Independent Thinking

Before the Scottish voted to remain in the United Kingdom, I had a brief conversation with an Irish Priest.  Back in the seventies, he morally supported the IRA.  Hard to imagine a priest supporting even with words what appeared to be a violent terrorist group.  But he was there & I never have been to the UK.  In our conversation I mentioned I could see parallels between their pressing for independence and the increase demand for states rights here in the US.

And in our Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We are only looking at the early stages of the increase of illegal immigrants and the consequences.  A new respiratory virus is making the rounds in an increasing number of states.   Is this tied to the immigrants the federal government forced state and local officials to ignore health safeguards for?  My children were  REQUIRED to have proof of immunization along with other documents.  Is this not a result of the presidents policy to ignore the law?
The IRS “follows the law whenever we can”…  What would happen to anyone that told the IRS that during an audit?
And even now as the truth starts to emerge on Benghazi, the media continues to try and provide cover for the Democrats.
I still think the truth will prevail.  I think there will be a push back against Democrats.  Sadly, I think the Republicans that are a near equal part of the problem will benefit the most.  That makes us all the losers who seek to live in a free country.  Maybe we need to follow the Scottish example and call for a succession vote?


  1. Maybe we need to follow the Scottish example and call for a succession vote?

    No, re remove those in the Federal govt, including every alphabet agency and start over. The lack of courage and knowledge of the average American will not get to this point until they are truly slaves of the State. A status that is coming soon to a city near you!

    • Since the vote for secession was so close… wonder if that sends any signal to the UK

      • Nah, the Scots are pretty nuts on the issue. Their politics tend to be more leftist and anti-military. Somehow, no matter how much “Home Rule” is expanded, I cannot see that core changing their minds. Interesting analogy to our French speaking friends in Quebec. Secede! Secede! Secede! Yet when push came to shove the brighter ones in the majority decided against it.

        I expect certain pushes in the US over time. If the left to insane crowd continues never to be called out, even I can make a great argument for letting Hawaii go. Bring in the Native American chorus, throw in the Mexican crowd and there goes the West and Southwest. Of course, it would happen gradually, everything the left does comes to pass that way. They chip away. First it will be dual citizenship, then dual sovereignty then when in the majority, it will come as a complete break. I could write a fair sci-fi novel on US Troops being used to “round up” and expel the Anglos (under the revised Nuremberg Laws, better not have too much European blood in you) from “occupied territory” . NBC news and their ilk would cover it as a centuries old injustice being righted!

  2. Two very interesting issues. Being 66 years of age and once it is established that I am a legal voting resident of the State of Texas, I can vote by mail. I received, yesterday, my ballot in the mail. Constitutional amendments and propositions both state and local and, of course, the printed ballot with the names on them. On the ballot, there are listed four parties: The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, The Libertarian Party and the Green Party. What was also interesting was the introduction of two write in candidates that are non party affiliated: (1) a write in US Senator Candidate named MOHAMMED TAHIRO and a write in candidate for Governor named SARAH PAVITT.

    Interesting indeed.

    The second interesting thing that happened is related to a service call at my residence. I have the usual cable TV, Internet….etc., with a company named Charter. I received my phone call that says that they are due at the prearranged time. However, what I heard next was very interesting. In order for the repair to be done, there must be present a person over the age of 18 with a GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID. I called and asked them why this was necessary. First, they said, you must prove that you live there to authorize the repair and secondly, you must be over the age of 18 to make any decisions and guarantee payment of services even if it is being included in your next invoice. My point is… takes a GOVERNMENT ISSUED STATE ID. ( Stick that in your hat, voter ID protesters ).

  3. I only have one interesting issue. Sparty scored 73…count em…73 points yesterday! 5 more than Bucky in his win! Miracles never cease. And then there was the mess at the Big House. Tisk, tisk little brother!

    USW…I know you’re lurking. Penn State is jammin’. Good for them.

    Sparty On!

  4. One of the saddest parts of growing old and something I never expected to see is a replay of items from the past totally ignoring the fact that lessons were learned, things changed, situations improved and then, generationally speaking the lessons were lost.

    It came home full bore last night when I was listening to CBS all news all the time on the radio. The normal newsman was making some point about former mayor Rudy Guilliani of NY. He said, “Guilliani, is trying to take credit for this too as he has done for everything else!”. I do not know if it is possible to “see” a sneer through the radio but it sure as hell was there. Last week I revisited some videos of the 70’s and 80’s and NYC. I was there, I remember.

    Then, this morning I heard how there is a big push to require more treatment, more laws throughout the land to combat Heroin addiction we are also about to spend oodles on a new drug which can save the overdosed (so they can overdose again). Absolutely everything we need to know about heroin addiction we have learned and relearned in the past. What we mostly learned is you will either die or you will grow up and get it under control. We learned that anyone who sticks the needle in their arm is frankly too dumb (or selfish) to live. That Jaime L. Rodriguez, my former Marine co-worker and South Bronx resident in the 1970’s was right. the only use for junkies is to send them to Vietnam and use them for sandbags.

    Then there is the sorrow for the poor misguided criminal. Most recently of course the Ferguson Mo. UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER. Things quieted down a bit when the call to release his juvie records went out. Nonetheless, we have the drivel about how poverty causes crime. Spend more money! At the height of the money spending frenzy in the 70’s and 80’s NYC murder rate inexorably edged up to the 2,000 per annum mark. As an example of this weirdness, as Rod Serling might say, I offer you this story:

    Of course there was the Vietnam lesson, the Khobar Barracks lesson, the 9-11 lesson, the Mogadishu lesson, the welfare reform lesson, the multiple education lessons, the Medical equipment lesson, the college tuition lesson, the food stamp lesson and thousands more. It is so incredibly depressing to be in my father’s position when he was my age. To be at a gathering, to calmly explain faulty logic and be ignored because you have “old” ideas. Facts unfortunately never change. No matter how old it gets, gravity is still there. Too bad folks can’t make this mental leap. I do not know if it was always this bad. I tend to be a pessimist and think that the current society is so namby pamby, has been so babied, so coddled, so narcotized that it has lost all touch with reality. Funny, back in the ’60’s there was this group, the “stones” who did this little ditty expalining how they (and we) would not fall into our parents Valium and Librium trap. Ha! Ha!

    • Yes….the lessons are forgotten.

    • Consolation prize SK…Mick and the boys are older than you! Saw him doing a live gig earlier this year. His feet still left the stage a couple times. Good for him. Good song to pair with your rant..never really listened to it as I did just now..I’ve seen what the prescribed drugs can do to mess up a family..mine included. Vicodin and beer had a lot to do with me & my ex. My sister is a retired RN..she even plays the game… seeing several docs…then concocting up her own recipe combo of drugs. Her insides must be swiss cheese by now. SMH! Darn near have to hog tie me to get me to take my thyroid pills or a Motrin for a headache.

  5. gotta love watching the news right now. Since the POTUS is about to get us ‘s involved in another war, it is very reminiscent of the “so called” news analysts of the 60,’s and 70’s, especially the young ladies, spouting anti war rhetoric and denouncing tactics. Not one of these ladies has an “inkling” of what is going other than talking points given to them to read. It is equally funny to see the cable shows, Fox included, having their roundtable discussions on military tactics and what will and will not work. The most notable to me is Gerado Rivera….I just turn it off now when he is on. I just watched a young lady on CNN that was almost yelling about how weak the ISIS extremists are and how the POTUS is not using our military power correctly. The immaturity and the lack of knowledge that is indicated and the news today…and then because it is the news….it is believed. Amazing.

    • You really have to be a New Yorker to understand Geraldo (AKA Jerry Rivers). He did not become “Geraldo” until you could get points for being Hispanic. Took advantage of minority status back when it was in it’s infancy to do law school. Became counsel for the Young Lords a Puerto Rican gang modeled on the Black Panthers. broke into Channel 7 ABC local news when they were first looking for “diversity”. Married his way up the line. Famous for exposes on Willowbrook Developmental Ctr. Staten Island NY, Homeless folks in Hotels on the taxpayer dime (though he tended to stress the homeless angle) and of course, Al Capones’s vault!

      The one thing I can say for him is that he was very willing to accept physical pain to move his career forward. More than once had his nose broken for being an obnoxious prick and his “ambushes”. There are at least three instances, here is one.

      Below is his IMDB link for shits and giggles. One of the most outstanding, successful hucksters in modern times.

    • Journalists, if they can be called that, are only babbling about things they know nothing about. It’s for ratings. I won’t watch any MSM with anything less than a grain of salt when they claim to be experts. Useless eaters for the most part, just spitting propaganda to continue to bullshit the sheople more and more. Shameful!

  6. ISIS Forces Sweeping Through Northern Syria as Thousands Flee

    Rick Moran

    September 21, 2014 – 7:13 am

    Forces of the Islamic State in Syria have mounted a huge offensive with columns of heavy armor sweeping through the Kurdish region of northern Syria near the Turkish border.

    Their goal is apparently capturing the strategic border town of Ayn al-Arab, and more than 60 towns and villages in the region have fallen to ISIS forces in the past few days.

    This has unleashed a nearly unprecedented wave of refugees streaming into Turkey. More than 60,00 women, children, and old people crossed the border into Turkey in the 24-hour period from Friday to Saturday, overwhelming aid resources.

    Kurdish forces in the region are falling back while others are making their way to the front from Turkey to join their comrades.

    The Wall Street Journal reports:

    Since Thursday, Islamic State rebels, backed by tanks and other heavy armor, have seized control of more than 60 villages near the regional capital of Ayn al-Arab, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group. The extremist insurgents, also known as ISIS or ISIL have also forced the evacuation of about 100 other villages, Kurdish field commanders and Turkish officials said.

    Turkish television on Sunday continued to broadcast footage of thousands of Kurds, many on foot, crossing the border into Turkey to escape Islamic State. The U.N. refugee agency said most of the refugees were Kurdish women, children and the elderly. Hundreds of Kurdish fighters and volunteers were traveling in the other direction to Syria to shore up their brethren’s defenses, Turkish media reported.

    Kurdish militia in Syria, under the banner of the Syrian Kurdish People’s Defense Units, or YPG, said dozens of Kurds had been killed in fighting to defend Ayn al-Arab, called Kobani in Kurdish. They said the jihadists had advanced to within 9 kilometers of Kobani and appealed for international intervention to help their outgunned forces.

    The call was joined by one from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, a rebel group closely affiliated with the YPG, for the youth of Turkey’s mostly Kurdish southeast to rise up and rush to save Kobani. The PKK, listed as a terror organization by Washington and Turkey, has spent three decades fighting for autonomy for Turkey’s Kurds.

    “Supporting this heroic resistance is not just a debt of honor of the Kurds but all Middle East people. Just giving support is not enough, the criterion must be taking part in the resistance,” the PKK said on its website. “ISIL fascism must drown in the blood it spills…The youth of north Kurdistan (southeast Turkey) must flow in waves to Kobani.”

    Islamic State’s progress toward the Turkish border again showed the group’s military strength. It seized Kurdish territory in Syria even as French warplanes launched their first attacks Friday against the group’s positions hundreds of miles away in northeastern Iraq.

    The move on Ayn al-Arab follows the seizure by Islamic State insurgents this past week of a strategic bridge over the Euphrates River. The capture enabled the rebels to march on the city from the west and rain down artillery shells on the city’s streets, said Khaled Issa, a representative of the Syrian Kurdish administration in Paris.

    The timing is almost too coincidental, as I’ll explore after the page break.

    Is ISIS testing Obama’s new Syria policy?

    By putting enormous pressure on Kurds in northern Syria, the Islamic State may be probing U.S. commitment to the fight in Syria. The cries for assistance from the Kurds have been met with indifference by most of the international community.

    Mr. Issa said he had alerted Western diplomats to the fighting in Kobani, one of the YPG’s three strongholds in northern Syria, but had received little more than promises to look into the situation.

    “Are the international forces just going to watch this? We have been fighting the Daesh for over a year now,” said Meysa Abdo, a member of the YPG’s Command Council, referring to Islamic State by its Arabic name.

    Masoud Barzani, the president of Iraq’s Kurdistan region, echoed the plea for outside military aid, as he urged the international community to “use every means” to protect Kobani.

    It may be too soon for Obama to take action in Syria. The thorny issue of congressional authorization was supposed to be put off until after the election. But if the president sends planes into Syria to support the Kurds, a bipartisan group of lawmakers would be issuing a call for him to get congressional approval for the strikes.

    For those who don’t think much of the intelligence or worldliness of ISIS leaders, you don’t have to be Machiavelli to figure out the political conundrum the president has placed himself in. This is the first major test of his Syria policy and it comes as Congress scatters to the four winds to campaign for re-election and the authorization issue remains unresolved.

    Will the president sacrifice the Syrian Kurds to maintain the political viability of his new Syria police? The fallout from doing nothing won’t improve our credibility with the Kurds, or anyone else who might be thinking of signing on for the fight against ISIS.

    • Excellent, though I really think Carter and the fall of the Shah served as the kick-off. While he may have been a bad dude in a lot of ways, he brought Iran into the last quarter of the 20th Century rather well. The writer forgets that there was a strong bond formed between the Khomeni fundamentalists and the intellectual intelligentsia in Iran. They both thought they were using each other. The intellectuals were wrong because they were never willing to die for their beliefs.

      Would have been interesting to see if the Shah would have moved more towards democratization. Sort of wondered about Assad in Syria too. The guy had a damn good western education, is a medical doctor. Had this “revolution” not broken out, where would Syria have headed? To make it simpler, where would Iran and Syria be if the US had not intervened with our good intentions and Wilsonian view?

    • What barbarians at the gates?
      They are 3,000 bloody miles away!

      More idiocy.

      • Weather you’re going to acknowledge it or not, they are here. Doesn’t matter if you won’t acknowledge it either because, thanks to social media, they blast their call to arms to lone wolves right here in the USA.

        • What rubbish.

          You are 1,000x more likely to die in a car crash then a terrorist attack – but you want to spend the wealth of your nation into poverty, commit your children to murder and die, for -quite literally- nothing.

          • Still won’t acknowledge! Ok. BF, Obama has diddled his way through the last few years not putting up a fight..which I’m not saying is all bad…but that has not stopped the jihadis from continuing with their bullshit. So leaving the problem alone has not killed the problem either. I wonder…will you acknowledge the threat when citizens on our soil start coming up missing their heads….or will that be workplace violence?

            • Acknowledged your nonsense? Give me a break!

              You are demanding your enslavement for something so ridiculously minor!

              AND the solution to solve your nonsensical worry is to stop bombing people 3,000 miles away!

              BUT YOU WANT THAT.
              So you get, in return, nightmares.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              “I wonder…will you acknowledge the threat when citizens on our soil start coming up missing their heads….or will that be workplace violence?”

              The percentage would be statistically insignificant in a population of 315 million people, if 2 Americans were beheaded here. Yet, you want it acknowledged and something done about it so it doesn’t happen here.

              Something would be done – it is called “murder” and is a law enforcement problem to handle. Unless you would prefer we call in the Air Force to deal with the murderers?

              It scares you why? Is it because these extremists are being hyped up in the public mind to help justify ignorant action by our government to “keep America safe?”

              Serial killers here had killed more than these fanatics using religion as an excuse for their behavior, yet I don’t see anyone screaming for intervention by military force to stop them, or does it only count if they are foreign born and using religion to justify the people they have murdered?

              Maybe America should try minding its own business and stop meddling in foreign nations where we have created more problems than we have solved?

              • Take this with a grain of salt Plainly, since I haven’t talked to you in a while. This is my ‘nice’ today.

                Sounds like you are giving the assclowns a pass to me. What? I’m not allowed to be scared? Does it offend you that I have nerve to be scared? I’m tiring of everyone putting me on a guilt trip for daring to be scared…while giving the bad guys a pass. Bullshit!

                ….and you missed the part about me giving Obama my blessing for diddling!


              • An interesting thought that may only interest me (but should be said) 🙂

                Muslims are acting up in Australia and Great Britain for the most part. Here, one guy was stupid and got caught, but in the other countries were the issue is much bigger, they all have something in common…….anyone want to guess?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Anita, my dear…..I have no problem with you being scared. Many things cause us fear, It is what that fear leads you to desire to do, decide to support, etc… that is the problem I have.

                It is fear that the government generates and uses to get the people to agitate for and support their insane actions that I have the problem with. Fear tends to make us act irrationally. What is the old quote about having nothing to fear, but fear itself?

                We, as a nation, become scared (or fearful) and the government uses that to build upon their theft of true freedom from the people. In most cases the fear was created by the actions (meddling) of our government overseas where we damn well do not belong!

                The Islamic extremist threats have been around for centuries, and will remain long after we, our children and our grandchildren have left this planet. Nothing will be solved by this nation’s continual stirring of the pot in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter in this issue. The government, if they are accomplishing anything, is doing nothing more but making it worse.

                The assclowns can have a pass for I care not a damn about what they do in other countries to their own peoples. That is that country’s populations issue, not mine

              • David Skekabim says:

                @ Plainly

                Well said.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I forgot the “diddling: part.

                “Still won’t acknowledge! Ok. BF, Obama has diddled his way through the last few years not putting up a fight..which I’m not saying is all bad…but that has not stopped the jihadis from continuing with their bullshit.”

                The government won’t stop the bullshit no matter what they do anyway, no government can accomplish that. Did Bush get things stopped in Iraq? Nope, cause if he had then Obama wouldn’t have had to “diddle his way through the last few years” would he? Yes, maybe….MAYBE…..the bombings or some other dumbass action might quiet them down for a while, but it will at some point be a “problem” again. So you get peace from the fear for the rest of your life, maybe even your children’s lives……but like many issues somebody will be fearful again of it in the future.

                The “problem” will never be solved permanently.

              • I hear you Plainly. You’ve got to acknowledge ‘they’ have taken this to a different level. Can I at least get that from you?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “I hear you Plainly. You’ve got to acknowledge ‘they’ have taken this to a different level. Can I at least get that from you?”

                I will give you that they have again taken it to that level, it is not new – just not seen in a while. Best I can do on that. 🙂

        • James Madison to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia on June 29, 1787:

          In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.

          The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.


          How the ignorant people continue to do the same ignorant mistakes over again in history, Anita.

        • Anita, they are here but the good thing is….we know where most of them are. What bothers me the most… what is happening in Mexico along these lines. Most disturbing. Known training camps….we bomb in Syria but do nothing on our own border. Shame.

          It is possible that you will see individual attacks….like Hasan or the last styled Muslim that killed a kid at a stop light. There will be other “unexplained” attacks….That is going to be the way of the world, unfortunately.

          • Your last sentence is most probably true. Makes me sad and scared, not even so much for myself, but scared for my kids and grandkids too. Sucks!

            • Being fearful is how these people win. Exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights and flip them the bird and be strong. You should be as prepared for the average thug, that’s enough to deal with the Muslim barbarians, if they have the balls to attack here in numbers. Time will tell. First one to shoot a terrorist in self defense gets 10K SUFA points 😀

              • Maybe scared is too strong a word. Son in law is an expert marksman and hunter..he has my daughter and granddaughter covered. My son scares me. At 16, watching the way he plays video games or even chess..the boy is a kamikaze, though I think he would figure out how to survive. But…..these jihadis play the sneak attack…that’s what worries me.

      • BF, that is a strange question, did you read the article?

  7. Query for those who know more about the internet than I do. Lately my Facebook has been inundated with posts from “Salon”. Now, I’m not one of those people who do not want to hear the other side but these people, ….. The terms Puerile and Sophomoric are not enough to describe them. Slimy and vicious are better with perhaps a bitchy thrown in for good measure! Anybody know the mechanism in de-friending them and stopping them from cluttering up my Facebook?


  8. NOw, for you conspiracy nuts…….three Afghan pilots missing…..foul play?

  9. Barack Obama’s incessant lies and cowardice make him more lethal than the world’s most barbaric ideology–Islam.

    That’s correct: More lethal than Islam.

    From Obama’s steadfast public denial (lie) that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS–to his whiny and cowardly, ad nauseam political decrees that he will not put “boots on the ground” in Iraq–he is making America (on the world stage) look like a nation without balls.

    Though ISIS is following in the exact footsteps of its Prophet Mohammed (rape, beheadings and sundry other atrocities)–our president is busy holding press conferences to lecture his subjects on Islam’s “boundless peace and tolerance.”

    As I have mentioned in my previous articles–Mohammed was a serial decapitator and rapist. His penchant for violence and mayhem was second to none. And for that reason–historians have recognized him as one of the most bloodthirsty figures of the 7th century.

    Interesting opinion 🙂

  10. No words necessary.

    • It is becoming more and more difficult to be tolerant to these folks. Although it’s not an issue where I reside, maybe Anita can shed some light on the matter. I can say that if anyone, including Muslim’s come around here and demand we (locals) abide by their lifestyle demands, they will be told to pound sand and get lost. You don’t want to know what may happen if that don’t work 😉

    • David Skekabim says:

      Excellent documentary.

      Right on, Ms. Dooley!

  11. Obama has now dropped bombs on another sovereign nation, that being Syria. It won’t be long now before the Assad regime is gone.

    • Not only that, I have heard a news report that four arab nations have conducted airs strikes as well…If this is true, I will have to give kudos to the POTUS on this one….as much as it pains me.

  12. Dissolution to smaller political entities is the optimum best for everyone.

    As I posted Hans-Hoppe arguments in the previous thread, it increases competition between political entities for the people under their rule, brings political power closer to those affected by it, and removes the concentration of power from the hands of the very few.

    Support it every where you can.

  13. Never let a crises go away…November elections……a new war. Do the math.

  14. Interesting issue now, BF. We are involved in a civil war…..we have organized a coalition of Sunnis’ to bomb…Sunnis……we have taken sides in a centuries old civil war.

  15. Ummm….tactically speaking……We are bombing what is determined as “hard targets”…..buildings, vehicles staging grounds……

    Wonder why we are not bombing the assets of this group….they are supposedly raking in 3-5 million per day from captured oil fields. We know where they are, and we know who is driving the trucks in to pick up the oil through Turkey……now… seems to me that if we bomb the oil fields and blow up every single method of transportation and cut off the majority of the money supply……

    naaah….that is too logical,….

    • Logic in this case is exactly what Obama wants, the destruction of the Assad regime. ISIS is a Obama Admin made crisis, he wants Assad and he’ll get him (likely by finding some kind of proof Assad is linked to ISIS). Just my humble opinion 🙂

      How are you this fine day Colonel? Hope all is well with you and the family. 🙂

      • All is well, but ISIS is not just an Obama made crises,,,,,ISIS/ISIL has been around under different pseudonyms for thousands of years. This is an age old civil war made worse by US meddling and supporting despots. It is a middle east and European problem,,,let them handle it.

        Why do you think there is no European country supporting this “coalition”? Follow the money…..Arab coalition from Arab countries that receive substantial aid from the US….they want to continue to receive substantial aid from the US……Ever wonder what the US promised to get this coalition?

    • I see this as “we lose”. They have more tents and GMC pick-ups than we have PGM’s (precision guided munitions). A quarter million dollar bomb vs a $ 30,000 pick-up. How’s that make sense?

    • Blowing up oil fields….

      No, it is economic suicide. Eliminating the oil fields would double your price for fuel. The US would go bankrupt.

      It’s like in the war zone in Congo -from my experience- where the rebels and the government both used cell phones to organize their attacks. Neither side attacked cell phone towers, even though knowing their enemies were using them for battle – but so were their side too.

      • In many ways, I would like to see the price of oil quadruple with rationing like WW 2 and price controls thrown it. It may be the only way to move the ball forward on fracking, drilling and construction of pipelines as well as refineries. Don’t think America would stand for it for long.

        Listening as a captive audience the other day to a show on fracking while caught in a monumental traffic jam. Not being a scientist, had only a vague awareness of the ability to convert Natural gas to Methanol or Ethanol. One hell of a lot cheaper than corn based alcohol! Much less environmental damage and for good measure the new EPA head was quoted when she said that she personally was unaware of any instance of ground water contamination exclusively from fracking.

        These were not oil at any price guys talking. In addition to pushing flex fuels hard they also touted electric vehicles as well as other alternative energy sources.

        • SK

          Why am I not surprised you champion economic insanity.

          “In many ways, I would like to see the price of oil quadruple with rationing like WW 2 and price controls thrown it. It may be the only way to move the ball forward on fracking, drilling and construction of pipelines as well as refineries. Don’t think America would stand for it for long.”

          And it would not help fracking, drilling, or pipelines.

          Without a rise in prices, there is NO ECONOMIC SENSE to produce more!

          So you force SHORTAGES in the land of plenty.

          As usual, your goal and your process to achieve it is ASS BACKWARDS.

          • You really missed that boat. Rationing/Price controls = pissed off consumers. Pissed off consumers=scared politicians. Scared politicians = drilling/fraking/pipelines. AKA, the way of the world.

            • SK,
              You need lessons in “Public Choice Doctrine” as well as Economics.

              All price controls are implemented regardless of consumer wishes. Whether they get “pissed off” or not is irrelevant.

              Politicians ply the public with “we are all in this together” nonsense – nonsense which people like you buy.

              Oil production is utterly independent of these motives. It’s motive is always PROFIT, not the whim of Public Choice.

              • Horseshit! You need lessons in reality. Politicians “pay” for their mistakes and miscalculations. Ask Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheny and especially McCain and Romney if pissing off the public is a good long term strategy. Jimmy Carter handed the people “malaise”. They handed hims his retirement papers.

                There used to be these things called “gas wars” when I was a kid. All the gas stations in the neighborhood would compete for your business. haven’t seen one of those in a long time. Bout the time we deposed the Shah and backed Israel after the two wars 67 and 73, the OPEC cartel was created. They artificially inflated the price. In order to break this artificial stranglehold, one has to break OPEC. Best way of doing that is produce more.

                One cans successfully argue that the increase of oil prices mirrors inflation. We are still getting a bargain at the gas station. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the pre OPEC reality when oil companies were all doing just fine, even with inflation and flat prices. So unless it is a relatively new phenomena, the fixing of prices on a massive international scale, there is no other explanation .

                • SK,

                  You make me laugh!
                  “Horseshit! You need lessons in reality. Politicians “pay” for their mistakes and miscalculations. Ask Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheny and especially McCain and Romney if pissing off the public is a good long term strategy”

                  What “pay”? They are all RICH! They are not paying a damn thing YOU ARE

      • I see no rationale here……supposedly we are not receiving this oil anyway…It is probably being sold on the spot market but I can easily find out if the US is buying Iraqi oil on the spot market, thereby, funding our own opposition. Can report this back…I will know within in 24 hours.

        • Oil is fungible. It matters not who or where it is provided or it is purchased.

          Eliminating oil from any source to any customer affects the entire global supply. One must remember every drop of oil produced is consumed. We do not extract oil then “store it” (though there is storage, which is used as a temporary stock) – we extract it and consume it.

          Additional supply lowers the price, which causes certain providers to “turn down the pipe”; however shortage of supply raises the price, but there is no valve to turn up the supply as this requires extensive effort to locate and drill or mine new areas.

          So when additional supply comes on line, the “valve” can be turned down until global consumption rises to qualify for more increase from current reserves.

          But a loss of a reserve the price rises for a long period of time until exploration and development can bring to market another reserve.

          Thus, burning down Iraqi oil fields eliminates reserves, but the time necessary to replace that oil is measured in years, not weeks. Your costs will go up massively for a very long time.

    • Official: New airstrikes under way; planes targeting refineries used by ISIS

      • This is so messed up makes one feel like they need to take up for woman as a species. So all I can say about all of this is……BSssssss BSsssss BSsssssssssss-three times for effect.

      • The New Abortion Absolutists
        September 17, 2014

        abortionondemandsignBeing pro-choice is passé nowadays.

        According to The New York Times, younger supporters of abortion on demand are done with the “pro-choice” label, choosing instead to counter their “right to life” opponents with terms like “reproductive rights” and “women’s health.”

        One might think this vocabulary change is just a new marketing strategy, a face-lift for an aging movement Nancy Keenan famously called the “Menopausal Militia.” But what if something more substantive is going on?

        Are abortion rights supporters fully embracing an absolutist agenda, one that legitimizes and praises a woman’s choice to abort, no matter the circumstances?

        It sure seems that way. In the past few years, activists have moved away from Bill Clinton’s philosophy that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Or that abortion is, in Hillary Clinton’s words, “a tragic choice.”

        Why leave behind words like “rare” and “tragic?” Because speaking of abortion this way lends credence to the pro-life position that there is something wrong with ”terminating a pregnancy.” If the abortion-rights agenda is to succeed, then, abortion must be de-stigmatized. And nothing will remove the stigma from abortion faster than making it common and celebrated.

        That’s why Wendy Davis, the abortion rights hero who tried unsuccessfully to block last year’s tightening of abortion clinic standards in Texas, received a mixed reaction when she told the story of her past abortions. Two tragic cases: the first pregnancy was ectopic and the second had fetal abnormalities. Davis worried that her baby was suffering. Many women cheered Davis’ courageous transparency, but the abortion absolutists worried that Davis’ difficult circumstances reinforce the idea that there are “right” and “wrong” abortions, or situations that make the choice either “good” or “bad.” For example, Emily Shire writes:

        Davis’ abortion narrative has helped diminish the social stigma surrounding abortion. But until the “bad” abortion stories are just as acceptable, pro-choice advocates have a long way to go.

        So, prepare yourself. There is an aggressive wave of in-your-face abortion talk that seeks to end the social stigma.

        It’s a wave that has crashed onto charities, as Melinda Gates discovered when her foundation’s decision to not fund abortion was derided by those who claimed she was reinforcing the stigma surrounding abortion.
        It’s a wave that’s crashed into the entertainment world, as Mindy Kaling’s claim that a sitcom-treatment of abortion would “demean the topic” was met with fierce opposition.
        It’s a wave that’s crashed into the theaters, with the arrival of Obvious Child, a film dubbed by critics as “an abortion comedy.” (One of the howlers in this movie is when the main character is about to go on stage and is told, “You’re going to kill it up there!” To which she replies, “No, that’s tomorrow…” in reference to her unborn child. Cue the canned laughter.)
        It’s a wave that’s flooded social media outlets, where women like Emily Letts have decided to “film their abortions,” to demystify the procedure and show other women that there’s nothing to be scared of.

        Of course, we aren’t really seeing abortion or its aftermath in these movies or YouTube stunts, only the woman undergoing the procedure. Abortion absolutists may be “in your face,” but there’s one face we never see. The broken body of the little victim is always off camera.

        The agenda for abortion absolutists is clear. We must dispense with the mystery and gravitas surrounding a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy. It is time to talk frankly about the abortion procedure as if it were just a normal part of a woman’s range of reproductive health choices.

        But even among abortion absolutists, there is disagreement about the effect of all these ”positive” abortion stories.

        Alex Ronan in New York Magazine recently wrote a chilling article about her year as an abortion doula, when she provided women with “emotional and physical support” during their abortions. Ronan worries that the positive narratives about abortion, intended to protect abortion rights around the country, “isolate and silence patients who struggled with their abortions, even if they know getting an abortion was the right choice.”

        Ronan is just as absolutist in her fervent support of a woman’s right to abortion as others are. The difference is that she thinks putting a positive spin on the procedure ignores the variety of responses she sees from women:

        Some of the first-trimester patients scream and cry and shake. Others remain calm, barely seem to register any pain, are thrilled to have it over with.

        Then, she confesses: “I find it hardest to tend to the patients who don’t seem to struggle.” But not because there’s any morality involved. “It’s not that I’m judging them: Pain breaks down barriers, and without it, I’m more hesitant to touch, less certain of my role.”

        Ronan’s version of abortion absolutism isn’t dependent on “positive abortion narratives.” It’s all about the mother’s autonomy. The baby, fetus, or “stuff” is whatever the woman says it is.

        I’ve been taught to follow the patient’s lead. If she calls it her baby, then I do too. But with the next patient, just as far along, it’s fetal tissue, it’s the products of conception. One stumbles over her words, says “all the stuff inside,” and that feels right, too.

        The result of abortion absolutism, no matter its form, is the dehumanization of the unborn. Ronan’s article ends with this disturbing description of an abortion:

        The fetus comes out easily; they put it in the bucket and shove it near me. It is fully intact, curled on its left side, fists closed, knees bent up. He sleeps just like you, I think. Then, a second thought, an act of distancing: He looks more like an alien than a person.

        I have, by this point, seen lots of women and lots of fetuses, and the sight of the second doesn’t change my feelings about the first. The mourning for what could have been is countered by an appreciation for what is — a woman’s life, allowed to proceed as she wants it to. When it is over, I say, “You did great. You were so brave,” and I tell them they’re done now, because sometimes they don’t know. “It’s all finished,” I say.

        Here it is in all its horror: a violent procedure, a corpse, a pang of conscience, and then the race to mentally distance oneself from the victim. It is striking in its resemblance to the tactics employed by white Americans who justified the enslavement of blacks as “brutes” or the Germans treating Jews as an inferior race, barely above the animals.

        The abortion absolutists want to put a positive spin on the culture of death, to whitewash the bloodstains and dispense with the guilt we collectively feel over this atrocity. But the positive stories cannot bury the baby.

        Abortion absolutism is about “freedom” that tramples over human remains. And in the end, it’s not just the unborn. In our celebration of death, we are chipping away at our own humanity.

        • I always laugh at pro-“lifers”.

          They rage against abortion, but have no problem sending their children into foreign land to die.

          • How exactly are they the same?

            • You believe that killing your child in the womb is wrong, but sending your child to be killed outside of the womb is ok….


              • How about allowing your child out the front door? There are sexual predators, drunk drivers, accidents waiting to happen, school buses, tornadoes, youth gangs, poisoned food, random shootings, swimming pools, pit bulls, 5 Gal compound buckets half filled with water, communicable diseases etc. Your solution? Lock them in the basement till they die (radon will probably get them)?

                Last I looked, unless you were 17, Mom and Pop could not stop you from enlisting.

                • There is a difference between effects ON YOU and YOUR CHOICES.

                  You believe sending your children to die in a foreign land accomplishes some esoteric goal that you champion.

                  The root conclusion: you might as well as killed them in the womb.

              • Hopeless! Absolutelyfriggenhopeless!

  16. David Skekabim says:

    ” 711 game on”

    I don’t think you’re getting it, so I will attempt to clarify.






    FUCK – YOUR – GAME !!!

  17. In a game you cannot win, the best move is not to play at all

  18. Was this only two years ago?

  19. I wonder where the left is? The anti war, anti Iraq, anti everything POTUS….has started his own war…..and……the pundits are all saying how long it will last……..years and years….and nothing will be solved.

    Even my patience is being tested.

    • Why is that?

      As long as you believe there is a difference between politicians, only then can such patience be tested as you perceive one side betrays your mindset.

      When you realize there are only minor superficial differences, you see they are the same – and the expectations of their action are not surprising.

    • I mean, did you think the Nobel Prize would change this? Make a “Peace” President?

      Did you believe him when he said he would reduce Nuclear Arms, but then sign a bill that will spend a $1 trillion over the next few years to expand it? The largest expenditure into nuclear weapons since the fall of the USSR?

      Why do you believe politicians?

      • I do not believe politicians……likewise I am not an anarchist. That said….it is not the politicians that I am talking about anyway…it is the left. The left thinking that were on this site and apparently not anymore….but even at that…I have the patience of an oyster (movie quote) but it does have its limits.

        What is actually testing my patience is the level of thinking that is NOT present among the populace. I was not part of the social revolution of the 60’s because I saw the fallacy of it and we are reaping those fallacy benefits today….it is that generation that is in charge. I am sorry to say that I was part of it but I was. Hard work is not rewarded but betraying your friend is rewarded. Following the law is not rewarded but violating the law is rewarded. I am just frustrated at the something for nothing crowd and I am frustrated and the anarchist crowd…neither side has answers…only theories and platitudes. And I am frustrated at the numbness and stupidity of the get along with everyone crowd. None of it is possible.

        Change takes action….it must be proactive and not reactive. No one, with very few exceptions, understands economics past their paycheck.or what is in their bank and if their ox ain’t being gored, then it is none of their business. I guess I would rather go back to the live and let live days and the don’t tread on me days.. Oh well….

        At least I feel a little better and will now go study the Navigational effects of solar flares on GPS and VOR signals.

        • You have just stated a “NO SHIT SHERLOCK” to those who get it! The rest are lost.

        • Change takes action….it must be proactive and not reactive.

          Change requires IDEAS, based on moral principles, otherwise you merely replace the tyranny with another tyranny.

          • I have no problem with this statement…..but…whose ideas and whose moral principles? Yours? Mine? Principles change like the wind across the world….ideas change across the world.

            Replacing tyranny with tyranny…..sadly, that seems to be the protocol.

            • Principles are universal when they apply to all people.

              There are such principles. Those are the ones that need to be used. The issue, these principles as they are universal dismiss contradictions. Most people, like you, believe you benefit by the application of these contradictions, hence, you have no principle.

              • What is a universal principle?

              • Or are you asking “what defines a universal principle?”

                A principle, if held universally, that does not contradict itself.

                Freedom from the imposition of others; all men can hold this principle. Holding this principle does not contradict the principle; expanding the principle to all men does not change the principle.

                It does not mean all men hold this principle. It means that all men can hold this principle.

              • A non-universal principle
                “Men can to steal”

                The concept of theft requires the concept of property. You do not steal “found stuff”. Stealing only happens when you seize owned property.

                If all men by principle can steal, there is no such thing as owned property, but if it isn’t property then it isn’t stealing. Self-contradiction of the principle if applied universally.

      • I stole this, the guy says it better than I would, something I had not thought about until quite recently.

        Both Russia and the United States need to cut defense spending and both still have nuclear arsenals that are vastly in excess of national security needs.

        Says who? Because when the terrible day comes that you need *one* nuclear weapon, you’re going to be happy having 4,804.

        There are so many complex issues involved in issues of nuclear deterrence, surety, and warfighting that I can’t cover them all in the comment to a post, but just to hit the highlights:

        1. With respect to strategic weapons, as long as we’re relying on Mutual Assured Destruction— and yes, we still rely on MAD— numbers of weapons, and platforms, matter. Too many is overkill, but *too few* risks a variety of epically bad outcomes.

        — Sudden technological obsolescence: better hope that your ICBMs all work when you need them, better hope that your SLBMs all work when you need them, better hope that your bombers get through, better hope that your warheads all work when you need them, and better hope that both you and any potential adversary today in 2014 or tomorrow in 2024 believes that all of the above will work when you need them.

        — Too many eggs in one basket risks a first strike. SLBMs in port, road-mobile missiles in garrison, bombers on the runway. The fewer platforms you have, the more inviting a target. The more inviting a target, the more likely *you* will consider launching first— use ’em or lose ’em.

        — Missile defenses start to matter in a way you don’t want them to matter. Having limited national missile defenses against rogue states in possession of small numbers of ICBMs is desirable. Having robust missile defenses that can neutralize the effectiveness of a massive retaliatory strike, not so much.

        MAD works only if you’re confident that your second strike can get through. If the Russians, or eventually the Chinese, suffered a first strike, they need to be confident that their arsenal will survive in enough strength to make a second, retaliatory strike worthwhile. But if U.S. missile defense is robust enough— or believed by Russia to be robust enough— in order to protect against that second strike, the Russians then have an incentive to launch a *first* strike to ensure they accomplish their objectives. If missile defense are strong enough, either in true effectiveness or perception of true effectiveness, then they are destabilizing to MAD.

        Given that few wish to abandon limited missile defenses to protect against more unpredictable regimes, the only way to shore up MAD in that case is to allow the major competitive states to possess larger arsenals.

        2. Tactical weapons aren’t as useful, obviously, and further reductions are probably welcome. But there are still scenarios where their use could make sense. Bunker-busting remains one; there are some targets around the globe that conventional weapons simply cannot defeat. Providing the option for measured deterrence is another; were another nation to use a tactical-scale nuclear weapon against the U.S. or its allies, we may not want to retaliate with a 300 kt city-buster.

        3. Related to the obsolescence issues above: we simply aren’t making any new nuclear weapons anytime soon, if ever. All of these weapons are getting up there in age— not only the missiles, but the warheads themselves. The missiles at least get dug out of their holes every once in a while for a test flight— a smart idea, seeing as since we’re relying on missiles anywhere from 20 to over 40 (!) years old. Even after modernization programs to their guidance and propulsion systems, in some cases we’re still talking about entrusting the fate of the free world to rockets built during the Nixon administration. NASA, the DoD, and private companies don’t trust their payloads to rockets older than a newborn, yet we trust our nuclear deterrent to rockets old enough to vote— or be *parents* of voters.

        Worse, the warheads themselves are (obviously) no longer tested, and rely on indisputably-decaying components like their tritium stores. The National Ignition Facility is dynamite on paper, but in practice doesn’t sound like it’s come close to providing the data that actual detonation testing once provided.

        The fact is, with each passing year we’re increasingly in the dark as to whether the weapons will reliably detonate as intended, with all the psychological threats to MAD that entails.

        Since we most definitely won’t be building any new weapons, let alone testing them, anytime soon, the best alternative to maintaining surety is keeping a larger arsenal, i.e. we can accept higher failure rates if we have more weapons. The fewer weapons you have, the riskier it is to rely on modeling, simulation, and “best guesses” to guarantee their effectiveness.

        4. Lastly, if you haven’t checked things out recently, neither Russia nor China are all that friendly to the international order as of late. If having some extra nuclear weapons on hand gives our adversaries pause, it’s a cheap way to maintain deterrence. Nations acquire nuclear weapons for a host of reasons, but the main reason remains the same: nations with nuclear weapons do not get overthrown or destroyed. It’s why North Korea and Pakistan have the bomb, it’s why Iran wants the bomb, it’s why Iraq wanted the bomb.

        Ultimately, I’m not terribly afraid of a nation that feels it needs thousands of nuclear weapons— I’m afraid of the nation that feels it needs only one.

        • SK,

          His argument, “afraid that it only needs one” – well, no nation wants just one. Thus, his argument is we should populate all nations with a few hundred, he will sleep well every night….. okdokie

          4. Russia and China aren’t friendly…. hohohoho! Right, they’ve invaded countries 3,000 miles away regularly…. so, IT’S THEIR FAULT, right? What a moron.

          3. Reliability of nukes. That’s not an excuse to make more, but eliminate them.

          2. The old “we reserve the right to use nukes first” if the target we want to destroy is “too hard”. Okdokie. Let’s start a nuclear war, ’cause nukes prevent nuclear war…. what a moron

          1. MAD does work, so let’s arm all nation with nukes. That’ll end the US wars overnight. I agree to that.

          • 1. MAD does work, so let’s arm all nation with nukes. That’ll end the US wars overnight. I agree to that.

            It will end nothing….just add more despots to the pot. We have enough already.

            • The thrust of the argument is that with hundreds of nukes, a Nuclear war gets back to the fallacy of survivable. With thousands, it does not, “Dr. Strangelove” time, “On the Beach” time, the end of the world.

              What I have seen is a decrease both in the number of Nukes, delivery systems and yield. That yield thing is very important.Back before the treaty stopping above ground testing, we had the Russians testing 50 Meg warheads. We, in the ’70’s were MIRVing our missiles. Both of those concepts are gone. Nukes now rarely go above one Megaton. I remember a professor from my college, Dr. Paul Stoner writing a book about the effects of a 15 Meg. blast at Columbus Circle in Manhattan. The results were both astounding and frightening, especially for someone who lived within five miles of ground zero.

              So, the problem gets back to that of the ’50’s the concept that you can survive a war. Regarding the little guys, they are crazy so one is way too many for them. The big boys are not nuts but the brinksmanship thing is back. .

              • SK,

                Regarding yield.

                It is not a measure that the stockpiles are being diminished; its a matter of tactics.

                It is by far more destructive to shotgun a target with multiple warheads of lower yield then one monster. First, the destruction is hugely magnified with the Multiple Warheads due to physics – the square law of energy (twice the distance from the source, 1/4 the energy received) makes the single large nuke not as effective. As well, the larger the yield, the larger the weapon. As missiles became the preferred delivery system, smaller yield nukes was required.

                Second, there are more incoming. The enemy need only take out one monster, but even if they take out half of the multiple, there will be nukes on target regardless.

                The stockpile reductions is a facade.

                With the use of missiles as the primary delivery system, large stockpiles of nuke bombs became redundant. Large stockpiles for bombers was required as aircraft losses during transit was assumed to be very high. Such a condition for missiles does not exist.

                More nonsense about “100 nukes” vs “1,000” survivable. Nope. A nuclear exchange by any party will create a basic condition that all nukes will be necessary. A 100 will destroy any nation on Earth, the rest is over kill

              • You further ply more nonsense, believing “your leaders” aren’t as nuts as anyone else.

                Not true at all. The US pressed the world to the brink of nuclear war many times and by sure luck and incompetence, it was held back.

            • The problem is the despots with nukes are in the nations that have them.
              The US exercises its military upon those that do not have nukes. It avoids those that have them.

              Ergo, peace in the world comes from everyone having nukes.

    • David Skekabim says:

      Is he a voter? Does he pay taxes?

      If so, he gives consent, and therefore got exactly what he asked for.

      If indeed the ‘policeman’ was not acting within the agreed upon social contract, the nonviolent driver has every right to ignore and/or disobey and/or defend himself.

      The US Constitution’s protection against search and seizure uses the word “illegal”. This means that lawmakers can write into law that the police have the ‘right’ to do whatever they want.

      But what does the Illinois Constitution say?

      The people shall have the right to be secure in their
      persons, houses, papers and other possessions against
      unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or
      interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or
      other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause,
      supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to
      be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

      If the checkpoint had approval from a judge, and/or is deemed “reasonable” or with “probable cause”, then the cop was within his ‘right’, …but only IF the driver voted.

  20. Just saw on the news three topics……have not researched any of them yet…not really worth the time.

    1) In Washington DC…some rule or law being amended to ban all school mascots, team names, etc….from elementary to college on the use of name relating to Indians….and that includes the high school that carries an Indian name as well as the mascot of………Indian.

    2) In Connecticut, fraternities are ordered to accept women but sororities are not ordered to accept men.

    4) In Canada….law students are being banned from law school for being………………Christian.

  21. Had two of my sisters ranting by email yesterday about their Obamacare premiums going up. One sister.. Dept of Navy..premium increased $3600 for her and her husband. Deductible went from $600 to $3000. Other sister…Mich Education Assoc..premium up $3000. I’ll stick with my $95 penalty for the year!

    Anyone else care to rant? Buck?

    • That’s what happens when Liberal’s act on their own ignorance. It was stupid to think they could fix something that, as we see it now, was not really broken. Now, it’s going to make things far, far worse than they were before. Way to go Progressives, nice job, wonderful. Lesson, don’t elect Democrats, EVER.

      On a different note, political commercials and signs in the local area are missing one important thing. The political party is not being advertised. This, of course, is only affecting Democrats for some reason. Note for self…… never, ever, vote for a Democrat. 😀

      • For the record…all siblings of Anita, and all spouses of Anita’s siblings are conservative! Maybe a bit on the religious side…which brings me to a shout out to….

        SK…thought you would ‘like’ this link Looks like the Catholic Church, as we know it, is circling the drain. Seems, per order of Pope Francis, that we need to embrace gays and gay pregnancy. My aunt, Sister Patricia, IHM, passed a couple months ago..she spent 53 years as part of this order…..eek!

        • Forgot to mention…for those who don’t read the article….the nun they interviewed for this article is named……Sister Mary Jane Herb! Wiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!!!

        • Call me naive (remember per Mathius, I only have “relations” under covers!!!LOL) – but what is gay pregnancy? How does that work exactly? Explicit details needed, Dr. Anita!

        • Well the Pope is NOT on board. He called for understanding but what is new in that?”Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Someone who is about to go over the edge can interpret what he says the way they want, others can interpret it the way he meant.

          Nuns have been going off the rails for some time now. They are very much into “social justice”. Many of the teaching orders are no longer teaching. The few nuns left have gone into advocacy and social work.

          We have seen this before. Unmarried not gay teachers who become pregnant have been let go, their annual contracts not renewed. Teachers co-habiting without benefit of clergy have been let go. The issue is not freedom to do what you want but setting an example for the children you teach.

          My heart goes out to the men and women of the church who have dedicated their lives to educating children and have been betrayed by the organization. When many Nuns and Brothers left in the sixties and seventies it was because the religious life was no longer what they had signed up for.

          Here is an absolutely excellent movie, ignored by most with powerful performances which spotlights where the Church veered left.

          • Thanks, I’ll take a look. My aunt taught til just a couple years ago. She was my dad’s sister. It was funny…there was always reverence reserved for her in our immediate family…until my dad died. Then mom started letting it rip (in her reverent ways) about the progressive IHMs. I had no idea she had bad feelings towards the order. Had to be there I guess 😉

        • David Skekabim says:

          Anita: “Looks like the Catholic Church, as we know it, is circling the drain. Seems, per order of Pope Francis, that we need to embrace gays and gay pregnancy. ”

          From the article; “The Pope emphasizes that the values of mercy, inclusion and compassion need to be included in our response to complex situations.”

          I am going to try to weigh in without going too much into detail.

          Pope Francis has had a huge burden dropped into his lap, and is trying his best to do the right thing. When he uses words like “complex situations”, he isn’t kidding. It is important that he is given support because he is guiding people to godliness in spite of the steady progression of erosion across many centuries to the contrary.

          Notice how he is making changes, promoting peace and unity among religions, charity and good will, tolerance and understanding, etc..

          What he and other world religious leaders know, that they are not saying, is that the legitimacy of all three Abrahamic religions teeters in the balance.

          If humanity does not find peaceful coexistence and ability to approach things with tempered reason and intellectual honesty before the light shines, there is a very real possibility that all hell will break loose and billions will die.

          Love is ultimately what is going to get us through it. Those who cannot get over their hang-ups and learn how to love thy neighbor in spite of adversity will not fare well. The meek shall inherit the Earth, and all will know the glory of what is God.

          When you or others express your fears and concerns over radicals and/or Muslims, or gays, or other faiths, or whatever groups, it isn’t that you/they are necessarily in the wrong, just that fear, intolerance, and subsequent ‘hate’ doesn’t work toward the solution. (And as far as the radical Muslim jihadists go, wrath is coming, and they are probably in deeper doo doo than most.)

          • Guilty as charged for spinning it. But you can only ASSume so much from this statement:

            “Pope Francis has brought a sense of hope to our lives and encourages us to look at our Church with new eyes,”

            I agree that love is all we need. It all comes down to individual perception and action.But I am capable of doing two things at one time. I can still hate the sin, while daring to keep my head attached.

            • David Skekabim says:

              We’re all guilty of something. (I’m a mess) It’s not easy being human with all our flaws and weaknesses. All we can do is try our best.

              I rather like his statement about hating the sin and not the sinner. That’s his way of walking a thin line between centuries of dogma and social evolution. How clever.

              The whole issue of tolerance of gay folks is a good measuring rod of human capacity to get along. The effects of a few gays in a community is somewhat trite and generally inconsequential. If people cannot get over something so simple, what does it say about who we are and where we’re heading?

              • I totally agree! What I enjoy watching these days is how one sided the debate is. Be it religion, gays or politics, it seems that it is always one side (the conservative) that is singled out as being inflexible. You will see 97 stories in places like the NY Times about how obstructive the House of Representatives is but nary a one on the Senate. Sarah Palin is an idiot but Nancy (you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it) never draws any fire. The Catholic Church covers up sexual predation but nothing on other religions, various Boards of Ed, various private schools etc.

                As i have tried unsuccessfully (so far) to explain to Charlie here or on Facebook is that the entire universe operates on Newton’s third law. Every action DOES beget an equal and opposite reaction. So, if there is vitriolic disagreement over gay marriage then the supporters of gay marriage must be perceived as being as vitriolic in their own way. Calling someone a hateful bigot because they have a reasoned opposition to something is not going to make that person all warm and cuddly towards you. Then, when those very same people called hateful bigots see their positions constantly misrepresented in the media well, what exactly do you think their reaction will be?

                I was always brought up to respect others. I knew about gays when I was little (we had a couple in my apartment building) I treated them like every one else as did my parents who were of both lower socio-economic backgrounds and limited education. They were just “different” according to Mom.

  22. Interesting. Obviously have no idea is interpretation is accurate, but wouldn’t it be amazing if this was the type of dialog we could be having?

    • David Skekabim says:

      I like Mr. al-Musawi.

      He takes an honest intelligent approach and exudes wisdom. I find his words inspiring.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    So if we just leave the region to its own devices we must be willing to accept the outcome regarding human tragedy. I guess the USA presence in Syria is what caused these lunatics to wage war within Syria.

    One other “interesting tidbit” contained within this story. NOTE how the WORLD responds to aid when thousands of “refugees” flee war torn areas. Yet when those thousands of Central/South Americans flee to the USA to escape the war torn areas it is the USA’s responsibility to not only take care of them, but make them “citizens”.

    The rest of the world builds and funds “refugee camps/settlements”. We send out the Dem’s to get them registered, disperse them around the country, then wait for their “votes” to help “fundamentally change America”.

  24. How VLDG would only continue to manifest VBDG

    This unpublished article was written by Murray N. Rothbard in May 1961.


    Once Upon a Time there was a peaceful valley. The people were happy in this valley; they worked, they traded, and they laughed together. No man exerted force upon his neighbor, and all lived and prospered.

    One day there came to this valley a roaming band of marauders, led by a gang leader, whom we shall call Hector. This band came with machine guns, and, as was their custom, raped and looted at will among the people of the valley. As they were preparing, as usual, to put the whole valley to the torch (“for kicks,” as one of Hector’s Gang put it, succinctly), one of their number, a brilliant young intellectual whom we shall call Iago, stopped them. “Look, chief,” said Iago, “Why don’t we change our modus operandi? I’m getting pretty sick of all this roaming around, looking always for the next mark, the next victims, always on the run. This is an isolated spot, a beautiful spot. Let’s settle down here, and run these people’s lives. Then, we can milk them all the time, instead of killing them all and moving on.” Hector was a shrewd gang chief, and he saw the wisdom of the idea. The gang settled down.

    And so the robbery and the pillage became chronic instead of acute. Annual tribute was levied on the people, the Gang exercised power and dictation over them, and the Gang strutted about in uniforms, issuing orders. There was a great deal of resentment at first; the valley people muttered, and they began to form a People’s Resistance.

    Iago, the chief theoretician of Hector’s Gang, explained to the chief that another great change in their methods was due, to fit the changed conditions. “These people outnumber us, chief. Eventually, even though they have no guns now, these people could throw us out, and we’d lose the best deal we ever had. What we’ve got to do is to make them like it.” Making them like it was the great task of Iago and his group of fellow-theoreticians, and Hector and his boys marvelled at the results. Iago fed to the people arguments like the following: “This isn’t tribute, it’s ‘protection.’ We have to protect you for your own good. Otherwise, you’d start killing and looting each other.”

    “That’s right, he’s right,” the people muttered. Hector and his gang may be a bunch of rowdies, but at least he’s protecting us from ourselves.” For the memories of the people are short.

    And Iago went on: “This isn’t tribute, it’s ‘protection.’ We must protect you from those butcher-birds on the other side of the mountain.” And these words took on a plausibility, for Hector’s Gang, ever eager for loot, began to send probing parties on the other side of the mountain, and fighting periodically ensued. The people listened, and they agreed. “That’s right. Hector and his boys might be a bad lot. But at least they’re ours. They’re not a bunch of foreigners like those people on the other side of the mountain. We need protection from them.” The people forgot that there had been no trouble with the people on the other side of the mountain before. For the memories of the people are short.

    “This is great, chief, but we need more measures and more theories to keep these suckers contented,” said Iago. And Hector and Iago began to propagandize that all the people’s children must be educated in schools owned by and operated by Hector, Iago, and their Gang. They called these schools “Valley Schools”; the “people’s schools.” “Anyone who doesn’t educate his kid in a Valley School is undemocratic. He’s anti-social and hates the people. In fact, he’s Un-Valley.” Iago’s scholarly-inclined henchmen, calling themselves “economists” (“It’s got a good Greek sound, chief”), preached that “everyone really benefits from being forced to pay for and attend Hector’s Valley Schools because if A is educated, then B is better off, and therefore B should be forced to be educated, and A too….” And the people listened, and nodded their heads; and the scholarly-inclined among them listened and nodded their heads, too; and pretty soon they became members of Hector’s Gang, Scholarly Division.

    What wonders were achieved by Making Them Like It! Hector and his original gang sent for all their relatives for hundreds of miles around; and they all came and joined Hector’s gang, and lived off the fat of the land. The rate of tribute kept increasing, and so did the numbers of the Gang. As the “take” kept going up, the People began to grumble again. Iago and his men exhorted and admonished the grumblers: “You are all selfish,” they said, “because you don’t want to contribute and serve your brothers.” (The “brothers” were, of course, largely members of Hector’s Gang.) And the people, especially the moralists among them, nodded their heads and agreed. They agreed that anyone who kept opposing Hector and his Gang was “selfish, anti-social, and out for his own gain and greed.”

    And Hector and his Gang conscripted much of the valley people into a giant labor force to build the Gang a gigantic palace on top of the Valley’s leading hill. It was a beautiful and imposing palace, so everyone said. A few people grumbled at this coercion and waste. Iago and his men thundered: “You miserable creatures! Here is a great monument that we have built, a monument to the glory and destiny and grandeur of Our Valley. And you, slackers and penny-pinchers, would deny Our Valley its monument.” “He’s right,” the people said, glaring angrily at the grumblers. “This valley has the biggest palace of any valley in the land.”

    Periodically, Hector and his Gang would go fight the people on the other side of the mountain, to extend their territory and their area of loot. At these times, they needed more men to fight, and so they would again conscript valley people into their Gang. The conscripts, and all the people, were taught that any resistance to this conscription would not only be met with stern measures, but was also dire “treason” against the Valley and its rightful government, Hector’s Gang. The old battle standard that Hector and his men used to raise before going into the next town, Hector and Iago transformed into the “Valley’s Sacred Flag”; anyone who did not bow down to that flag – or sing the old chanty that Hector and his Gang had always sung before going off for a fight – was also branded a “traitor” and dealt with accordingly.

    Brilliant indeed were some of the theories that Iago and his men wove in the service of Hector and his Gang. For example, when an isolated Resister would point to the process of theft that was now organized and continuing, Iago’s men said: “You know, you may have been right for the previous historical era. Nowadays, times have changed, and our thinking must change to suit the modern age. In the pre-Hector Era, this process was indeed robbery. Nowadays, it is cooperation for the common good and the welfare of the people of the Valley. And one of the more brilliant of Iago’s Economists said: “You people don’t realize that the moneys taken from you by Hector and his men benefit you all enormously. For Hector and his men spend their money – do they not? – in your shops and your markets. By this spending they give you employment, they circulate the money supply, they keep up mass purchasing-power, which is vital to the Valley Economy, and they provide ‘built-in stability’ for the economic system of the Valley.” The people listened, and they marvelled at the wisdom. And Iago’s men put the theory into complex mathematical symbols; and the people marvelled, and Hector was overjoyed, and the more scholarly among the people listened, and they soon joined Iago’s Division of Scholars.

    We could go on indefinitely to delineate the fascinating social structure of this remarkable and surely unique valley. But the important point to note is that, by the marvel wrought by Iago’s propaganda, the status of Hector and his Gang had completely changed from the old and almost-forgotten days. Where once Hector and his Gang skulked like criminals, were regarded by everyone with great contempt and hatred as criminals, and were perpetually on the run, now a revolution had truly occurred. Hector, Iago, and the rest were not criminals but the Most Respected people in the land. Not only were they rich from their chronic annual loot; they were feted by all, loved and feared and honored by the people of the valley. Honors were heaped upon them all. And all because their theft had become regularized, openly proclaimed, and sweetly defended. Lolling on their divans, Hector contentedly said to Iago, “Boy, we never had it so good.” Clapping Hector on the back, Iago said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” And, in the meanwhile, Iago’s men were speaking on the hustings before the people: “Our times call for great sacrifices, for the willingness to give.” And the people listened, and they nodded their heads.


    Generally, people agreed, or resigned themselves, to the rule of Hector. Those few people, here and there, not swayed by Iagoan propaganda, were taken care of by the Gang. If they became too adamant, they were politely taken out and shot… as traitors to the Valley. “It’s too bad,” said the people, “and I thought I knew Jim. Of course, who could know that he was a traitor?” Everyone agreed that stern times called for stern measures.

    Meanwhile, what had happened to the remnants of the People’s Resistance? They had no guns, the Resisters, but they fought on in the realm of ideas. “The spirit, the idea, of liberty must be kept alive,” they said. And so they circulated among themselves their love for liberty and their recognition of who Hector and Iago and their men were and what they were doing. And the thing that gave them most sustenance was their shared credo: “Never forget. Hector is a thief. Hector is a murderer. Hector and his gang are crooks and tyrants, and, one day, they shall be kicked out of this Valley. Hector is a thief and murderer.” And what is Iago? Iago the Resisters held in greater horror even than Hector. For Iago, they pointed out, “is a man of intellect; his is a uniquely moral failure. And Iago is keeping the regime alive by prostituting his intellect in the service of himself and Hector, by dupingthe people into acceptance.”

    “Never forget about Hector and Iago,” they told each other. “Never forget.”

    One day there arose among the Resisters a leader; he was young and strong and highly intelligent – a man of the truly heroic virtues. Affectionately, the Resisters called him The Leader. The Leader scorned the counsel of the Old Ones among the Resisters: the Old Ones had advised the Resisters to write and speak against tyranny only in the abstract; never to “get specific,” never to mention Hector or Iago or any of their deeds. “The Hell with that,” the Leader thundered before a meeting of the Resisters. “No wonder the old ones are getting nowhere. We must write on the walls: Hector is a thief; Hector is a murderer; Iago is a prostitute and a consort of thieves and murderers. We shall drive them out!” The Resisters cheered this young man in a thunderous ovation. Their hearts were joyful; they had found their Leader.

    I have said before that Hector and Iago had effected a social revolution in the Valley. Before they had been criminals; now they were the most respectable and honored men of the valley. Now, on the contrary, it was the Resisters who were the social outcasts, who were branded criminals and traitors, who achieved no respectability at all. Now it was the Resisters who had to lead a furtive existence.


    One day, the Leader had a Revelation. He was struck by a New Concept. He was still young, but he now felt he had Matured. He called the Resistance together to explain: “I want you to know,” he proclaimed, “that I will never abandon the Resistance. Our end – complete liberty – shall always remain unchanged. [Cheers.] But these are new times and they require new concepts and new methods to achieve our common goal. [Puzzled Murmurings.] We have been repeating, again and again, the old slogans: Hector is a thief, Hector is a tyrant, and so forth. These slogans have become tired clichés: everybody knows them. [Murmurings: Everybody? Who but the Resisters have listened to them?] Furthermore, we can never convince anyone by remaining negative and always appearing to oppose change. Hector and Iago were in a sense right when they accused us of being sour and negative. From now on we must accent the positive! What we must do is show them: to show Hector and Iago and all the rest that our way is better than theirs. That we can achieve more good more efficiently by voluntary methods than they can by coercion. Let us abandon sterile and negative slogans, and let us show them by our actions and our deeds that the voluntary way is the better way.”

    The Leader was, as always, eloquent, and it was easy to sway the bulk of the Resisters. “Let’s at least give it a try,” said the bulk of these hungry, weary, and embattled men. And so the Leader went up and down the valley, preaching the new gospel of the Positive.

    Soon he found that, where once he was treated as an outcast among the Best People, he now found doors flung open wide in greeting. “You’re right,” said more and more of the wealthy and respected. “In the old days, when you and the others were going around denouncing Hector and Iago, you were just a bunch of radical crackpots. Now, by God, you’re doing something constructive. And you’re not making people mad by attacking folks and institutions that they respect.”

    Funds and support poured into the Leader’s New Resistance movement. The emphasis of the New Resistance was on the positive, voluntary way. “Hector and Iago claim that theirs is the best way to promote social welfare,” the Leader thundered in a speech. “Hector and Iago claim that compulsion is needed, for example, for the worthy goal of feeding and housing Hector’s relatives. But we know that the voluntary methods of private people can do that job better and more efficiently. Let us show them!” The crowd cheered, and soon funds poured in for such projects as the voluntary care and feeding of the relatives of Hector. “Never attack the high rates of tribute,” the Leader warned his men of the New Resistance; “if we show the whole valley that we can do the job by voluntary means, if we feed and clothe and house Hector’s relatives, for example, then Hector will eventually lower the rates of tribute. Let us be up and moving!”

    “Besides,” the Leader warned his men, “if we engage in negative thinking, if we attack Hector and the others, we will lose the exemption from tribute which they have kindly granted us. Let us always be practical!” “Yes, let us always be practical,” the men agreed

    And so the money poured in… from Resistance men and others, voluntarily swelling the coffers of Hector and his Gang. The old Resistance men abandoned their old negative preaching, and got down to the hard, practical task of raising voluntary gifts for Hector’s pet projects – to show Hector and all the rest the superiority of the Voluntary Way. And what was the reaction of Hector and Iago and the rest? They sat at their periodic board meeting ofthe Gang, reviewing the new stance of the Leader and the Resistance, and they did only one thing: they laughed, and they laughed, and they laughed. And finally Iago recovered a bit, and he said: “So, the sheep themselves have supplied us with their own Judas goat!”, and they roared again with laughter.

    It was not long before the Leader was wined and dined by Hector, Iago, and the rest, was asked to serve on consulting committees, was asked to demonstrate ever more in action how the voluntary way could add to the Gang’s coffers. At a great annual convention of the Gang, with many Resistance men this time invited, Iago, in his speech, turned to the Leader, now seated also at the dais, and he said: “Let us never forget, my friend, that our ends remain always the same. It is only our means that differ. Let us employ both yours and our means, and then let us achieve our common goal in the best way.” [Resounding cheers from everyone.]

    And so, what even Iago, with all his wiles, had been unable to quite achieve, was now achieved; and peace and harmony had been fully restored to the valley. The Resisters were now loyal, positive, generous, and their former bitterness and hatred had been transmuted into friendly and willing cooperation with Hector and his Gang.

    Of course, there are always a few malcontents in every society, a few rotten apples in every barrel. A couple of the Resisters began to mutter: “The Leader said tribute would go down, if we voluntarily supplied the rest; but, instead, tribute has gone up.” (“There are new needs for a troubled time,” said Iago’s men; “Patience, we shall demonstrate,” said the Leader’s men.) One malcontent Resister said to another: “At least in the time of the Old Ones we could attack robbery and tyranny in the abstract; now we can’t even do that.” And, secretly, covertly, in the dead of night, tiny groups of dissenting Resisters met, and told one another: “Hector is a thief. Hector is a murderer….”

    And one day a wondrous thing came to pass. As the Leader strode confidently to a meeting with Hector and the others in Hector’s splendid palace, he chanced to look into one of the fine mirrors in the hall. Truly, a miracle had been wrought; for when the Leader looked into the mirror, the face he saw was the face of Hector.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Had the Valley people had an army, Hector would have had to tuck tail and run to some other place from the get go.

      • Then, they would already be Hector, wouldn’t they?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          • Yes!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              As always, you are wrong.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Perhaps you do not understand the willingness of free people to voluntarily fund an Army necessary to defend their freedom.

              Seems to me that the story you told was about your little tribe. All happy and peaceful until the bully showed up with guns and buddies. Apparently the “militia” you formed was not enough to stop him.

              This is human history my friend. Your ideal may be the future some day, but so far it has always been interrupted by bullies with guns and buddies. So it seems to me that your concept requires spontaneous creation on a global scale. Then it must survive long enough to allow the cultural norms to be established in order to defend against those bullies.

              Most of humanity is peaceful, most of the time. But some of humanity is not. You have yet to adequately describe how the peaceful can thrive in a world with those who are not. At least not in your “anarchist” context.

              • “Perhaps you do not understand the willingness of free people to voluntarily fund an Army necessary to defend their freedom.”

                That’s not an army.
                That’s a militia.

                As I said, you do not understand the difference.
                An army is a military force created by the State.
                A militia is a military force created by the people.

                The goals are UTTERLY DIFFERENT.

  25. Here you go D13——–Official: New airstrikes under way; planes targeting refineries used by ISIS

    • Yep, thought the price of gas was dropping too fast. Imagine, now we make war to sustain the high cost of oil as part of the reason to push alternative energy sources.

      • Or maybe they are just trying to cut off their money supply.

        • Do you believe that will do it?
          Not at all.

        • VH……BF is correct, it will not cut off the money supply….disrupt it, nominally perhaps. ISIS source of revenue is not just from this. You may not be old enough to remember, but try to think Cold War era.( not the same players but the same philosophy ).

          Hitting refineries does only one thing….it eliminates locally refined products to power equipment….( gasoline or diesel ) It will require them to go outside of local areas to procure burnable fuels. Easier to track…although, they will come in through Turkey, who is a pseudo ally….Forcing them to go outside only slows immediate supply….any slow down is viewed as good…….( Study the final German push in WWII in the Ardennes offensive )

          I would do it a different way but that is the reasoning.

          • I wasn’t suggesting it would cut off all their access to money. 🙂

            You said this-“Wonder why we are not bombing the assets of this group….they are supposedly raking in 3-5 million per day from captured oil fields. We know where they are, and we know who is driving the trucks in to pick up the oil through Turkey……now… seems to me that if we bomb the oil fields and blow up every single method of transportation and cut off the majority of the money supply……

            naaah….that is too logical,….”-What is the difference in what they actually did and what you were suggesting they do?

            • I see the confusion…..that was me tactically speaking. It is what I would do. However, there are long term economic consequences to my tactical thinking. Often, the two do not go together…..

              What BF brought out about oil supply is true to a certain extent. Blowing up an oil well cuts of the supply of crude. His theory is that once the supply is cut, another supply has to replace it. (1) Either a new oil supply somewhere or (2) the world oil supply has to fill the void, thereby, reducing the amount of availability and driving up price. It is theory but a sound one,

              Now, taking out a refinery means local supply. The amount of crude is still being supplied by the well to the spot market but the flow is reversed. ISIS will have to find a refined source. So, crude still hits the spot market…supply still there but refined crude is another subject. AND…..refined crude is not an issue with the United States although it would be a local issue economically in that part of the world.

              All of this also has to be figured into a war…..even in WWII, the Germans did not want to bomb our supplies of fuel….it was needed.

              So, the theory is also sound, to take out refinery capacity. Also a sound decision, that would not affect world supply of crude and also would not affect supply and demand in the US.

              • Now, given this, and putting my tactical non field hat on……thinking……..first blush says that Turkey or Iraq in the South or some other close refinery has to manufacture crude into burnable fuel…then it has to be transferred…..that will take time and create a trail. That also puts transportation assets at risk….not just ISIS transportation but that of whomever is going to ship it. By the way, the same trucks that transport crude cannot transport refined. Different materials in the transportation tankers prevent refined use.

                Interesting tactic and economics is a great weapon.

              • D13,

                I will say that -in general- your analysis that refineries tend to deliver their effect locally is accurate, however, refinery capacity is very thin and globalized.

                We, up in the frozen north, ship end-products throughout the continent and the world because refineries especially in the West are not being built anymore (due to Econuts).

                Considerable end-product goods are being imported from foreign refineries to make up the shortfall.


                US Imports of gasoline/weekly

                Disruptions to refineries is -indeed- felt locally first, but the ripples extend globally. Whether this will change your fuel price …. the US is going into the typical low-consumption time of the year (end of summer holiday travel), so supplies maybe able to absorb the loss; the effect will be static price instead of the normal seasonal drop.

              • D13
                “Interesting tactic and economics is a great weapon”

                Nope, not in this case.

                This is the case of the US thinking their opponent is like them.

                If the US army was a country for comparisons of consumption, it would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.

                ISIS is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower than that. They drive pickup trucks, not tanks.

                Further, they will take priority of any fuel goods, at the desperate loss to the innocent people in the area who already are suffering from shortages.

                This will do nothing against ISIS, and merely starve the people – raising the ire of the people against the US, not ISIS, because it is a foreign government 3,000 miles away doing the destruction, not ISIS.

            • As usual, the tactic does little to the target, but grievously harms the people suffering under them.

              It is the old, brute, barbaric “Total War Doctrine” at work – attack the people because the West views them as war material.

      • SK.

        So now the loss of production is a bad thing for you, when before you argued it was a good thing for you.

        • Short term vs. long term. Strategic vs. tactical.

          In addition, if I were conspiratorial, I would say that the Oil Companies and OPEC want it to go up just enough and just slow enough to NOT awaken the dragon. I think that I pointed out it would have to be something on the order of WW 2’s rationing for an extended period that would finally bring the public support to the point where it overcomes stupidity and the vested interests.

          Generally there has been a good marketing strategy from big oil. Have a crisis, raise the price .50 per gal. of gas, crisis de-escalates, price drops back .25 cents, everybody breathes a sigh of relief and then kisses the asses of the politicians and oil companies because they are now “saving” .25 cents.

          • I already posted the fallacy to thinking attack oil is “short term”. You do not understand the oil industry very well.

            Your political theory has already been dismissed – you have no history to demonstrate your claim whatsoever – but that never stopped you from making up fairy tales.

            You do not understand the oil marketing. You believe these guys are working in a cabal, setting prices at a whim to gouge you. The failure of your understanding comes from this question: “If that is so, why don’t they do this all the time?”

            But as an economic illiterate and ignorant fellow, it is no surprise you continue make up stories about the industry to suit your fantasy.

            • Well, if government works as a cabal, what makes you think industry does not especially when you are dealing with a quasi Fascist state working arm in arm. So, big government is totally evil but big business, well, they must be on eh side of the angels! Hey, I got news for you, big anything must be watched.

              You have absolutely no clue what the hell I am talking about or conveniently shift the topic or don’t “understand” the points made. As I said the other day, exactly what do you get out of acting stupid?

              Like your answer above “the missiles are now expected to survive” ,. What hat did you pull that rabbit out of? Numbers rightly or wrongly go down, you refuse to acknowledge it. Initial point was that a smaller number of lower yield nukes make a nuclear war more likely. Point disappeared into some tirade about “numbers”, throw weight, yield etc.

              I give you Joseph Goebbels words. Study them. “The only thing more dangerous than believing the enemies propaganda is believing your own”. From “Inside The Third Reich” by Albert Speer.

              • “Well, if government works as a cabal, what makes you think industry does not especially when you are dealing with a quasi Fascist state working arm in arm.”

                People like you scarce me about the future viability of the human race. People like you have children, and further infect their minds with nonsense – and worse, utterly refuse to re-educate themselves.

                So here you are saying “government is a cabal, and industry working with government is a cabal, but BF thinks government working with industry is not a cabal!”

                No, IT IS A CABAL. You’re idiotic strawman loses again.

                ” So, big government is totally evil but big business, well, they must be on eh side of the angels! Hey, I got news for you, big anything must be watched.”

                The only way something becomes so big to be necessary to watch is because that entity was given edicts and grants from violent power to exercise exclusively.

                As usual, you create what you fear, SK.

                “Like your answer above “the missiles are now expected to survive” ,. What hat did you pull that rabbit out of? ”

                Damn, man – you don’t even read your own article. I cannot imagine how confused you must operate on a daily basis.

                ” Initial point was that a smaller number of lower yield nukes make a nuclear war more likely.”

                And I already pointed out that 1) there is no “smaller” number. Removing 30,000 nuke bombs created because 90% wouldn’t make to target is not “a smaller number” to the 5,000 nuke missiles where 99% will make to target.

                The fact, no nuclear weapons makes nuclear war IMPOSSIBLE.

                You, of course, arguing the opposite, directly in the face of any reason.

  26. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Really Wants Poor People To Stop Having Babies
    September 24, 2014 By Mollie Hemingway

    Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:

    Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

    Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice. My favorite part of the interview was that Bazelon didn’t even pause for a second. Just went on to her next question. Bazelon later said, unconvincingly, that she thought Ginsburg was just saying that other people had wanted Roe because they were eugenicists, or something.

    People who aren’t as gung-ho about the snuffing out of young life as your typical mainstream media journalist noted this interview and discussed the deep ties of abortion and birth control to the progressive eugenics movement. Jonah Goldberg reminded us of the long-forgotten fact of Margaret Sanger’s racist eugenics along with Oliver Wendell Holmes’ passion for “sterilizing imbeciles.” Goldberg noted that some more recent liberals have been outspoken about the need to encourage pregnant women to “get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster.” How about this chilling little snippet:

    In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible. “(Y)ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. . . . Think of all the poverty, crime and misery . . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.” Weddington offered a clue about who, in particular, he had in mind: “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.” Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it.

    Michael Gerson was also deeply worried by the Bazelon interview of Ginsburg. He pointed out how clearly Ginsburg was calling for certain “populations” to be reduced and reminded readers of something many in the media aren’t so concerned about — the dignity of all humans, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

    It is estimated that the Hyde Amendment limiting Medicaid abortions has saved 1 million lives since its passage in 1976 — some, no doubt, became criminals and some, perhaps, lawyers and judges. It is a defining question for modern liberalism: Are these men and women “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” or are they citizens worthy of justice and capable of contribution?

    I thought of all this when I read through another interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know how you have friends who complain about a super-old relative who just starts spouting racist stuff and can’t be quieted down? This is what interviews with Ginsburg remind me of. Also it doesn’t help that she keeps falling asleep during important speeches and oral arguments and just doesn’t care. I’m not saying she’s just like a crazy old racist great-aunt who keeps embarrassing us and we can’t do anything about it, but that’s basically what I’m saying.

    Anyway, in an interview with Elle, she says her kid and grandkid don’t get how awful it would be to not have legal approval for snuffing out one’s growing baby in the womb. And then when she’s trying to say that protections for unborn children hurt poor women more than wealthy women since wealthy women can just pay the baby away, she lets that old eugenics thing slip again:

    It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

    I get that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most important champions of abortion and that those people who think people should be able to end some lives after they’ve begun just love her to pieces. And I get that the birth control and abortion rights movements have always had deep ties to eugenics, population control, and master race-type stuff. I get all that.

    But it’s all kind of unseemly, no? It would be one thing if she were talking about the importance of promoting birth among all groups of people as a way of affirming the sacredness of life or what not, but her long-standing focus on how some “populations” shouldn’t be encouraged to have babies and should have subsidized abortion is beyond creepy. We get it, RBG, your social circles think life would be so much better if you didn’t have to deal with those awful poor people and their unapproved backgrounds and living conditions. But you’re supposed to be a tad bit better in covering up those motivations, mmmkay?

  27. “If America was built on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, today’s leftist death cult devalues the first and destroys the second in pursuit of the third. And, in the end, there will be no happiness, for happiness is not ceaseless hedonism but living a moral and responsible life. Apparently, we dismissed that definition of happiness long ago. The result: an un-civilization of Leyla Josephines and Ezekiel Emanuels.”

  28. BF, you gave two definitions of a universal principle and I can see that. IF the same principle was applied by all, it becomes universal. I get that.

    ” Freedom from the imposition of others “. A great principle but hardly universal….Universal meaning that it simply does not exist in this world. If you and I have this principle. then it is universal between us…no one else.

    However, Universal, meaning the world…….it is impossible.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Actually, studies of ethics and morality have shown that the “most universal” moral standard is the summarized as the “non-initiation of force”. In many cultures it simply means that murder and violence against innocent is viewed as immoral.

      What is not agreed is “how” such standards are or were established. Can reason be used to identify “universally true moral principles”? BF argued long ago that morality is “individual” and can not be established “objectively”. This leave only “subjectively”. Which eliminates complete “universal acceptance”. Quite the conundrum these left wingers suffer.

      While wide spread in terms of geography and numbers, it is obviously not held by the TYRANTS. That is where the whole Anarchist thing fails. TYRANTS seek power over others and they do not need a Govt to IMPOSE THEIR WILL upon others. All they need is superior firepower, enough who will go along, and a population who hopes it will pass with time. While they do not need Govt to take control, they will establish one quickly in hopes of validating their violence.

      By the time it passes they have forgotten what it was they lost. In this respect BF’s long story makes a valid point. People can be molded in large enough numbers to make the Tyrant safe from retaliation. And like I said the other day, they will do quite well as long as they don’t go past that ill defined line that is “one step to far” or the proverbial “straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

      • JAC

        Geezus. You -again- pretend to make my argument for me, and utterly screw it up.

        I said morals and principles ARE individual – and ARE objective. The objective capacity is obtained by the lack of contradiction.

        If you exercise your principle without contradiction, you have a moral principle. If you cannot exercise your principle without contradicting yourself, you are IMMORAL.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Your argument is that contradiction is the primary measure of moral vs. immoral.

          A very unique position, pretty much limited to your own opinion. Just how does the existence of a contradiction dictate that a principle is immoral?

          Perhaps you should start with your definition of MORALS.

          And you most certainly did argue that morality is “subjective” and could not be identified by “objective” means. We went round and round on that point. With you reciting scientific processes as examples of “objective” thinking and why the philosophy of morality could not therefore be objective.

          So cut to what you actually believe now. Can morals be objectively identified or not? And why is “contradiction” the means of attaining objectivity? Seems you are mixing “logic” with “objective”.

          I see logic as just one process within the “objective” pursuit. Perhaps rational thinking would be a better term.

          • “Your argument is that contradiction is the primary measure of moral vs. immoral.”

            The absolute of the Universe is contradictions do not exist in reality, hence, can only exist in the minds of people.

            Anyone who attempts to manifest a contradiction created within their own mind to become reality is immoral – this being against the Universe, and must ALWAYS require violence to create.

            Operating in a manner of contradiction removes REASON from the person’s action.

            Morals exist to promote and expand the life of humans. To act OPPOSITE of promotion of life is IMMORAL.

      • Hi JAC……how are things your way” Spousal unit doing ok? Fresh air………

        Things are hopping down here at the border….seeing strange things that are not immigrant related.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Spousal Unit Leader is enjoying her first summer off since childhood. So far she has not missed all the action of her career. Although she does miss many of the people she worked with.

          Air is a little hazy, on and off, these days, thanks to California. But most of it is going south of us.

          This morning is clear, sunny and a crisp 48 degrees.

    • I did not give two definitions – I gave two examples; one that is and one that isn’t.

      No. You are philosophically confused.

      A principle is a choice. It does not declare that it will be your choice.

      A universal principle is a choice which can be chosen by everyone, and it will not contradict itself.

      It does not mean you will choose it.

      • OK…..I just did not say it the same way….but agree.

        So, let’s take a universal principle “which can be chosen” and it will not contradict itself. A single principle that can be chosen by all. I never have reviewed the concept of universal principle… I decided to do some research. I found several areas that refer to universal principle and even lists them and then go on to say they are not attainable. They are not attainable because principles that can be chose are not chosen for a variety of reasons…(Religion, Culture, etc)

        Ok….so, philosophically speaking, there are universal principles that follow what is often termed natural law. BUT… is all philosophical.

        So, I have not been able to come up with one single principle that is universal except by some philosophical definition. Every example that I found requires the “acceptance” of Universal design….a Philosophy or the acceptance of Natural Law….another philosophical tract.

        Now, let us do something strange……reality. In reality, is there a principle any where in this world that is “universally accepted” and that does not contradict itself? I am open to suggestion and discussion. I will start with just one of a list of universal principles that comes from “The 7 Principles of Universal Design”… was developed by a group of people at North Carolina University.

        Principle 1: Equitable Use
        The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

        Ok…sounds good so far…..then it goes on to say that you must adopt guidelines:

        1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not.
        1b. Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users.
        1c. Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users.
        1d. Make the design appealing to all users.

        As I read this, to adhere to principle one….requires acceptance of specific guidelines or perhaps one can use the term, law.

        But I am willing to listen…..Bf, what is one principle that is universally accepted, without contradiction?

        • D13,

          It is not an argument at all that because humans cannot be perfect, human action therefore cannot attempt to exercise toward such perfection.

          Jordon is not a perfect basketball player, therefore, he shouldn’t play at all. Well, that is nonsense, right?

          The fundamental philosophy is that the goal is the ACTION. Since outcomes and consequences are unknown (as they are future based), the best Man can do is select actions which, by PRINCIPLE, lead to MORE favorable outcomes and away for lest favorable.

          This does not mean it will always provide benefit and always avoid loss.

          Now, for many people, since a principle is not a guarantee, they DROP THE PRINCIPLE and instead lead a very unprincipled life.

          But understand what they have done.

          They are operating under the same fundamental philosophy.
          The WORST a man can do is select actions without a principle, which leads to worse outcomes and away from better ones.

          But because of their mindset, they rationalize this failure as “well, SOMETIME I might win”.

          Yes, putting a chip on a roulette number will sometimes win, but these people discard the understanding that they almost always otherwise lose more.

          People do not understand almost everything.
          People do not understand philosophy.
          People do not understand economics.

          To most, it was a utterly boring class one semester in school that held no interest.

          Yet, these two things are utterly fundamental to understanding human action and human choice – and nearly anyone knows this stuff.

          Hence, most people choose poorly.

          • …a bit more.

            Most people are like SK or Charlie.

            They believe that if they do not accept philosophy, philosophy has NO EFFECT upon their lives.

            They believe that if they do not accept economics, economic theory has NO EFFECT upon their lives.

            They think, analogous, that if they do not think gravity exists, then the effects of gravity will not apply to them – and then they go about their lives believing gravity is not working, until they realize a second before they crush on the ground that maybe leaping off a cliff was not a good idea.

            Same here. Merely because “you don’t believe in philosophy or economics” does not suddenly REMOVE THE EFFECTS of philosophy or economics.

            These sciences exist to discover those effects, and NOT MANIFEST AND CREATE THEM.

            This is also where most people are confused. They thinks economics CREATES SYSTEMS out of the minds of economists, just like creating a new gadget phone. They think philosophers CREATES SYSTEMS of human thought by whim, like the phone. If you don’t want the phone, you don’t get it and neither get the benefits or costs.

            BUT IN ECONOMICS and PHILOSOPHY, discarding knowledge … guess what? You STILL GET THE COSTS AND BENEFITS, but now, you have no idea how to get more of such benefits and less of such costs!

            Thus, their self-enforced ignorance keeps them struggling.

        • All men shall be free from the imposition of another man

        • Your example is not a principle of philosophy, but a principle of web site development.

          Don’t try to use the latter for the former.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh but I have heard this before. At least another form of it.

    Mr. Obama is going to designate more “National Monument” in the Pacific Ocean, in order to protect it. Commercial fishing and drilling/mining are prohibited.


    “The memorandum bans commercial fishing, deep-sea mining and other extraction of underwater resources, by recreational fishing will continue to be allowed. White House officials said they decided to allow some fishing in an attempt to preserve and encourage the public’s access to federal areas.”

    That last sentence has a TRUE MEANING behind it. One I witnessed during the Salmon Recovery process. It is not to encourage “use” but to prevent public revolt. As the Asst. Director of US Fish and Wildlife Service said to me directly, “If we enforced the Endangered Species Act per the law we would lose the law.”

    • It is going to take States denying the Governments authority. The same thing happened off the Texas coast not too long ago…..the Feds tried to use the guise of protecting sand dunes and a rare strand of growth called “sea oats”…..not to mention sea turtles and the nesting areas of some bird species. They tried to enforce t endangered Species Act and extend the boundaries to three miles…..

      The State of Texas said….naaah………that ain’t going to happen. The result……oil platforms have been drilled, people are on the beaches, families having fun….and still protecting the migration of sea turtles and birds and nesting grounds……which, I have found, most people want to do anyway.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Good morning my Texican friend.

        So here is the key question. What would or could Texas do about it if POTUS declared a National Monument for those same waters?

        What can Texas really do if the Fed Govt decides to enforce the Federal Laws as they deem fit?

        Best to you and your family this fine morning. The cutthroat on the St. Joe were abundant, slightly reluctant but willing to play tag.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    I had forgotten this “oath” and thought ya’ll might be interested in it. You might be able to guess where I was last evening.

    “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

    This oath would be reflective of a core principle, for those interested in such things.

    • JAC,

      Yet, you oft propose to contradict that principle constantly at your whim.

      It’s not the fault of the principle, but of one’s own lack of principle.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Wrong again, and as is the case quite often.

        I have never proposed that anyone live for the sake of another. NEVER.

        In fact V.H. and I went round and round on the concept of our “moral responsibility” towards other people. You may recall that discussion as I think you were included.

        Your accusations against my principles are usually based on some assumption you have made due to what I might post. As I have often urged you to do, stop and read the posting. Consider that it is offered for the sake of discussion and learning. Don’t assume just because people post things here that they believe it or agree with it.

        The other times it is because I do not share your definitions. But such is the nature of any human thought. We may not all agree. If I do not agree with you it is because you have not made a case strong enough for me to change my views.

        • JAC
          “Wrong again, and as is the case quite often.”

          Nope, you’re wrong. You have been off-base for quite awhile, sadly.

          “I have never proposed that anyone live for the sake of another. NEVER.”

          Of course you have! You advocate that taxes need to be taken from me so that you can fund your whim and military, regardless if I myself see little or no need to do so.

          You contradict yourself at the roots – and pretend you are not doing so. You want to live off my effort because you believe your personal security is more important then the principle.

          • As far as making a “strong case”, that is nonsense.

            It is you merely unwilling to reverse your contradictions. It is not a matter of making a case.

            The strong case is the seizure of reason – and if you refuse to seize that, as if that alone is not strong enough, it is no fault of mine.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You consistently ignore the realities of Human Behavior and history. Yet claim a monopoly on the use of reason here. Kind of a strange accusation given your refusal to face the reality of what is going on in the world or how things would play out if we adopted your Anarchist views.

              • JAC

                “You consistently ignore the realities of Human Behavior and history. Yet claim a monopoly on the use of reason here. Kind of a strange accusation given your refusal to face the reality of what is going on in the world or how things would play out if we adopted your Anarchist views.”

                Like so many, you fall into unintelligent nonsense.

                Philosophy does not ignore behavior. It is a reasoned, organized, body of work that explains WHICH behavior provides the OPTIMUM benefit for a man.

                What behavior you choose is not created by philosophy – it is created by your choices.

                Same with economics. Economics does not DICTATE choices. It explains CONSEQUENCES of your choices. By understanding the consequences, you have a means to CHOOSE BETTER.

                Same with philosophy.

                Does that mean men will choose better? Maybe not.

                But what you advocate is to ignore such work, because in your little mind, it is pointless to use reason because some people do not use reason.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I have not advocated that taxes be taken from you, for the military or any other purpose.

            I have on occasion stated that I think the vast majority of us would willingly contribute taxes to cover a military focused on our National Defense. I know I would.

            I support a “flat tax” for such purposes because those of us willing to contribute would do so equally. None living for the sake of others and none gaining anything more. Except of course folks like you who would not contribute.

            That would only leave a debate over how much is needed for Defense vs. to satisfy the ambitions of a despot.

            If you do not wish to have your freedom protected then you are free to live without making a contribution. When the flit hits the shan, I and my friends will remember how you contributed to the effort. You can expect us to treat you accordingly.

            • JAC

              This is exactly what I mean about your contradictions

              “I have not advocated that taxes be taken from you, for the military or any other purpose.”
              “I support a “flat tax” ”

              Either you do not understand the concept of taxes, OR you contradict yourself.

              The fact that McDonald’s charges you the same price for the same burger as it charges me is not a “tax”.

              Further, you imply another economic fallacy of “Free rider”. No such thing exists. It is an upside down understanding of economic theory.

              Every trade, which benefits both parties if they trade, is INDIVIDUAL, between a buyer and a seller. There is no third party that needs to be recognized or introduced.

              I build a wall to guard my family because I have determined the value of that security as it applies to me. I do not need to consider what that security for my family has to do with you. I do not buy a car with the necessity of considering if YOU need a ride to town.

              Me having a car creates an opportunity to give you a ride to town, but that never was my consideration to buy the car. I do not pick a price for my car with the thought that “heck, now I have to weigh my cost with giving JAC a free ride in it”.

              Same with security.
              I build the wall to guard my family.
              If matters not if it guards you too.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                TAX = Fees paid to the Government. It matters not whether you pay them voluntarily or under threat. Both are TAXES but one is voluntary and the other coerced.

                • “TAX = Fees paid to the Government. It matters not whether you pay them voluntarily or under threat. Both are TAXES but one is voluntary and the other coerced.”

                  Again, you require to pervert definitions.

                  Taxes are not “Fees”, nor are they voluntary.

                  “a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government ”

                  You getting a passport from government, which has a fee, is not a tax.
                  You paying a portion of your income by compulsion to the government is a tax.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Your counter argument is one huge fallacy.

                The discussion is not YOUR families security. It is the security of a larger population, called Nation, and the cultural and economic/political system within it.

                You can sit by and watch if you like. I am not coercing you to participate. Just don’t expect my army to defend your property if we have other pressing places to defend.

                So you see, I avoided your “free rider” argument all together. You get defacto protection. You choose to not pay for it. You still get it. But because I am not using Govt to FORCE you I and my friends are certainly free to shun you. Remember that is the “non violent” way to get what people want in terms of behavior.

              • No, JAC, it is you holding the fallacy.

                My security is ALWAYS individual. It is nothing else.

                Your pretense is that the level of my security must match your own desired level of security, but that is utterly WRONG-HEADED.

                I may wish to have more or wish to have less. What you want for yourself in that matter is IRRELEVANT.

                You still ply the free rider fallacy. You pretend if I don’t subsidize YOUR security, I am a “bad guy”, you still pretend MY PRESENCE as a third party outside your own exchange somehow is relevant.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Looks like my Mariners will sit out another playoff season. Dang nab it!

    So far my prediction on the Vikings has been a total whiff. Never saw the Peterson thing coming or the lack of response to injuries.

    Meanwhile my Seahawks are showing serious vulnerability. Good thing SF decided to take the first three weeks off. Arizona is looming as a real threat in the west.

  32. I like this idea. It beats sending a bunch of 18-25 yr old kids in to do the dirty work. It would save our troops for defending the homeland which is probably more along the lines of why these kids signed up to begin with. It would put people who are in it for the purpose of stopping bad guys around the world in a position to do what needs to be done. The purpose would be to stop the bad guys..not nation building or other social engineering. I already know what BF is going to say…what about the rest of you? I’m just going to post some of the transcript. Don’t kill the messenger, Bill O’Reilly, I just want to know if I’m off base liking the idea:

    Here’s how it would work:

    The fighters would be recruited by the U.S.A. and trained in America by our special forces. U.S. Army rules of engagement would be followed — strict discipline formed by the Geneva Convention.

    America would be in charge of selecting who makes the cut and how they are deployed, with an eye on a 25,000-person force.

    American and NATO officers would lead the mercenary army, and the U.S.A. would also provide logistical support, basing the first-trained soldiers in Kurdistan.

    The force would be called “the anti-terror army,” and the cost paid by the coalition that President Obama is trying to put together.

    That means all countries that want intelligence and protection from the U.S.A. and NATO would have to chip in.

    If you don’t pay, you get no help.

    The elite-force would be English-speaking, and because paychecks would be issued, soldiers currently in armed forces around the world would not be eligible.

    Only American and NATO officers in command would be exempt from that.

    Each soldier would sign a contract, a three-year commitment. And again, they would be well paid.

    Finally, it would help a lot if the U.S. Congress would formally declare war on terrorism and stop trying to coax reluctant, sometimes cowardly countries into fighting Islamic terrorism.

    Look, these Islamic terrorists are here to stay. They are going to kill as many people on this Earth as they can.

    Just over the weekend, the ISIS group released a statement:

    “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy French, or an Australian, or a Canadian or any other disbeliever, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”

    That statement from ISIS was put out on the internet, obviously urging mass murder.

    So an anti-terror force will eventually have to be raised. Let’s see if President Obama has the foresight and guts to do it now.

    • Sorry… I messed up. Wanted to include this part too.

      So we need ground forces.

      However, the American people, perhaps rightly so, do not want to send any more of our troops into these chaotic countries.

      But what about a mercenary army?

      Elite fighters who would be well paid and well trained to defeat terrorists all over the world

      Continue with the first post

      …and now I’m taking off to split & stack wood for the afternoon.

      • Well, that is one of the ways that the Roman Empire began to fall.

        A discussion has to begin. What are we willing to die for? If there is nothing worth dying for then there is sure as hell nothing worth living for. A good philosophical discussion.

        Rather than recruit mercs to fill our legions because we are too full of ourselves or too distracted by our circuses or too over medicated to fight for ourselves, it would be better to call off the wars.

        Fifty years ago, when in High School I came up with the thought, probably because I saw the handwriting on the wall for Vietnam that the best policy would be to ignore anything done within the confines of a countries borders. If they want to kill all the left handed, blue eyed Christians, fine, it was their business. nasty, but none of our business. If they cross a border. Then we nuke the bastards. One warning, 24 hours to withdraw then Armageddon for their leaders and probably their capital. I sort of thought that while this was extreme to the max, after one or two times, it would pretty much forever solve the problem. Pax Americana. The rest of the world would hate us. So, they hate us now for our bumbling attempts at doing the right thing.

        I could also see this concept morphing into “a new world order” . Sure as hell be hard to decide when to bring in other countries as members of the exclusive “bomb the bad guy club” but it could be done. This is what I get for reading too much Robert Heinlein.

        • No.
          The Roman Empire began to fall when it could no longer pay for its empire.
          It began to debase its currency to the point that the troops could not buy food to maintain themselves, so they left.

          • Look, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Please note, I said it was, “ONE OF THE WAYS, not the only way, not the exclusive way, not everything! Will you please stop being such an unmitigated pompous ass.

          • Another reason was the lead in the water and wine. Then Gibbons blamed Christianity. Some might say it started with the end of the Republic, Cicero for example.

            • The challenge with other theories is they try to pin-point the time to be approx. the time of collapse.

              But all of that presumes a broad, near simultaneous occurrence that with further inspection simply cannot be so pervasive.

              There are few pervasive events that strike “everywhere”: geological, climate, economics.

              The tipping point appears to be the perverse economics of Rome


            • Further, and additionally to a side-point you infer, it is probably not ONE thing, either.

              It is likely economics with political change (ie: Christianity) or climate (Global warming) or politics (farmers leaving their fields fallow due to high taxes).

              However, reviewing other historical events, one can see that it is the economics that is the keystone. There are strong Christian/Islam/etc. civilizations – that persevere due to strong economics.

              The nut of history: as long as the economics is strong, the other disruptions are mitigated and resolved. As long as the economic is weak, nearly any disruption undermines social order.

  33. David Skekabim says:

    @ SK

    Sorry I didn’t respond sooner. I got kinda busy yesterday.

    Issues with accepting gay members of our community is one small example of how society destroys individual freedom and rights through imposing conformity of a popular standard.

    We are indoctrinated from birth into a society that tells us we are crap for not living up to the expectations and standards of others. Often these things are coerced as a matter of law. If you are not A B or C, then you are a piece of shit that does not deserve respect or a place in the modern world. It is completely counter intuitive to the ideas and principles of freedom and individual rights.

    I have, on many occasions, called out fundamentalist Christians as bigots, and I stand by that. It is my way of slapping them and saying “Look what you’re doing!”, and more specifically to test their response in order to gauge what is typical or common.

    I got Jesus’ message loud and clear, and it is very different from what so many claimed Christians espouse through what they’re being taught at church. Something beautiful got butchered and exploited by an overgrown cult.

    I found something The Bible which is nothing less that phenomenal and extraordinary. I am still trying to grasp it. What could or should be a world changing message of hope, something to strive for, a reason to get our act together, is instead a paradoxical nightmare and almost unbearable maddening burden, a prison of silence, enslavement to my own power, a weapon of mass destruction. Partly because people will wholly reject it in favor of the lie they have been brainwashed into believing….even to the point of fighting to their deaths over.

    That’s what it is really about. A way to test the masses through a simple lesson about freedom and individualism. I am estimating the potential death toll through a microcosm.

    Someone[s] knew before I did, and instead of reaching out to me, instead of taking a forthright approach, have done nothing but aggravate and manipulate me. I am getting beat up by all sides in ways that most cannot even fathom. It feels like I am a tennis ball being smacked around.

    My answer, in spite of my enormous frustration, is to preach love.

    …with the exception of extending it to those who attempt to pirate my idealism and refuse to cut the shit.

  34. “Do unto others as you would have them, do unto you”. So simple!

  35. Just A Citizen says:
%d bloggers like this: