Before a test, most school kids have to complete homework assignments.  It teaches us important lessons in life.  Fail to do you’re homework and you are likely to fail in your assignment.  Now we have our president announcing military action against ISIL, a terrorist group, and including multiple allies to assist in combating this threat.  Funny thing, it looks as if he failed to inform them they were going to support us in this new war…

“Thursday morning, the Middle East woke up to news that Obama expects their governments to sign up for as many as three years of airstrikes and military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The media reaction was decidedly mixed.

Echoing Turkey’s opposition to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Arab News reported that “Turkey will not allow a U.S.-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighboring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants.””

Add to that, Russia warns against an attack on Syria.  How far is our “Peace President” prepared to go….


  1. The foreign ministers of Germany and the UK met in Berlin on Thursday and issued a statement citing their stand on the issue. British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond made it clear that Britain is not going to be the part of any airstrike in Syria, reported The Guardian.

  2. 😎

  3. The more I read the worse it gets and what’s with the claim we aren’t arming anyone in Syria :

    “Twelve to 14 commanders receive military and nonlethal aid this way in northern Syria and about 60 smaller groups are recipients in southern Syria, al Bashir said. They report to the CIA”

      • This is from “Air Force magazine” daily report. Seems to me that placing troops in the Saudi was one of the things that got Osama going, not to mention the Khobar Towers bombing. So we have a minimum of a three way fight going on in Syria, Assad, the “good” rebels and the bad rebels. Now, we are supposed train and supply the “good” rebels who will then fight the bad rebels before they fight Assad? Does anybody see this as a possible problem?

        From Air Force Magazine, today.

        Obama Seeks Approval on Syrian Opposition Training Program
        President Obama has asked Congress to authorize a training center in Saudi Arabia to prepare Syrian opposition fighters against ISIS attacks. At an American Enterprise Institute event Thursday, HASC Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), said the President called up members of Congress late Tuesday to request the authorization be added to the budget continuing resolution, which was originally set to pass Thursday. The President requested $500 million to begin arming and training “vetted” elements of Syrian opposition forces in hopes of an ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, reported Politico. Saudi King Abdullah has offered to host the training center in his country. McKeon said he thinks the request is reasonable and Congress should be able to pass the measure with bipartisan support. “Given the seriousness of the situation, we would give him that authority to take advantage of [Abdullah’s] offer.” McKeon, however, realizes “sometimes things happen in Congress” and his thinking that the authorization should easily pass is not concrete. He noted that many in Congress are unconvinced, and still many others would rather wait until after the midterm elections to act. The “timeliness of all of this is very important,” he said, “but it’s a day-to-day thing.” (Transcript of McKeon’s Speech.)

  4. Just A Citizen says:


    If this keeps up I might actually start feeling sorry for Mr. Obama. The guy can’t buy a break. Even acting all Neo-Con aint workin out.


    Like I said, take our money and go home. Leave them all to sort out their own problems.

  5. a little off topic but worth discussing…..I am sure by now, most of you have seen the news about the black man that killed a white man……or is it a jihadist killing a, infidel…..none the less…it is an interesting conundrum for the left.

    They cant admit to jihadists in the US nor can they admit that a black killed a white…..

    So….where are the riots and outrage at this?

    • Colonel, don’t believe what your eyes are seeing. BF says the direct threat is 3000 miles away. So how’d an infidel end up dead here? Have a seat next to me on the Group W (ridiculous racist) bench! :/

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Time to share some pics, taken by someone else, of one of those places I have spent time. And have described here before. Wish she had included more in the article but you get an idea of what “open spaces” of wide valleys surrounded by mountains.

    For those that don’t know the fence in the pics is called a “jack fence”. Very common in the higher country where lodgepole pine are plentiful and the snow is deep in the winter.


    • Just A Citizen says:

      p.s. For those who might be interested the J Bar L is not just a working cattle ranch. They also run guest quarters and some activities. Use your Google and just enter J Bar L Ranch.

      I have never stayed at the ranch because there are a couple of campgrounds located at the upper end of the valley. The Centennial includes massive ranches and a very large wildlife refuge. From the upper end of the valley it is a short poke to Henry’s Lake, Idaho.

      This ends the SUFA Travel Tips for this Saturday. Unless of course I change my mind later. 🙂

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Good lord, I have been laughing so hard lately my sides are aching full time. Now lets here why these particular witnesses are full of the bull dookey but the “other” witnesses are telling the truth. 🙄


  8. Just A Citizen says:

    This has to be the quote of the day. I snatched it from an article on married relationships, from The Blaze.

    – Sep. 13, 2014 at 12:21pm .

    Anyone who thinks they have relationships all figured out should probably apply their talent to something less complicated, like string theory.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And a close second:

      “If you’re seeing shades of gray, it’s because you’re not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.”

      • LOL….I like this one. I have yet to understand how anyone can see a shade of gray…..but I hear it all the time.,,,,

        and remember this …….tracers work both ways.

  9. OK Gman…here ya go…

    1. Carolina
    2. Green Bay
    3. San Francisco
    4. Denver
    5. Miami
    6. Washington
    7. Seattle
    8. Tampa
    9. Tennessee
    10. NY Giants
    11. New England
    12 New Orleans
    13. Cincinnati
    14. Houston
    15 Indianapolis

  10. Homework

    • I posted this awhile back while you were absent. I like SCG, although I don’t always agree with them (I will still post it, despite my disagreement). I have been saying for a long time that there is a war on the dollar, and that several conflicts (Libya) were the result of this. I also think it’s the #1 reason for the issues with Russia. It’s all about the dollar and natural resources. IMHO, we are on the road to a major reset on this planet. Fiat currencies, economics as a whole, pandemics (Ebola, amongst others), governments and their corruption etc. Interesting times ahead.

  11. :!

  12. This would not surprise me in the least, if true it fits with everything I have been saying, Obama wants Syria: http://therightscoop.com/the-syrian-rebels-that-obama-is-trying-to-arm-against-isis-have-signed-non-aggression-pact-with-isis/

  13. This is when I will begin to worry, bombs going off. (As far as the flag flying over the WH, we already have a Muslim sympathizer in the big house, what’s the difference:

    “In video footage, ISIS militants have promised to divide America in two, they have threatened car bombs and explosives in our cities, and they extol a future where the flag of Allah is raised over the White House.”

    Read more: http://www.independentlivingnews.com/preppers/prepper-planning/201226-isis-militant-we-will-divide-america-in-two-.stml?utm_source=140914RFARNP&keycode=140914RFARNP&utm_content=readTheRestOfThisArticle&u=be933710-ddc7-11e2-88f9-80ee731fd7a1#.VBWBMpV0zIU#ixzz3DI3Fu1aW

  14. Isn’t it amazing how the word tolerance and intolerance are now being applied…So in the name of tolerance….it is now ok to be intolerant.

    And, I need to ask, the POTUS says that he will not put boots on the ground but he sends in 400 advisers……armed ( for their protection, he says )……but we are not at war and there are no boots on the ground. And the left is applauding, Unbelievable.

    • The entire left wing remind me of Stalin. They want you to compromise. First, they want 50% of what you have. You give in to shut them up. Then they want 50% of what you have left then the process repeats itself. Nobody cares what you want, not at all. Same with tolerance. They want their stuff tolerated and who the hell are you to have the temerity to think that anything you believe in should be tolerated? Your stuff is always on the table, theirs, never!

      In our lifetimes Colonel, who would have ever thunk that that the perfectly reasonable request of homosexuals not to be hassled by cops and the morals squad would have, through stages, morphed into gay marriage and a constitutional conundrum?

  15. The Siren Call Of The Shia
    Enabling the Shia Axis to do our dirty work in the Middle East offers Western policymakers honey laced with poison.
    David Ernst
    By David Ernst
    September 11, 2014

    The Islamic State’s Mesopotamian blitz has evoked a consensus for action among Americans not seen since the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicates a startling two-thirds of Americans support confrontation with the group. It is likely that only a threat so disturbing as the Islamic State (ISIS)could have compelled the Obama administration to backtrack on six years of established policy and initiate its own military operations in Iraq this past summer.

    The more ISIS gains in strength, commits atrocities like the brutal and public murder of American journalists, and openly threatens the American homeland, the range of the policy debate over how to confront the terrorist group will narrow. In his address to the country last evening, the president repeated his promise to “degrade and destroy” the organization. The means by which we go about doing this, however, are arguably just as critical for American national security.

    The president said the effort to defeat ISIS will consist of airstrikes, a “broad coalition,” and a number of other counter-terrorism efforts. He also notably stated we cannot rely on Bashar al Assad’s regime, and vowed to continue to support the Syrian opposition as a part of the effort. He said nothing, however, about, the regional actor that arguably has the most to say about the ultimate outcome of the fight if it so chooses: Iran.

    Ever since ISIS seized Mosul in June, voices from across the political spectrum have increasingly suggested that we turn to a common enemy—Assad, Tehran, and the forces of Shia Islamism in the Middle East—to defeat ISIS. In June, Sen. Lindsay Graham publicly floated the idea of cooperating with Iran against the Islamic State, comparing it to Roosevelt and Churchill’s alliance with Stalin against Hitler. Writing recently in the New York Times, Northeastern University professor Max Abrams argued it would be foolish not to align with Assad against ISIS, granted that the Syrian dictator, unlike our common Sunni enemy, presents no direct threat to American civilians. Writing in Foreign Affairs, political science professor Mohsen Milani has argued that a joint struggle between the United States and Iran against ISIS would be a “positive step” that could conceivably enable the Obama administration to “turn a new leaf” with the Iranian regime, and “overcome 35 years of estrangement.”

    Some, like Graham, see cooperating with Iran against ISIS as a simple question of realpolitik. Others, such as Milani, see it as an opportunity for a long overdue, full-fledged, strategic rapprochement between Washington and Tehran reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s overture to Communist China in 1972. The arguments for enabling the Shia Axis to do what must be done in the Middle East through a deft maneuver of Machiavellian-like statecraft are ostensibly compelling; unfortunately, however, they only offer Western policymakers honey laced with poison.
    This Is Not the 1970s

    The appeals to America’s historical precedents in cooperating with bad guys to beat other really bad guys, whether it be in the 1940s, or the 1970s, fail to account for the strategic endgame that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Nixon and Henry Kissinger pursued in the alliance with Stalin and rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), respectively. After the Big Three crushed Nazi Germany, the Atlantic Alliance formed almost immediately, and went about containing the advancing influence of the Soviet Union using all instruments of statecraft available, including the threat to use force, and the presence of hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe. Are U.S. policymakers prepared to treat Iran the same way following a hypothetical defeat of ISIS? Comparisons to the Nixon administration’s recognition of the PRC in the 1970s makes a similar miscalculation: Nixon and Kissinger’s decision to exploit fissures in the relationship between the two Communist giants assumed Beijing and Moscow would remain relatively powerful, and at each other’s throats. After a hypothetical rapprochement with Iran aimed at defeating ISIS, what other regional force would remain to contain Iranian power?

    The president’s pledges to “degrade” and “destroy” ISIS are refreshing. His qualifications as to how this will be accomplished, however, reveal their limits. Indeed, he has retained his promise that no American ground troops will see action. The last time a U.S. president set out to destroy a Sunni Islamist network that threatened the homeland, he dispatched military forces to Afghanistan, and declared without instigating much controversy that the nation would defend itself “at any price.” The contrast is noteworthy, and demonstrates that despite the surprising public support for military action, the current administration has few politically desirable options. After years of frustration fighting two wars in the Middle East, the prospect of yet another ground commitment to Iraq is still overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public.

    If the history of America’s small wars has taught us anything, however, it is that there is no substitute for dominating contested territory in defeating groups like ISIS. Such is evident in the contrast between the surge in Iraq in 2006 and Operation Rolling Thunder against North Vietnam, or al Qaeda’s resurgence in the face of the CIA’s success in assassinating thousands of the network’s top lieutenants. No amount of power delivered from the air is alone sufficient to change the political realities on the ground. Without the willingness to fight ISIS for its political control of the territory it occupies, the White House will need to turn to others to finish the job it wants done. Hence the sudden attractiveness to some of the Iranian Mullocracy and its proxies in the Levant.
    Who Will Contain Iran?

    ISIS’ defeat without the presence of substantial ground forces that would check Iranian political influence would pave the way for Tehran to become the region’s most powerful actor. Prior to 2003, the job of containing Iran belonged to Saddam Hussein. After 2003, it belonged to the U.S. military. Since the American withdrawal from Iraq, it has increasingly fallen to the divided and volatile forces of Sunni Islamism. If ISIS is defeated on Iranian terms, then no other power will stand in the way of Iran dominating the Middle East. Indeed, there would be nothing to stop the so-called “Shia Crescent” from Tehran to Beruit that Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned about in 2004.

    Some proponents of a rapprochement between Washington and Iran acknowledge this reality, and suggest it is a worthy tradeoff. Writing in the The Telegraph, Sir Malcom Rifkind noted that, unlike Churchill’s and Roosevelt’s alliance with Soviet Union in the 1940s, “Iran will never be a superpower or a global threat.” Some have taken the argument even further, and claimed Iran and the United States have the capacity to become strategic partners rather than mere temporary allies. In December of last year, David Patrikarikos argued in the New York Times that Iran’s support for terrorists, virulent anti American rhetoric, and enmity with Israel are more the product of historical animosity rather than ideological fervor. Thus, Iran’s leaders are rational, and would therefore respond to American overtures of friendship. Such cooperation could allegedly foster solutions between Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas; Iran could become a regional ally in countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East; and, most importantly, Iran would become an invaluable partner in fighting Sunni extremism. Both lines of reasoning rest on a hopeful yet unsound assessment of the Islamic Republic.

    Rifkind is most likely correct that the Islamic Republic couldn’t possibly threaten Western interests in the manner of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, an Iranian hegemony in the Middle East would mark the transfer of power over one of the world’s most strategically important regions to an avowed enemy of Western interests. It would prove a critical asset to Russia, and perhaps China, in their attempt to challenge American influence globally. Most of all, an Iran capable of projecting power from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean would present its chief rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia, with few options of sorting through their differences other than war. Indeed, preventing Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is one of the key reasons both of those countries are allies of the United States in the first place. War between Israel, Iran, and the Gulf States would be a conflict in size and scope not seen in decades. It would be the sort of war that would call for involving outside powers, and therefore, not unlike the Balkans prior to World War I, catalyze conflicts between great powers elsewhere. Such a conflict would most certainly mark the end of “Pax Americana” that has fostered unprecedented peace and prosperity during, and after the Cold War.
    Resetting Iran Is Fantasy

    Proponents of rapprochement, such as Patrikarikos, however, argue that Iran would never seek to dominate the Middle East in the first place, and moreover, that it would likely become an American ally. The call for American policymakers to appeal to Iran’s better nature, however, has a striking resemblance to the Obama administration’s “reset” with Russia. True enough, Iran’s leaders could surprise us all, and choose to become the strategic partners we would wish. It is delusional, however, to imagine that a foreign government will act in accordance with our wishes if nothing compels them to do so. After the Obama administration signed the START Treaty, withdrew support for a ballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe, and conceded on other matters to Russia, Vladimir Putin was free to take Obama’s offer of a new strategic partnership, or leave it. Rather than do what the White House thought was in Russia’s best interest, however, Putin unsurprisingly decided to do what he thought was in Russia’s best interest. Those who claim Iran will drop the “Death to America” chants at Friday prayers, cease supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, and join the United States in stabilizing the Middle East in a manner friendly to Western interests, if only the United States were to make the first move in a rapprochement, base their analysis on nothing other than mere hope. It is nice to believe that Iran’s leaders would do what we want them to do; it is naïve to believe they will just because we think that they should.

    The White House should remain resolute in its promises to destroy ISIS. It would be foolish, however, to do so at the cost of handing Tehran a strategic vacuum in the Middle East. This reality undoubtedly leaves the administration few options. If the United States is going to annihilate ISIS without Shia militias determining the final outcome, then it must find some other force that can do this. Whether this group consists of Iraqi Kurds, other Sunni forces, or some combination thereof remains to be seen. If the military determines such an outcome cannot be accomplished without U.S. ground forces, then so be it. The president’s pledge to cut Assad out of the equation is a positive development; he should remain committed to it as events unfold. ISIS brings war to America, and America should respond in kind. Before taking action, however, American policymakers should grasp how they want the ultimate resolution to look. If the United States seeks to prevent the state of affairs in the Middle East from becoming even worse than they already are, and, seeks to preserve its tenuous hold on Pax Americana, then paving the way to Iranian regional dominance is no answer.


    • Egypt seeks broader alliance with US over Libya
      AP News | Sep 13, 2014

      Share on Facebook 3

      CAIRO (AP) — As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought Egyptian support on Saturday for an international coalition to combat jihadi groups, Egypt pressed for broader international efforts to fight militants in its troubled neighbor, Libya.

      The Egyptian position adds another layer to the complexities facing the United States as it seeks support among allies in the Middle East to battle militants who have overtaken a third of Iraq and Syria and threaten to upend the region.

      Cairo’s call also risks further aggravating regional rivalries that could undermine U.S. efforts to build a durable coalition. Qatar and Turkey back Islamist-allied militias in Libya, while Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia support their opponents.

      Military officials said that in exchange for Egypt’s support for the coalition to combat the so-called Islamic State group, it seeks assurances that sorting out Libya will be at the top of the U.S. agenda. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

      In meetings with Kerry, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi used language that for the Egyptians clearly referred to Libya, according to a statement by the presidential spokesman.

      “(He) stressed that any international coalition against terrorism must be a comprehensive alliance that is not limited to confront a certain organization or to curb a single terrorist hotbed but must expand to include all the terrorist hotbeds across the Middle East and Africa.”

      Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shurki also brought up this issue more than once during a joint press conference with Kerry.

      “We support all international efforts to fight terrorism… and we will take all measures that are intended to eliminate this phenomena altogether, whether in Libya or any other part of the Arab world or in the African continent in particular,” he said.

      Military operations in Libya would be a major shift in Washington’s position — U.S. officials have repeatedly warned against intervention there and said that only a political resolution will end the country’s turmoil.

      Egypt, for its part, has already moved in that direction however, launching airstrikes against militias in Tripoli last month along with the U.A.E.

      Officially, Cairo has repeatedly denied sending troops outside its borders and says it is not planning any military action in Libya, a country now dominated by Islamist-allied militias and with which Egypt shares long stretches of porous borders.

      Egypt’s government accuses Turkey and Qatar of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, once the country’s most organized political organization but now banned and branded a terrorist group by Cairo, a position the United States does not share. Last year the army overthrew the country’s elected president, Mohammed Morsi, who came from the group, after mass demonstrations against him.

      Nearly 40 nations have agreed to contribute to what Kerry said would be a worldwide fight to defeat the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. On Thursday, representatives from 10 Arab countries, including Egypt, met with the top American diplomat in the Saudi city of Jiddah promising to “do their share” to fight the Islamic State militants.

      “Almost every country has an ability to play some kind of role in this fight against ISIL, and to join this coalition one way or the other,” Kerry said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.

      While avoiding delving into details about Egypt’s exact role, Kerry referred to the country as “an intellectual and cultural capital to the Muslim world,” saying it has a “critical role” to play in denouncing the harsh ideology of the Islamic State group.

      Egypt is home to Al-Azhar University, one of the oldest and most revered centers of religious learning for Sunni Muslims. It has issued several statements and religious edicts condemning the Islamic State group and its self-styled caliphate.

      Kerry hailed Egypt as an “important partner” in the emerging coalition while stressing that the need for Cairo’s support would not lead Washington to ignore human rights concerns.

      U.S.-Egypt ties have been strained since July 2013, when el-Sissi, then the army chief, overthrew Morsi amid massive protests demanding his resignation.

      The U.S. has criticized Egypt’s subsequent massive crackdown on Morsi’s supporters and withheld some military aid while urging Cairo to press ahead with a democratic transition and respect human rights.

      Kerry called Egypt a friend and an ally, and said the U.S. wants the government in Cairo to succeed. He acknowledged that “sometimes friends have disagreement over one thing or the other” but insisted decades-long ties between Washington and Cairo would endure.

      When asked about Egypt imprisoning journalists from the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network on terrorism-related charges, Kerry said he had raised those concerns with el-Sissi on Saturday.

      He insisted: “Let me be clear. The United States doesn’t ever trade its concern for human rights for any other objective. It is always a concern. It’s an honest concern.”


      • Pentagon Official: What It Will Take To Win The War Against The Islamic State
        11:57 AM 09/13/2014

        Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

        What follows in the paragraphs below is what it will take to actually win the War against the Islamic State. Yes, war. It is going to be costly, time intensive, and involves U.S. forces on the ground partnering with local forces in Iraq and Syria. It would not have come to this if President Barack Obama had acted earlier, but that’s where we find ourselves at the moment, so there is no point in assessing what could have been.

        The idea of placing U.S. forces in harm’s way again, even in a limited capacity, is contentious to say the least, but if ISIS poses a direct threat to U.S. national security (which it does), then the United States must do what is necessary to protect her interests at home and abroad. If we are going to take this fight on, then we should do what is necessary to win — anything short of that trivializes the sacrifices of those who we send to fight and, possibly, die for our nation. (MILLER: Obama’s Current Strategy Is Doomed To Fail)

        While there are many issues with the strategy Obama laid out on Wednesday night, the first one that must be addressed is the goals of the strategy. We have yet to “destroy” al-Qaida or its affiliates, even with hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces on the ground fighting in the Middle East, though we have significantly degraded their capacity to conduct terrorist attacks. As long as “destroy” remains the end goal of the president’s strategy, it will never succeed. You cannot destroy an ideology. Our goals will have to be revised to read defeat ISIS’s military capability and degrade its capacity to commit acts of terrorism.

        The second major issue is the way we will fight the Islamic State. It cannot be limited to a “counter-terrorism campaign,” as articulated by the president and Secretary of State John Kerry. While it will involve a counter-terrorism aspect to protect the U.S. homeland and national security interests abroad from acts of terrorism, it must also simultaneously include two separate and distinct military campaigns to defeat the Islamic State’s forces seeking to overthrow the governments in Baghdad and Damascus. The Islamic State’s forces are armed and move, communicate, and fight like a conventional military fighting force, and must be engaged as such. (MILLER: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States)

        The counter-terrorism campaign in the War against the Islamic State must be waged by the whole of the United States government in partnership with her allies abroad in the same manner in which the U.S. has waged its campaign against al-Qaida. In that sense, the U.S. will be taking on an additional adversary, though the processes and means by which the U.S. will prosecute the Islamic State’s terrorist organization will remain largely the same as for al-Qaida. The goal of this campaign would be to prevent the Islamic State from conducting terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies and interests abroad.

        The first military campaign in the War against the Islamic State should place in Iraq. There, the U.S. military will have to partner on the ground with Iraqi forces in a foreign internal defense, or FID, mission to degrade and subsequently defeat the Islamic State’s forces. In Iraq, the Islamic State is employing terrorist tactics against civilians, but that is not its primary goal. What the Islamic State seeks is to overthrow the Iraqi government through military means and conventional combat. That is a military strategy, not a terrorist strategy. At the moment, the group must be treated and fought as an insurgent group with significant military capacity. That is a war, whether Kerry wants to call it that or not.

        The second military campaign must take place in Syria. This is by far the more difficult of the two, as it will have two fronts. Despite the president’s desire to find a political solution to the Syrian Civil War, it remains unlikely that Bashar al-Assad will step down. That means the U.S. military and its proxy on the ground (the Free Syrian Army) will be forced to address not only ISIS’s military capability, but also the Syrian military that remains loyal to Assad. The U.S. will have to either dissuade the Syrian military from taking action, or strike them should they attempt to target the Free Syrian Army. If not, the U.S will never be able to build a viable ground force proxy in Syria to carry out the Syrian campaign in the War against the Islamic State. The United States must be prepared to engage the Syrian military.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/13/pentagon-official-what-it-will-take-to-win-the-war-against-the-islamic-state/#ixzz3DJKBwrwE

      • There is no way in hell the US will ever agree to Egypt’s demand on Libya or, if they pay it lip service, they will not honor it. This mess is one of the great “successes” of Obama-Clinton statecraft and must be defended at all costs.

        To this day, Carter is honored by the media and academia for deposing the Shah. Nobody ever talks about what happened next. It is as if history for that particular collection of latitudes and longitudes stopped on the day the Shah was overthrown. Anything else would be an admission of Carter’s incompetence and malfeasance. Ditto for the big O.

    • Blah blah blah

      Iran is the big boogy man, and the US – who started the whole mess – is the savior by (guess what) continuing to do the same thing that started the whole mess.

      Result: it will be a bigger mess.

  16. When Goodness Goes Bad
    Belief in the goodness of man addicts people to change for change’s sake and causes social polarization.
    Anna Mussmann
    By Anna Mussmann
    September 12, 2014

    Approximately a decade ago, I applied for a retail job. The application included questions such as, “Do you think people are: (a) basically good or (b) basically bad?” It also inquired whether I thought that, given the opportunity, (a) all people, (b) some people, or (c) very few people, would commit theft. I knew perfectly well the department store was relying on the fact that dishonest people tend to believe most people are dishonest. If I (acting upon the historic Christian claim that we humans are all sinners) clicked on “people are basically bad,” the application would declare that I was “not a good psychological fit” and the retail chain would not hire me, because they would have no way of knowing my theological beliefs would also prevent me from pocketing their merchandise whenever the supervisors weren’t looking. Their algorithm was not prepared to process an outlook that did not mesh with popular social psychology.

    After all, what kind of misanthrope would judge human thoughts and actions against external, objective moral laws that make us all look like hopeless sinners? What misfit would declare that our own sins cause social ills? Surely such pessimism is best left to outcasts who spend their free time glaring at children and burning witches. Nowadays, the goodness of man is key to our entire social doctrine. After all, if people believe they are good and worthy, they will behave in good and worthy ways. If people trust that their neighbors are good people, they will treat them with respect and compassion. So, at least, goes the theory. Feel-good movies and social campaigns would have us believe that everyone (with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler) is essentially good, and that wrongdoing can be prevented by proper societal support for those in need.

    This outlook sounds more generous than old-timey words about sin. Yet its fruit is oddly illiberal. It has contributed to a world in which each generation of Americans successively trusts others less, antiheroes have replaced heroes in both popular and high-brow entertainment, cynicism is mistaken for healthy skepticism, and government regulation continues to grow in spheres that were once left to individual judgment. Why? It is because belief in the goodness of man typically leads to addiction to change for change’s sake, and, ultimately, to social polarization.
    The Eighteenth-Century Counterculture

    The concept that humans are innately good and this goodness flows from human emotions rather than any particular beliefs, was a flourishing, counter-cultural image in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The “noble savage” was frequently used as a rhetorical device to scold civilized man for greed, blood-lust, and unhappiness. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed human corruption to civilization itself. Rather than improving the social structure, revolutionaries wanted to eliminate social structures. That was the age in which anarchists perpetuated terrorist acts because they thought all government should and could be abolished. Historian Jacques Barzun remarks, “The true anarchist is a gentle, trusting soul who argues for a world without government. . . . But in the [Eighteen] Nineties there were impatient anarchists, who wanted immediate results and relied on Alfred Nobel’s recent invention, dynamite, to gain their ends.” The hope of exchanging governance for utopia did not withstand the tragedies and disappointments of the twentieth century (including the disappointment of Bolshevism’s spectacular failure to provide the world with equality, peace, and happiness).
    Even if people are truly good in the deep recesses of their hearts, they also write hideously cruel things in comboxes.

    The thing is, those who view humanity with dogmatic optimism suffer cognitive dissonance, because even if people are truly good in the deep recesses of their hearts, they also write hideously cruel things in comboxes. They abuse children and behead journalists. An explanation for this paradox is necessary. The modern explanation goes like this: People do terrible things because they suffer from poverty, oppression, racism, repression, or ignorance. Enough faith and hard labor can change all these factors. Since humanity obviously has problems, it is equally obvious that it must be restructured (whether through modest means such as new public school curriculum, varying levels of wealth redistribution, or even eradicating sex and gender). Every right-minded citizen has a duty to cooperate in this noble task. To do otherwise is to demonstrate hate for the human race. Naturally, this approach tends to make its adherents susceptible to the claims of all types of reformers, and inclined to follow even ill-advised campaigns for “change.”

    Social reformers in this strain cannot be sidetracked by questions about the truth or untruth of beliefs. After all, if man is good, his goodness will shine through a variety of religions and belief systems. Focusing on beliefs comes perilously close to finding evil in the heart of man and to reawakening an old-fashioned focus on individual responsibility that might lead to blaming the unfortunate instead of helping them, or to limiting the changes morally available to reformers. The claim that beliefs do not really matter is born of a conviction that they should not really matter—they should remain weak, inoffensive, and small enough to tuck into a closet. They ought only to be tolerated so long as they do not to interfere with the salvation of humankind.
    Why We Hate History

    Nor do such reformers appreciate the traditional style of celebrating national, moral, and cultural heroes and of focusing on positive things in history. After all, to laud George Washington without mentioning his ownership of slaves is a lost opportunity to point out the moral importance of social changes since his day. To praise Nathan Hale’s bold readiness to die for his country is to be inspired by the courage of a man of the past, instead of by a goal for the future. Nowadays, antiheroes like DreamWorks’ humorous character “Megamind” resonate more reliably with society. It illustrates popular values that Megamind was made a villain by childhood circumstances and cultural prejudice, but once he embraces faith in his own goodness, he becomes a hero and saves the day.
    Once individuals have little in common, they are less likely to agree with each other’s choices, and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to trust each other.

    Our society’s trust in social change makes it difficult to fully grasp the message of stories produced in an earlier era. In the penultimate scene of the enjoyable new film adaptation of the Les Miserables musical, the heroic character Jean Valjean is dying. Social inequity has robbed him of much of his life, yet that is not his focus. He sings instead of mercy, forgiveness, and love. As he is led offstage by previously deceased characters, they imply the concept of eternity, and the story suggests true justice and joy can be found in a realm apart from our own. Such an ending syncs with the original source material, but is unsatisfying to many moderns. Thus, in a jarring shift of focus, the death scene cuts to a parade of the young, revolutionary characters (who are also dead at this point in the story, but apparently, their revolution lives on). They sing of social justice. They wave banners and wear red neckerchiefs. Even this brief appeal to social change was not enough to satisfy the critics, who are accustomed to talking about old-fashioned values exclusively in tones of irony.

    When we reject the importance of shared beliefs, and cast off common cultural heroes, little remains on which to build a stable society. Once individuals have little in common, they are less likely to agree with each other’s choices, and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to trust each other. In such a scenario, it becomes desirable to increase government oversight instead of relying on a fellow citizen’s judgment. Surely the recent conversation about the “criminalization of parenthood” can be traced to this. Even the authorities seem increasingly to function on the assumption that, instead of allowing situation-specific judgment calls among their own ranks, rules ought to be applied with blanket uniformity. Why else would a mother be charged with a misdemeanor for acquiescing to her eleven-year-old’s request to wait in the car while she ran into a store, even though no harm came to the child?
    The Paradox of Polarization

    It is a great irony that the doctrine of humanity’s goodness has led to as much polarization as any religious dogma. By its very nature, traditional religion is divisive enough to call some people “wrong.” Yet Christianity, for example, also emphasizes the commonality of humankind by calling all men sinners, declaring the same God loves them all, and insisting all require the same salvation. In contrast, those who trust in human goodness, and who heed the siren call of social change as a way of life, polarize culture in a different way. They naturally wish to persuade the world to think as they do, but they cannot regard their own approach as a belief system because belief systems imply solidity and stasis rather than change. In their minds, only their opponents act on belief. They act on knowledge.
    If people are innately good, there is no comprehensible reason why the privileged would remain wrongheaded in the face of an opportunity to reform society.

    Furthermore, they cannot respect those who disagree with them. The doctrine of original sin at least offers an explanation for why individuals would fall prey to wrong belief and bad behavior. If, however, people are innately good, there is no comprehensible reason why the privileged among them (those who are not victims of poverty, oppression, racism, repression, or ignorance) would remain wrongheaded in the face of an opportunity to reform society. Such people cannot be evil, and they are not oppressed, so they must be fools. I remember sitting on the train a few years ago and hearing a young woman complain, “I guess we won’t get gay marriage until all the stupid people [that is, the older generation] are dead.” Even though anyone can respect someone who is wrong, it is difficult to respect someone who is stupid. It becomes difficult to debate, vote, and work together as a democratic society when all we see in the arguments of our opponents is stupidity. It becomes ever more attractive to force and enforce social change through legislation and increased government.

    Yet even though such reformers may have an agenda (as do we all), they are not conspiring monsters. They are not even idiots or would-be dictators. Instead, they are just as well-meaning and just as flawed as their conservative opponents. They have set out to make the world a better place, and often they are right that a given situation ought to change. Unfortunately, the results of their efforts do not seem to align with their goals. Perhaps this very fact could be attributed to the existence of original sin and its devastating impact on humanity.


    • And then you post this, which more or less says “…keep out of other people’s business…” then you post “we need to be involved in other people’s business”.

      • actually what I was posting was what we need to think about before we get involved.

        • Human nature? Think of the crowds in the Colosseum shouting for more blood.

          • THUMBS DOWN !!!!!! Always THUMBS DOWN !!!!! and then they cheered.

            • No.

              That is an example of the depravity of the collective, not of the individual.

              Take anyone one in the stands, and they would be very unlikely to do the evil themselves.

              When the State is perverse, the people become perverse as a matter of their own survival from the State. Join or be the victim.

              In all circumstances, it is the State that infects evil into the people. It is not the people infecting the State.

              • I’d define your above argument as a logical fallacy.

              • As you would, since understanding logic is not your strong suit.

              • Agreed that in the context of a collective….however, I ,,,,I used the “they” and not individual…I agree with you on this one.

              • Sorry…hit the wrong button and posted before finished…..

                @ BF….interesting viewpoint on human nature….If it is not human nature to be “naturally” violent, then why would a collective be so? I have always heard “safety in numbers” but, then in retrospect, is it human nature to “go along” instead of standing up and saying no? I suggest that it is…

                For example, it is easy to write feelings and things on a blog…there is no retribution nor penalty….but why would a person not stand up in a crowd…regardless of the consequences? If a single individual was truly non violent…why would a collective make him violent? For if he/she simply goes along with a majority, I find that worse than suffering the consequences of standing up….What say you?

              • D13,

                As I pointed out already, if you are not with the collective, you are a victim

                It becomes a matter of self-survival.

                To stand out from the collective makes you suddenly their target. One merely needs to review what happened to those that didn’t salute at Nazi rallies, or the Mao Revolution, or Pot Pot. Those that did not join became targets – which caused everyone else around them to join the collective, or be a target.

                In the US too, where anti-war protesters are silenced by pro-war (when in a war) where not “supporting the effort” becomes treason.

                This mechanism promotes more “us vs them” and isolation of dissent.

              • It may not be my strong suit-but I know that herd mentality is a part of human nature and doing evil because you have the cover of other humans doing the same isn’t a plus or an excuse for the individual-it makes the actions worse.

              • That is exactly what I said, V.H.

                The COLLECTIVE, where individuals, like you distance themselves from the evil done in their name are rolled into such evil with ease – because if you are not with the collective, you are a victim

              • People ARE violent, that is a fact.

                The choice of the use of violence, however, is just that – a choice. One made for one’s benefit or mitigation of consequence.

                The establishment of principles provides a basis to make such choices, but when survival becomes threatened, people will and do use violence to save themselves.

                When the State organizes its violence under the guise of “legitimacy”, however, those principles are distorted. Now, individual violence – which is metered by principles – now becomes un-metered completely. Individuals cannot kill, but the State can kill.

                There becomes three classes of people within the State – those that seek to use legitimized violence for their benefit, their victims, and those that wish to avoid being those victims.

              • OK..I see your argument….as it relates to the State.

              • Not just the State, but the State is the worse of them all.

              • Ahh but who allows the state to become that way? It is a chicken-egg argument.

              • It is not an “allow”.

                It is a “condition”.

                When people believe they benefit from the use of violence upon their non-violent neighbors, and justify such violence as for the “common good”, the absolute eventuality is evil upon all, including the ones who thought they had a benefit.

    • David Skekabim says:

      Excellent article!

      It is a healthy conversation to have, especially in today’s world.

      When life is good, all is well and everything is copacetic, humans are innately good as they can afford to be nice, charitable, empathetic, etc..

      Introduce an even subtle threat to their ego through any aspect of their lives they feel is important. (…like their job position, status at church, family, neighborhood, their property, appearance, ability or whatever) And what normally would have been a win/win mindset, is now a competition for win/lose. Because of the threat, someone has to lose in the exchange.

      They naturally go into reserve and defense mode to protect the self. If they are not careful, their actions can quickly and easily manifest into evil.

      What would be a competition for win/lose can quickly and easily become a lose/lose. Evil prevails.

      Under such circumstances, those who cannot discern the difference between right and wrong, Go[o]d and [D]evil, …unwittingly choose evil and therefore lose, …which through cause and effect, involves others around them and perpetuates more evil.

      That is an example of how the true nature of evil works. Unless you can discern the difference, you don’t see it until it is too late. It is like fire in that it grows into a monster if not put in check.

      I find it rather interesting the author weighing things into a context of faith and religion as a moral frame of reference. Religion with no discernment of Go[o]d and [D]evil is only another something to attach your ego to, and therefore another avenue for evil to take hold.

      I was once talking to a group of good ‘Christians’, and they went ‘cult’ on me and pinned me down in defining my beliefs to see if I was ‘one of them’. I basically told them I don’t so much care about what Jesus was, but rather like to focus on the message. Judging by their response, I suspect they missed something.

      I have talked to many like them, preachers, claimed scholars, fools who act as if they have exclusivity to god, zealots, moderates, theocrats, and everything in between.

      As far as I can see, if they had any remote idea or inclinations of the ‘spirit of Christ’, their whole mindset would be a bit different. And they wouldn’t concern themselves with any of that nonsense. ‘One of them’ wouldn’t be so important.

      Evil is everywhere. Our whole existence is based on systems that divide us and prey on our capacity to do evil. It is a systemic way of life which constantly presents us with win/lose or lose/lose.

      What is the win/win?

      I think that was a big part of what the message is about.

      • I don’t think that most people knowingly choose evil-that’s the problem-most people rationalize in order to justify their actions. They don’t realize or won’t admit even to themselves that they are doing wrong.

        • Agreed.

        • David Skekabim says:

          I don’t think many intentionally choose evil. I posit that there are many who cannot see the difference, or may even be acting completely within their right, yet evil still manifests from their actions.

          That’s how evil gets you. You cant always see it coming or be able to avoid it, …even if you do know the difference.

          A decision which is right in one context, may not be in another. It sometimes is a matter of which right decision is best, ..’the best of two goods’, so to speak. Evil lurks, waiting to decide which course of events to grip to. I think part of fighting evil is about avoiding it by not giving it an opportunity.

  17. The Parent Trap

    JULY 19, 2014

    WHEN I was about 9 years old, I graduated to a Little League whose diamonds were a few miles from our house, in a neighborhood that got rougher after dark. After one practice finished early, I ended up as the last kid left with the coach, waiting in the gloaming while he grumbled, looked at his watch and finally left me — to wait or walk home, I’m not sure which.

    I started walking. Halfway there, along a busy road, my father picked me up. He called my coach, as furious as you would expect a protective parent to be; the coach, who probably grew up having fistfights in that neighborhood, gave as good as he got; I finished the season in a different league.

    Here are two things that didn’t happen. My (lawyer) father did not call the police and have the coach arrested for reckless endangerment of a minor. And nobody who saw me picking my way home alone thought to call the police on my parents, or to charge them with neglect for letting their child slip free of perfect safety for an hour.

    Today they might not have been so lucky. For instance, they might have ended up like the Connecticut mother who earned a misdemeanor for letting her 11-year-old stay in the car while she ran into a store. Or the mother charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” after a bystander snapped a photo of her leaving her 4-year-old in a locked, windows-cracked car for five minutes on a 50 degree day. Or the Ohio father arrested in front of his family for “child endangerment” because — unbeknown to him — his 8-year-old had slipped away from a church service and ended up in a nearby Family Dollar.

    Or (I’m just getting warmed up) like the mother of four, recently widowed, who left her children — the oldest 10, the youngest 5 — at home together while she went to a community-college class; her neighbor called the police, protective services took the kids, and it took a two-year legal fight to pry them back from foster care. Or like the parents from two families who were arrested after their girls, two friends who were 5 and 7, cut through a parking lot near their houses — again without the parents’ knowledge — and were spotted by a stranger who immediately called the police.

    Or — arriving at this week’s high-profile story — like Debra Harrell, an African-American single mother in Georgia, who let her 9-year-old daughter play in a nearby park while she worked a shift at McDonald’s, and who ended up shamed on local news and jailed.

    Some of these cases have been reported, but some are first-person accounts, and in some the conduct of neighbors and the police and social workers may be more defensible than the anecdote suggests.

    But the pattern — a “criminalization of parenthood,” in the words of The Washington Post’s Radley Balko — still looks slightly nightmarish, and there are forces at work here that we should recognize, name and resist.

    First is the upper-class, competition-driven vision of childhood as a rigorously supervised period in which unattended play is abnormal, risky, weird. This perspective hasn’t just led to “the erosion of child culture,” to borrow a quote from Hanna Rosin’s depressing Atlantic essay on “The Overprotected Kid”; it has encouraged bystanders and public servants to regard a deviation from constant supervision as a sign of parental neglect.
    Continue reading the main story
    Continue reading the main story

    Second is the disproportionate anxiety over child safety, fed by media coverage of every abduction, every murdered child, every tragic “hot car” death. Such horrors are real, of course, but the danger is wildly overstated: Crime rates are down, abductions and car deaths are both rare, and most of the parents leaving children (especially non-infants) in cars briefly or letting them roam a little are behaving perfectly responsibly.

    Third is an erosion of community and social trust, which has made ordinary neighborliness seem somehow unnatural or archaic, and given us instead what Gracy Olmstead’s article in The American Conservative dubs the “bad Samaritan” phenomenon — the passer-by who passes the buck to law enforcement as expeditiously as possible. (Technology accentuates this problem: Why speak to a parent when you can just snap a smartphone picture for the cops?)

    And then finally there’s a policy element — the way these trends interact not only with the rise of single parenthood, but also with a welfare system whose work requirements can put a single mother behind a fast-food counter while her kid is out of school.

    This last issue presents a distinctive challenge to conservatives like me, who believe such work requirements are essential. If we want women like Debra Harrell to take jobs instead of welfare, we have to also find a way to defend their liberty as parents, instead of expecting them to hover like helicopters and then literally arresting them if they don’t.

    Otherwise we’ll be throwing up defenses against big government, while ignoring a police state growing in our midst.


  18. For SK –

    One of the worst cities for civil asset forfeiture is Philadelphia, where, as we read in this Philadelphia Inquirer story, officials file thousands of forfeiture petitions yearly, confiscating some $6 million in cash and property. One of the disturbing cases related in the piece is that of the Sourovelis family. They were evicted from their home because their son had been arrested for selling $40 worth of illegal drugs outside of the house. But because he lived there, the house was fair game for seizure.

    I am sure they never complained about such legal theft …. right up until it happened to them.

    • Philly is a very corrupt town. As a housing guy, I have driven around in the past through blocks and blocks of vacant single family attached masonry row houses then listened to the city fathers talk about the affordable housing “crisis”. When you point out the vacant homes, you are told “they are obsolete.” When you are homeless, overcrowded or underhoused, a 1920’s vintage brick rowhouse might just look pretty good!

      As I’ve said before, the NYC methodology was quite different.

  19. For those that moan “decreasing manufacturing”

    Free Markets: Cheaper Goods, Greater Wealth, Better Jobs
    Gary North – September 12, 2014
    The question arose on one of the forums regarding the future of manufacturing in the United States.

    To begin to assess the answer, let us look at a chart of manufacturing throughout the world. This is not just the United States; this is Western Europe, Japan, and the whole world. As you can see, the percentage contribution of manufacturing to total economic production has declined steadily over the last 40 years. If the chart went back another 40 years, the same kind of slope would persist. This is a worldwide phenomenon. This is an irreversible phenomenon. This has accompanied the extension of world economic growth to the third world, including especially Asia.

    There are people who complain about the declining share of gross domestic product that is contributed by manufacturing in the United States. This is because they are completely unfamiliar with the worldwide phenomenon. They do not understand that economic growth accompanies a declining percentage of manufacturing to a national economy.


    The heart of wealth is not manufacturing; the heart of wealth is the knowledge applied to reduce the total percentage of manufacturing in the overall economy, and to increase the wealth of the masses through services. These services may be digital. They may be personal. But they are not based on manufacturing.

    My friend Bill Myers has this phrase: “Sell electrons, not atoms.” It’s a great phrase. Don’t sell pieces of stuff; sell ideas, entertainment, efficiency, and anything that will reduce the cost of raw materials, the cost of capital, and the cost of output. Cut costs; cut prices; get rich.

    This is why manufacturing will more and more be run by machines that are controlled by computer programs. This frees up mankind from the hard lifting of life.

    Parents for centuries and even millennia have attempted to get their children into some guild, so that they will not have to do hard physical labor. What virtually all parents want for their children is exactly what the free market has provided around the world. Yet there are people who complain about the decline of manufacturing as a percentage of the overall economy. This decline has been one of the greatest blessings of the modern world, an answer to parents’ prayers for millennia, and yet there are people who honestly believe that America is falling behind because the percentage of the American economy that is provided by manufacturing is constantly declining.

    What individuals want for their children, they sometimes lament for the economy overall. Somebody who wants his children to get out of hard manual labor, and who then complains about the decline of the number of jobs for hard manual laborers, is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

    All over the world, industrial nations have outsourced manufacturing to foreign nations that are poverty-stricken, and to machines and computer programs that do not care about hard lifting. The jobs are being performed better than ever by poor people in foreign countries and by robots that are becoming ever more efficient as a result of better manufacturing techniques and better computer programming.

    At every stage in this process, there have been Luddites who have complained about the replacement of human labor by machines. The phrase “sabotage” comes from the French word for shoe. Laborers who were losing their jobs to machines tossed shoes into the machines, in order to break them. It was the use of coercion against business owners.

    Every stage over the last 200 years in which machines have replaced human labor has been marked by an extraordinary increase of output, and also by an equally extraordinary increase in per capita wealth. Our world is completely different from the world of 1800, and the reason for this has been the displacement of workers with minimal capital by workers with a rising quantity of capital. They been replaced by workers with better tools. These tools are getting even better, and ever more workers are being displaced. They move on to new areas of service. This has been the story of the transformation of the world to a better place over the last 200 years. Why, at this late date, are people worrying about the fact that machines and computer programs are going to continue to replace workers in many fields? That is what has been going on for two centuries. Why should we expect it to stop now?


    What is different now is this: the growth process is becoming exponential. The question now is this: can the social arrangements that have prevailed for the last 200 years continue to prevail for the next 200 years? In other words, can the social institutions that have been forced to change on a massive scale over the last two centuries survive the transition to a completely different world over the next two centuries?

    The speed of economic change is accelerating, as always happens when you are dealing with the later stages of an exponential curve. Moore’s law and Metcalfe’s law have combined to transform the world over the last 40 years. This shows no signs of reversal. On the contrary, it is accelerating. We are viewing the law of accelerating returns. Moore’s law tells us that that the number of circuits on a chip doubles every year or — at most — 18 months. The heart of this is the declining cost of digital information. Metcalfe’s law refers to the increasing value of information as the number of participants increases in a communications system. Think “FAX machine.” Then think “Facebook.”

    It is not that this compound growth process is new. It has been going on for over two centuries. What is new is the arrival of exponential economic growth. The percentage rate of change may stay the same, or even decline a little, but because of the massive economic base that this rate of change now applies to, the social change necessary to keep pace with the economic change appears to be falling behind. There is no equivalent of Moore’s law in the field of social relations. Traditions die hard; companies that don’t keep up with technological change die quite easily.

    It should be obvious by now that the institution that is going to be changed the most radically is the Western nation-state. It is bureaucratic. It is not efficient. It has made enormous economic promises to the voters that cannot possibly be fulfilled. It will suffer a massive decline in legitimacy. Yet legitimacy is the foundation of modern politics. It is the foundation of all politics throughout history. As the legitimacy of the modern nation-state declines, along with the economic performance of the nation-state, there will be new institutional arrangements that replace it. The trouble is, we do not know what these will be. The fundamental fact of social institutions is this: they cannot be designed successfully from the top down. They always arise out of the competition and exchange that prevail within the overall society. They are not developed through committees.


    There is no question in my mind that manufacturing as we have known is going to be radically transformed by 3-D printing. There is no way to change this. There is no way to reverse this. This is going to accelerate. It is going to lead to massive decentralization. There is going to be an era of creativity in the field of manufacturing the likes of which we have never seen before. That will be the result of decentralization, computerization, and 3-D printing.

    There is only one social arrangement that can cope with this: the free market. It relies on price signals to coordinate efforts. The profit-and-loss feedback system in a money economy is what mobilizes the best information that is available. No government committee can compete in an open market with the decentralized information that the lure of profit coaxes out of individuals.

    Anyone who wants to go into manufacturing is going into a field in which skilled workers will be increasingly well paid, but they will be pressured to keep up with the pace of technology. Those who do not will be eliminated by competition.

  20. BF…….explain this more….I can’t agree here….convince me. “if you are not with the collective, you are a victim”. ( Are you talking government only here? If you are, then you need not convince me.)

    • Never mind..saw your answer above

    • No, any collective.

      Outsiders are targeted so to enforce the power of the collective. It matters not what power organizes the collective – religion, politics – Catholics pummel Jews, and to avoid the pummeling, Jews convert to Catholics. This is how all power gets its legitimacy, by enforcing their will upon dissent and turning the meek – who wish to avoid such violence – into supporters.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel (see there, I restored your rank)

    Morning joke.
    Shamelessly snatched from the comments to an article on the Blaze.

    Drinking with a TEXAS Girl ~
    A Mexican, an Arab and a Texas Girl are in a Texas bar drinking.
    When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, ‘In Mexico, our glasses are so cheap we don’t need to drink with the same one twice.’
    The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks non-alcohol beer (cuz he’s a muslim!), throws it into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots the glass to pieces.
    He says, ‘In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don’t need to drink with the same one twice either.’
    The Texas girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her 45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill.
    She says, ‘In Texas, we have so many illegal aliens that we don’t have to drink with the same ones twice.’ God Bless Texas!

  22. Here ya’ are JAC……do not drink coffee while reading this.

    Two men from Texas were sitting at a bar, when a young lady nearby began to choke on a hamburger. She gasped and gagged, and one Texan turned to the other and said, “That little gal is havin’ a bad time. I’m a gonna go over there and help.” He ran over to the young lady, held both sides of her head in his big, Texan hands, and asked, “Kin ya swaller?” Gasping, she shook her head no. He asked, “Kin ya breathe?” Still gasping, she again shook her head no. With that, he yanked up her skirt, pulled down her panties and licked her on the butt. The young woman was so shocked that she coughed up the piece of hamburger and began to breathe on her own. The Texan sat back down with his friend and said, “Ya know, it’s sure amazin’ how that hind-lick manoeuvre always works.”

  23. OK – we’ve reverted to bad jokes on SUFA! We need something inspiring. Check this out:


    • In the final analysis, America’s very survival depends on its outright rejection of the hellish and deadly lie that Islam is a “religion of peace.” It must accept the grim reality that ISIS beheads people because Mohammed did.

      Yeah, that’s right: ISIS beheads people because ISLAM’S founder/prophet did.
      Now get over it.

      • Yep, and Christians, in the Bible, slaughtered children.

        • Can I get a book chapter verse on “Christians” killing children in the Bible.

          • How many do you need?

            In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”

          • “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

            Revelation 2:22-23

            • Words of Jesus which has the authority to judge. The actually killing was not done by Christians but by the invading roman armies of the time.

              • Sooty the roman armies was later this may have been by some sickness or some other tribulation the point being the Christians were not the ones doing the killing

              • It is the demand of your Christian text.

              • What does the future hold? Will it come down to Islam vs. Everyone else? When will the non-violent Muslim’s police their own and end all this Caliphate crap? Which has been more dangerous since 1900, religion or the State? Questions, so many questions 🙂

              • Gman,

                As soon as the West ends their meddling, the situation there will solve itself quickly.

                Remember the root cause has been interference. By installing and supporting a series of US tyrants, these tyrants destroyed the moderates and opposition. The only remaining group in resistance are the extremists. Hence, the situation, where extremists flourish.

                Eliminate the interference, stop supporting tyrants and the moderates – which are by far the majority – return.

                The solution: stop stirring the pot and leave it alone.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Justifying evil of one group based on the long long ago actions of another is nothing less than being evil .

          • No less those with Islam, and any religion.

            • Why do you defend Islam then? You are in contradiction of your own position on religions by doing so, unless, you are a practicing Muslim……..????????

              • No, I do not demonize the peaceful expression of any religion, no matter how much I see them as sop and mindless.

                Thus, I do not demonize Islam for being Islam, anymore I demonize Christianity for being Christianity.

                I rage against anyone who contradicts their own stated beliefs, and the hypocrisy of those that claim themselves Christian, attack people for merely being a different religion, then go right about doing exactly opposite of the base tenants of their own beliefs.

                THOSE are the worse.

  24. I’m skeptical about this and would like more confirmation, but if true……Yesterday the White House announced its plan to offer free motor vehicles to welfare recipients, after congress passed the bill in a narrow vote. The program, initiated by President Barrack Obama, is very similar to what is now widely known to the public as “The Obama Phone,” where welfare recipients can get free cell phone service through a subsidized program. Some are even already referring to the free vehicle program as “The Obama Car.”

  25. Is there something I’m missing? because all I see is the government declaring one cannot lay-off Subcontractors and give the jobs to your in-house employees.

    Labor Board Orders CNN to Rehire 100 Fired Employees

    Email Print

    September 15, 2014 | 05:15PM PT
    Film Reporter
    Dave McNary
    Film Reporter @Variety_DMcNary

    The National Labor Relations Board has ordered CNN to rehire 100 workers and compensate 200 others for a labor dispute that originated in 2003.

    The 11-year dispute stems from CNN’s decision to replace a unionized subcontractor called Team Video Services, which provided the network with audio and video technicians, with an in-house nonunion work force in its Washington and New York bureaus.

    The decision comes weeks after CNN’s top boss Jeff Zucker hinted at additional job cuts at the Turner-owned news channel, which employs over 2,000 people.

    “We are going to have to do what we do with less,” he said in a memo to CNN employees. “As a result, that means there will be changes. No final decisions have been made.”

    It’s unclear how the NLRB’s ruling will impact the expected restructuring at the news operation.

    The Labor Board found “overwhelming” evidence of anti-union animus in CNN’s failure to bargain with the union about the decision to terminate the subcontracts. The org also found CNN had implemented a hiring plan designed to limit the number of discharged TVS employees to avoid a successorship bargaining obligation.

    A CNN spokesperson said, “CNN disagrees with the NLRB decision and we are evaluating our options.”

    The Communication Workers of America said that CNN’s 2003 decision had amounted to a “phony reorganization scheme to get rid of unionized workers.”

    The union also said the compensation for the 200 employees, who continued to work at the company without the benefits of a union contract, would be “on the order of tens of millions of dollars.”

    The union also said CNN is required to restore any bargaining unit work that was outsourced since the end of the contracts. The company also must recognize the employees’ union and resume bargaining with NABET-CWA Local 11 and NABET-CWA Local 31.

    “These workers have waited far too long for this measure of justice to finally be delivered and have suffered far too much as the result of these unlawful activities,” said NABET-CWA president Jim Joyce. “CNN should finally do the right thing now and immediately comply with the orders of the National Labor Relations Board issued today.”

    The union noted that it had immediately filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB after CNN terminated the subcontracts. The case did not go to trial before an Administrative Law Judge at the NLRB for almost five years.

    After 72 days of trial, the ALJ ruled in 2008 against CNN and found the network had engaged in “widespread and egregious misconduct” and had demonstrated “a flagrant and general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights.” The ruling was appealed, leading to several more legal actions by the union.

    The NLRB, an independent agency of the United States government, has two key functions — conducting elections for labor union representation; and investigating allegations of unfair labor practices.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      In fairness, those comments are not a defense of Islam per se’.

      The bad guys are able to use the “west” and “Christian crusaders” as propaganda tools to further recruiting or to gain ambivalence among the Mid East populations.

      So why not try to remove that propaganda tool?

      The broader point, by Kerry, is needed to reduce recruiting and agreement with the “Jihadi” interpretation of Islam. I think that is a good strategy.

      However, I am not convinced that all of those “clerics” have all suddenly woken up to the failing of preaching violence against infidels. They may start preaching peace now, but may return to their old ways once the direct threat to them is removed.

      But in the end, the problem with Jihadists will not go away until those who are the teachers and preachers COMPLETELY reject these tenants of the Quran an the other official documents of Islam.

    • Because they are not going away and the best way to eliminate an enemy is to make them your friend.

  26. Just A Citizen says:


    “Which has been more dangerous since 1900, religion or the State? ”

    RELIGIOUS STATE, then STATE, then Religion.

    • Not true at all, JAC.

      The secular State is by far – in orders of magnitude – more dangerous. History proves this beyond any doubt.

      It was not religion that killed 300 million people in the 20th century, it was the secular State. Even already in this century, the West has slaughtered millions of people by its actions and policies – instigated all the major conflicts.

      It is the secular State that institutes “Total War”. No doctrine like this exists in a religious State.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The question was which has been, or is, more “dangerous”. Not which has killed more people in recent history.

        I stand by my ordering of “dangerous”.

        • JAC,

          Danger is measured by the harm. Beyond question. the secular State -in the 20th century alone – has killed more people and destroyed more cities and property than all the religious wars combined by order of magnitude.

  27. D13 – Can you explain what they will do? Boots on the ground to combat……Ebola?


  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Morning thought on more Left Wing Hypocrisy.

    Specifically in their failure to remember their prior positions when making arguments.

    The USA is NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION they scream.

    CHRISTIANITY is waging war against ISLAM they howl.

    So which is it? Or could it be that none of the above is correct.

    • JAC,

      It is not hypocrisy, it is a paradox.

      The USA is not “just” a religious State – the “Christian” State does not exist at the level of a Theocracy – it is more dispersed and vague, like Christian values are dispersed and vague. It is an underlying mindset, buried underneath overburden of secular existence.

      Thus, in some issues, the theocracy pokes through, and in other issues, the secular mind operates.

      In the war against Islam – which you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in stating as that is EXACTLY what it is – it is a Christian “values” vs Islamic “values” war. Yet, you will see internal policies at play that is a Secular “values” vs Christian “values” (abortion, for example).

      • So that’s how you do it-I was in total confusion for a few minutes with your latest posts: “The secular State is by far – in orders of magnitude – more dangerous.” but in all your posts for years you blame religion or Christianity specifically for all the wars-you simply use your own subjective opinions as to what is a secular belief and what is a religious belief and never the two shall meet. Unbelievable.

        • No.
          You work hard to keep yourself confused.

          WW1/WW2/Korea/Vietnam were not wars of religion – but killed hundreds of millions.

          Iraq/Afghan/Syria/Libya are wars of religion – killing hundreds of thousands.

          All of the above, however, were made possible by the SECULAR State – specifically, if you’d like to learn, by REPUBLICAN States.

          WW1 was a war between Republics and Monarchies.
          WW2 was a war between Fascist and Communist Republics.
          Korea/Vietnam was a war between Fascist and Communist Republics.

          The reason this ability to manifest massive war is a direct result of the Republican form of government that exists.

          To learn more:

        • And a question just how is it that you reconcile “It is the secular State that institutes “Total War”. No doctrine like this exists in a religious State.” Yet claim that “Christian values” within a secular state cause all wars?

          • … in the CURRENT century, yes. Today it is a war between Christian/Jews vs Islam.
            ..in the PREVIOUS century it was a war between, first, Republics vs Monarchy and then between Republics, Fascist vs Communist.

            Nowhere did I say “all wars”, either. You need to read more carefully what I post, instead of making up stories about what I write in your head.

            • Not making up stories-Perhaps you should go back and research your own comments. But I’ll remove the word ALL and use MOST.

              But you still haven’t addressed my actual question or addressed my observation.

              • I did address. What part of the answer missed you?

              • How do you determine what is a secular value and what is a religious value in order to determine whether a war is religion based or secular based?

                Why do you claim that being against abortion is JUST a Christian value?

                Are you claiming that only Christians or Jews have a problem with ISIS?

              • “How do you determine what is a secular value and what is a religious value in order to determine whether a war is religion based or secular based?”

                By the goals and the rhetoric.
                WW2 was “against the NAZI” – secular.
                War on Terror is “against ISLAM” – religion.

                “Why do you claim that being against abortion is JUST a Christian value?”

                I don’t. It is an example of such a thing, however.

                “Are you claiming that only Christians or Jews have a problem with ISIS?”
                The Chinese aren’t dropping bombs.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I have never said we are waging a war against Islam. So do not assign that to me.

        We are at war with a certain faction within Islam.

        And since I am at war with that faction, since they claim to be at war with me, and I am NOT a Christian, and most people I know are of my bent, your claim of a Christian war against Islam doesn’t hold very well.

        Unless you are going to claim that Christianity was the basis, or helped form, the Enlightenment. Is that how you connect “Christian values” to our “Secular” Government?

        Islam as it is practiced in most of the middle east and much of Africa is simply ANTI Enlightenment.

        So if you claim that Islam is represented by the Jihad and Wahabi movements then I am at war with Islam.

        If you claim that these movements do not represent Islam as a whole, then I am not at war with Islam. Only with the repressive factions.

        But here is the more important point. I am not at war with them as long as they do not attack or otherwise try to undermine, overthrow, kill, harm, etc. my country or my fellow countrymen and women.

        If “Islam” does not want a war with me then its various practitioners had been start getting ACTIVE in destroying this radical fundamentalist movement. I doubt they will though, because it is a very handy tool in their political tool box.

        • “I have never said we are waging a war against Islam. So do not assign that to me.”

          The US is waging a war against Islam, whether you believe it or not.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Well to that I would say bull shit.

            Kind of like claiming our invasion of Nazi Germany was a war against Christianity, because most Germans were also Christians.

            I think V.H. has pretty much nailed the nature of this argument.

            • I already explained what the war with Germany was about.

              I already explained the differences. You can learn or you can ignore.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                My God man, can’t you take a minute to actually read and try to understand what others are saying before throwing another insult.

                Do you not understand the context of my comment?

              • You disagreed with my assessment, and provided nothing to demonstrate why.

                What context is possible?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                It is your hypothesis, so you should have to provide some proof of your claim.

                As for context, you claiming that the US is at war with Islam is akin to claiming the US was at war with Christians when we invaded Germany, or Italy.

                Because the common thread is that the accusation is based on the major religion of those we invaded. It is the logical conclusion of your argument since the US is not waging war on Islam. It is waging war against those who are supposedly distorting Islam to rationalize terrorism, jihad, and establishment of a Caliphate.

                Were we waging war on Islam when we invaded Iraq the first time? When we were arming the Mujahedeen against the Russians? When we went after the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks? Our support for the rebels in Libya or the “Arab Spring”?

                The only way your claim can be true is if you admit that Islam is in fact the source and cannot be separated from the jihadi and fundamentalist movement. Despite the Muslim claims that these factions do not represent Islam itself.

                So which is it?

              • “It is your hypothesis, so you should have to provide some proof of your claim.”

                Did already. Do you deny the WW2 was against GERMANY?
                Do you deny the war on terror is against ISLAMIC ‘terrorists”, and not a State?

                Again, you cannot discern the difference.

                “As for context, you claiming that the US is at war with Islam is akin to claiming the US was at war with Christians when we invaded Germany, or Italy.”

                Nonsense. You are unable to distinguish between a war against a STATE vs a war against RELIGIOUS FANATICS.

                It is you who is confused.

              • JAC, your are arguing with a person who’s historical views are always different than yours and that version is the only correct version, even if some (most) of it comes from non-fiction books 🙂

                Flaggy did say we are at war with Islam, which I agree with your assessment that we most certainly are not at war with Islam (although this may come true in the future).

              • Gman,

                It is your historical ignorance at play, not mine.

                Nazi Germany was a STATE.
                Al-Qaeda is a NON-STATE actor.

                It is obvious neither you nor JAC can see a difference.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                A war against “Religious Fanatics”, or any other “Ideological Fanatics”, is not a war against Islam, or whatever other ideology is being distorted to rationalize violence.

                You admit that these are fanatics yet claim the US is waging a war on the religion of Islam itself.

                Well if both are true, then Islam must be a religion of fanatics. It is the only logical answer.

              • “A war against “Religious Fanatics”, or any other “Ideological Fanatics”, is not a war against Islam, or whatever other ideology is being distorted to rationalize violence.”

                The fact that the USA is not invading India to attack the Hindu fanatics, nor the Tamil Tigers, nor the Zapatista in Mexico, etc. but attacking Muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. shows the fault of your reasoning.

              • JAC,

                As typical, your reason is upside down.

                The US attacks have created fanatics in Islam, Islam does not itself create fanatics.

            • JAC, forgive me for being impolite. I hope that you and your family are healthy and happy on this fine day! Things are well here, prepping for archery season and helping my neighbor farmer build buildings on wheels to free range his chickens and hogs. Fun stuff! 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                No worries my friend. Things are well here, fall is in the air. Been chilly but then warm and now supposed to get chilly and wet again.

                Still struggling with my house remodeling. But am going to take a few days to go fishing. Have not had a day off to golf or fish since March. Starting to wear me out. 🙂

  29. Heavy smoke here this am from the King fire north of Pollock Pines CA. Fire jumped from 11,000 acres to over 18,000 acres overnight. US50 is closed. The fire is about 20 miles up hill form here and moving north so will not come close to us. The smoke flows down the South Fork of the American River Canyon during the night. Since we live on the ridge above the river, it blankets us overnight. The winds change during the day and push it back up the hill. High winds predicted for today so containment at 5% will not improve today. No houses lost yet but 2500 threatened.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Hang in there. Watch out for oxygen deprivation. Days and days of heavy smoke can affect one’s ability to think and function properly.

      Your smoke is apparently also filling valleys in Montana now. Spousal Unit Leader and Lil JAC passed your way a week ago. Got socked in at Yosemite.

      • The fire jumped from 28,000 acres to 70,000 acres in the last 24 hrs. No houses lost, 3500 structures threatened. Most of the area is uninhabited forest. We had a debate in the local paper a few weeks ago about a company wanting to patchwork clear cut a few sq. mi. in the area. Nature just cleared a contiguous 105 sq mi and wants more. Now we will argue about salvaging burned trees for over a year until the lumber is rotted and useless.

  30. From JAC:

    “You admit that these are fanatics yet claim the US is waging a war on the religion of Islam itself.

    Well if both are true, then Islam must be a religion of fanatics. It is the only logical answer.”

    You are trying to pin him down, using his own words, to something he can never admit. His blindness to even the fanatical element of this ideology, messes up the idolized picture he has in his mind of his past experience.

    • More nonsense from Kathy parroting JAC

      Here, read:


      • Journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin found that JSOC has carried out counterterrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.


        What is the defining similarity to all those operations? Attacks on Islamic groups.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Looks like you made a great case that Islam is violent since the commonality in that list is Radicals who are violent and threaten innocent people. As well as our interests.

          We attack one group but not all groups within a country. All groups are Muslim. But by your logic, by attacking one we are at war with the religion itself.

      • This is bull…..I went through war college and taught it for 18 months….AT no time, ever, in 1980 when I went through war college and 1998 when I taught it……did we EVER EVER EVER refer to Islam or the religion as an enemy…..not ever.

        The curriculum is designed to be provocative and focuses on the characteristics of performance expected of the professional at the very senior levels. Your studies will focus on higher levels of national policy and strategy. You will study joint planning and applications of power from military assistance programs through military operations in the conduct of general warfare. You will analyze the relationship between military force and national political objectives. From a global perspective, you will study relationships among modern nations and seek to understand the place of the military in US national strategy. You will develop the theoretical, conceptual, and intellectual perspective to address the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment to which you will return.

        To accomplish this senior leader development mission, the War College curriculum focuses on enhancing student knowledge and abilities in the following general subject areas:

        • Strategic Thinking

        • Theory of War and Strategy

        • Strategic Leadership

        • National Security Policy and Strategy

        • Implementing National Military Strategy

        • Joint Processes and Landpower Development (Unified Command Field Study for International Fellows)

        In addition, For OCS…

        Candidate School, located at Fort Benning Georgia, is 12-weeks of intense tactical and leadership training. All Officer candidates must complete Basic Combat Training before they enter OCS.

        At the outset of the course, candidates are organized into squads, in which they will learn a variety of leadership skills and small-unit tactics. From there, the course is divided into two basic phases:

        PHASE 1: You will learn the basic leadership skills required of a Commissioned Officer. Candidates face both physical and mental challenges that your trainers will use to evaluate your determination and desire to excel.

        PHASE 2: All of the skills you have learned in your training will be put to the test in the field. As a senior-phase candidate, you’re tested in your ability to lead a team during an intense 18-day training mission.

        At graduation, you will be given a formal commission as a U.S. Army Officer and assigned to the rank of Second Lieutenant, the lowest of the commissioned ranks.

        In addition, all combat and tactical training is designed for all potential tactics. Russia is never referred to as an enemy and neither is China nor Iran nor Iraq nor anyone. We train for combat in all environments and against any and all potential threats. Even if we are not at war with Mexico and Mexico is considered an ally…..we have strategic plans to thwart and/or attack any and all armies of the world. This is called preparation.

        • Again, when you took the training it may not have been there.

          Does not mean it was not there.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Your source presumes that the purpose of this class topic was to indoctrinate and/or convey policy. This shows the lack of understanding about military training today.

            The academies have guest lectures that provoke thinking outside the box. Part of this is to challenge cadets beliefs and value systems.

            I saw nothing in your reference to indicated that this one persons “strategy” was to convey an actual war plan or war policy. Note that it even included an assumption that the Geneva Convention had been suspended.

            My colleagues who attended the War College conveyed the same experience to me as that described above by the Colonel. And two of those attended in the past 15 years.

            ACTIONS by our Govt simply do not come close to supporting your claim. As I said yesterday, it is bull shit.

            • “Your source presumes that the purpose of this class topic was to indoctrinate and/or convey policy. This shows the lack of understanding about military training today.”

              Given it was part of the military training, it is obvious not a lack of understanding.

              “As I said yesterday, it is bull shit.”

              Yes, to you fact is bull shit.

              • I do not know the advantage of “playing stupid”. Ever hear of War Plan Orange? Near as I can tell, we plan for war with everybody. Don’t have the military background of our resident O-6 but much of what he says merely echos what I have already learned. Had my Sr. ROTC physical gone better in ’66, there might just be two Colonels on this site, not just one.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                It was ONE class and it was cancelled when top brass got a SINGLE complaint. They stated CLEARLY that the class did not reflect US POLICY.

                One class and this is your proof?

                I guess Man Caused Global Warming must be real. After all, there was more than a single argument made on its behalf and there is certainly more “trend” data than what you provided here.

                Next time just use Alex Jones and we can save the energy of trying to wade through this stuff you call evidence.

                Oh never mind, your one of the 9/11 TRUTHERS aren’t you.

              • JAC,

                Absolutely. If you believe the official story on 9-11, you are UTTERLY NAIVE.

              • JAC, Alex Jones is far better than HuffPo and any Anarchist BS. At least he backs up his claims with actual evidence, HuffPo blows smoke, Most Anarchist sites just BLOW!

            • JAC…this is also true…..there are times that guest instructors are brought in “for the specific purpose of ” creating thinking outside of the box. Specifically, instructors that directly indicates a desire to “change” the terminology and nomenclature of a variety of subjects. We want officers that are going to be administering policy to be able to discern that words mean things.

              At this writing, we do not refer to the Russians as “the enemy”,,,,we do not refer to China as “the enemy”…we do not refer to Islam as “the enemy”. We do not refer to anyone as “the enemy” until we are on the battlefield. And that means the battlefield in front of us and not a war game battlefield.

              Even in massive war games…..there is not “an enemy”…..there is the opposition and there is a huge difference. But even in my briefings, I never did refer to the opposition as the enemy. I always used the term opposition and still do. Enemy carries a connotation that the Army is trying to dissuade.

              Even when under fire….we have incoming fire and not “enemy” fire. We have hostile aircraft and not enemy aircraft.

              Even now, the five paragraph operations order is being changed to take out the word enemy and put in opposition force or hostile force. They are currently using up the last remnants of the Operations Order…..the new OPS Order will be out sometime in 2015. There are other changes being made to the OPS Order because of GPS and technology changes in nomenclature the reporting requirements.

    • All politicians are whacko today. That’s why I claim we need to remove and rebuild (the Feds) with gums, not teeth. Remove the power that they CLAIM to have, limit to National Defense (our borders only) and the national highway system. WE DON”T NEED A FULL TIME FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! It was never intended to be so (It assumes as much in the Constitution). This is why I fall into the Anarchist side of things, because all other avenues (like voting) solve nothing (violent revolution is not the answer, yet) 🙂

      • David Skekabim says:

        It isn’t about fixing any of that.

        It is about getting along in spite of it.

        • I think we all get along just fine. Do you wonder how much better things would be in the world without the US government interfering in foreign nations? Would Muslim’s still hate us? All of us here at SUFA, despite our disagreements (and many agreements) get along like a big happy family of brothers and sisters (and it shows in our discussions 🙂 ). Even our Left wing brothers have an important place here.

          We all would be prospering at a far greater pace if not for the idiots in DC. They have destroyed jobs through over taxation and regulations. They continue to attempt to take more and more freedom from the people, which causes anger and spite towards others. Yes, David, the US government is a BIG, BIG part of the problems here and abroad.

          My best wishes to you and yours on this fine day. May that lead to a healthy and happy day! 🙂

          • David Skekabim says:

            ” My best wishes to you and yours on this fine day. May that lead to a healthy and happy day! ”

            Likewise, brother.

            ” I think we all get along just fine.”

            In terms of every day people in their communities, for the most part, yes, I agree. Most people tend to get along fairly well. ‘Group-think’ is potentially dangerous. As a whole, humanity is often evil selfish and barbaric.

            ” Do you wonder how much better things would be in the world without the US government interfering in foreign nations? ”

            Absolutely. And I see a systemic issue that people were warned about by Eisenhower a long time ago. Who benefits from war?

            ” Would Muslim’s still hate us? ”

            Did they hate you before your government started interfering with them?

            ” All of us here at SUFA, despite our disagreements (and many agreements) get along like a big happy family of brothers and sisters (and it shows in our discussions 🙂 ). Even our Left wing brothers have an important place here. ”


            ” We all would be prospering at a far greater pace if not for the idiots in DC. They have destroyed jobs through over taxation and regulations. They continue to attempt to take more and more freedom from the people, which causes anger and spite towards others. Yes, David, the US government is a BIG, BIG part of the problems here and abroad. ”

            It is a bad cycle of decline. The people demand it.

            People rationalize the necessity of government force, embrace and support it in spite of it’s failures, whereby it perpetuates the endless cycle of growth and restriction and division inherent with law. They look at it as if it should be changed to a better, more refined form of violence. I look at it as a prison that only serves turd sandwiches.

            Social order does not require force. It requires an understanding and respect for rights and responsibility, all of which can be attributed to some aspect of human nature and individual choices.

            It would be nice to pat the reps on the back and thank them for their service before sending them into community reorientation and integration.

            • “humanity is often evil selfish and barbaric.”

              I disagree. There are individuals who are such, but a minority.

              Most of the rest simply want to get by
              with as little pain as possible until they die.

              So the vast minority of people who love to inflict pain garner a vast amount of power over such people who wish to avoid it. This becomes a bargaining chip.

              As such, most people fall into line behind the violent – happy that these violent guys are pummeling someone else and not them. These people may even champion such an event, as it keeps these evil people busy on someone else.

              Society needs to do the necessary work at removing this violence. This is where civilization rose in humanity – the elimination of violence in society. We have a ways to go.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I AGREE………….Whole heartedly.

                History shows us there is a fine line, art if you will, to sustainable tyranny. The violence and imposition on others will be tolerated, but only up to a point.

                That point is different for everyone but it seems some societies are more tolerant than others. I expect that tolerance is related to the populations ability to fight back. In other words, the presence of weapons and the willingness to use them.

              • Weird. I agree with you.

                The “Theory on the Profits of Violence” dictates that when an individuals ability to resist violence increases, his freedom increases – and equally, when his ability to resist violence is removed, freedom decreases.

                When this ability is removed from him, but centralized into the State – his freedom is at the greatest risk.

                Removal of violence is a good thing. But when concentrated into the State, violence is not removed – it is transferred into the hands of a small minority who willingly use this violence for their own benefit. Since resistance to this form of violence has been eliminated, there is no brake on the extent of the use of this violence.

              • David Skekabim says:

                How many wars have been fought?


              • Hans-Hoppe has a theory

        • Hank Williams, Sr.’s, 1949 song “Mind Your Own Business”:

          Mindin’ other people’s business
          Seems to be high-tone;
          I got all that I can do just to mind my own.
          Why don’t you mind your own business?
          Mind your own business.
          ‘Cause if you mind your own business
          You’ll stay busy all the time.

  31. A short rant on the issue of domestic violence and the NFL. First, men shouldn’t hit women (real women, not the wannabes). Parents shouldn’t beat their kids till they bruise and/or bleed as well. Both are just wrong to most people. In the recent weeks, many big name NFL players have been charged, convicted and had video’s released showing their despicable actions. The results have been one player losing his job and suspended indefinitely, after having been given a two game suspension.. I have already posted on the Ray Rice issue, so I’ll move on.

    Domestic violence is not just a NFL problem, as it exists everywhere and in every walk of like. DV is not racist, it’s not an issue for poor people, it’s everywhere. I believe that those who are abusive should suffer consequences for their actions, and those consequences should be severe. But, in our society, those consequences should be issued by a judge/jury within our legal system. Special treatment should be made public and the Judge embarrassed.

    I’m twisted on whether an employer should add to that punishment by firing the criminal. Why, because losing one’s job also hurts others in the family and may lead to more violence as the stress of money matters adds up. Too those with lots of money, like NFL players, the short term loss of money won’t make a difference in their lives, most ain’t so lucky.

    So, while I understand how the NFL operates when it comes to players conduct, should this form of action be enacted by all employers? Can wife beaters be cured? There are many issues within the issue itself, but somehow, something should be done to eliminate this sad event(s) from our society. What do ya’ll think about this?

    • I think it important to “repeat” what Rush said yesterday. based on FBI uniform crime figures, Athletes of any race are less likely per 1,000 to engage in this type of behavior. They do, by and large, have better self discipline than the average person. What they do, and it should be a service to the society as a whole, is shine a spotlight on the abuse issue. However, unfortunately, it just gives the professional, professorial whiners something else to misdirect our attention to. So rather than be concerned with the everyday misanthropy in our ghettos and some of our suburbs we get to pretend it only happens to these folks.

    • It’s all PR and the issue is protecting the billions the NFL makes. If they want to keep their sponsors & revenue, they need to protect their image. Too many players have had negative stories in recent years, drugs, DUI’s, violence. They are a private organization & are sending a message to players, get caught making a PR mistake, you can loose that million dollar contract.

      • And I don’t disagree with it. Just for PR or not, it’s time to shine a spotlight on the culture of violence and if the NFL can do it, great. Very ironic that it took a statement from a beer company (BIG) sponsor for the NFL to crack down.

        We can quote statistics about how the NFL is “better” than others, but the truth is, we don’t really know, as most violence occurs behind closed doors and is kept quiet. I actually believe there are probably many players a little worried (and paying off some women) about their past actions becoming public.

        • I don’t disagree with the way the NFL is handling it either. But, I do think the issue is overblown (by the media). The NFL is not going to fix the overall problem. Sadly, the problem will never go away, despite all the laws.

          Greetings to you and yours Kathy, hope all is well in your household 🙂

    • “Men shouldn’t hit women”

      Women shouldn’t hit either.

      The fact: women hit others more then men.

      A study of mothers with 2 year old or younger, who self-described themselves as “good mothers” found that the average mother hit her babies over 200 times a month.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I believe that. If women are willing to hit first, is it not an expectation to be hit back? In the ray Rice video, she hit first. Is it not a normal human rezction to hit back?

        I have a rule, don’t hit me, I won’t hit you . All it takes is common respect for others.

      • I highly doubt that’s the average mom. That’s some crackheaded and alcoholic moms they studied. That would be 6 -7 smacks a day every day.

        • Anita,
          That is exactly what it means – and that’s the average … there were obviously WORSE cases.

          A backdrop to the study;

        • What was a fundamental eye-opener was that these parents were asked how much they spank – and it was -average- 3 or 4 times a month.

          Yet, when studied, as you calculated it was 7 to 15 times a day.

          What was learned that people do not consciously record such hitting. A “swat” here or there does not register as a “hit”, only say “using a hard hand on the butt” constituted “hitting or punishing” the kid.

          What it says is the epidemic of violence in the home – the vast majority of it being women upon children – is far worse then imagined.

  32. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: Alex Jones.

    If you look closely you will see that his “facts” are only used to rationalize unrelated conclusions most of the time. Much like what happens here, if you get my drift.’

    He takes a fact, covers some of the story about the facts, then reaches a conclusion that is not factually nor even logically linked. This is his more frequent practice. If he throws in a few valid stories his readers will assume that if A is true then B and C must be truthful as well.

    We saw the same ploy used the past few days in claiming the USA is at war with Islam. Take a few facts, construct them in a way to justify a conclusion reached in advance. It takes a closer look to realize the connection is not what it is portrayed to be.

    Now while I jump on Mr. Jones, the same game is played by most of the media types. Left, Right you name it. The extent to which it is deliberate to muddle peoples minds vs. the writers suffering from their own confirmation bias is hard to know.

    All we can know is the affect it has on public discourse. I suggest people visit Huff Po and Daily Kos to see what an echo chamber looks like these days. Pick any topic involving Republicans or Tea Party.

    I see some of the same thing on Red State, The Blaze and even Malkin. I am talking here about people making comments, not necessarily the main stories.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Inquiring minds want to know:

    Why haven’t the anarchist computer hacking groups attacked the Internet sites of ISIL/ISIS and other radical groups who are using the web to recruit people to perform violence?

    They felt compelled to hack the Ferguson PD site over the single killing of a person there. Why not do the same for those groups killing thousands??

    Why don’t we see “intelligence” information from China released to the public?? Or even Russia??

    I wonder why!

    • It is a matter of technology and its use.

      It is easy to attack, say, CBS website because its technological location is static. Its IP addresses are static and knowable. Reasonable, as they are catering to millions of people who need to “find them” in the billions of web pages out there

      Extremists groups move their locations constantly, non-static. These groups cater to a vast small group who work to find these web pages.

      Easy to attack a non-moving target then a moving target.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You didn’t address my primary question. They seem able to break into USA Govt computer systems and then dump classified info into the media.

        Why not these other groups?

        I can understand ISIS being a mobile target because they are using the web itself. But if Anonymous can hide itself they probably have the expertise to find others trying to hide. Yes? No?

        • I did address the question.

          It is a technological issue. Explanation:

          A web page is an abstraction: “www.webpage.com”
          This abstraction is by a process called Dynamic Name Resolution is converted into an address:

          You can change the address without changing the abstraction to that address. Tomorrow http://www.webpage.com could be:

          Hackers attack the address, not the name.

          CBS et al utilize the same abstraction AND the same address.

        • No.

          Anonymous has no more ability to hack then anyone else, and suffer the same technological limits as everyone else.

          Hacking takes a lot of effort and time focused on a static system. If systems moved, the hack fails, and has to start again.

          Secondly, almost every hack must first start form the INSIDE. Hackers need to get behind the wall to unlock the door. Almost all breaches are based on some previous SOCIAL ENGINEERING ATTACK.

          Example, the breaches at Target, for example, was caused by an employee opening an inappropriate email, which launched an app that connected to an external system which allowed anyone from the outside to access the internal network.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            So how about the breaches of Govt computer systems? Is that also been primarily from opening emails or other attachments? Or has it been actual break in from the “outside”?

            Now can you address the primary question. Why don’t they go after Russia and China? Or have they and we just don’t get the news about it?

            • “So how about the breaches of Govt computer systems? Is that also been primarily from opening emails or other attachments? Or has it been actual break in from the “outside”?”

              Almost all hacks start from some sort of social engineering attack or incompetent network management.

              “Now can you address the primary question. Why don’t they go after Russia and China? Or have they and we just don’t get the news about it?”

              Because social engineering attacks do not focus on these groups to the degree in USA.

  34. Week 3 in the NFL is here.

    Atlanta over Tampa Bay
    Chargers upset the Bills
    Bengals put down the Titans
    Browns upset the Ravens
    Packers win in a shootout over Lions
    Colts over Jaguars
    Patriots crush the Raiders
    Saints handle Vikings
    Giants upset the Texans
    Philly over REDSKINS
    Cowboys slam the Rams
    Cardinals beat down the 49ers
    Dolphins kill the Chiefs
    Broncos end Seahawks home winning streak
    Steelers upset Panthers
    Bears shut down the Jets!

    Enjoy the weekend!

  35. Interesting and fun fact that may only interest me 🙂

    The CDC has warned that the Ebola virus will eventually find it’s way to the U.S. What I find interesting is that the CDC OWNS the PATENT on this virus, along with any related strain that has up to a 70 percent commonality, including hybrid strains.

    A company called CRUCELL which has been working with Ebola and which is connected to Army research, NIH and Bill Gates who has invested up to $560 million into the Ebola vaccine.

    The Army has long been rumored to have created Ebola and, for purposes of experimentation, implanted the artificial virus in Zaire in 1977.

    If, for some reason you think that Ebola will not find it’s way to the US, understand that there is a fortune to be made if and when it gets here. I think the probability that it will hit the US (and hard) is well over 90% (my opinion). Too make this fortune, there will have to be a virtual panic to get the vaccine. There will be a cause for panic, lots of deaths. I will estimate that this may occur this winter (when most people watch lots of TV, which will help build the panic). Basically, I’m following the money, before hand 🙂

    • Mornin G,

      Step away from the computer, you’re falling for it!

      Sars, West Nile, Anthrax, Mad Cow, Swine flu….. Ebola.

      We should all be dead. I’m not stressin about Ebola.

      • Not stressin at all my dear! When I worked at a hospital during the Swine Flu fraud, I saw panic first hand by healthcare workers who wanted the vaccine. I didn’t get it, as I don’t take vaccines, and, I didn’t get the swine flu either. Actually, nobody that worked at the hospital who DIDN’T get the vaccine got the swine flu. It was basically the CDC lying about the numbers to sell vaccines. This is the reason for my post, first hand experience.

        While Ebola may kill thousands in Africa, here, we are healthier and have better healthcare resources. Our survival rate will be much higher, BUT, will likely not be reported because they want to sell vaccines. Sure, the death rate will be higher than the Swine Flu, but the vaccine will be more expensive and hard to get at first. As time goes on, the unhealthy who get Ebola will die (this will be reported), the healthier folks will live through it (these numbers will go unreported). A virtual panic will ensue and the vaccine will sell at a higher price to those willing to pay. Then, the vaccine will become available (at a lower price) and the sheople will all pay to get it. This is how the Swine Flu ordeal went. It’s about money!

        Basically, I’m applying the past actions of the CDC and vaccine makers to an upcoming issue they are warning about. The game plan is exactly the same. It will be more hoax than reality. Let’s watch and see!

        Not to be rude, I hope you and yours are healthy and happy! By the way, how did your garden do this year? We did OK, but had too much rain. The shelves are full and the veggie freezer is as well!

        • I got one thing to say and one thing only. Read up on it if you get a chance.

          Spanish Influenza 1917-1918

          Killed more American soldiers than the Hun did.

          • Please do read about it.

            No pandemic will happen unless certain conditions apply.

            1) Massive destructive war, globally, leaving large segments of population starving and dying.

            2) Massive geological event, leaving large segments of the population starving and dying

            3) Massive economic event, leaving larges segments of the population starving and dying.

            Note what is consistent.

            Plagues, 100% of them, came from a sudden and devasting destruction of the population’s ability to find food, and inability to deal with the human dead from;
            – Black Plague = Siege of Constantinople
            – Spanish Flu = WW1
            – Polo outbreak = WW2


            When human nutrition is destroyed, pathogens thrive.

            Hence, all the nonsense about the H1N1 flu and stuff that didn’t happen. It happens where humans are nutritionally deficit, which is a vastly shrinking population size.

            Do you wonder why Ebola happens in Africa?

  36. Academia….deals in fantasy and theory.

    Congress deals in power

    I do not have a problem with civilians in charge of government and the Armed Forces being controlled by the POTUS and Congress…..what I am having a problem with…….is ignorance of reality. The reality is being ignored in favor of theoretical solutions. There is NO WAY that ISIS/ISIL can be defeated from the air. You can destroy all the mobilization you want….anything that runs on the roads…..that will not take down anything.

    Want to solve the problem over there. Go home. Even the Generals who deal in reality are saying it is a no win with a single dimension war. It is better to go home and let it become what it does. It is a civil war. Let them fight it out….no matter how many it kills.

    I wonder if anybody at all is paying attention in Washington…..especially to the Iranian hack that poses as a cleric ( I cannot remember his name right now ) that made the comment that there is no way to beat ISIS/ISIL without ground troops and he is wondering why the US is not committing ground troops. I wonder if anybody sees the fallacy…..apparently not.

    Oh by the way…..when the white house says there no boots on the ground…do not believe it. Advisers are boots on the ground. And they are armed and they are fighting….it is Vietnam all over again..I was an adviser.

    We need to get out and get out now….let them have at it. AND that is what the reality officers are saying…not the arm chair quarterback civilians and not the arm chair generals that have been selected because of political gain.

    And for god’s sake…..get rid of the pundits on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and whoever…..that think they are tacticians. They are laughable when they try to talk tactics…..the barely have enough military knowledge to find the latrine.,if they know what one really is.

  37. You gotta love the pundits on the radio and tv’s upset why the polls are showing that America simply does not care too much about the current hoopla over the NFL….85% say all the hoopla is not and has not affected them in watching the NFL games. The same 85% say if there are laws broken, then charges need to be filed and arrests made. It is not an NFL problem but that of individuals and it is not up to the NFL to become moral police. IT is up to the population to support or not support watching football or buying products.

    They also pointed out this morning that the majority of men surveyed are very much against what Rice has done, specifically, and it was pointed out the the majority of the jerseys bought……..with Rice numbers and name……are from women. It is fun to watch all the pundits trying to figure this out.

    • The NFL issue is way overblown by a few. The entity of the NFL can’t control their players any more than I can control you. Only a moron will call this a “culture of the NFL”.

      As far as ISIS, I agree, lets get out and let things play out. Obama is an idiot, definitely the wrong leader to deal with any National Security issues, which ISIS is not one at this time. When they become one, maybe my thinking will change, just don’t see it now. Training more Muslims to fight them is retarded at best. Only an idiot would train the very people who will turn against him later, as has been the history of helping Muslims. Obama is an idiot, nothing more needs said about anything he does.

  38. I wonder if anybody understands that training and arming Syrian “moderates”,,,,,is not good.

    • I do. I’d be interested in your thoughts on sending US troops back into Saudi to train anybody.

      • Syrian Moderates are not an army….No more covert training of “operatives”…If any country wanted military training for their existing army and that country is a recognized state,,,then I would consider it. However, I would measure the interest to us. If it was in our interest and the training was just that……training only, I wold have little reservation. But the Saudis are known to sponsor less than desirable characters….with this knowledge, I would say no.

  39. David Skekabim says:

    Before I do much of anything else, I’d like to extend my humblest apologies to everyone or anyone and anything anywhere whom I may have rubbed the wrong way. It would take a series of books to explain what I’ve been through. I’ve had some rather bizarre experiences. Sometimes, it has been awfully stressful, ..complex and absolutely maddening in fact.

    I have, however, obtained some extraordinary knowledge from it though. It sure would be nice to have someone special to share it with. Maybe someone especially trustworthy. Knowledge like that has a kind of loneliness to it. I don’t suppose that’s for SUFA though.

    Anyway, I just thought I’d put that out there.

    • Hello David…..I have not been offended.

    • Bottom Line?

    • I have no issues David. If you want to talk, I can make myself available for privacy.

      • David Skekabim says:

        Thanks, Gman. Hold on to that thought though. Every bit of support is helpful.

        Maybe it’s an attempt in explaining myself and apologizing for being a prick. Anyone is guilty of the same and can understand, I hope. Relatives and friends are important. Keeping them around and fostering good relationships is the right thing to do. In the interest of doing so, I apologize. Sometimes I’ve lost sight of that.

        Human nature sometimes acts as a stumbling block. Every time we lose control of it, a beast emerges. Reality is when awareness of the consequences sets in. Eventually we can destroy ourselves and our whole lives if we continue following those same patterns.

  40. It is very interesting watching the News this morning about the Air Force Academy and the elimination of “under god” from the oath of commission and from the oath of defense. I have read the Constitution several times in the past three years and I do not find a violation of the Constitution. I am not a Christian….I do not know what I am for I do not follow any type of organized religion…..I do not want to put a label on anything….whether or not I believe in a higher power is a personal item with me alone and my individual spirituality.. I did not care and do not care about the insertion of “under god or so help me god” into any oath of office that I have taken because I did not and do not see those words as ANY affirmation of faith. I do not see any words that say “so help me Jesus or so help me Allah or so help me Buddha”. The word God is not limited to the Christian faith…..it is all encompassing. In addition, the words in the oath do not represent to me an acceptance of a religion or an establishment of religion by the state.

    Then along come those that do not believe in the existence of anything representing a higher power. Ok Cool….they take exception to the wording that even alludes to religion or the existence to a higher power. This is also cool with me. They are not required, at anytime, to affirm the existence of god. They are not required to repeat the words of “under god” in any oath, Their oath is no less important without those words and no one cares if they do not say those particular words. But, for some reason these people feel threatened. They do not have the moral compass to ignore the words and keep going. In all my military career, I have NEVER, at any time. seen the forcing of god or religion upon anybody in the military. I have seen representatives of all religions present, including Islam.

    Ok….so the Air Force academy decides to become politically correct…..or in other words, cowardice, for that is all political correctness is…..but that is another subject. The Air Force Academy decides to give in and eliminate the words under god or so help me god. THEN come those cadets, the majority, who want to take an oath that does have those words and have requested that the oath be administered to them separately in a different ceremony at the same time. But those, the minority, claim that they are being ostracized and that NO ONE BE ALLOWED an oath with the words under god, etc. They do not want a separate ceremony,,,,,they want NO ceremony anywhere that has those words. The Air Force academy has said that they are prepared for two different oaths of office….one steeped in tradition and faith….and one not indicating any faith, eliminating only the words or reference to God. Seems like a good compromise to me…..but no, that is unacceptable, They have been over-ruled by……….a higher power.

    So in the name of tolerance it is apparently ok to be intolerant.

    • “Toleration is good for all or it is good for none”
      -Edmund Burke

      Unfortunately these kinds of ideas are passe these days. Apparently old, dead white guys, especially the English speaking ones are not allowed to contribute any longer.

    • Does anyone else find it strange that a group who’s whole political game book is the intentional ostracizing of anyone who disagrees with them using the word ostracize as a negative.

      • There are ways to engage these people. Tell them they are entitled to their opinion, then tell them to go pound sand. If they don’t like that answer, then an ass whoopin seems the next step. That may be the ONLY way to get Liberals to mind their own F-ing business. When they start swallowing teeth, they’ll get the message.

        I hope today finds everyone healthy and happy. God Bless! 🙂

  41. Then following up……I watched a news report of a school child (cannot remember the location) that saw a classmate eating lunch. His friend only had a cheese sandwich so this boy decided to share his hot lunch with a hungry friend and received detention for his effort. So I decided to go to the internet.

    Eighth Grade Student Receives Detention After Sharing Lunch With Friend
    Posted 2:19 PM, September 19, 2014, by Ashley Soley-Cerro, Updated at 03:43pm, September 19, 2014

    So, a child is hungry and another child shares his food that he was going to throw away….But then I saw where this did happen…..California. Well, that answers that.

    • In some places our schools are no longer schools they are educational camps where every word and action is controlled by the Gestapo.

  42. And then the ATF has amended its form for gun buyers that now require the indication of race and/or ethnicity. It is illegal to ask for this as an employer and the government will prosecute you for same….but it is ok for the government to ask for this information. The ATF form will be turned back if a box is not checked but the ATF will not turn back a form if ALL the boxes are checked or if the wrong boxes are checked or if other is checked. Strange…..there is no continuity.

%d bloggers like this: