Supressing the Majority

A man who was shot after authorities say he beheaded one woman and attacked another at an Oklahoma food processing plant from which he had just been fired has regained consciousness and was interviewed by detectives Saturday.

Alton Nolen, 30, remains hospitalized in stable condition after Thursday’s attack at the Vaughan Foods plant in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, Police Sgt. Jeremy Lewis said. He said that Nolen will be charged Monday with first-degree murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon and that he may also face federal charges.

I have noticed the media and most politicians bending over backwards to not call this terrorism or link it in any way with Middle East violence or radical Islam.  And to be fair, it’s not unusual for someone to go crazy and start killing co-workers, family members or random strangers.  It happens every day somewhere.  What is different to us is the beheading and someone claiming to be a Muslim or who has converted to that religion being the murderer.

Obama has stated we are safe from terrorists.  Ft. Hood was workplace violence.  What was Boston?  We are bombing Iraq & Syria but are not at war?  Maybe I just can’t find the right phrase that is politically correct enough to describe these situations?  The Oklahoma murderer was trying to convert co-workers to Islam.  He is also outspoken about hating white people.  But apparently, this wasn’t a terrorist act or a hate crime?

It’s funny/strange remembering around 15 years ago.  I had/have friends with badges.  Talking with them and feeling their frustration in dealing with abusive spouses (wife beaters).  Many, many times they were called and would sometimes haul the man away, just to have the woman recant & refuse to press charges.  One thing that encouraged them was terroristic threatening charges.  It was a legal tool that allowed them much greater sentencing and easier abilities to pursue charges.

  § 5-13-301. Terroristic threatening. 1975. Amended 1995.

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if:
(A) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person; or
(B) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the first degree is a Class D felony.
(b) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree if, with the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to another person.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) (1) (A) A judicial officer, upon pretrial release of the defendant, shall enter a no contact order in writing consistent with Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall give notice to the defendant of penalties contained in Rule 9.5 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

And we all have heard or read about race crimes and seen their prosecution.  But it seems all or nearly so were white men who hated blacks.  I think racism is wrong.  I think hate is wrong.  But I think making special crimes out of only certain groups that have been victims is a mistake.  If we are all equal before the law, then adding a special rule, “but if you don’t like homosexuals and are charged with battery, it become a hate crime”. 

Judge  “Did you strike the defendant?”

Cletus  ” You damn betcha”  “Knocked him clean out with one punch”

Judge  ”  And do you have a history of gay bashing, jokes and negative posts on facebook?”

Cletus  ”  Yes I do!  Isn’t there a First amendment right to speak my mind?”

Judge  ”  Cletus, I find you guilty & this is a hate crime with a mandatory five year sentence”.

Cletus  ”  But he kissed me…right there in front of Cooter & everybody!”

I suppose we will have to wait to see what other charges are filed.  Myself, I have low expectations.  If he were a white male it would be different.  But here in the new America, we don’t want to offend our killers.


  1. Discrimination-wow just wow-their discriminating against people who are in the country illegally. The fact that it being used against a majority black community is …what’s that commercial- priceless.

    October 2, 2014
    HUD Plays the Race Card in Lawrenceville
    By M. Catharine Evans

    On June 19, residents of majority-black Lawrenceville, Virginia lined the streets and packed a town meeting to protest a backroom deal between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and nearby St. Paul’s College to fill the historic institution’s vacant buildings with 500 illegal minors from Latin America. The tiny town made a big noise, with over 1,000 people showing up to confront government officials. Essie Workie, regional administrator for HHS, finally backed down the next day, put the deal on hold, and apologized to the crowd.

    Workie’s apology didn’t mean much.

    Lawrenceville, Brunswick County, and the sheriff are now being sued by St. Paul’s and a Virginia fair housing group for discrimination. The entities also filed a civil rights complaint against HHS for failing to honor their $160,000-per-month agreement with St. Paul’s to shelter the illegals.

    From the complaint:

    Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME) and St. Paul’s College announce the filing of a federal housing discrimination complaint at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against the Town of Lawrenceville, Brunswick County, and Brunswick County Sheriff Brian Roberts. The complaint alleges that participants of the Unaccompanied Alien Children’s (UAC) program were denied an equal housing opportunity and subjected to discriminatory statements based on their national origin, race, and/or color.

    Purported concerns by these individuals are grounded in false stereotypes about Latinos and reflect discrimination based on race, color, and/or national origin.

    HOME encourages officials to reconsider their opposition for this arrangement and propose a solution that does not violate federal fair housing laws. Not only was this action a violation of federal fair housing law, it also denied the community a much needed boost to its economic activity and a path out of the crushing debt facing the College.

    HUD is punishing Lawrenceville for not breaking the law when it comes to aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Moreover, HOME is offering this community, where the median income is around $26,000, a monetary incentive to harbor criminals voluntarily.

    Blacks need to face it. Latinos are the newest group to get all the aid and positive press coverage they want – they are the future of the Democrat Party. The liberal leftist media rushes to judgment against whites on behalf of teenage thugs and the DOJ but is noticeably blasé when the story involves illegal border-crossers championed by La Raza. Move over, Tea Party: blacks are the new racists.

    African-Americans wanted Obama for president because he looked like them, and they got him. Not once, but twice. Now those in Lawrenceville, Virginia will find out what it feels like to be labeled a racist by this administration.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  2. So what your telling me here LOI is that-wife beaters are being arrested as terrorist and real terrorist are being called incidents of work place violence. I already knew only white people could be convicted of a hate crime.

    • Here we are, back to the meaning of words-War on woman. check- but actual war-not sure what they are calling that these days-but whatever the new terminology, I call it denial or lying if one wants to be more specific.

    • Pretty much that, white, wife beaters can be terrorists (unless named Kennedy)

  3. Us white Christian gun toten freedom loving preppers are the real terrorists in America, just ask the Feds, they’ll tell ya. Odd, we don’t yell out to our God when lopping off heads (mainly because we don’t lop off heads in the name of our religion). But hey, we’re the evil enemy of our govt, because we won’t bow to their perceived power.

    Stopping an attack of any kind takes personal responsibility. Exercise your 2nd Amendment rights ( in reality, it’s a natural right), arm up and stay safe. 🙂

  4. This is an area I would normally ignore-but looky here-just as they use TV to change public opinion-they will use gaming to reach the young and semi-young and I guess some old people too 🙂

    Hey GamerGate! Let’s Be Friends

    #GamerGaters, I like games (I will curse the ending of Mass Effect 3 in perpetuity), but I’m a political writer and I don’t pretend to be more than a casual gamer. However, I find GamerGate remarkable. I know people express antipathy to bringing politics into GamerGate, and I don’t seek to hijack it, but hear me out: GamerGate is already about politics.

    Gaming, so the story goes, needs to be handed over to enlightened social engineers (read: the pseudo-intellectuals who infiltrated your journalism, who define “straight white males” as a “problem”) in order to transform it into something fundamentally different. They hold gaming hostage to their vision of a rigidly “representative” world, refreshingly deloused of “problematic constructions of gender,” as if people and their creative pursuits and interests are theirs to pose like toy figurines to their fancy.

    “’Gamers’ are over,” social justice charioteer Leigh Alexander pronounced smugly.

    Mainstream videogames do not cater to feminists’ tastes. That does not mean that women are being “marginalized,” it means they are not the target consumer demographic, as they freely admit when they declare male-oriented games unappealing. Despite this, gamers placate feminists like Anita Sarkeesian who hold gaming culture in disdain and view escapism that is male in nature, such as Call of Duty or rescuing Princess Peach, as a problem that must be eliminated under their magnanimous direction. Feminists especially hold male sexuality in contempt, and are fussily ruffled by voluptuous, pixelated vixens that titillate the “male gaze.”

    Radical (read: contemporary) feminists define the problem as men. Thus fantasies of male heroism are slated to be wiped from public consumption. Male chivalry is dead; women are the new white knights. Today’s third wave feminists (or “Third Wave Frustrationists,” as cleverly coined by Milo Yiannopoulos) kvetch the tired refrain, “Feminism is about equality!” It is a transparent Trojan Horse. These feminists are intolerant of masculinity, and their movement is about having power over men. They do not recognize healthy interdependence between the sexes, instead seeing a power struggle. They seek to feminize men and in doing so, masculinize themselves— and they are succeeding, through targeting boys. In public schools, boys are falling increasingly behind in performance, according to scholar Christina Hoff Sommers. In psychiatrists’ offices, young boys are overdiagnosed with ADHD and autism and are “medicated” for being “rambunctious” (i.e. behaviorally modified to fit the prevailing PC norm for how little boys should behave). This ideology is about subjugation, through wheedling, subtle manipulation and emotionally blackmailing rhetoric like “if you’re not a feminist, you’re a misogynist.”

    In short, feminism in the West has assumed the features of an authoritarian movement.

    The battle for individual liberty is older than GamerGate.

    Much of what we call Progressivism today is Cultural Marxism, and has steadily infiltrated Western culture throughout the 20th century, especially through the social upheavals of the 1960’s. The radical leftist Weathermen Underground terrorized American universities into accepting deconstructionism, the philosophy that all must be understood from a lens of historical domination and exploitation, as a valid intellectual replacement for the rigorous Western philosophical tradition and objectivity. The base of the ivory tower is scorched. Postmodernists declared, “There is no truth,” setting the stage for an amorphous, normless worldview that makes no categorical distinctions in an effort to be “fair.” This effectively hobbles free inquiry, and insulates the social experiment/totalitarian fad du jour from criticism, on penalty of the skeptical party being blacklisted.

    GamerGate, meet the family! Progressives have largely succeeded in Marx’s vision of “The Long March Through the Institutions,” and now they’re here for your videogames. When I say “progressives,” I don’t mean people who merely want a better world for posterity. I mean, people who want to, in the name of “equality,” supplant capitalism and personal property rights with government-run socialism and wealth redistribution, while prescribing an ideology of conformity for citizens that entails submission to the state and its elites. Believing they know better than people know for themselves, bureaucrats and the ambitious “experts” surrounding them make claim on the individual in the ultimate “patriarchy”: making his choices, and prescribing his attitudes, for him, without his consent.

    SJW’s, in the progressive tradition of grandiosity, see humanity as driving “forward” to a utopia (read: bleak dystopia read: Half-Life 2) where all people look different, but think and act exactly the same. In this utopia, in full defiance of the societal conditions and incentives needed to sustain wealth creation and generate economic prosperity, there is magically no hunger, pain or thirst, no “microaggressions” and no difficulty in forging one’s identity as an autonomous agent. Sacrifices must be made and dissent must be stifled for the greater good (such as getting #NotYourShield creator fired). Life is increasingly politicized, and the enforcement of political correctness consolidates the ideological control of the hegemony. The utopian vision is very flattering to those who fancy themselves its architects, because they are the anointed few charged with making it come to pass for the unwashed masses.

    And gamers? Feminist Progressives have decided that you are in the way.

    Save gaming. And then realize, your energy is sorely needed against the metastasizing social control that is making the West poorer, more ignorant and less just. Using “progress” as their shield against detractors, self-appointed social engineers meddle with the liberty of those on whose lives they have zero legitimate claim. Their complimentary refill cocktail of failure includes the welfare state, wrecked economies, the rise of Sharia Law in Europe (the “French” approve of ISIS to the tune of 16%) and the failed social experiment of multiculturalism, exemplified by Rotherham locals ignoring the rape of 1,400 girls by groups of Pakistani men. Prominent feminist “journalists” have yet to rattle their sabres at the outrageous revelations about how the Rotherham Rapes were ignored, finding it more fitting to gnash their teeth over “problematic tropes in gaming,” or subsidized tampons. Slate, Jezebel and Jessica Valenti are silent, just like gaming’s “social justice warriors.” Faux outrage is easier than the real activism of brave women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    The republics of the West are increasingly burdened by a culture of perceived grievance appeasement and axe grinding, rather than being enhanced by a culture of innovation, free inquiry and can-do attitudes. GamerGate is inspiring to those of us who have been holding the line.

    GamerGate, this is the first time the SJW’s are losing en masse. They’re losing public face, and fast.

    Stick to your guns.

    And remember, there is a larger ideological war.

    • And really, why would “they” complain about woman being betrayed as half naked and slutty in games when they have slut walks to protest people being shamed for walking around half naked and looking slutty in real life.

    • Despite the fact that we are “internationalists” and the world is strung together through a universal economy, these feminist “pipe dreams” will not play well elsewhere. Once you have succeeded in emasculating the society, the society becomes ripe for being toppled by one that has not been emasculated. Sorry folks, that’s is biology. None of us asked to be born a boy or a girl, it was just something that happened. Luck of the draw is you are given a role and have to abide by it. All the surgeons in the world and the chemicals you can be pumped with really do nothing other than make you freakish. May get close to the real thing but the DNA ultimately tells.

      The so called “sensitive male” championed by the likes of Alan Alda type characters seems to reject the notion that a man can be a man, noble, protective, decisive, strong both physically and morally and still be a nice guy. So, while we condemn stereotypes about just about any group, one group we never stop stereotyping is males.

      How many times, as a young man, did I have the opportunity to take advantage of a co-ed who was drunk and reject it? How many times did I pull a drunken student off a girl who was in not much better shape? How many times, did I drive a girl home (twice) where her :”date” went just a bit too far? I think I am pretty sensitive yet I still manage to be a man and set the example for my sons as my father did for me. . .


    Keeping one eye slightly open. This may or may not get interesting.

  6. For those not yet scared out of their minds by Ebola, I recommend a short walk through the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic.

    Worst part for me is I’m scheduled for a vacation next week, the one we have been planning for for a decade which involves hours aboard airplanes. I’m waiting for this sucker to mutate and go airborne. Besides all those politically correct CDC hooples seem to think somebody coughing in your face is somehow NOT exchanging body fluids.

    • Nice – where you going? Enjoy the trip!

      And don’t worry about ebola — I myself just came back from a trip and spent many hours on a plane…please don’t blow this out of proportion and cancel your trip. Sounds like its been a long time coming!

      • Italia! The bride has always wanted to go and she is now retired so she is giving this to herself and taking me along.

        The ebola thing is a kind of shit hitting the fan waiting to happen. Always had a solid layman’s interest in epidemiology and was fascinated with stories I heard from older folks about 1917-1918. Literally a “bring out your dead situation.” Few years back the CDC folks were running around the arctic and sub arctic exhuming bodies of people who died from Spanish Flu trying to get samples and work up a vaccine. they seemed to think that that strain or one close to it could return.

        I get a kick out of the “body fluids” thing. Someone sneezing in your face at an airport probably qualifies as exchanging a body fluid.

        • Ah Italia!! My wife has never been either – possibly the next big trip we do once the little one is a bit older!

          Where in Italy?

          • Do not know where you are going or have time for but have recommendations….

            Obviously you would go to Rome….over rated and very touristy…however, there are the Roman structures there that I found quite interesting. I am not into Religious structures but there are many there.

            The canals at Venice are very interesting….they are cleaned up now and not much trash. Take a gondola ride….your spousal unit will like that….Romantic and all. Do it at night.

            You must go to Pompeii and look at the ruins and mt. Vesuvius.

            You must go to the Italian Riviera to a town called Manarola. Absolutely beautiful and gran A B/B there….a little expensive but worth it.

            Those were my favs…..have a great trip.

            • Ooops….I meant to say……grab a B and B there.( Manarola )

            • Also, word of caution…..I would go to your doctor and have them print on their letterhead an immunization record to take with you. I would also take a Tetnus booster.

              It is possible that immunization checks are going to come back into vogue.

            • Colonel — you recommend the ruins of Pompeii but no mention of Naples and Capri?? Or driving down the Positano coast?

              And what’s with the hysteria of immunization checks?

              • Well, we are doing a tour, fairly comprehensive and will be hitting all the major points you mention except the Riviera. I am going to see the ruins and Pompeii. I’ve always been fascinated since taking Latin and Roman history in the historical background of the place.

                Movie trivia. In which film does the Emperor Caligula go hysterical screaming “Bring me the Robe!” Who was the lead actor?

                Immunization checks are a good idea period.

                If this thing results in cases in Western Europe or here in the USA expect hysteria that you have never seen before. Mobs, riots etc. Just the suggestion played havoc with airline stock the other day. Expect the same for all resorts and travel stocks.

                I was a little kid (2nd grade) when the Salk Polio vaccine was found but if you saw what parents in those days did to “protect” their kids from polio in the summer months, you wouldn’t be so cavalier.

              • Don’t confuse me for being cavalier – I have been to countries that required proof of certain immunizations. I understand the issue and agree that in certain circumstances it is necessary.

                But a broad based mandate for immunization checks everywhere….

                Regardless have a great trip!!

              • Fully intend to, Thanks much!


              • Get your immunizations and Have a Great time!

                HI Buck-Hope you and yours are doing well.

              • I have not been everywhere in Italy…and have no plans to go back…..but thought I would add what I liked.

                No hysteria…..just preparation in case countries start to require immunizations again…merely a precautionary tactic so you are not caught out and have to have them to enter anywhere. I do not see riots but I do see the carrying of immunization cards again.

              • Also, having an up to date immunization record, while not mandatory, is always a great idea in the event you do have to receive any type of medical attention. It is only a precaution. I carry one everywhere I go…even in the US. The last time that I was in the hospital, a couple of months ago for the lovely experience of kidney stones….I was asked about allergies to medicines and whether or not my boosters are up to date.

                I have found that anytime I travel, it is always wise to be prepared for eventualities. It costs nothing to do this.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Lived in Italy for several years….great place. Good time to visit. Everyone is back from holiday and places are open, plus the tourist population is much thinner. Many places are getting ready to close for the winter and deals can be had. D-13’s advise of carrying your immunization card is good advise. I got into the habit years ago and it goes along anywhere including my passport. Do not forget that the furthest south part of Italy is Sicily and it is on the same longitude as Washington DC. It can get quite cool at this time of year. Unless you want to buy a new wardrobe, I suggest Milan. The stores rarely carried a normal “American’s” sizes. I hope you are traveling a loose agenda and are self paced. The cuisine is phenomenal and varies greatly from north to south. Not in quality but in ingredients. Avoid tourist restaurants.


    • OH more nonsense and scare tactics.

      Yet, you refuse to recognize the root cause.

      Ebola is in Africa, noted for its food poverty. Spanish Flu was the result of the depravity of WW1.

      Wouldn’t worry about it, SK. Don’t get your underwear in a knot.

      • I’m not. Read the “Hot Zone” a whole back then a few other books.

        The Spanish Flu is interesting because of the way it spread. the fact it may have jumped species and that the 1918 strain was more virulent than the 1917 one. Origins? up for debate. Surely the trenches would have been a wonderful incubator but the 1918 Ft. Riley Kansas outbreak? Even back then, the army was pretty good on public health.

        The referenced article makes an interesting point on the spread vectors.

  7. Happy Friday SUFA! 🙂 Like Buck say’s don’t get overly concerned about this Ebola issue. Went to the nearest Walmart this morning so Pops could get his meds. I saw ZERO terrorists. Actually, I saw a lot of nice people just getting on with life 😀

    NFL Week 5 has begun with another blowout. Lots of them lately so last night the Packers smashed the Vikings. On with this weeks picks:

    Browns win a road game against the Titans
    Bears win in Carolina
    Cowboys keep winning against the Texans
    Lions send the Bills packing
    Colts win a close one over the Ravens
    Steelers over the Jags
    Saints over Bucs
    Giants outscore the Falcons
    Philly wins another close on over the Rams
    Broncos blowout the Cardinals
    Chargers keep winning, crush the JESTS
    Chiefs UPSET 49ers!
    Seahawks easily over the REDSKINS (yes, the Redskins)
    Bengals send the Patriots into a losing season (Patriots will not be very good this year)

    Archery season for whitetail’s begins tomorrow morning, which means I’m in my glory and enjoying life 🙂 Time to whack ’em and stack ’em.

  8. You know I bet all those bad old missionaries would accept all the help they could get. I’m sure they are just so grateful that you are willing to allow them to continue forsaking their comfort and possibly their lives. But guess what God will continue to do his work whether you allow it or not-you insufferable jerk.

    Should we worry that so many of the doctors treating Ebola in Africa are missionaries?
    By Brian Palmer

    Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

    I recently sat in on a course for infectious disease specialists in Austria. Around 40 young doctors and academics were discussing infection control in hospitals and communities in the developing world, and the talk inevitably turned to Ebola. Controlling the spread of the disease continues to challenge the medical world, but there is consensus on one issue. “MSF is the only group on the ground,” said one doctor, using the French acronym for Doctors Without Borders. “They are the only ones making any difference.” The congregation nodded in agreement.

    The statement was probably intended as a jibe at the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but it slighted another group by omission: missionaries. Missionary doctors and nurses are stationed throughout Africa, in rural outposts and urban slums. Rather than parachuting in during crises, like some international medicine specialists, a large number of them have undertaken long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans.

    And yet, for secular Americans—or religious Americans who prefer their medicine to be focused more on science than faith—it may be difficult to shake a bit of discomfort with the situation. Our historic ambivalence toward missionary medicine has crystallized into suspicion over the past several decades. It’s great that these people are doing God’s work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?

    Missionaries have been dealing with this kind of criticism for a very, very long time. More than a century ago, the undercurrent of discontent with missionary work had already become so widespread that experienced missionary James Levi Barton penned a book-length defense of his career. Many of his points are, even to my modern ears, reasonably persuasive. No one complains when the West crams its commercial values down the throats of Africans, Indians, and Chinese, he pointed out in 1908. We insist that these unfortunate, uncivilized people buy our wheat flour and bicycles, even though rice and rickshaws are probably just as good. How is that different from what missionaries do? They simply offer Christianity rather than consumerism.

    There’s one other big difference between missionaries and Western merchants: The missionaries don’t profit personally from their work. They are compensated very poorly, if at all. Many risk their lives. How many people would risk death to spread the gospel of Western consumer goods gratis?

    The Ebola crisis, and the role missionaries are playing in it, has brought dislike of missionary work out into the open. When an infected American missionary was flown back to the United States for treatment, Donald Trump griped that do-gooders trying to save Africa should be prepared to “suffer the consequences.” Ann Coulter called the doctor “idiotic,” and asked of his mission to Africa, “What was the point?”

    Obviously, Trump and Coulter don’t speak for the majority of Americans. Trump is a publicity-obsessed birther who says he “couldn’t care less” what doctors say about vaccines. Coulter somehow manages to be more offensive than Trump, calling the president childish names and insisting that God wants us to “rape” the earth.

    Still, a fair number of Americans were thinking a much milder, less offensive form of what those two shock merchants wrote. I’ll hold my own hand up. I still don’t feel good about missionary medicine, even though I can’t fully articulate why.

    There are a few legitimate reasons to question the missionary model, starting with the troubling lack of data in missionary medicine. When I write about medical issues, I usually spend hours scouring PubMed, a research publications database from the National Institutes of Health, for data to support my story. You can’t do that with missionary work, because few organizations produce the kind of rigorous, peer-reviewed data that is required in the age of evidence-based medicine. A few years ago in the Lancet, Samuel Loewenberg wrote that there is “no way to calculate the number of missionaries currently operating in Tanzania,” the country he was reporting on. How can we know if they’re effective, or how to improve the health care systems they participate in, if we don’t even know how many missionary doctors there are?

    There are serious questions about the quality of care provided by religious organizations in Africa. A 2008 report by the African Religious Heath Assets Programme concluded that faith-based facilities were “often severely understaffed and many health workers were under-qualified.” Drug shortages and the inability to transport patients who needed more intensive care also hampered the system.

    There is also a troubling lack of oversight. Large religious health care facilities tend to be consistent in their care, but the hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller clinics in Africa are a mystery. We don’t know whether missionary doctors are following international standards of care. (I’ve heard murmurs among career international health specialists that missionaries may be less likely to wear appropriate protective equipment, which is especially troubling in the context of the Ebola outbreak.) We don’t know what happens to the patients who rely on missionary doctors if and when the caregivers return to their home countries. There are extremely weak medical malpractice laws (and even weaker court systems to enforce them) in much of sub-Saharan Africa, so we have no sense whatsoever of how many mistakes missionary doctors are making. We don’t know how many missionaries are helping to train new doctors and nurses in the countries where they work—the current emphasis of international health delivery.

    And yet, truth be told, these valid critiques don’t fully explain my discomfort with missionary medicine. If we had thousands of secular doctors doing exactly the same work, I would probably excuse most of these flaws. “They’re doing work no one else will,” I would say. “You can’t expect perfection.”

    I’m not altogether proud of this bias—I’m just trying to be honest. In his Lancet article, Lowenberg quotes a missionary who insists he does not proselytize, even though he tells his patients, “I’m treating you because of what God has given me and his love for me.” That statement—which strikes me as obvious proselytizing— suggests that some missionaries are incapable of separating their religious work from their medical work. Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert. That troubles me. I suspect that many others have the same visceral discomfort with the mingling of religion and health care.

    Like it or not, though, we are deeply reliant on missionary doctors and nurses. The 2008 ARHAP report found that in some sub-Saharan African countries 30 percent of health care facilities are run by religious entities. That system is crumbling due to declining funding, possibly motivated in part by growing Western suspicion of missionary medicine. We have a choice: Swallow our objections and support these facilities, spend vast sums of money to build up Africa’s secular health care capacity immediately, or watch the continent drown in Ebola, HIV, and countless other disease outbreaks.

    As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.

    • If, God forbid, Muslim doctors from Muslim countries were bringing medicine along with the Koran I wonder if the same complainers would not be shouting hosannas from the rooftops?

      Different standards, double standards, outright lies. Sigh!

    • I agree Ebola is not/should not be that high a concern. Seems our media is trying to generate fear. But after Obama told us it would not hit the US, it did. After Obama assured us airports and hospitals were alert & would screen any infected, one flew thru all the checks. A major hospital treated and then released a patient suffering from Ebola. A failure in the automated registration system? Isn’t that a major part of ObamaCare?

      • LOI, LOI, LOI.

        You are a strange cat.

        No matter how many times government fails – and it fails almost all the time, you will not let it go.

        • I think our nation is best served by small, limited government. I refute your call for no government at this time. In this instance, pointing out the failures of big government is consistent with my past & present position.

          • LOI, LOI, LOI

            You keep making that assertion, yet in all cases it never works, and worse in principle it can never work

            You cannot overcome the contradiction that you expect the entity that makes and enforces law will make and enforce law upon itself.

            Yet, with this root contradiction, you carry right on …. and fail, and fail, and fail over and over.

            • “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
              With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
              “A republic, if you can keep it.”

              • The concept of “neither” never enters the conversation, hence, the “if you can keep it” never happens -because depending on evil to save you from evil always leads to evil, freedom always loses.

                One day your ilk will smarten up.


    Income “disparity”.

    Oh, look! It’s mostly where the Democrats live and vote and not where mostly Republicans live and vote. And Dems are the ones that complain about it and about themselves, yet blame the Reps.

    Politics is so funny.

  10. To the stirring strains of: “deutchland, Deutchland uber alles”

  11. For VH

    Another interesting article proving statistics don’t lie but statisticians (or those interpreting them) sure do. Kinda thought this might be the case when I constantly hear of the extraordinary measures routinely taken to save low birth weight preemies. Just think, when the new Affordable health care rules kick in and these babies are not counted as “live” births but something else, Obama will be able to bask in the glory of having reduced infant mortality in the US.

  12. though doctors repeatedly raise the alarm that the massive influx of illegal Mexican and Central American children will result in an upsurge of diseases, their legitimate concerns fall on deaf ears. In fact, the “next wave of [illegals] may be worse than the first, because monsoon conditions, a harsh drought and the globalization of transport are ensuring that the 50,000 or so unscreened new entrants will be bringing a raft of new diseases with them.” In fact, a dengue fever epidemic currently raging through Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala has resulted in 120,000 cases and 60 known deaths. Already an American child has died of Enterovirus D68, which has been known to afflict Central America in the past.

    In a July 7, 2014 letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, congressman and physician Phil Gingrey of Georgia wrote that “infectious diseases remain in the top ten causes of death in the United States.” Gingrey asserted that “reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue, fever, Ebola virus, and tuberculosis are particularly concerning.”

    Though the CDC activated “its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in response to the influx of the minors, … information regarding this activation has been sparse.”

    Gingrey requested information “on what [was] being done to protect border patrol agents” as well as “guidelines to the public about how to protect themselves from potential infection.”

    And still the stream of illegal immigrants not only continues, but is actively pursued by the Department of Justice, which mandates that unaccompanied minors be sent to various U.S. locations to live with relatives or, in some cases, to live as foster wards. The children would be allowed to enroll in local, taxpayer-funded public schools with no questions asked – by law. Clearly “[t]he Obama administration is fully aware of the health risks presented by its policy of forcing potentially unvaccinated, diseased immigrants into public schools.”

    Moreover, school districts have been ordered to “accept illegal immigrant children even if they have no home and no documentation concerning their health or immunization status.” In fact, local schools “cannot exclude from school attendance those homeless children who do not provide the requisite health or immunization information required of other students.”

    Read more:

    • If Obama thinks he has the right to ignore our laws you would think he would at least have the common sense to also instate some real safety procedures. Let the public decide that it is his fault that our children are dying…….. although I’m sure the dems. will try to find some way of blaming this on republicans. If we’d spend more money or some such crap.

      • Enterovirus D68 is now confirmed in nearly every state. And yet the media is 24/7 Ebola.
        If this came from illegal immigrants Obama has encouraged to cross our borders, spread because he ordered normal health screenings to be ignored, where is the outrage? First thing, is there a link to Central America? On Ebola they track it to a “patient zero”. Where is patient zero for the New Jersey child that died?

  13. Watch for the, just now declassified report, of the be-headings and alliances that have been happening in Mexico the last 7 years. Over 3,000 be-headings, alliances with the cartels from Al Queda, Isis, and Hezbollah…..the drug tr

  14. Sorry…hit wrong button………the drug trade taking a new turn for ISIS….they now own three pharmaceutical companies and factories producing synthetic drugs primarily for the US…..the heroin trade and the Opium markets are being re-geared for Europe, Russia, and China.

    The establishment of a Hezbollah training camp just outside of a town called Atotonilco…just south of Guadalajara….financed by Isis and Iran.

    The hits keep on coming…….reminds me of a movie of Gotham.

    • Really not happy about any of this-but surely we aren’t gonna buy medicine from companies owned and controlled by ISIS!

  15. Honest to Pete! It gets more depressing by the day. I’m getting real close to just unplugging and going Galt.

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Look, for those of you that have at least SOME physics background, here is a clear, not very concise, yet VERY COGENT analysis of why the GCMs (global climate models) are COMPLETE NONSENSE and CANNOT in any way whatsoever, approximate reality. It is written by a Duke University Physics Professor.

    I implore you all to read it, because even if you do not have much of a science or physics background, this guy makes a ton of sense.

    • Thank you Peter, nice catch!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      From the depths of the comments:

      Louis Hooffstetter

      October 7, 2014 at 3:43 am

      First they said the debate was over.
      Then they refused to debate.
      Then they said science isn’t done by debate and that it’s pointless.

      This is how witch doctors do science.
      Most climatologists are witch doctors, not scientists.

      I AGREE.

      Although I expect not all climatologists are witch doctors. Most just go along to get along.

      Much the same in other environmental sciences.

  17. David Skekabim says:

    Beck gets it. He preaches respect, humility, getting over our hang-ups and getting along, personal and communal growth, and building a better society for your progeny.

    Mr. Maher makes a good point bringing up the idea of reformation. IMHO, the whole world needs reformation. Look at how screwed up we are.

    Look at all the war and poverty and disease, the hate and fear and selfishness in the world. We’re essentially building on the ‘bad’ side of our nature, and it is dragging us down, preventing us from being a happy healthy species. We’re constipated from achieving our true potential.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. So why is it? Why do we tolerate these things from ourselves? I think it is a matter of understanding, seeing the difference, and working toward something righteous on an individual level. Society is made up of individuals who act on choices. It all starts with individual choice. So whatever that is that guides those choices, is the core of it.

    Beck, it seems, is in touch with this idea. This is how he can promote ideas such as humility and express his flaws and weaknesses in front of the whole world. It’s very liberating, I am sure.

    Humility is a good thing. If you can let go of your ego, then you are not preoccupied with protecting it so fiercely. This allows you to take an honest critical and direct approach with the self, thus initiating a process of understanding, acceptance and even celebration of our basic individual human flaws and weaknesses. It often causes a greater self awareness in how we relate to the world around us, and promotes the desire to correct the things about ourselves we do not like or cannot accept.

    It is one of the first steps to improvement, to getting over our hang-ups.

  18. David Skekabim says:

    When discovering such things I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.


  19. Suppressing the Majority – “Oh, Yeah?”
    (from another blogger, smart man – one of the few I will pay money to read)

    We say that individuals are responsible for their actions. Libertarianism teaches this. Christianity teaches this. There is no plea bargaining on judgment day. There are no corporate defenses. “The devil made me do it” will not hold up in that court.

    We should explain economics in terms of individuals’ decisions. We should also explain politics this way, too.


    We distinguish between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics has to do with individual decision-making in a private property system. Macroeconomics has to do with how an entire economy functions.

    Austrian School economics teaches that we should begin to study macroeconomics by studying microeconomics. Macroeconomics can be explained only as the outcome of microeconomics. What an individual does in a private property legal order can be explained in terms of economic theory: profit and loss. What the entire economy does can also be explained in terms of individual profit and loss. Any system of macroeconomics whose defenders assert its autonomy from microeconomics is an illusion. Cause and effect in economic theory begin with individual decision-making.

    The question is this: Who holds the hammer? Who has final authority: the customer with money or the business with products? The Austrian School is clear: the customer with money, which is the most marketable commodity. Money is the hammer.

    In politics, the hammer is the vote. Votes are sanctions: positive and negative. They determine in the aggregate which politician wins and which politician loses. In this sense, micro and macro are unified.

    But there is a fundamental difference between market sanctions and political sanctions. This difference is best understood in terms of selling your vote. You can exercise your vote for expected future returns from the government, but you are not legally allowed to sell your vote because a particular politician pays you money. That would be illegal. The idea of “one man, one vote” is very different from “one man, one dollar.” A man is allowed to collect as many dollars as he can persuade other people to give to him, by gift or exchange. This is not true of political voting. It is never the case of “one man, multiple votes” for the same candidate, except in Cook County, Illinois, where your vote counts and counts and counts (Dick Gregory).

    The free market’s system of positive and negative sanctions, which we call profit and loss, governs microeconomics. It does not operate in the same way in the field of politics. Politics has to do with judicial sanctions, which are mandatory: legalized violence. Market profit and loss have to do with economic sanctions, which are not mandatory. A government official can legally tell you what to do. Company CEOs cannot tell you what to do. You can take it or leave it.

    So, when we look at how civil government operates, it is a mistake conceptually to go from inside the government (a bureaucrat) to outside (the masses). An individual bureaucrat can create havoc in the life of an individual citizen. To be the victim of bureaucratic action is usually very expensive. Even if you are innocent, it will cost you a small fortune to defend yourself. The bureaucrat knows this.

    On the other hand, the bureaucrat also knows that if he takes on a major corporation, he is going to face the best legal talent in the world. He is likely to lose the case. Negative judicial sanctions are more likely imposed by the defendant than the plaintiff. The bureaucrat who launches the attack on a major American corporation, and then loses in a court, is going to find his career in big trouble. So, the micro decision of the bureaucrat regarding a particular individual citizen is going to be very different from the micro decision of the bureaucrat regarding a major American corporation. The risks are higher in the second case. The cost-benefit analysis favors doing nothing in this circumstance.

    In a free market, there is not much coordination among sellers, and not much coordination among buyers. The outcomes are dependent upon individual decisions made by customers. Lots of customers make lots of individual decisions, and out of these decisions will come winners and losers among the sellers. But the sellers cannot determine the outcome. It is not determined in a court of law. The free market is not the same as the state.

    The free market involves widely dispersed markets. A particular good may be sold in 1,000+ outlets. It is sold online: one sale, one market. It is available everywhere. The more volume of sales there is, the greater the income to the company.

    This is not true of government agencies. A bureaucrat has to take a specific person to court in a specific jurisdiction. Everything has to go through one court. Then the case goes up the chain of appeals courts. One bureaucrat’s decision ties up agency resources and court resources. The bureaucracy has to make its entire case in one court. All of its resources must be concentrated on this single court.

    This is completely different from the free market, in which the court of public opinion is broad and decentralized. In the case of a business, the decision of one customer not to buy the product is not a life-and-death decision. In the case of a bureaucrat who brings a case against an individual, it can be a life-and-death decision with respect to his career. He can lose his career if he makes a fool of himself in a specific court in a specific case. So, the goal of the bureaucrat is to prosecute only those cases which the bureaucrat believes he is likely to win. All of the other cases, he ignores. All of the other prosecutions, he ignores. All of the other risks that he might take, he ignores. He bets it all on one case in one court.

    There are multiple bureaucrats, but one bureaucrat can handle only a few cases at the time. In contrast, a corporation can make 1,000 sales a day, or 10,000 sales a day. It can ramp up production to respond to increased customer demand. It can go from micro to macro simply by adding to production. This is not true of a bureaucrat, who must win his case in a specific court. He may get a legal precedent, but this precedent applies only in a specific jurisdiction. Furthermore, if some other company decides the precedent does not apply to it, the agency has to start the entire process over again.

    The range of decision-making for a bureaucrat is extremely limited. The range of decision-making for a corporate CEO is enormous. The CEO decides how many units of production should be attempted. This number can be huge. It can influence customer decisions in multiple markets. There will be feedback from consumers to corporate sales programs. Success in one region may not make or break a particular product line’s profitability.

    What I am trying to get at is this: decentralization is not a threat to businesses. They love to sell lots of products in many markets. Decentralization is a threat to a government bureaucrat, because he has jurisdiction over a limited region. Then he has to get a conviction in a specific court. All of this takes money. All of it takes time. All of this can be drawn out for months or years by deep-pocket defendants.


    This is why it is not reliable conceptually to go from an individual bureaucrat, who makes an individual decision in a specific case, to a broad range of political and governmental outcomes. When you go from micro to macro, you go from one court to another. To get macro decisions out of micro decisions, you have to do this in individual cases in individual courts. You are limited by the number of courts. You are limited by the number of cases that are pending in these courts. There is an enormous bottleneck: the legal system. This bottleneck cannot be broken under common law. It cannot be broken under any system of civil law.

    The Soviet Union tried this, and it failed. For example, it was always possible for the inmates to bust the camp system by means of individual action. They could write letters of protest, and if enough of them did it, it shut down the whole bureaucracy. Vladimir Bukovsky describes this in his book, To Build a Castle. He and hundreds of inmates in a concentration camp literally shut down the whole regional operation of the camps, simply by obeying the rules, and filing specific protests in enormous numbers. This shifted power and authority from the bureaucrats who ran the prison system to the inmates. The inmates had the power, because they had the ability to protest individually. Their micro shaped the institutional macro. The government’s macro did not shape the micro. The government finally capitulated. The people who ran the concentration camp system finally met the demands of the protesters. Otherwise, their careers would have been sunk by the success of the protesters, who used the official rules governing the camp system to shut it down.

    The assumption of those people who keep predicting a totalitarian America is that the micro decisions inside the federal government will shape the macro decisions of the masses. But it is the other way around. The micro decisions of private individuals become the dominant macro force. They can break the individual decisions of the government. This becomes far easier than ever before because of the World Wide Web. Social media now make it even cheaper than before for lots of individual decisions, meaning micro decisions, to shape the decisions of macro politics and macro government. Authority is at the individual level, not at the top. Authority does not originate with the civil government; it originates with individuals who decide whether or not to cooperate voluntarily with the official rules.

    There is an illusion that has grabbed conservatives and libertarians. They believe that the central civil government has the power to shape the micro economy, the macro economy, and macro politics. They assume that control at the top, meaning control at the center, can be implemented systematically to gain cooperation and subservience of the broad masses of the public. This is possible under day-to-day conditions, but it can be broken in a brief period of time whenever the victims decide that enough is enough. They can reverse the flow of power. The flow of power had gone from the top to the bottom, from the center to the periphery. But those who are the victims can reverse this through organized action. It is now cheaper to organize this action than ever in the history of man. Think “Facebook.”

    Authority goes from top to bottom only when the victims of centralized power do not resist. Individual decisions usually are such that people do not resist. But this is not true of corporate resistance. This is not true of those groups that fight the trend in the courts. Ultimately, the people can shut down the government. They do not do it very often, but they can do it.

    Before Americans ever submit to totalitarianism, there is going to be a revolt. It will begin on Facebook or other social media. It does not matter where it begins; Americans at the bottom are not going to submit to this kind of tyranny. It is not in the American character. Americans have an innate distrust of bureaucrats.

    The federal government can manipulate voters in a crisis situation like 9-11 or by means of the welfare state, but if you look at taxation policy in the history of the United States, the federal government never collects more than about 20% of GDP. It can spend more only by borrowing. The voters do not care about that, because they know that they are not going to pay off the loans. They know that it will not be possible for the government to collect enough taxes to pay off all the debt. The only way that the federal government can keep the process going is to borrow more money. The voters know that the government cannot get into their wallets beyond about 20% of GDP. Maybe the voters do not know this in terms of a sophisticated understanding, but they know in their guts. The federal government has never been able to extract as much as 21% of GDP in tax revenues. This is the ultimate ceiling on American government.

    People on the Right offer horror stories about the helpless Americans. Individuals (micro), yes; Americans in general (macro), no. Americans are not helpless. They have never been helpless. They have drawn a line in the fiscal sand, and that line is clear: 20% of GDP is all the American people are going to pay to the federal government. The bureaucrats have to live within this limitation the voters are in charge; the politicians and bureaucrats are not.

    I do not see why people on the Right do not come to grips with what is obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that the federal government is mostly bluster. It can only extend its authority only when the public acquiesces. But when push comes to shove, which means when the federal government gets into the wallets of the people above 20%, the people cease to acquiesce. They will not tolerate it.


    If a bunch of prisoners in the Gulag Archipelago can shut down the government of the Gulag, simply by following the rules of the Gulag, then Americans can shut down the federal government. Basically, Bukovsky adopted the same tactic that Saul Alinsky adopted. Alinsky was not a centralist. He was a localist. He had no use for federal politics. He had no use for massive protests at the top. He simply busted local private organizations by means of guerrilla tactics.

    Anyone who predicts totalitarianism in America is predicting this on the basis of micro decisions by government bureaucrats that will be extended across the land. These decisions cannot be extended across the land. They can only be extended in specific courts in specific cases. It is only because the public voluntarily accepts the principle that it must obey a precedent set by some bureaucrat. The bureaucrat can pretend to get enforcement, but he cannot do this. He cannot really get the public to obey.

    It is like the RIAA. The Recording Industry Association of America pretends that it can shut down music piracy by millions of teenagers, simply by getting a successful court case against one adult who does not have any money. This is nonsense. The music industry cannot overcome piracy. The RIAA has a few victories, but technology always enables the pirates to keep stealing the music. Almost any song you want is available on YouTube. The RIAA does not have the resources to stop this in specific courts. Every case is different. The people doing the downloading do not have any money. They are usually minors. It takes years to get a court case through a court, and meanwhile, tens of millions of teenagers around the world are downloading the music. Enforcement is all sham. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is a Potemkin Village operation. The RIAA is helpless.

    So is the federal government whenever people decide not to cooperate.

    The only way that the federal government can keep the game going is by spreading the illusion that the masses of Americans really are cooperating.

    When they stop cooperating, there is nothing the federal government can do to enforce its collective will.


    For a generation, the federal government has not been legally allowed to conscript young men into the Armed Forces. The government still has the authority to collect the names of potential conscripts, and the Selective Service System still exists, but it has no authority to do draft anyone. I think it is the model of things to come.

    Americans consent to government interference, but only for as long as this interference seems to extend benefits to middle-class voters. The voters do not understand the extent to which government interference operates against their interests, but that is not the question. The question is this: to what extent do voters use the ballot box to extend their interests? If these voters ever perceive that the federal government is not extending their interests, they will change the federal government.

    I can tell you what the mark of this change of public opinion will be: when Washington’s checks bounce.

    The federal government spends a lot of money on Social Security and Medicare, both of which are favorite programs of the American middle class. The government spends a lot of money on national defense, which is also a favorite of the middle-class. But the government is incapable of extending its jurisdiction into Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and anywhere else where people wearing funny clothes take up arms against the giant bureaucracy known as the Pentagon. The Pentagon is all bluster. It is all hat and few cattle. It is “whiz-bang” from Nevada. It is shock and blah.

    What is true in foreign jurisdictions is true domestically. The federal government is mostly bluster. It can push a few individuals around, but it cannot push large corporations around, except with this quid pro quo: the federal government then uses the new regulations to push around small, innovative corporations. The federal government can push the agenda of a vociferous minority, but only because the majority acquiesces. The day that the majority stops acquiescing is the day that the minority group had better stop trying to ram its political agenda down the throats of the unwilling.

    The Left has prospered by means of the politics of guilt and pity. But that is only because the middle class is not forced to pay for it.

    Americans do let the government push them around individually, but only because they think that this consent is in their interest. Totalitarianism is not in the interest of the typical American. The typical American lets NSA collect the data, because the typical American knows the NSA cannot do anything with that data to interfere with the lives of more than a handful of Americans. It cannot persuade Americans to change their way of life.

    Ultimately, totalitarianism will never come to the United States of America because the bureaucrats who enforce the rules are risk-adverse, scared of losing their positions, and skilled at maintaining their own career safety. When push comes to shove, they stop pushing. The typical bureaucrat is protected by Civil Service rules, so he knows he cannot be fired. He knows that he cannot be pushed into action to enforce the latest fad of the most recent political victors. The latest fad of the victors will crash on the shoals of bureaucratic intransigence. The bureaucrats do not have the courage or the institutional wherewithal to impose any system (macro) on the voters that the voters are not willing to accept, based on the voters’ criteria of individual self-interest (micro).

    The bureaucrats can play with their digital toys and pretend that they are in control. They are not in control. They are not going to get in control. The bureaucrats can be successful only by persuading the voters that they offer a positive answer to the crucial question of the American character, namely, “what’s in it for me?”

    Americans have a solution for every problem: “Let’s make a deal.” This is central to the American character. Only to the extent that some bureaucratic agency can avoid resistance by individual Americans can it extend its jurisdiction and therefore its ability to selectively interfere in the lives of a handful of victims. An agency cannot automatically go from micro — this decision — to macro: widespread compliance. Americans will comply for only as long as they think it is in their self-interest to comply. When they decide that is enough is enough, they will go on Facebook and share their opinion. When their hostile opinion goes viral, the bureaucrats will pull back. They want to protect their jobs. They have no ideology.


    Totalitarianism comes when a special-interest ideological group gets in control of the machinery of government. This attempt never lasts very long. Totalitarianism must be implemented by bureaucrats, and third-generation bureaucrats are not driven by a desire to change society. They are driven the desire to protect their jobs. That desire, above all other desires, will shape any government that attempts to impose the vision of the anointed on the masses of Americans.

    Americans have a two-word response to all such attempts: “Oh, yeah?” They have a follow-up: “You and who else?”

    If the Communists could not pull it off in the USSR, the anointed will not pull it off in America.

  20. Islamic militants captured at Texas border….we got 6 of ’em. More to come.

  21. OMG…our POTUS is upset at Turkey for not stopping ISIS. REALLY!!!!! He expects a Muslim state to stop a Muslim offensive ( Yes, despite what the POTUS and Hillary Clinton say, ISIS is Muslim and they are terrorists and they are not a rag tag bunch of criminals.)

    So, Mr. President….you actually expect Turkey, who is in collaboration with ISIS… stop ISIS? They will not. They will sit on their hillside and watch the systematic extermination of…………………………Muslims. This is a civil war…..and it is going to be ugly and ISIS will survive….AND….they are already here…..coming through our borders.

    • Hasn’t the WH also said ISIS is generating around 3 million a day in revenue thru captured oil sales? And most of this oil is smuggled across the Turkish border? I wonder who in Turkey profits from that oil?

    • Ahh, for the days of Mustafa Kemel, a man with some stones. Correct me if I am wrong but is the Turk government not hoping that their “neutrality” will pacify their own loonies?

      • I don’t think so, looks more like they are acting “tribal”.

        Kurds riot in Turkey as Ankara refuses to save ISIS besieged town
        By Rick Moran

        At least 12 people have been killed in riots that broke out in several Turkish cities, as Kurds protested inaction by the government to save the border town of Kobani from being overrun by ISIS. Turkish tanks and troops are sitting a mere 200 meters from the town on the Turkish side of the border as lightly armed Kurdish militiamen battle the tanks and heavy guns of ISIS currently attacking Kobani on three sides.


        At least 12 people died on Tuesday during violent clashes across Turkey, local media reported, as the fate of the besieged Syrian border town of Kobane stirred up decades of tensions with Turkey’s Kurdish minority.

        Violence erupted in Turkish towns and cities mainly in the Kurdish southeastern provinces, as protesters took to the streets to demand the government do more to protect Kobane, a predominantly Kurdish settlement which has been surrounded by Islamic State fighters for three weeks.

        Authorities imposed curfews in at least five provinces, police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse demonstrators who burnt cars and tires, whilst groups linked to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) clashed with Islamic State sympathizers, authorities said.

        Read more:

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Awful quiet around here! Let’s pick things up somewhat. It seems the barbarians are alive and well in the US:

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    Anyone want to put up some cash on whether Obama was lying about Ebola not being airborne?

  24. Here’s one for you GMan. I’m sitting here still in shock about what happened to me today. In the end everything turned out ok but play along if you will so I can blow off some steam 🙂

    It was about noon and I’d been running around my house cleaning (thank God), and was just about to take off to the store when suddenly 3 cops met me at the door as I was walking out. I’m thinking WHAAAAT? and they asked me to step outside the house. I did. They explained that my son’s name had come out several times about some “tagging” that’s been going on in the neighborhood. I found out tagging = grafitti . They explained that they had video tape evidence, word of mouth, and that he was picked out of lineup as one of those involved,,,,and because of that evidence they had obtained a search warrant for my premises,,,and they asked if they could come in. I let them in,,,,cause I didn’t know WTF else to do :)…. and I was dumbfounded and couldn’t even speak! ….but they proceeded to toss my son’s entire room…making it a total mess even though it was a wreck to begin with.. After a good 30 minutes in his room they scoped out every room and cabinet in my house…checked some areas more thoroughly than others..both levels of the place..both sheds…. evidence collected: 6 doodle drawings of nothing in particular, 2 cans spray paint, black, and one thing of shoe polish, white. They were very polite. They were here about 1 1/2hrs. I’m thinking OMG my son is a dead man now because I believed what the cops said about the evidence they had on him.

    Son comes in from school. Dumbfounded. Said he knew about the grafitti and knew of a kid who was doing it, but that he was never involved. My son spoke politely and stood his ground as they explained to him that they had evidence on him. They explained that they wanted us to go to the station and talk with them. They searched my son and took him, no cuffs, to the station. It’s on the next block, I followed, we were there in no time. Sat us down, said they had the answers to every question they were going to ask and that it would be in his best interest to be truthful for the best outcome….since they WERE GOING TO CHARGE HIM AND TAKE HIM TO JUVY FOR THE NIGHT at least. They spent a good hour or so looking at his facebook page and inquired about all his friends..who is this..who is that well do you know him..what is this picture about. Anyway…the video evidence comes out..which was only a few still pictures of some kid…neither of us know who it was..but it was definitely not my son…and the questions continue about my sons friends….many of who also look like the kid in the picture. My son did exceptionally well under pressure, and stood his ground. They kept badgering about his being picked out of a lineup and his name kept coming up.

    Now…at such a point…when I was finally able to get up the nerve to speak…I spoke! Told them with all respect that since that was not my son in the picture, any other evidence they had was hearsay and that it wasn’t on us to prove that he was innocent, and not enough to take him anywhere for the night. In the end they let him come home with no charges filed.

    Anyway…I cooperated and let them have at my house even though I wasn’t happy about it. Never saw a search warrant til I got home 2 hours later, they told me they left it on my counter. I’m wondering how they got a picture of my son (probably from his school ID)..really don’t like that. Also don’t like that they had him pegged and ready for juvy for the night before even speaking to him, all based on hearsay. Also don’t like that they were scoping out my house beforehand because they had every detail of my premises listed on the warrant. Plus now my name is probably on the watch list. I’m hoping that’s the end of it but it was a good learning experience for my son….oh man, the boy is lucky he came out clean, the wrath of Anita is not pretty.

    • David Skekabim says:

      They stalked you and your son, coerced their way into your home, trashed your home, wasted your time, violated your privacy, stole your property, and threatened to kidnap your son over something he did not do. That is not what I would consider “very polite”.

      Do you vote in local elections?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Anita, now you know first hand how corrupt and immoral many police have become. Based on your story, you should challenge why the warrant was issued when the evidence, especially the picture, was clearly not your son. You have had your privacy completely invaded over graffiti ! Not drugs or theft or rape, but graffiti. Now, do you now understand what I’ve been saying about a “police state”? Do not be too surprised if your political leanings play a role in this, par for the course with this government these days.

      Sorry to hear about this, but it’s only going to get worse now.

    • O.M. Fricken G.!!!!

      Challenge this! Your son is a minor!! I am livid!

      • Nothing really to challenge. No charges filed so anything would be just blowing hot air. I was told to not speak about it publicly, or risk obstruction of justice…failed at that already 😉 . Son was able to bring to life a deleted convo with the kid who is responsible… proving that he declined several times to be paid big cash for a night of ‘painting’. Called cops to let them know this…waiting on their arrival at 2:30.

        • You know I shake my head at you Anita.

          You fell for the oldest trick in the book. They got your son to rat out someone by threatening your son for a crime he didn’t commit. They got you to do their work.

          I am always aghast at the level of self-imposed ignorance common people put upon themselves about things that are important.

          Very few understand economics, which is the primary driver of their lives. Do they know what is being done to them? Nope. They live in a fantasy world, as many here do about economics. How many read my economic posts, and the handful that do, how many understand? I think its exactly two. Peter, and D13. The rest: clueless.

          Very few understand law, which is the primary conflict of their lives. Do they know what is being done to them? Nope. They live in a fantasy world about how the law is supposed to protect them, and then their first exposure, they find it is attacking them. How many read my legal posts, and the handful that do, how many understand? Even Buck is utterly ignorant of the law. He is a practitioner in it -and probably a good one – but he does not understand it.

          …and so on. Whether the topic is science or philosophy, the utter ignorance of the lay man about his life and world just shocks me.

          Knowledge is Freedom. And little wonder why some many are slaves.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Kathy, I have three grown children, none of which were angels. Read Black Flags post as to what Anita SHOULD have done and SHOULD do, he is 100% correct. A parent is NEVER protecting their child by giving in to the bullshit the police do. They knew full well it wasn’t her son, yet got a warrant under false pretenses (hearsay) and by using pictures that couldn’t identify anyone. The first words out of any adults mouth when the cops confront a parent about such accusations is “I will be calling my lawyer now”. If they present a search warrant, let them search , but ensure they follow what’s in the warrant, while your talking to your lawyer.

        If you don’t have a prearranged agreement with a lawyer to address your legal issues, then shame on you. You have simply failed yourself and those around you. The same can be said about being armed, but the bottom line is that you MUST exercise your RIGHTS consistently and everytime the need arises. This is just more simple preparation for emergency situations (which I’m sure Anita saw it as such). As many videos and links to stories about bad cops, one would think all of you a better prepared for dealing with them. But, if you have the “I have nothing to hide” mentality while the government illegally spies on you and your kids, then you get what you deserve.

        This should be a lesson to most people here. Hopefully, it will be a big wake-up call!

    • Lesson
      Never talk to the police. Period.
      Everything you say WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU and NEVER FOR YOU.

      Never give them permission. Period
      If they need your permission, they have no case.
      If they don’t need your permission, they don’t need to ask.

      Say “I want a lawyer” and “Talk to my lawyer” regarding any questioning.
      #1 thing all defense lawyers say “I wish my client shut their mouths”

      Never agree to go to the police station for a talk.
      IF they have no case, why go. If they do, they will take you without having to ask.

      Never submit to questioning with a lawyer present. You got lucky.

      ALWAYS FILE A COMPLAINT for their action. They obviously got the warrant UNDER FALSE PRETENSE since they could not charge your son. Complain complain complain. I’d even sue.

      I hope this awakening has got your brain working.
      The State does not care about you.
      The Police are not there to protect you.
      The State controls you and the Police are the thugs that enforce that control.

      I hope your fairy tale about the State and police has finally met reality.

      • I know. I know. Believe me I was thinking about you guys alot yesterday, knowing darn well I’d get flack. But stand in my shoes, up against two big bubbas with aviators, and their Moe, where they have the upper hand (i know), and tell me you’re going to give them grief. I was in my kitchen as one bub was babysitting me..he told me that they would normally do this with about 8 guys and just storm the place. They had to have had info on me somehow that I’m harmless and they took the ball and ran. I was just afraid to tackle…cause I didn’t want us both to end up in the pen. We’re still kind of small town here, I have (til now) a good name and didnt want to rock the boat. I was already mortified to find myself in that spot as it was. But I understand what you’re saying. Doubt very highly I will complain. There just better not be a next time!

        • I was working “malicious prosecution” in my mind and then you took the wind out of my sails…no charges filed.

          Now…..BF is correct in how to handle police. Be nice, polite but say no. Never give them information until you have legal present. It does not matter how big they are, aviator glasses and all……stand your ground. And NEVER, under any circumstance, go to any police office or depot or station voluntarily. NEVER !! Always get legal representation and show up at a prearranged time with your “mouthpiece” in tow.

          If the police actually had strong evidence…they would not need your cooperation.

          Hang in there, Patewan……

          • Next time I’m going to call my three stooges to go up against their three stooges. BF, GMan, and you Colonel. A little Kathy and David as backup and I should be ok. Think they’ll wait while I fly my posse in?

            • Do not fret my friend! Look at it as experience to learn from. Being polite but firm is always a good start with cops. Bullies back down when confronted more often than not! You do realize that the cop told you, you would have normally been SWATed to serve a warrant? Over graffiti no less. It’s only gonna get worse in this country.

              You have my Email, if you want my cell # just ask! 🙂

        • Anita,
          Believe me I have stood in your shoes many times.

          My family and I were attacked by immigration cops sent to harass us by a competitor. They burst into my office and arrested my wife and baby girl “for working without a permit” IN MY OWN PLACE.

          I picked up the phone announcing I was calling my lawyer.
          A 6’7″ thug stood over me and yelled in my face “PUT THAT PHONE DOWN NOW!”

          I looked at him straight in the eye and said “My lawyer is on the other end, and I am talking to him now”, then turned my back to him.

          He brushed right up to me and pushed me with his chest “NOW!”, and I ignored him.
          I was on the phone for 20 minutes, and he merely kept repeating “PUT THE PHONE DOWN” – but he knew, and I knew, he could NOT DO A DAMN THING OTHERWISE.

          After I got the matter cleared up with the lawyer, and it still meant a trip to the cop station, I put the phone down and said to him, “Ok, let’s go”.

          In his car, my little girl -who obviously didn’t know what was going on- was happy in the back seat, and said “Oh Ma! Are we going to the beach!??” – and this thug smiled. I said, “Yes sweetie, right after this car ride”. The thug knew I won, and he would have to drive us right back after the visit to his superior’s office.

          Your power and your rights are always under attack.
          Their power comes from when you stop using yours.

          It is hard and it is tough and it is scary. Facing violence providers when you are unarmed and out numbered is scary.


    • Anita,

      I think I would have asked to see the search warrant before any other action. But, not sure it would have mattered. Cops don’t like it when you argue. They go from hard to deal with to you will be arrested. Maybe if it were being recorded they would have been more respectful of your legal rights, but again, may not have made any difference. You were outnumbered and they were going to push & bully. That included locking your son up for a night or longer. They can get away with it because it’s too costly for most people to wage a legal battle with them.

      In the end, you stood you ground and talked you way out of their false charges. I would have liked or loved to hear you sent them packing with their tails between their legs. I would also hate to be the mother who’s son was arrested and locked up for no reason, left trying to explain to him not to hate & distrust all cops, etc…

      In the end, you & he went home, free & clear. I would count that as a win! Reminds me of a cartoon, Family Circus:
      Neighbor to father with kids running around his back yard:
      “Not much lawn growing back there”
      Father responds, ” We’re raising kid’s, not grass”

      • Trust me..I cussed them out all the my head..but as you say I was outnumbered and caught of guard. Flag and G are right technically…but they would have ended up next to a child rapist for the night. I don’t like child rapists…so I caved 😦

        • But it may have given you the best results for YOU. Your job is to take care or your son & yourself first and always. It would be great if you could battle injustice when confronted with it, but it’s still not your job or calling. You decide how, when and where you make your contribution.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Dear Anita,

      I am so sorry you and your son went through this. Shouldn’t have happened at all. Now, while it has been said by others, let me – an ex-cop – reiterate some stuff:

      1. Never voluntarily go anywhere with a cop. If he’s got the goods he’ll make an arrest. If he doesn’t he’ll go away when – politely – told to leave.

      2. Never voluntarily answer questions beyond you name, dob, and address. NEVER! Invoke your rights AND demand a lawyer – and NEVER change those demands. Once you have done this, and continue to do so, ANY question answered is inadmissible in a court of law, the old “fruit of the poisonous tree” situation.

      3. When you hear the “we have a search warrant”, instantly ask to see it and read it carefully. First make sure it has the right address on it (you’d be surprised how often that gets screwed up). It was also clearly describe the place(s) to be searched and the what they are suppose to be looking for (though this can be kind of vague and still acceptable).

      4. Immediately demand to call your attorney – and DO IT. Don’t wait, don’t go anywhere – unless you have been arrested (don’t fight or resist an arrest in any way – you’ll lose).

      5. Where your son is concerned, speak up immediately if there is any question he shouldn’t answer – and that is ALL questions. If he is under the legal age of consent YOU are the one who can – and always should – invoke his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning. Once your lawyer is present, then you be quiet and let the lawyer do all the objecting and refusing (parents tend to try to talk and end up saying something they should – which can be used (spontaneous utterances) against you or your son.

      If you or your son are not under arrest then ANY physical contact can be an assault. So as BF said FILE A COMPLAINT. Do it with the agency, the DA’s Office, the State Attorney General, if you have a civilian police review board – file one with them too.

      6. Lastly, NEVER believe a damn thing the cops claim. Remember that the US Supreme Court has ruled – more than once – that the cops can lie to you and it is perfectly legal. The cops want admissions they can use to make an arrest possible, and the majority of people who willingly answer questions normally give the cops just what they need. NEVER believe the “we’ll let the DA know how you cooperated and it may make things easier on you” – BULLDOOKEY!

      Let me recap. 1. Silence is golden – remain silent. 2. Cops lie to make their cases – ALWAYS. 3. Lawyers, the only good one is YOURS!

      There endeth the lesson. 🙂

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Majority? How do you measure a majority when the positions are constantly moving, depending on who is in office?

    Good read on Progressive support for war and how the anti war people change if their people are in the white house. Not new to SUFA readers but the following is a good article with some good references for your family discussions this coming holiday season.

    • I think that the American people want to help those which they feel or the under dog.

      Read somewhere the other day- that it is very sad to contemplate that the Middle East may be better off with tyrants like Saddam and Qaddaffi-than to be left to there own devises.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    The left’s intolerance with its own, on display.

    The follow up includes some incite into the left wing knee jerk defense of the indefensible.

  27. You gotta love it……..Washington DC dropping insurance……another 13 states opting out….and companies are dropping hundreds of thousands of employees forcing them into the exchanges where the average premium is now 30% higher than what they were paying. Cannot keep your doctor or your plan……AND, effective December 1, 2014. under the Obamacare (ACA rules) insurance companies can charge ANY premium that they want…..average increase could be as high as 40 percent according to United Health and BCBS…..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      HAHA, the lefties simply ignore their own pathetic failures too! If this doesn’t teach them how destructive Liberal policies are, nothing will and they deserve what they get.

  28. Just A Citizen says:


    Good morning Sir. As usual, I hope all is well in your Republic this morning.

    I see you have been busy protecting the southern border. However, your focus has allowed yet another violation of your northern border.

    Can you please have Jesse Jackson expelled as an “illegal alien” just as soon as possible?

    Best Regards and luck in your efforts. 🙂

    • Good morning friend JAC……it is quite telling down here. Interesting, to say the least.

      Everything well here..hope you and yours are prospering…….

      • Monday I am heading for Galveston for a couple of days for a conference and to deliver a couple of papers. Will spend most of Thursday in Houston visiting customers and seeing my son. Please keep the door open.

  29. Sounds like everything is screwed up.

    Former Agent: The Secret Service Is In Collapse
    In an exclusive interview, a high-ranking agent breaks code of silence: “Catastrophic failure of all procedures and protocols”
    By Ken Kurson | 10/09/14 9:49am

    A former high-ranking Secret Service Agent has come forward to detail to the Observer in plain language exactly how this vaunted agency seems to have disintegrated before our very eyes.

    Beginning with the scandal involving more than a dozen Secret Service agents being fired or disciplined for a prostitution scandal surrounding the President’s visit to an economic summit in Cartagena, Colombia, the United States Secret Service has endured a stunning and unprecedented series of high-profile failures. They include multiple incidents of drinking on the job, a car wreck, an untruthful account of seven shots fired into the south façade of the White House and most recently, a shocking breach in which an armed man, Omar Gonzalez, hopped the White House fence, ran across the lawn unscathed, overpowered a female Secret Service agent inside the North Portico entrance and “ran past the stairway to the presidential living quarters and into the East Room where he was finally tackled by an off-duty agent.” Director Julia Pierson resigned last week after coming under scathing bi-partisan criticism during a Congressional hearing that seemed to produce outrage beyond even the usual camera-friendly pontificating.

    Despite the high profile torrent of disasters, it has been difficult for the public to piece together the “how could this happen” part of the story. The code of silence among USSS agents, including former agents, is stronger than most similar agencies – after all, “Secret” is literally its middle name. And as a relatively small agency, with about 3000 active compared to about 40,000 FBI or 21,000 CIA, its grip on leaks and gossip has largely prevented journalists from employing the “according to agents who declined to be named” sort of color that would help paint an accurate picture of an agency in turmoil.
    Secret Service Director Julia Pierson testifies to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    Secret Service Director Julia Pierson testifies to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    That grip loosened substantially this morning. A revivified Washington Post published a long front-page shocker, in which the Obama administration is accused of covering up knowledge of the Colombia scandal for political reasons linked to protecting an important donor and avoiding embarrassment in an election year. In sum, a young White House aide seems to have hired a prostitute but it was the Secret Service that was accused and disciplined, with White House officials happy to let USSS take the public blame and the lead investigator saying, “We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election.”

    It’s a stunning piece of journalism, as much for the way the Post‘s Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura penetrated the silence of the USSS as for the shocking allegations of a White House cover-up. And now it seems the can of worms is beginning to open.

    Last night, a former agent the Observer has spoken to for years without being allowed to cite even on background finally let it fly. Without allowing himself or herself to be cited by name or other identifying details (including even gender pronouns), this former high-ranking agent, who is still in close contact with working agents, unloaded on the agency in a long, wide-ranging interview, which appears below, unedited except for grammar and punctuation (some was conducted via email).

    Observer: So … what the hell is going on?

    Former Agent: Ken, I’ll be honest with you, the agency has huge issues – under-staffed, under-trained, under-funded, not being innovative in doing more with less.

    How did this happen?

    We were uprooted from Treasury after 9-11 and putting us under DHS was the start of many of our issues. [The USSS had been part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; in March 2003, it moved to the Department of Homeland Security.]

    Also a key factor is, back in the day, we did 20 years. The pension plan changed in January 1984 to 25 yrs or age 50 — many guys are leaving the service to go to other agencies where they do not have to relocate to get promoted and work less.

    Our generation of agents did have an sense of dedication. We worked our asses off all mission orientated. The leadership that is current are all my vintage that stayed instead of retiring. They are not innovative or informed about newer security measures, especially on the Technical side.

    It sounds like a generational shift has yet to occur.

    They (the old-timers) don’t know how to motivate a generation that seems sometimes to expect everything with immediate gratification. Also, post-911 the Service picked up many additional protectees. [We] picked up national special security events like the Super Bowl. [In the past,] duel mission of investigations and protection made for great agents who knew how to stay sharp and be savvy – investigations have suffered due to extended travel due to protectees who travel much much more than a Ronald Reagan ever did.
    “The most recent WH incident was as a result of a catastrophic failure of all procedures and protocols. Nothing went right.”

    Why are all these incidents suddenly breaking out?

    The attrition rate for the uniformed division officers have suffered as they use the training and top secret clearance to get better, higher-paying jobs where they are an asset to a high-paying police department after having endured the rough, extensive training. The agency during my tenure was was 3350 agents and is now 2900. And the way they are forced to hire according to OPM rules (Office of Personnel Management) is rife with issues.

    Can you elaborate?

    You can have a guy with one arm make it through most of the application process before he comes in and they see he has one arm. They’re trying to get it changed but it’s a long process. The most recent WH incident was as a result of a catastrophic failure of all procedures and protocols. Nothing went right. A muzzled K9, officers who could not catch the trespasser, a new, young, small female at the White House door who took cover. And when he [Gonzalez] got in she gave chase but could not overpower him. An off duty Cat team counter assault team member heard the radio chatter, responded and subdued him.

    This incident really shocked the public in a way that the drinking and prostitute stuff never could. To know that a guy was running loose in the White House stunned Americans.

    I don’t support everything UD (Uniformed Division) does but shooting a “running man” with a Sig 229, against the backdrop of 200-300 tourists lined along the fence, is not a shot I would want to make, unless the President was in residence, which he wasn’t. That rendered this to the exalted status of an “empty government building,” which was having work performed on it, while the King was out of residence. Short of placing a glass dome over the White House, and not shooting unarmed people that jump the fence, about all I can see that can be accomplished is to post UD Officers along the fence, for 5 years at a time, to catch the occasional jumper. [Regarding all the critics and second-guessers, I would like to] ask what he would do when he missed his shot at an unarmed “fence jumper” running toward an empty house, when one of his rounds hit a 5-year-old from Iowa there with her parents to see the White House.

    Why are you speaking to me for publication after all these years of declining to allow me to publish?

    I’ve been dying to push out good stuff. It’s so damn frustrating. I believe we need to be more proactive in highlighting our success. Our agency and Afauss (Association of Former Agents, U.S. Secret Service) need to show the value add. The USSS does amazing work every day so does Afausss – the nature of both groups is to run below the radar.

    The bureau (FBI) stacks the deck in Congress and always gets the funding. We’re now stuck in DHS with other agencies nipping at our heels. Tough times for the Secret Service and critical times for the survival of an independent USSS and Afauss as we know it.

    It’s a shame the few malcontents spit venom for 5 minutes of satisfaction that do harm to so many who have served so honorably. You know, it’s not the FBI’s fault. We screwed up.

    Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

    • When I read this, I could only think that this guy is a plant from the Obama administration. Why? Because they want to stay ahead of bad news (which is likely that the SS just don’t like working for a flaming asshole). 🙂

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    This morning I see the Wizards in Black Robes have once again decreed that voter ID shall be put aside for this election, in Wisconsin and Texas.

    Eric Holder is touting some new “unbiased” study by CRS concluding that voter ID disproportionately affects blacks and Hispanics. Lets put aside the fallacy of causation is correlation for a second.

    During training on Medicaid two weeks ago it was stated that two critical pieces of information are required to be enrolled.

    Picture ID or its equivalent, such as birth certificate along with another form of ID having a photo.


    Proof of residency, as in your ACTUAL LIVING ADDRESS.

    Those supposedly disenfranchised by voter ID are said to be so because of their POVERTY status, primarily. More than likely these folks are on some type of aid program, including Medicaid.

    Oh, picture ID is also required to enroll in food stamp programs.

    Yet the ranting of the left this am is all about how these laws show how Republicans want to STEAL elections. ALL votes should be counted, they say. Yet those same people ignore the MAJORITY of Americans who view picture ID as “appropriate”.

  31. A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

    ‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’

    So the doctor said: ‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’

    She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

    The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

    She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

    Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.’

    The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!’

    ‘I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.’

    The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

    He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Great baseball game last night. KC has some spunk and lots of GRIT.

  33. Obama Betrays the Kurds
    The Kurds are fighting bravely, but they need arms, and they need air support.
    By Robert Zubrin

    In his speech to the United Nations last week, President Obama pledged to the world that the United States would use its might to stop the horrific depredations of the terrorist movement variously known as the Islamic State, ISIS, or, as he calls it, ISIL.

    “This group has terrorized all who they come across in Iraq and Syria,” the president proclaimed. “Mothers, sisters, daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down. Bodies have been dumped in mass graves. Religious minorities have been starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.”

    “No God condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions,” he said. “There can be no reasoning — no negotiation — with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death. . . . We will support Iraqis and Syrians fighting to reclaim their communities. We will use our military might in a campaign of air strikes to roll back ISIL. We will train and equip forces fighting against these terrorists on the ground.”

    These are brave words that well and truly denounce evil for what it is. Unfortunately, the president’s actions since then have been anything but consistent with his pledge to stop the terrorism.

    As these lines are being written, some 400,000 Kurds in and around the town of Kobane in northern Syria, on the Turkish border, are being besieged and assaulted by massed legions of Islamic State killers armed with scores of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and heavy artillery. Against these, the Kurdish defenders have only AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. The Kurds have called on the U.S. to send in air strikes to take out the jihadist forces. In response, the administration sent in two fighter jets Saturday, which destroyed two Islamic State tanks and then flew away. The Kurds are begging for arms. The administration has not only refused to send arms, but is exerting pressure both on our NATO allies and on Israel not to send any either. Over 150,000 Kurds have fled their homes to try to escape to Turkey, but they are being blocked at the border by Turkish troops. Meanwhile, Turkey is allowing Islamist reinforcements to enter Syria to join the Islamic State, while Islamist elements of the Free Syrian Army, funded and armed by the United States, have joined forces with the group in the genocidal assault on the Kurdish enclave.

    According to Kurdish sources, the Turks are massing troops on their own side of the border, with the apparent plan being to sit in place and allow the Kurds to be exterminated, and then move in to take over the region once they are gone. This is the same plan as Josef Stalin used when he allowed the Nazis to wipe out the Polish underground during the Warsaw rising of 1944, and only afterward sent in the Red Army to take control of what was left of the city. If anything, it is even more morally reprehensible, since it could be pointed out in Stalin’s defense that his forces were at least pummeling the enemy elsewhere while the Warsaw fight was under way. In contrast, the Turks are doing nothing of the sort. For an American administration to collude in such a mass atrocity is infamous.

    If we are to win the war against the Islamic State, we need ground forces, and the Obama administration has rejected the idea of sending in any of our own. The Kurds, who have demonstrated both their bravery and their willingness to be friends with America, are right there, and already engaged in the fight. If supplied with adequate arms and backed by serious U.S. tactical air support, they could roll up ISIS as rapidly as the similarly reinforced Northern Alliance did the Taliban in the fall of 2001. Done right, this war could be won in months, instead of waged inconclusively for years.

    The administration, however, has rejected this alternative, and has instead opted for a Saudi-Qatari plan to allow the Syrian Kurds to be exterminated while training a new Sunni Arab army in Saudi Arabia. Given the Saudi role in the new army’s tutelage and officer selection, the Islamist nature of this force is a foregone conclusion. At best it might provide a more disciplined replacement for the Islamic State as an Islamist Syrian opposition at some point in the distant future (current official administration estimates are at least a year) when it is considered ready for combat. Meanwhile the killing will simply go on, with the United States doing its part to further Islamist recruitment by indulging in endless strategy-free bombing of Sunni villages.

    So now, to paraphrase the president, “Mothers, sisters, daughters will be subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children will be gunned down. Bodies will be dumped in mass graves. Religious minorities will be starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings will be beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.”

    Surely we can do better.

  34. Ebola worker has contracted the disease while following proper CDC guidelines……meaning full protective suits, gloves, decontamination procedures etc……and still contracted the disease.


      Two diseases that come from foreign areas. Both kill. Still want open borders Flaggy?

      • The condition created by close borders, you argue thus for open ones.

        Note: you do not concern yourself from the sick moving from New York to Texas. Why? They cross borders too unmolested.

        But as soon as a different adjective is applied to this immigration, from “Yorkers” to “Mexicans”, you face gets all huffy.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Your most irrational argument ever. Your arguing like a Democrat.

          • Irrational??? How so?

            You pretend one border crossing is “ok” , and another “not ok”, merely based on the adjective placed on the person.

            You are the irrational one.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              It is not the adjective but the IMMUNIZATIONS and lack of dangerous diseases that exist in one place vs. another.

              Your argument is irrational because you ignore that reality and then try to conflate the differences between nation states with travel between states within one nation. Logical fallacy your argument contains.

              If NY suffers from some contagious disease then I would want to restrict NYorkers movement into Idaho or Montana as well.

              • Ignore reality? No, you pervert your own principles to support your own mindset.

                No, you don’t. You isolate the individual, and not all of New York. That is your mindset.
                Change the location, you change your principle, and then use your missive to justify a great evil upon a whole population.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Cmon BF, you know it’s those “damn fereginrs” fault. Well founded principle in the history of this country.

          /end sarcasm

          Notice there is no screaming about the American citizens who came back here to be treated. Wonder why that is?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Not sure where you have been but there was plenty of screaming about the Americans who returned for treatment.

            This was what prompted Obama to speak out, claiming there was no danger of the disease getting into the general population.

            • This isn’t really anything more than dealing with medical issues that are prevalent in other parts of the world. It doesn’t mean we can’t have open borders, but it would be wise that we have adequate medical screening for those entering this country from countries where communicable diseases not common at all here. We have always been a nation of immigrants, but in today’s world, some precautions should be taken when it comes to health and safety. Is that really too much to ask? Go to many other countries without “your papers” and your ass is in jail. We can be better, but we can and should take precautions. 🙂

  35. Interesting discussion on TV this morning about the Ebola virus and the CDC trying to cover its ass. First, two weeks ago, there was no fear of further contamination, assured by the CDC… that a healthcare worker has come down with it, the CDC is changing its course but is blaming the health care worker for a “breach of protocol”… is not the government’s fault, it is the care worker……

    Now, the CDC is “re-evaluating” it stance that Ebola may be more problematic that originally thought…..


  36. And, of course, the POTUS has sent 3,000 troops to Liberia to help with the absolute guarantee that there is NO CHANCE that they can catch Ebola…..we shall see.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    And the Nobel goes to an economist who studied monopolies and the means of “controlling” them via Govt.. So much for the “Austrians are gaining ground” theory put forth by many.

    • JAC,

      The Austrians ARE gaining ground. You are merely looking at the wrong crowd.

      A decision was made by the Austrians in support of Hayek back in the 70’s. He won the Nobel prize, while he was not on any University roster. He had no tenure, and was supported by donors to pay his salary.

      Austrians decided that academia was not the root to success in the economic fight against Keynesianism. Keynesianism supports government-run economies, and therefore, government supports Keynesianism. Tenure would go to those that supported that mantra, and away from those that offer the opposite – that government destroyed economies.

      Austrians realized that they will never get academia mind when their wallets and prosperity is tied to their paymaster – the government.

      Austrians work in the population – you and me. They produce readable books on economics, not incomprehensible tomes only read by other academics.

      Austrians understood that the power is with the people, not the government and not the academics in this matter.

      From Hayek to Hazlet, to Mises to Rothbard, to Rockwell to Hoppe – they are winning. The Austrian schooled public doubles every year.

      Hayek was going to decline his Nobel prize because he did not believe in it by principle. He was convinced by his peers to accept as a matter of showing Austrian economics was supportable.

      The battle will not be in the Universities. It will be on the streets. Austrians own the streets.

    • PS:
      The “Nobel” prize in economics was founded and funded not by Alfred Nobel but by the Swedish central bank….Keyensian

      • Just A Citizen says:

        That’s an interesting tid bit. I’ll use it in my next Trivia game.

        By the way, a couple years back I was conversing with a young gal on line who was attending Florida State Univ. She selected that school in order to study Austrian Economics. Apparently a couple of the modern Austrians hang their shingle there.

        It was nice to see at least some University presence for the school of thought. I never heard of the Austrian theories in college and neither did my “Economist” son.

  38. Why Privacy Matters

    • David Skekabim says:

      Humans want to be slaves. Their actions clearly demonstrate as such.

      The NSA spies, the people bitch and moan. The people protest and vote. The NSA still spies. People bitch for a little while longer and then accept it. The NSA still spies.


      • To use violence upon the violent providers merely justifies the violent providers violence.

        Using evil to solve evil only guarantees a victory of evil

        • David Skekabim says:

          Sometimes violence is necessary as a last resort. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

          Voting, protesting, petitioning, pleading, bitching, etc …is clearly ineffective.

          Government is belligerent and forceful. There is no efficient or effective avenue for reformation. I equate government to a mad senile elephant throwing a temper tantrum.

          Shoot it.

          • Shoot it, and all you do is irritate it and give it more energy.

            Government rests upon a single pederast – legitimacy.

            Remove the legitimacy and it collapses.
            Government’s legitimacy garners its support. Without the people acquiesce, it has no power. Without legitimacy, the people do not acquiesce.

            • David Skekabim says:

              Absent the element of force, your argument is impeccable. But you know just as well as I do, that it will continue growing and ignoring the will of the people so long as it has force. legitimate or not, It will do what it can get away with, ..whatever it is allowed.

              It is not enough to simply stop voting, or to avoid taxes and licensing, etc. If only a small percentage of the people still vote, it will use that as a claim to legitimacy to govern the majority. And you are not going to convince everyone unanimously to a boycott.

              It has less and less (or little) legitimacy as it stands, yet people are still complacent, people still vote, people still roll over because they somehow rationalize and believe it can be changed for the better, ..or they are lacking an alternative worth their best efforts.

              They still cry for their beloved Constipation, rationalizing how it protects them, when in reality it does not. It’s a boiling frog, and by the time enough people wake from their stupor, it will be Nineteen Eighty Four, and too late to stop it.

              It is like the asshole cop thing. You can call your lawyer and complain, which may serve as a temporary nonviolent personal fix, but there is still the police department systematically violating people, killing homeless people for being homeless, dragging women from their cars and beating them, etc.

              But look at how the police respond when the people go bat-shit angry like in LA or Ferguson. The police department starts to reconsider their approach to the community. It understands one language of force. So, speak to it in a way it understands.

              Carrying a big stick while walking softly is only effective if you’re willing to actually use the big stick.

              • “It will do what it can get away with, ..whatever it is allowed.”

                Exactly. As long as the State’s use of force is seen as legitimate (whatever is “allowed”) the State will exercise that force. Any use of alternative force against such a situation will be seen as illegitimate (self-evident – to resist a legitimate use of force, that is to contradict legitimacy, is the definition of “illegitimate”). Hence, using violence against the State’s use of force in attempt to overthrow such use makes that force against the State illegitimate. The response will be an increase in the violence of the State upon such persons with the support of the population who have granted the legitimacy to the State,

                “It is not enough to simply stop voting, or to avoid taxes and licensing, etc.”

                In fact, that is exactly what to do. Each of these actions undermines the legitimacy the State. Such each of these acts are non-violent yet assaults the fundamentals of legitimacy; acquiesces by vote, denial of taxation (which is one of the fundamental requirements to be declared a “State”, the exercise of legislation (licensing); they are fundamentally the most powerful acts of the people against the State

                It matters not that others still vote or pay tax or pay artificial rent-seeking, the necessary numbers of outraged people merely needs to be around 10% – this is such a significant number as it far outnumbers those actually in power.

                It is a historical fact that the necessary numbers to ferment a revolution is incredibly small. A passionate cause held by a few far, far, far outweighs the meek and ambivalent.

              • Case in point; Gandhi’s march to the Sea.

                He attacked the exercise of legislation – tax on Salt. This act directly attacked the violent provider, Great Britain essential authority.

                The use of violence by the violent provider upon a non-violent act of disobedience undermined GB’s legitimacy. The public outrage compelled the government to stop – yet, without the violence, GB had lost its authority to legislate in India.

                Independence became the reality.

              • David Skekabim says:

                Everything government funnels into force, legitimate or not. Either way you slice it, it ends with force.

                The only thing to counter this is the voice of the people, which is null and void after the votes have been counted.

                You’re argument does not take this into account.

                • David,
                  “Everything government funnels into force, legitimate or not. Either way you slice it, it ends with force.”

                  It is nothing but force, this is true. But the willingness of the public to accept or reject such violence is based solely on legitimacy.

                  Votes do not matter by their content. The matter that one votes is all that matters.
                  It reinforces the legitimacy, and when the “voter turnout” drops, all the politicians, no matter their strip, plead to the public to vote. There is no greater threat to government then the withdrawal of the vote, that is, the acquiesce to government power

                  It here, then, where the greatest resistance can be offered.

                  When government can no longer provide a promise to benefit the common man (whether by illusion, or by fact), government collapses.

                  People acquiesce because they pretend they get more benefit from its existence then without. When this pretense is exposed, government has no recourse and it is overturned.

                  The question is: what will replace it?

                  Every historical event in this matter has merely provided a different version of the same thing – “maybe this will work”. None ever has worked.

                  Will the next time finally wake the people up? I don’t know. But one day, after all the alternatives have been exercised and failed, they will

              • David Skekabim says:

                Don’t get me wrong, as I understand your argument. I am not so much trying to invalidate it, but rather arguing that it is not only a matter of legitimacy, that it always eventually boils down to force. Hence why my answer is to cut to the chase and burn it.

                Consider this;

                If 75% of the people simply ignored government, or tried to institute a new government, the response would likely be some form of forceful action to assert it’s power. (Continuity of government – Martial law)

                Why is it so important to disarm a populace before imposing a dictatorship? Why not just beg for continued cooperation in elections? Why not try to convince the people to support a dictatorship?

                • David,

                  There are those examples in history, and others.
                  However, your cases have always followed an overthrow of government first.

                  Soviet Russia, after overthrow of the monarchy, wrecked upon the people.
                  Cambodia, after the collapse of the monarchy, Pol Pot wrecked upon the people
                  Revolutionary France, after the collapse of the monarchy, the Reign of Terror.

                  ….and so on. In history, there hasn’t been an example where an established government measured in decades of minor imposition grew until it became murderously oppressive. The people after such a time, would never stand for such.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Some very interesting points about the psychology of privacy.

      It makes a case for Privacy that extends to everyone and not just Government.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Misinformation and misdirection through photography has been around a long time.

    My favorite is the iconic picture of Lincoln, which you will find in many books.

    Of course this begs the question: How do we ever know if we are being shown the truth?

  40. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    Gonna be dealing with some local issues involving our local government agencies. Why? because one willfully ignorant person thinks he can stop nature because his property is wet often, due to natural watershed. He recently plugged the drainage pipe under our private road (thinking it would stop his problem) It didn’t, of course. After a recent storm sent water over the road onto his property, we opened the drain and stopped that from occurring in the future. Keeping the road passable, after all the money invested, will occur, by force if need be.

    Should be fun, as I have little faith in government. Meeting with township folks tomorrow, planning commission on Thursday. Best thing is, I’m far from alone! 🙂

  41. Meanwhile…..

    Occupy Ferguson/Missouri is in full force…protesters being bussed in…they’re hitting upscale malls and WalMarts now…saw an avatar in a comment section saying The Organization for Black Struggle….hmmm struggle?…is this the black jihad now? I’m getting a headache.

    Anita’s conspiracy theory right in GMan’s wheelhouse: Beckel’s October surprise = Ebola scare right before election day = reason to cancel election day= protests en masse from the right + Occupy protests = martial law. No, I’m not buying it, but it sure fits. What a mess.

  42. And on the ebola front…….suddenly the CDC is rethinking its approach to Ebola…..They have now gone from…” it is only one case, no worries” to……we need to rethink our approach….

%d bloggers like this: