipment. I should have clarified that but really thought that would have been common knowledge but understand that it is not probably,.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    Would YOU trade with Nazi Germany?

    Would YOU trade with North Korea?

    Would YOU trade with anyone, regardless of their moral or immoral behavior towards others, as long as it benefited you financially??

    • Would “I”? No. That’s my personal choice.
      If Bush wants to, that’s his choice.

      That’s the point, JAC – comes with being free. You get to chose.

  16. Seven minutes that should be played on National TV, repeated, repeated, and repeated:

  17. Just A Citizen says:


    Good morning Sir. Looks like another blue bird day in the high 70’s maybe low 80’s here.

    I would like to conduct a little War Gaming in the issue of trade. Thought maybe you would like to play.

    Assumption: The US suddenly announces that it is going to implement a policy of open and free trade with all “People” of the world. That all trade from this point forward will be handled by individuals or private companies and organizations.

    The ONLY tariffs will be those needed to provide security at our ports but such tariffs will be applied equally on a per ton basis regardless of cargo or point of origin.

    All existing trade agreements and treaties are hereby VOID.

    WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS? I urge all to use their experience, expertise and opinions to construct what they believe the outcome might look like. Not just here but how it might affect Global structure, politics, economies, etc, etc. Lets see if we can have a little fun on a topic for a change. Let your minds wander …………… no wrong answers.

    • The world would show up at the US doorstep with goods a plenty, and let the market sort out which goods at what price will be bought.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        How about US employment and income? Any affect there from all the new cheaper foreign goods?

        • Check your history, JAC, as exampled above.

          You forget economics. You did not read my lesson on Japan.

          Trade is always two-way. For you to sell must mean you must buy. No one gives their stuff away for free.

          The more stuff available to buy begets more stuff for you to sell. Prices absolutely do fall – which is in your benefit.

          Consider: instead of 100,000 Japanese cars, there are now 500,000. The price of the cars from Japan go down. The Japanese, to trade, are looking for goods in America to buy – the demand for those goods goes up since there are more cars to trade.

          Those car companies that relied on import restrictions to sell you poorer and/or more expensive cars will need to improve or be swept aside. This is the free market AT ITS BEST, ensuring your goods, as a consumer, are the best for your dollar.

          There are two sides to your existence – a producer and a consumer. In a modern economy, you -as a producer- create about ONE thing that you use to trade, as a consumer for 10,000 things. It is always in your benefit, as an individual, to have ever lower costs for 10,000 things.

          If the ONE thing you produce is now deemed inadequate by the market because of competition, it as a far easier thing to adjust this one thing to be more competitive (by improving quality, lowering price, or changing what you produce) then making cuts to your desires among the 10,000 that you can no longer afford under trade restrictions.

          If however you are competitive in your ONE production, the demand for this good goes up as there is more stuff for you to trade for.

          The economy benefits in all ways. The effective producer gets richer and as a consumer gets his desires cheaper.

          • And as another argument.

            All trade is individual.
            All economic law applies to all goods.

            Therefore, one merely needs to apply any economic theory to individual action. You do not need to postulate “national” economics to test economic theory.

            There is no economic difference in theory about trade between the “US” and “Japan” or trade between you and your neighbor.

            So ask this question to yourself: are you richer because there are few trade barriers between the trade of individuals in your town or would you be richer if there was lots of trade barriers in your town?

            Are you richer if there is rationing of goods or if there is free trade of goods in your town?

            The answer is clear. You are richer if there is no rationing and free trade in your town.

            Hence, the same between US and the world.

          • Further on this – 1 production vs 10,000 consumed.

            You are not in control of the production of 10,000 things you need to consume. Someone else produces those things and does the work of gathering their resources at some price to do so.

            You, however, are in control of the thing you produce. Here, your choices are absolute as they are made by you. You select your own resources, pay the cost you deem satisfactory, and exert the demand of quality on your produced good to the level you desire.

            The things you cannot control, you want massive selection of the range of quality and price. You cannot produce that good, so you want massive competition to sort these goods for you.

            Equally true, as a producer, your desire would be to minimize such choices for others. You would want to be the “only producer” of a good – because you control its price and quality and the less competition for your own production allows you greater control of that price and quality that you need to produce.

            All economic tension is between the producer (who want to limit competition) and the consumer (who wants to expand competition).

            All economies, therefore, diverge into two -opposite- paths.
            One, producer is king.
            The other, consumer is king.

            But since the choice of consumption exists in the hands of the consumer, not the producer, the only way the producer becomes king is by force, that is the active interference in the choices of the consumer.

            There is no force required on the consumer for the consumer to be king, since he has – already – the choice of consumption (or not) as his power.

            Producer is king economies only exist under tyrants.
            Consumer is king economies exist under individual freedom.

            Your choice of your economy chooses your political experience.

            • The paradox of “Producer is King” economies:

              The producer wishes to limit the choices of the consumer by limiting competition to his production.

              But every producer is a consumer. All production requires resources that must be purchased so that the producer can produce his goods.

              So producers also want to have massive competition in the areas of his own consumption so to lower his costs and improve the quality of his own supplies he needs so he can produce.

              But he wants to impede that competition for his own good at the same time.

              Hence, the rise of the political interference in the economy, where by policy some goods are prevented to compete and other goods are open to competition – wholly based on the whim of choices of whoever commands the policies.

              As the policymakers change (or change their minds), the labyrinth of policies of what to prohibit and what to enhance grows and grows until the market is utterly confused with the “push today, pull tomorrow” mishmash.

              A vibrant economy does not exist in confusion. Producers, unable to calculate profit/loss because of the confusion, stop producing.

              The paradox: the Producer is King economy ends up shrinking its production, resulting in less goods and impoverishment of the people.

              Open Markets manifest more prosperity, in contrast, though chaotic is massively less confusing. The natural changes in price dictate the increase or decrease in quality and/or supply – naturally attracting more producers where supply is low (higher prices) and reducing producers of goods where demand is low (high supply) – subjecting this economy to an optimum use of its resources in solving the problems and addressing the desires of the individual.

              • Producer is King economies require policy makers to set the price.

                Consumer is King economies utilize supply and demand to set the price.

              • And of course, by Public Choice Doctrine theory:

                The Producer is King economy enriches only a select few who have access to control policies of the economy. Those that do not have access are those that the policies are placed upon, and those that have access have policies enacted in their favor.

                The consequences: a rich, powerful elite over a broad, impoverished population

        • Additionally, Japan now selling more cars has more money. Where is the best place to invest capital – where capital is constrained by trade restrictions or where capital is free from trade restrictions?

          As example in GB historically, the investments IN GB, grew massively – increasing the industrialization of GB at rates so fast that in less then a generation, GB prosperity for all, just not the aristocrats improved like never in history.

        • And more….

          As the world showed up at the shores of England with more and more goods, the price of these goods fell. Raw resources for industry dropped in cost, making English production of goods from those resources the cheapest in the world.

          The production of England flowed everywhere over the globe as the price of these goods outmatched any local production. England’s empire no longer depended on the English Navy, but on the massive economic power of English production. “Goods beat guns” at maintaining its dominate global presence.

        • And still more…

          Review history. Any nation that increased its trade barriers became poorer and fell behind.

          India, 1950ish, set up a broad range of restrictions on imports under the economic insanity that this would build local industry.

          Of course, it didn’t. It merely insulated the local industry from development. They didn’t have to improve as there was no competition.

          When I was there in 1998, my host provided me with a car and driver. He pulled up in a mint condition 1955 Packard. Nothing modern in the car, it was as if I was back in the 1950’s. I thought it was a classic and was enthralled to ride in one. I asked the driver what year was this car.

          He said “Brand new, 1998!”

          That is what trade restrictions create.

        • And consider now.

          With trade restrictions, electronic toys you can buy in Singapore are far more advanced than any you can buy in the US. India is capable of producing an urbanized car for $300, but you can’t buy it. In the Congo, a dinner table made out of Malachite costs $50 – sells in the US for $25,00 because of importation restrictions against the Congo

        • Seeing that no one has made any argument to JAC’s presentation other than me, I can only infer that:
          1) no one cares
          2) no one understands
          3) I’m right and no one disagrees

          The issue with 1) and 2) means my “hope” is irrational.
          Public Choice Doctrine will operate unabated, to the eventual economic collapse. Only then will people “care” and try to “understand” what is happening to them, but damn too late.

          They will be utterly wrecked without recourse.

          The issue with 3) is mute agreement produces no change. While in agreement intellectually, people will continue to accept the current affairs and do nothing about it, indeed, my actually try to benefit from the current affairs by promoting more policies that are in their favor, to the destruction of the economy on the whole.

          They, too, will be wrecked by their own meekness or unprincipled behavior.

          • I spoke! I agree with your economic assessment, in an ideal world, but like I said when I posted, the idiots in DC, State and Local govts will tax all the benefits into oblivion. Considering that Liberal’s have never seen anything they won’t tax, If we could open up trade and TRADE Liberal’s to, say, France, we would be in pretty good shape! 🙂

    • One need not postulate a mind game. One merely needs to review history.

      This is what GB did. They took no response to the trade tactics of France (in particular), and opened their economy to free imports.

      “Robert Southey wrote in 1807

      …no kingdom ever experienced so great a change in so short a course of years”

      With the opening of trade, capital investment in Britian expanded massively.

      “, the production of coal in the late-eighteenth century is estimated to have grown annually at 0.64% or alternatively at 1.13%, twice that speed”

      “During the eighteenth century, GDP grew slightly from just under 1% per year to just over it. Between 1800 and 1850, growth remained at over 2% per year, a doubling”

      “Increased capital investment was also evident after 1780. Between 1780 and 1800, capital investment rose by 1.2% per year. This rose slightly to 1.4% between 1800 and 1830 and, largely because of investment in railways to 2% between 1830 and 1850.”

      “Population began to expand after 1750 ”

      “Population growth provided Britain with an abundant and cheap supply of labour. It stimulated investment in industry and agriculture by its effects on increased demand for goods and services…. enabled people to build up savings and provided them with capital to invest”

      “the export trade was expanding annually by 2.6%”

      “To what extent was the growth in trade between 1780 and 1850 central to Britain’s economic development? It stimulated a domestic demand for the products of British industry. For example, in 1767, 16,000 sheep and 14,000 cattle passed through the Birdlip Hill Turnpike in Gloucester en route from south Wales to London. The coastal traffic of coal into London from the north-east rose from one million to three million tons per year between 1720 and 1790.[18] International trade gave access to raw materials that both widened the range and cheapened the products of British industries. It provided purchasing power for countries to buy British goods since trade is a two-way process. Profits from trade were used to finance industrial expansion and agricultural improvement. It was a major cause of the growth of large towns and industrial centres.”

      “British society in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was profoundly conservative. How was a society with highly traditional structures able to generate changes in so many areas of economic life?

      First, by 1780, British society was capitalist in character and organisation. Its aristocracy was remarkably ‘open’, allowing the newly rich and talented to ‘climb’.

      The most successful merchants, professional and businessmen in each generation were funnelled off into landed society. Success brought wealth and the ultimate proof of success in business was the ability to leave it. In France, where social mobility was discouraged there was political and social discontent and ultimately political revolution. In Britain, where social climbing was not obstructed, there was an industrial revolution.”

      “Secondly, Britain was a highly market-oriented society.Imports, whether smuggled or not, were quickly moved to market. There were 800 market towns in England and Wales in the 1780s reflecting the intensity of production and the ability of particular areas to specialise in particular products.”


      With free trade, where goods and services flowed without impediment, England became the place in the world to do business. Like all the great empires before it, like Venice (the same thing, free trade), like Granada (free trade), etc., all of these great cities prospered because they eliminated the barriers to trade, hence, everyone went there to trade.

      Trade enriches all the participants. The more trade, the richer the people become. You obtain the most trade when it is freely operated. Those with the most free trade become the richest.

      • Free trade would be great. Now if we could only stop the Liberal’s from taxing away all the benefits, it would have a chance. I sadly doubt that we’ll ever have truly free trade in the US, too much corruption within the governments and too many politicians that just love control and taxes.

  18. SUFA…….allow me to expound upon the military equipment issue in the Eastern European theater. Back during the so called “cold war”….the primary focus of the world was an arm wrestling match between the USSR ( Union of Soviet Socialists Republic ) or Russia. There were two primary military forces….NATO and the Warsaw Pact. We, the United States outfitted the NATO countries and the USSR outfitted the Warsaw Pact countries. The Warsaw Pact, so named because the treaty was signed in Warsaw, included the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria as members. The treaty called on the member states to come to the defense of any member attacked by an outside force and it set up a unified military command under Marshal Ivan S. Konev of the Soviet Union.The Warsaw Pact remained intact until 1991. Albania was expelled in 1962 because, believing that Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was deviating too much from strict Marxist orthodoxy, the country turned to communist China for aid and trade. In 1990, East Germany left the Pact and reunited with West Germany; the reunified Germany then became a member of NATO. The rise of non-communist governments in other eastern bloc nations, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, throughout 1990 and 1991 marked an effective end of the power of the Warsaw Pact. In March 1991, the military alliance component of the pact was dissolved and in July 1991, the last meeting of the political consultative body took place.

    All this to say, that USSR provided all the latest Soviet equipment up to 1991. Russia stopped providing its newest and latest equipment and updates to any of the old factions of the Warsaw Pact. This is why you see Russian equipment all over the place in the old countries. Some insurgents and some separatists have captured the old equipment. When the USSR basically disintegrated and many of the old ethnic countries tried to return to roots, much of the equipment became unaccounted for and ended up in various little military regimes. Lots of rebels, lots of clandestine factions existed with captured Russian weaponry. Those countries that continued an alliance with now Russia were continued to be supplied with SOME of the newer upgrades. Russia has NEVER in its existence allowed its newest equipment to be deployed even to their most loyal allies without Russian technicians present and this included main battle tanks, AA, GSR…etc. The same procedure exists today.

    When BF and I batted heads some on the equipment issue, I naturally assumed that most people understood the old alliances of the past. I recognize my age and that a great deal of you probably have forgotten or did not know. There is plenty of Russian equipment in the remnants of the old USSR. Ukraine included…..since Ukraine departed, Russia stopped providing military equipment, parts, and ammunition. The Ukraine is pretty resilient and has been able to convert or bastardize the old Russian equipment into more upgraded versions. For example, the Ukranian T 84 has been reconstituted to shoot NATO type rounds,,,,the communications equipment is upgraded and not part of the Russian system any longer…..Consequently, BF is correct in that there is Russian equipment in the Ukraine Army but it is not really Russian any longer in design. This has happened all over the old Warsaw Pact countries.

    Much like the ISIS has captured American equipment left behind but now, they have no spare parts or ammunition once it all runs out. In time, it will break down. In addition, the accounting for military equipment has not changed. The numbers that you see on the internet are not correct in that the numbers include ALL equipment….not working equipment. For example, the United States has mothballed hundreds of ships and hundreds of aircraft yet, it is still shown as military equipment even though most of it has been used for spare parts, decommissioned and the engines and weapons taken out and off, optical devices removed…….The numbers do not show effective and working equipment. It is the same the world over. Countries do this to boost or improve their numbers. A scare tactic… do not rely on Wikipedia or some such sites for information… is largely incorrect.

    So, BF is quite right in that the old Warsaw Pact countries kept the OLD Russian equipment, the old AA, the old mechanized equipment. It is possible that separatists and the so called rebels have captured some of this equipment…..however, IF there are new and upgraded models of the T 80 ( Russia does not make a T 84) and even the new T 90….along with the new AA… is Russian manned equipment. Russia will not, even to Crimea, give new equipment to them….the same for Eastern Ukraine. Another example, would be the reports of the airliner that was shot down over Ukraine. It is quite interesting that the Ukranian army does not even possess the type of weapon to down an airliner at 30000 feet. If you remember, the reports and the pictures of the newest AA Russian rocket launcher being spirited back across the Russian border after the downing and all of a sudden how quiet it has been since then…..

    So, JAC…..if there is new equipment…post 1991 in the Ukraine and Crimea,,,,it is manned by Russian troops.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    A great example of what the “living document” theory does to the Constitution:

    • having been involved in managing drug ridden property, I can see the forfeiture law only if we are talking big league dealing or distribution. We had drug cartel;ls in NYC that were buying apartment houses. In this family’s case, I can only agree with banning Junior from the home. Harsh? Not if you anticipate the damage the little creep is doing to the neighborhood. had a number of instances in the City where we moved to evict because Junior was doing it and Moms and Pops were complicit. Usually the judge just kicked the kid out. Made a big difference.

      As a neighbor or fellow tenant, I’d fall back on, “Your rights end where mine begin.”

      • SK,

        Again trying to solve a problem by creating a bigger problem. You advocate theft to solve a problem created by prohibiting people to freely chose what they want.

        The solution is not to increase the thieving, but end the prohibition. Your problem would -quite literally- disappear over night.

        But by advocating theft, you advocate for you to become the victim of theft. No surprise, that is exactly what happens.

        • I have a big problem with legalization, It will change nothing.

          Offhand, I would say that properly presented an excellent argument could be made to de-criminalize and to allow drugs to be sold.However, You and I know that there will still be prohibitions and that they will never go away.

          You don’t have to like it but have to concede that drugs if legalized will be restricted to those over 21 and will be sold through licensed establishments. So, we are stuck with the under 21 crowd. In addition, like cigarettes, drugs will be a major revenue source for government. I contend that this will result in no basic changes in on the street sale, no changes in crime, no changes in use patterns. Dealers on the street will sell to anyone of any age and will certainly undersell Uncle Sam and his 50 nephews and nieces.

          In your(and perhaps my) ideal world, I’d sell the damn things next to chewing gum but that will never happen. Some might say that the problem would be reduced. After all, the end of prohibition knocked out most of the moonshiners and rum runners but drugs are much more firmly established in this country and I can’t see dealers walking away ever.

          My point above was and is that illegal activity breeds generally bad and sometimes awful behavior. Unless we can get illegal turned into legal in a serious, substantial way, we still have the same problem. Oh, and we were not stealing anything, just terminating the lease same as we would for a disruptive, noisy or careless tenant who impacts the life, health, safety or peaceful enjoyment of the premises by the other tenants.

          • SK,

            You are just another person upon who the lesson of history falls on empty minds.

            “I have a big problem with legalization, It will change nothing.”

            Prohibition was lifted, and -quite literally- the crime rate fell. But to historically vacate minds, this changed nothing.

            You next argue that removing prohibitions will result in prohibitions. You often contradict yourself, but heck, you don’t care.

            You have no historical reference to claim “drugs is more entrenched” then booze in the 20’s.

            Historical fact shows otherwise.

            “Prohibition proved to be counterproductive in that it promoted the heavy and rapid consumption of alcohol in secretive, nonsocially regulated and controlled ways. “People did not take the trouble to go to a speakeasy, present the password, and pay high prices for very poor quality alcohol simply to have a beer. When people went to speakeasies, they went to get drunk”

            The same with drugs. People do not risk life and freedom simply to have a toke. They do it to get damn blasted.

            Here was the effect of Prohibition on consumption:

            Initially, the people went “oh, the law, can’t break the law!”, but quickly that was tossed and consumption returned to almost the same level during prohibition as before
            “… Consumption would probably have surpassed pe-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933…”

            Another effect, all prohibition did was raise the cost – it did not impede consumption (as noted above). The extra cost was extracted by villains of society, the ones that would risk liberty and life to achieve riches.

            Once that cost was vacated by dismissal of prohibition, the “villainy tax” disappeared, along with the villains

            (Same thing with 55 speed limit, the first year, most obeyed, but after that it was utterly eroded as the people decided it was just dumbass stupid)

            Like drugs, the cost of prohibition due to crime was huge. With no surprise, the elimination of prohibition lowered crime rates

            As history shows, SK, you claims are absurd.

          • The stealing was in reference to your assertion
            ” I can see the forfeiture law only if we are talking big league dealing or distribution”

            not what you, as a property owner, decides who and under what condition you wish to rent.

            • The reason your assertion destroys your own freedom is that what defines “big league” is merely a whim.

              Is it 100grams or 101 grams? or 99? why not 50?, 10? 2?

              And if you advocate seizure of property for non-violent “crimes”, what stops others from seizing your property by defining a non-violent action of yours as a “crime”?

              • So, you better not be carrying cash on you, since you are a drug-land lord. Nor drive your car, or heck, own your house.

                The cops can assert you are the dealer, without proof, and seizure your property indefinitely.

                Hell when your own support of a policy comes back to destroy you, huh?

          • Can landlords face legal trouble for tenants that deal drugs on the rental property?

            Yes. If a landlord rents to a person that deals drugs out of their rental property, the landlord may face one or more of the following kinds of practical and legal problems:

            The landlord may face fines stemming from various federal, state, city or local laws that are designed to prevent landlords from having criminal activity take place in their rental properties.
            Any person that is injured or otherwise bothered by drug dealers in a landlord’s rental properties — be it another tenant or someone in the community — may sue the landlord, claiming that the rental property has become a public nuisance or poses a danger to the community.

            The government may seize the landlord’s rental property and other assets

            Note, none of the above is predicated on your knowledge about the affairs of your tenants.

            Good luck living under your own demand!

            • The way it worked in NY was the landlord was asked to bring eviction proceedings against the tenant if a quantity was found which met the NYC definition of possession to sell. If the landlord cooperated, the DA would do amicus curae and get eh civil court to move the case. Since 1895 NY State has had law on the books that states if a rental property is used for illegal purpose, then the lease is basically void if ordered by a judge.

              Where you are missing the entire boat on drug vs liquor comparison is the wink, wink, nod-nod nature of consumption during prohibition. No such situation has ever or will ever exist for drugs.

              Regarding the ingrained strength of the drug trade, I can only cite anecdotal evidence. I guess, I could do a comparison of shootings/killings/assaults for the Prohibition period and a similar 15 year period going back to 1999 on a per 100,000 basis based on drugs.

              You do not address the issue of underage use nor government taxes on drugs. Note that while gambling may have dropped off after casino betting and OTB, bookies still do quite well since they will advance you credit as well as not report winnings. At least as apt a comparison as yours.

              • SK
                “Where you are missing the entire boat on drug vs liquor comparison is the wink, wink, nod-nod nature of consumption during prohibition. No such situation has ever or will ever exist for drugs.”

                Wrong again. Pot was legal, as was Cocaine (where do you think the drink “Coke” came from?)

                Again, you ply historical ignorance as an excuse.

                “I could do a comparison of shootings/killings/assaults for the Prohibition period and a similar 15 year period going back to 1999 on a per 100,000 basis based on drugs.”

                You could but you didn’t, and if I were you, I wouldn’t bother. It will not help your case.

                “You do not address the issue of underage use nor government taxes on drugs”

                Why do you think this is different from underage drinking and government taxes on booze?

                Bookies is no different a situation, SK. Nice for you to raise more points on my side of the argument.

                I always love when my debate opponent slaps his own face.
                Saves me the trouble.

              • SK,

                And more to the point.

                It does not matter whether YOU think a particular action that SOMEONE ELSE does to himself is good or bad. You are not him, and have NO RIGHT to determine his free will upon himself.

                The root problem is you do not have any principles. You are a whimsical guy. You believe if you don’t do something, or you do something you think you can force others to do the same.

                The problem with all prohibition is the perversion of a person’s right over himself. It utterly does not matter what you think about that action, it is his right.

                Further, your whim becomes your doom. In all mattes, what you do to others gives others the right to do to you

                So if you make such a whim upon others, you better expect others will dictate upon you what you can and cannot do for yourself.

                Your hypocrisy: you rage when your own whim is used against you.

              • And heroin, don’t forget heroin, that was legal too. Poor argument since the sky has literally fallen on the use of drugs. It is not acceptable and will probably never be acceptable as booze is. want to see how things get tougher. Look at how the issue of drunk/impaired driving used to be treated vs. now. Look at the issue of smoking. While marijuana use is all but being actively encouraged, light up a Camel and you might just be doing time in a few years. When Carrie Nation finds out the truth about pot smoke, she’ll be back!

                Gambling. one of the things legal gambling was supposed to do was to do away with the slimy, arm breaking underworld involvement. That worked out well didn’t it?

                You make my point, underage use of alcohol continues except it too is considered minor and is certainly not heroin. taxes on drugs will be high and the existing infrastructure will argue that evasion continue. Crates of booze were one thing, each worth perhaps $ 100 and weighing thirty pounds. 30 lbs of marijuana fetches a bit more and is just that much easier to move. Ever hear of cigarette smuggling? A Ford Econoline full up and run from the Carolina’s to NYC or Boston just might net you $ 60,000 profit. How many cases of Dewers would that take? happens every day. With the Bodegas in the cities, you have a built in infrastructure for distribution.

                Note: I get your point, I even basically agree with your point. I, like a few of my cop friends would not mind terribly if we gave away drugs on street corners for free. Let them exercise their freedom and kill themselves and solve the problem for once and all. Together, you and I and ten thousand more could not move that idea along one inch! Shit, the cities are now spending a fortune equipping EMT’s with expensive drugs and resuscitation kits which in our over lawyered, litigiousness society merely guarantees more lawsuits against cities because they “failed to act fast enough” to save the scum suckers life.

              • SK
                “And heroin, don’t forget heroin, that was legal too. Poor argument since the sky has literally fallen on the use of drugs. It is not acceptable and will probably never be acceptable as booze is”. want to see how things get tougher.

                Whether it is or is not is irrelevant.
                It is a matter of Human Right of Freedom to Choose.

                “drunk/impaired driving used to be treated vs. now”.

                So you pointing to where MORE perversions of human choice is expanding to prove what? That the same insanity you uphold expands? Gee…. Just wait long enough, SK, and something you like and desire for yourself will be taken away from you.

                But since you are unprincipled, those that act upon you will ignore your rage.

                “Gambling. one of the things legal gambling was supposed to do was to do away with the slimy, arm breaking underworld involvement. That worked out well didn’t it?”

                Because it is still illegal. The Mob participates on the fringe of the law here, providing access to gambling that is illegal. Again, you are supporting my argument. Your hand and face must be getting sore by now.

                “except it too is considered minor and is certainly not heroin.”

                Exactly. By mere assertion and whim you make such a declaration.

                “taxes on drugs will be high and the existing infrastructure will argue that evasion continue”

                So you argue that continuing a form of prohibition will continue crime.

                ” to save the scum suckers life.”

                They are not scum.
                They are human beings.

                You make judgements upon people that you have no right to make. You are not them. You have not lived their lives. You do not know what suffering another man carries.

                Yet, you are egotistical and perverse to judge others suffering.

                There are generally two types of people who rely on such self-medication.

                One group does so for an “experience”. This group is a majority, participates in the action for “fun”, and eventually outgrows this like a kid outgrows playing with toy cars. Adult life encroaches with its own fun that displaces this.

                The other group does so for “relief”. This group is a majority. They are under pain and suffering that for whatever reason they find they cannot resolve or remove. They have found no help. Their recourse is to numb their experience. These are long-term users, which are trapped since their own bodies work against them by increasing the tolerance to the numbing, requiring ever more high dose or high impact drugs.

                This group needs your kindness, not your scorn.

              • *oops, typo.
                The second group of drug users is a MINORITY.

              • SK,
                It appears you need a Sunday school lesson:

                “Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me…”
                In their astonishment they ask, “When did we do that?”

                And he answers, “When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters).”

                Conversely, to the “goats” he says, “Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me…”

                Perhaps you need to be less of a goat and more of the blessed, huh?

      • …the irony…

        After proclaiming a destruction of someone’s basic right, you proclaim it is an exercise of some basic right…

        And then people like you, in a haze of self-created confusion, wonder why your rights and freedoms are being destroyed

      • Wow, I don’t understand that reasoning-if the kid has broken the law-the discussion shouldn’t be about where he lives. Once he serves his time, is he still gonna be forbidden to be on his parents property. And what if the parents sell the property and move somewhere else can the authorities take that property too if they let their kid live with them? And the kid has to live somewhere so aren’t you just moving the problem.

        And I can’t help but wonder what I would do if I found out someone in my home was selling drugs without my knowledge -Would I call the police with the fear that they would take my property or just kick them out and hope the police never finds out.

        I’ve got no real problem with them taking property in major cases after the litigation is over and they were found guilty but only if the guilty party owns the property and then there would need to be limits based on what they could take- if their was duel ownership or other factors I can’t think of right now. Kicking children out of their home because their mother or father is a worthless individual doesn’t seem right or practical either.

        • VH,

          You fall into the old trap of “law” – as if “law” is absolute and always right.

          You cannot rise your thinking above this, hence, support evil law which requires more evil upon YOU to enforce.

          Thus, you go through amazing distortions and twists “well, if X and Y exist, we do this, but if not Y we do that, and if X is not quite a full X, well, we will make another law to deal with that, over and over again, until we can’t understand the law because we need a law for every small variance of the condition created by the law until we have 150,000 laws that no one knows and we are all now criminals”

          How about not supporting evil law?

          • “Failing to prevent your employees from breaking regulations you have never heard of can be a crime. A boss got six months in prison because one of his workers accidentally broke a pipe, causing oil to spill into a river. “It didn’t matter that he had no reason to learn about the [Clean Water Act’s] labyrinth of regulations, since he was merely a railroad-construction supervisor,”

          • There is 1 lawyer for every 130 workers in the US.

            “In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question.”

            • “Estimates of the number of regulations in the US: 300,000”

              Now, consider that the US is but one country, and there are over 200 other countries…..

              You are, absolutely, a criminal, V.H., by law.

              • Jeez BF, I agree with you -our laws are out of control-if anyone in power decided they wanted to hassle me-I’m sure there are laws on the books that could be used to make me and all of us criminals-I see huge problems everywhere of too many laws and mass abuse of the laws we already have-but if your argument is that there should be no laws-you lose me. And No BF-your definition of freedom isn’t good enough to cover all the problems in the world.

              • As usual, you straw man my position because you cannot support your position.

                You want to force others to do your bidding thinking others, then, will not use your argument against you.

          • January 1st 2010 saw 40,627 new laws on the books in the USA and its overseas territories and protectorates.

        • “When analysts at the Congressional Research Service tried to count the number of separate offences on the books, they were forced to give up, exhausted.”

  20. Here BF-I’ll even help you out by showing another example of the gross overstep of our authorities-but I’d say this is an example of them Ignoring our laws as written. Hopefully the actual law will stop them.

    Governor Vows to Protect Baby Whose Father Shook Her So Hard He Put Her in a Coma

    by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 9/5/14 5:21 PM

    The governor of the state of Maine is vowing to protect a little baby whose life is at stake and who state officials wanted to kill by putting a DNR order in place without her parents’ consent.

    Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in support of a mother pleading with the state for her child’s life after the father allegedly shook her and caused significant injury. The Maine Department of Health and Human Services is fighting the mother in court because she wants to give the baby a fighting chance to live while the state wants to hasten her death by withdrawing critical life support.

    baby35But now, pro-life Gov. Paul LePage is reversing state bureaucrats and he has vowed to defy the state Supreme Court if necessary to protect the little girl, named Aleah Peaslee.

    The father, who has been indicted on charged of aggravated assault, originally told authorities he had dropped the six-month-old girl while the mother, Virginia Trask, wasn’t home but later admitted to shaking the baby. Because doctors told the parents at one point that the child, who went into a coma, could die within minutes, they agreed to a “do not resuscitate” order.

    Hospital staff placed the child in the mother’s arms to die, but the child continued to breathe on her own and opened her eyes. After days went by in this fashion, the parents cancelled the DNR order, and the child later came out of the coma and became alert. Despite this, medical personnel wanted to reinstate the DNR order because they said the baby’s condition was still grave, but the parents would not agree.

    The Maine Department of Health and Human Services then sought and obtained authority from a state judge to implement the DNR order, contrary to the parents’ wishes and without terminating the mother’s parental rights. The judge concluded that it would be in A.P.’s “best interest” to endure “a cascading series of events that would inevitably lead to her death.”

    Now, Governor LePage is getting involved:

    State child welfare officials, who had taken temporary custody of the baby due to alleged abuse, refused, convincing an Augusta District Court judge that “neither parent can be counted on to be physically or emotionally available to make the necessary informed decision when needed.”

    Now, Trask’s legal team, including attorney Scott Hess and advocacy groups who have submitted briefs in support of her. is preparing for an appeal before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, with oral arguments set for Sept. 23. And they may not be able to lose, after LePage told he will not allow state child welfare officials to usurp a parent’s rights regardless of what either court says.

    “This case is disturbing and is not reflective of my administration’s position that a parent who is the legal guardian of their child should have final say in medical decisions about life-sustaining treatment,” said LePage. “The existing law violates the sanctity of parental rights, and I cannot support it. Unless a parent is deemed unfit and parental rights are severed, the state should not override a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their own child.”

    Aleah is in foster care and her current condition is unknown. Aleah’s father, Kevin Peaslee, is free on bail but barred from contact with Aleah and her mother and no longer involved in the DNR decision, his lawyer told The Kennebec Journal. If the child does die, charges against Peaslee could be upgraded, officials said.

    Aleah was 6 months old when prosecutors say she was permanently blinded and suffered brain damage after being shaken by her father on Dec. 21 in an apartment in Augusta, Maine.

    The girl, who suffered multifocal seizures during the incident, went into a “deep coma,” but attempts were made within days to remove her from a ventilator. Doctors then informed Aleah’s mother that she was “neurologically devastated” and would not recover, prompting the girl’s parents to agree to the DNR order, according to court documents.

    Attorney David Crocker, who is serving as local counsel on behalf of the groups that filed the amicus brief, said the case centers around the question of who gets to make the ultimate decision regarding a child whose parent never lost their parental rights.

    Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from

    “Who gets to make these decisions?” Crocker told “The precise legal issue here is: Does the state get to make that kind of life-or-death decision when parental rights have not been formally terminated? That’s the $64,000 question.”

    “Everyone deserves a fighting chance to live. All this mother is doing is fighting for that chance for her baby,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “This mother’s parental rights should not be ignored; no one has the authority to deny her the right to save her daughter’s life.”

    “The state is effectively arguing that this mom isn’t fit to make medical decisions for her child simply because she wants the child to live,” Aden explained. “No one has declared this mother an unfit parent, yet the government wants to take her place. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court should reaffirm Mainers’ interest in life, parental rights, and the integrity of the medical profession by reversing the lower court and restoring this mom’s full rights to make medical decisions on her daughter’s behalf.”

  21. Just A Citizen says:


    I presume that LABOR would be in the Producer is King category???

    • Labor is an economic good, and obeys all the laws of economics – no more and no less, then any other economic good.

      Hence, policies restricting trade of goods increases the price of that good.
      Policies restricting trade of labor increase the price of that labor.

      Free trade of goods improves the condition of the consumer.
      Free trade of labor improves the condition of the consumer.

    • Equally, a a producer of an economic good, there is a tendency to restrict competition for that good.

      As a producer of labor, there is a tendency of labor to restrict competition for that labor.

      In a “Producer is King” economy, labor advocates such policies such as the rise of forced unionization, min. wage law, immigration restrictions, etc. all to the determent of the consumer of goods.

      • Thus, labor in a “Producer is King” economy suffers the same paradox as any good in “Producer is King” economy; economic stagnation.

        Since labor is both a producer and a consumer, in a “Producer is King” economy advocates for restrictions on its production (labor) whilst advocating for no restriction on its necessary resources for that labor to be produced (food, housing, transportation … all the things a person wants for himself).

        But as labor is a fundamental component of every resource, the labor policies violently increase the costs of these fundamental supplies needed by the labor to produce.

        He becomes trapped in a death cycle of poverty – demanding credits to offset the high costs of his necessary supply while advocating higher costs (by restricting labor) for those very necessary supplies.

        • Further, by limiting competition, the quality of labor decreases while the price of that labor increases. Economic effectiveness collapses.

          The consequences are multiple.
          Producers, unable to overcome the labor policies, shift there production facilities to where labor is effective.

          This causes an over supply of labor (unemployment) locally, and under Public Choice Doctrine, causes the policy makers to actually increase the restrictions on labor in an attempt to reduce even more the local competition for that labor, the very restrictions that caused the over supply in the first place – magnifying the condition of over supply.

          When the economy continues to stagnate, the policy makers, under Public Choice Doctrine, reverse their policy, allowing an influx of cheap, plentiful labor. The protected laborer, just as the protected car manufacturer, is now faced with competition for his labor at a time he is most unable to respond. He faces a sudden drop in his price, or a demand to increase his productivity (quality), or face retraining – all of which, for the short term, even more undermines his prosperity. Thus, under Public Choice Doctrine, the policymakers intercede with welfare programs, unemployment insurance, food stamps and such – all of which delays the reformation of the economic good of labor, and merely continues the stagnation.

          Thus, a death spiral whose only cure is free trade in labor, a choice that will never be made willingly (Public Choice Doctrine) and will occur only after revolution (see France, 1800’s), or economic collapse.

          • …or some amazing soul searching by the population to discover the reason of its demise…

            This was not an option in the past, but the rise of the internet and access to knowledge has never been greater, and grows by magnitudes. It is possible that a sliver of the population will grow to learn fundamental economics and remove policy makers from the economy.

            One can only pray 😉

          • PS: Why do producers shift their facilities due to labor and not, say, due to “oil”. You do not here about oil companies moving their production facilities to where oil is cheaper. You find oil companies moving the oil from where the oil is cheaper to their facilities.

            Of all the economic goods in an economy, labor is the most obvious since it is YOU and ME. Human beings, who, unlike oil, have this thing of self determination. There maybe a huge supply of labor in China, but unlike oil that doesn’t care if it is picked up, packed up, and shipped to the US, the Chinese man there kinda cares. He has other concerns for his life other than production.

            Thus, since the Mohammad will not move, the mountain moves to Mohammad.

            • A good study in the schizoid behavior of a “Producer is King” economy is “Social Security”

              This was organized as a way to remove labor from the workforce – older labor was given money not to produce as a way to increase the demand for labor which would be supplied by younger workers. Overwhelming success half way – people loved money for nothing, however, the limiting of labor increased the cost of goods.

              So an equal demand to increase payments to non-working people, while subsidizing the costs of labor to business while increasing taxes on people and business to fund all of this, increasing the costs of labor and goods.

              At some economic barrier, this becomes untenable, and to forestall the eventual hard-stop, SS standards are changed, increasing the age of retirement, for example.

              But, that increases the number of laborers in the market and since older workers are more experienced, increases the unemployment of younger workers – which is opposite the reason the program was started in the first place.

          • Policy makers increasing restrictions…

            ..immigration “reform” which limits even more laborers from the economy.
            ..a call to increase min. wages, which increases unemployment.
            ..a call to increase taxes so to provide benefits, or provide more goods as benefits from government (health care), or replace benefits companies no longer can afford

            … all of which magnifies the problem, which equally magnifies even more these restrictions.

            • Also one point of note.

              “Public Choice Doctrine” is not economics, it is a political theory. It profoundly explains the actions of policy makers.

              Economics explains the consequences of these policy makers.

  22. JAC……HOLY SHIT……Oregon ( your team right ) they hurt my eyes…..Yellow uniforms?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I hate their uniforms. And don’t care much for their team..BUT they are good and a PAC 12 so I kind of have to pull for them except in conference.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I bet on Oregon but WASHINGTON STATE is MY team. They go beat by my alma mater last night………..NEVADA.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    quack quack
    QUACK quack quack quack
    QUACK quack quack quack QUACK


    Ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit
    Ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit ticit

    quack, quack, QUACK QUACK QUACK quack

    • OMG JAC!!!!!!! Mother Nature hit us hard Friday pm. Been without power and internet ever since, or I’d have checked in to take my lickin before now. We literally just got turned back on. Didn’t even hear we lost til after midnight last night and believe me you are the very first person I thought of!! Course, my buddy Kathy knew I was off grid and she coulda at least relayed the bad news, but nooooo!

      Further, I stand here ashamed to admit that with all my bellowing on SUFA about being prepared for survival, I FAILED! Both vehicles on E. Generator in disrepair, some damn kid stole any spare gas I did have around for his/her scooter! Nearest gas station had no power anyway. Luckily made it to the next city where there was one station with power, and was able to fix generator in time to not lose food.

      So, yyyyeah, my weekend sucked in a way but I did enjoy the total darkness, and being able to keep us fed with no power for 3 days. I’ll check back later to catch up but for the moment I’ll grant you gloatin..err..quacking rights ….until we meet again. :).

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Glad to hear you are OK. That was the Cold Front I was warning you guys about earlier in the week. Came through here with hurricane force and massive lightning. Actually been several of them the past two weeks.

        But today was 87 and sunny. Supposed to turn cold again soon. Strange weather this year.

        Stay safe…………….. see you here when your back to normal.

      • What? I didn’t want to strike when I knew you were already down and I take a hit for that kindness?

        Next time? Oh yeah, Anita? I know you have no power, gas, working generator, but whatev. YOUR JV TEAM JUST BECAME DUCK FOOD!


  24. Texas……hoo boy……….tough to win with a back up quarterback, 11 starters suspended…..and a freshman offensive line. It was ugly…..just like last year.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I had not heard about all those suspensions. What happened?

      That explains things though. Couldn’t believe that score.

      • This new coach came in from Louisville and said “if you want to play football for me and stay in school, you will follow the rules. Failure to follow my rules and I will suspend you or kick you off the team.” So, some of the players (several seniors) like all star Bergeron for instance ( a huge NFL prospect ) thought they could get away with things….they did not. The result was 22 total players suspended and/or kicked off the team. Several lost their scholarships and will not get them back.

        THEN on top of that, David Ash, the starting quarter back sustained his third concussion and is out, and the offensive line were freshmen….very hard to win in the Big 12….add to that the defensive team lost 6 starters to suspension and Bergeron, the big nasty, is also gone and will not be back.

        That is ok….we will give this new coach his time to rebuild. Remember, in Texas, football is a religion…..I mean, even churches set their time schedule around football. At the University of Texas 10-1 is considered a losing season….and devastating if the loss was to Oklahoma. So….we shall see. We will give this new coach one year…maybe two before the hangman’s noose comes out…..or his limbs are tied to four quarter horses headed in the cardinal directions and hollering…HYAH!!!!!!!

    • I do not know who these Oath Keepers are but this article is very correct. Some ranchers have been threatened and some were forced off their land in remote areas where there is no law enforcement. This is not happening any longer because we have armed the ranchers and tied them in with our communications system. We can respond. What is still happening is the threat of kidnapping AMERICAN children from rural school buses and holding them hostage in order to have unfettered border access. The government refuses to acknowledge this nor do anything about it.

      What you do have is a porous border that is 95 percent privately owned. It is up to the land owners to police their own lands Now, what is also correct, we are seeing a rising problem of Mediterranean ethnics crossing the border in greater numbers. These are not simply people coming into Mexico and infiltrating the North looking for work. These crossings are not families but Eastern Europeans and Muslim MEN between the ages of 18 and 35. We have captured 180+ so far in the last 18 months. There is NO question that these are tied to terrorist organizations……but the media is silent. The government is covering it up, FCC licenses are threatened…..

      People can criticize all they want…..they are not here. No one really knows what is going on until they are here. The internet is full of lies, the government is openly lying, the Federal Agents are quitting their posts in droves because they are required to use non lethal ammunition against cartels…..the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers are at full employment. We have a shoot first ask questions later philosophy…which is unfortunate because some innocents are getting killed and that is a travesty but is considered optimal. It is totally out of control down here.

      We have told the ranchers that they have to protect their own property and that we, the National Guard and State law enforcement will respond as soon as possible…..we tell them that we have no idea what they are facing and if they have to shoot that is fine There will be no investigation of them and they will not be tried for murder. The Feds will not do it because they do not want the publicity.

      It is terrible down here and it is dangerous. People think that I am kidding because 10 or 15 years ago, they have been to Mexico through the borders and have good memories… is NOT NOT NOT the same any longer. I invite anyone on this blog or anywhere that has been to a border town before to come back and take a look. You used to see fishermen, children, families walking he border and the river on both sides… it is vacant and the restaurants and touristy areas are closed. The shops on the Mexico side are closed and gone for the most part. Innocent Americans walking the parks, the bike trails, and the pathways on the Texas side are being shot at from across the border.

      It has changed down here and the crossings, that used to be Mexican primarily, are now Central and South America and European and Muslim are 30 percent of the crossings.

      I have a very good friend that owns a ranch along the Dry Devil’s River (outside Del Rio) that also borders Mexico….they are an armed camp now and will shoot anyone coming from the South…Shoot them, drag them to the highway and call authorities……or just shoot and bury them….that, unfortunately, is the way it is here……and this is not an exaggeration. They constantly patrol their border and will fire warning shots into the river when they see crossings taking place…..if they ignore the warnings….they will never ignore another one. Pretty simple and a shame….but we will take care of ourselves.

      • D13, Thanks, I know it was a long video but I wanted confirmation of the facts in it from someone in with direct knowledge.

        Here is a link to the Oathkeepers. It is a an organization of ex and retired military and civilian service personnel how took the oath to defend the Constitution.

        • It is sad. I am in constant contact with the border, help in assigning logistics ( actually have control of logistics and personnel from Del Rio to Ojinaga…..if you know how to plot lat and lon… is GPS (N29/21/925 – W100/54.236) or in deg and min ( N/29/21/55 – W100/54/14)


          GPS (N29/33/977)-W100/54/14 or in deg and min ( N29/33/58 – W 104/23/31 )

          That is a huge and very remote area. But we are doing it and terrain helps a lot….there is not much out there except snakes ( the slithering kind and two legged ) scorpions, desert lions, cholla cactus ( nasty stuff ) gila monsters, spitting frogs (along any water), mesquite thorns ( desert bayonets ) sand fleas, no see ums, biting flies, and criminals. Towns and villages are 80 miles apart in this area… water, no food in the desert unless you are trained for it…..

      • I wonder what’s happening in the other border states.

        • VH…..not much actually…….California does not enforce the border…..Arizona has mostly Federal land on its border and the agents do not enforce the restrictions….actually there are signs posted to the entrance of National Parks on the Arizona border warning US Citizens of the dangers of going to their own National Park….New Mexico’s border is as dangerous as Texas…….We are helping New Mexico….at the request of the Democratic Governor…..who says Perry is correct.

%d bloggers like this: