New page…


  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations.

  3. Voting in Democracy is a form of worship.
    It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses

  4. Are these the Marxist organizations formed by the USSR in the 50’s & now acting to destabilize our government?

  5. I guess we are in for it now…..Climatologists are predicting a new 30 year cold spell…..This based on the current cold spell…..This from a John Casey, a NASA consultant, saying that the sun is changing a pattern and will shift global climate…..

    Uh oh…..this means that the environmentalists have it wrong….

    • They were always wrong and people like me a long time ago understood that.

      Most people are utterly clueless about their world, and as such fall for propaganda.

      Gore and his ilk show this map, and people get scared … We are over populated!

      They drive down the highway to some national park and all they see is humanity. The go into their Yosemite National Park and think “this is such as small part of the US and that’s all that’s left of nature” because “suddenly” they don’t see cities beside highways.

      But this is the map of human population density. Except for Asia and Europe, most of the world is uninhabited

      Most people do not understand on this next map, the red line connecting from Winnipeg Canada to nearly the center of Russia – covering more then half of the land mass of the Earth, there is essentially no one

      Where I work – Wood Buffalo National Park – is three times larger than Connecticut.

      People fret about the “dirty” oil sand projects. They celebrities fly up from their cities and are shown the pits and then rant how the environment of Northern Canada is being destroyed. No one tells the lay man that the oil sands area is larger then Florida, and the combined area of all the activity is in less area then the city of Miami… that the nearest “city” (which is merely the size of a US town) is 100miles away; the nearest major city is 600 miles away and the nearest major US city is …. 2200 miles away.

      Most people are clueless to so much.
      People “know” the earth spins. But do they understand that this creates the Coriolis effect – the land moves under the atmosphere.

      The land is moving, the atmosphere is not. Yet most people believe that the air is doing the moving, not the land – and is the cause of weather and wind.

      Take a glass of water and spin the glass. The water inside doesn’t move with the glass around it. Now the atmosphere and the land is the other way around, though the effect is the same – instead of glass surrounding the water, the air surrounds the land.

      Most people think with two-dimensional brains and find it difficult to comprehend why, when the Earth spins in one direction, the wind direction in the North of the Equator is opposite the wind direction in the South of the Equator. A prop: put a globe on a spindle.

      Look down on the North Pole and set it spinning in the proper direction, and then turn it around so you are looking down on the South Pole. Now, it was spinning in the opposite direction yet it continued spinning.

      Many of the challenges for understanding climate are created by the Earth’s rotation. This requires facility with grasping three dimensions that a two-dimensional thinking people do not have.

      The public education system does not teach to correct this thinking; for the vast most people, really, none of this information is useful anyway; knowing or not knowing doesn’t impact their lives.

      But this ignorance is used against them in the political sphere, where it does matter, and these people are helpless against the likes of Gore and the eco-nuts.

      • Yes, they have always been wrong…. I am just waiting for the new movement that man is now controlling the sun and it is the fault of my gas guzzling SUV and my Baron. I wish people could see a compass on the north and south poles…or watch a toilet flush in Chile. LOL….it would blow their mind.

      • The Climate Warmers are the idiots that Gruber was talking about when stating about stupid Americans. The only people that got fooled by his nonsense were the Left. He should change his name to Goober because he is calling the very people he supports and agrees with politically stupid. Can’t say I disagree, with a few exceptions of course.

        Weather has nothing to do with people and the whole climate change thing was a fraud. Gore, Gruber, not much difference, both are gonads for brains.

      • Flag, your physics is lacking a little. The earth is about 25,000 mi in diameter and rotates once every 24 hrs. Thus the surface velocity at the equator is about 1000 mph. At 45° latitude it is about 700 mph. If the atmosphere were stationary, the average wind velocity would be those values in an east to west direction.

        At a boundary layer between a fluid (air) and a moving (in this case) solid, there is a stationary layer of fluid. Hence at the earth’s surface, the air does indeed rotate with the earth. Since there is no similar boundary layer at the atmosphere space interface, there is nothing to stop the entire atmosphere from rotating along with the earth due to frictional forces (viscosity) within the fluid (air). The rotation of the earth causes the atmosphere to have angular momentum which is conserved.

        You are correct in that Coriolis forces do cause the west to east winds we feel in the northern hemisphere and the east to west winds in the southern hemisphere.

        • Flag, your physics is lacking a little.

          No, its not. Just like if you spin the glass the water spins eventually that way too. But is always lags so the effect is always present.

          I am always correct, T-Ray. You should know that by now.

          The point is that people do think the air moves not the land. I know you missed that point.

  6. Happy Monday Morning all!

    Just another day in Chicago land:

  7. Post in moderation

  8. We have had a lot of very serious lists on the site lately so I am posting a totally silly list. I can not vouch for whether these are authentic answers to the English GCSE exam, but regardless, they are funny.


    1. Ancient Egypt was inhabited by mummies and they all wrote in hydraulics.They lived in the Sarah Dessert and traveled by Camelot. The climate of the Sarah is such that the inhabitants have to live elsewhere.

    2. The Bible is full of interesting caricatures. In the first book of the Bible,Guinessis, Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree. One of their children,Cain, asked, “Am I my brother’s son?”

    3. Moses led the Hebrew slaves to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread made without any ingredients. Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten commandments. He died before he ever reached Canada.

    4. Solomom had three hundred wives and seven hundred porcupines.

    5. The Greeks were a highly sculptured people, and without them we wouldn’t have history. The Greeks also had myths. A myth is a female moth.

    6. Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

    7. Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around giving people advice. They killed him. Socrates died from an overdose of wedlock. After his death, his career suffered a dramatic decline.

    8. In the Olympic games, Greeks ran races, jumped, hurled the biscuits, and threw the java.

    9. Eventually, the Romans conquered the Greeks. History calls people Romans because they never stayed in one place for very long.

    10. Julius Caesar extinguished himself on the battlefields of Gaul. The Ides of March murdered him because they thought he was going to be made king. Dying, he gasped out: “Tee hee, Brutus.”

    11. Nero was a cruel tyranny who would torture his subjects by playing the fiddle to them.

    12. Joan of Arc was burnt to a steak and was cannonized by Bernard Shaw. Finally Magna Carta provided that no man should be hanged twice for the same offense.

    13. In midevil times most people were alliterate. The greatest writer of the futile ages was Chaucer, who wrote many poems and verses and also wrote literature.

    14. Another story was William Tell, who shot an arrow through an apple while standing on his son’s head.

    15. Queen Elizabeth was the “Virgin Queen.” As a queen she was a success. When she exposed herself before her troops they all shouted “hurrah.”

    16. It was an age of great inventions and discoveries. Gutenberg invented removable type and the Bible. Another important invention was the circulation of blood. Sir Walter Raleigh is a historical figure because he invented cigarettes and started smoking. And Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper.

    17. The greatest writer of the Renaissance was William Shakespeare. He was born in the year 1564, supposedly on his birthday. He never made much money and is famous only because of his plays. He wrote tragedies,comedies, and hysterectomies, all in Islamic pentameter. Romeo and Juliet are an example of a heroic couplet. Romeo’s last wish was to be laid by Juliet.

    18. Writing at the same time as Shakespeare was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained.

    19. During the Renaissance America began. Christopher Columbus was a great navigator who discovered America while cursing about the Atlantic. His ships were called the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Fe.

    20. Later, the Pilgrims crossed the ocean, and this was called Pilgrim’s Progress. The winter of 1620 was a hard one for the settlers. Many people died and many babies were born. Captain John Smith was responsible for all this.

    21. One of the causes of the Revolutionary War was the English put tacks in their tea. Also, the colonists would send their parcels through the post without stamps. Finally the colonists won the War and no longer had to pay for taxis. Delegates from the original 13 states formed the Contented Congress. Thomas Jefferson, a Virgin, and Benjamin Franklin were two singers of the Declaration of Independence. Franklin discovered electricity by rubbing two cats backwards and declared, “A horse divided against itself cannot stand.”. Franklin died in 1790 and is still dead.

    22. Soon the Constitution of the United States was adopted to secure domestic hostility. Under the constitution the people enjoyed the right to keep bare arms.

    23. Abraham Lincoln became America’s greatest Precedent. Lincoln’s mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves by signing the Emasculation Proclamation. On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in a moving picture show. The believed assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a supposedly insane actor. This ruined Booth’s career.

    24. Meanwhile in Europe, the enlightenment was a reasonable time. Voltaire invented electricity and also wrote a book called Candy.

    25. Gravity was invented by Issac Walton. It is chiefly noticeable in the autumn when the apples are falling off the trees.

    26. Johann Bach wrote a great many musical compositions and had a large number of children. In between he practiced on an old spinster which he kept up in his attic. Bach died from 1750 to the present. Bach was the most famous composer in the world and so was Handel. Handel was half German half Italian and half English. He was very large.

    27. Beethoven wrote music even though he was deaf. He was so deaf he wrote loud music. He took long walks in the forest even when everyone was calling for him. Beethoven expired in 1827 and later died for this.

    28. The French Revolution was accomplished before it happened and catapulted into Napoleon. Napoleon wanted an heir to inherit his power, but since Josephine was a baroness, she couldn’t have any children.

    29. The sun never set on the British Empire because the British Empire is In the East and the sun sets in the West.

    30. Queen Victoria was the longest queen. She sat on a thorn for 63 years. She was a moral woman who practiced virtue. Her death was the final event which ended her reign.

    31. The nineteenth century was a time of a great many thoughts and inventions. People stopped reproducing by hand and started reproducing by machine. The invention of the steamboat caused a network of river to spring up. Cyrus McCormick invented the McCormick raper, which did the work of a hundred men.

    32. Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for rabbis. Charles Darwin was a naturalist who wrote the Organ of the Species. Madman Curie discovered radio. And Karl Marx became one of the Marx brothers.

    33. The First World War, caused by the assignation of the Arch-Duck by an anahist, ushered in a new error in the anals of human history.

  9. From the New York Times:

    President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

    What does that mean?

    And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

    According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating.

    Stay on course……looting, pillaging,raping…….stay on course.

  10. What jurisdiction does the Feds have over the NFL to do what they did yesterday?

    • The Commerce Clause

      Football crosses State lines
      People make money playing Football
      Any commerce across State lines is FED
      FED owns the NFL

      Everything under the sun fits the Commerce Clause – which is why it is the most abused argument of Federal increase in centralizing its powers.

      • Correct-o-Mundo…….the commerce clause is one of the most dangerous clauses ever….it is widely used because technically…..anything can be called interstate….even if it does not cross state lines. I have been down this road….even if a finished product does not cross statelines…an ingredient can. Very dangerous clause.

    • What did they do yesterday?

  11. More ways they will stick it to us in these last two years.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    This may seem obvious to many at SUFA but I have seen some quoting the theory that higher rates reduce investments on a couple “leftwing” sites.

    If anyone tries to use that on you, this will give you the rebuttal you need.

    • JAC

      Yep, more of upside-down economic theory…. that investors would rather put their money into 0.25% investments instead of 10%…..

      • I almost posted a video about a prediction that stocks could take a 70% shock drop and make 1929 look like a picnic. I have no faith in the stock market, none in Government, less in the central banks. I do have faith in my abilities to shoot 🙂 At least that puts food on the table 🙂

      • It is interesting about investing…..many, many, many people trust others for their investments. Unbelievable….and yet, the very people that lauds investments are the first to cry foul when their “adviser” made decisions that cost the investor, perhaps, to lose everything but I guarantee you that the middle man made out like a bandit.

        401’s, IRA’s, profit sharing…..can be good if and only if the investor pays attention and learns about portfolios and “red herrings”, etc to see where their money goes and the return. Managers who rely on the ups and downs of the stock market have absolutely no idea of how it really works. Very few understand the rules of indexing yet continue to trust others with their money.

        I don’t get it.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good morning Sir. I do hope ya’l are weathering the COLD.

          As for investing I suggest a very simple view.

          ALL investments are risky, as in you can lose your money. The farther removed you are from the decisions that affect that investment the greater the risk of losing your money.

          I am struck by the history of this nations development where many wealthy men lost their investments despite being directly involved in the allocation of their own money. In the end it is all about TRUST. The more people involved the greater chance one or more of them have no HONOR.

  13. OBAMA = Mentally ill compulsive liar and should be removed from office:

    The video’s don’t lie!

  14. Ferguson should get interesting:

    However, not all preparation is as benign. St. Louis Cop Talk, a forum for regional cops, has been active with chatter, opinions and advice about the predicted unrest in Ferguson.

    Under the name “A Concerned Cop,” one person shared a warning: “If you do not have a gun, get one and get one soon. We will not be able to protect you or your family. It will be your responsibility to protect them. Our gutless commanders and politicians have neutered us. I’m serious, get a gun, get more than one, and keep one with you at all times.”

  15. JAC

    More to your errant concept of government.

    You argue that there must be a monopoly on violence to suppress violence. In other words, you champion the idea that monopolies are the best way to achieve an end.

    Yet, in contradiction, you rage against monopolies elsewhere (correctly) as their root characteristic always leads them, due to their monopolistic positions, to grossly higher costs, grossly worse service, making large and costly errors without fear of being supplanted.

    You ignore this, indeed, argue exactly backwards when it comes to government power and its monopoly of violence.

    Indeed, your idea about government will cause large and costly errors in its provisioning of violence – war, tyranny, corruption – and why no government can be contained by mere constitutions because the means to contain it – the populace – has had their response to government violence removed so to give the government its monopoly.

    As with all Statists, big or small like you, you require a fundamental contradiction in your ideology for it to exist, which always leads to fundamental perversions.

    • So, JAC, either you accept the existence natural laws, which humans articulate and which humans use to understand nature, or you don’t.

      If you do accept such existence of these laws, then you equally must accept their outcomes, and accept that declaring your monopoly will, indeed, create the very political environment you argue your monopoly will avoid, by knowing the consequences of monopolies upon society that exists everywhere else

      If you do not accept the existence of these laws, then you equally must accept that your claims about your belief in government action cannot be shown to be true nor false, your claims about your design is pointless since you need to appeal to natural law to understand the cause/effect of your program. It means that your argument is merely one of “chance”; there is no way to reason an outcome; and you are merely rolling the dice out of ignorance and with only irrational faith and prayer that your ideology will create your optimal world.

      Frédéric Bastiat
      For if there are general laws that act independently of written laws, and whose action needs merely to be regularized by the latter, we must study these general laws; they can be the object of scientific investigation, and therefore there is such a thing as the science of political economy.

      If, on the contrary, society is a human invention, if men are only inert matter to which a great genius, as Rousseau says, must impart feeling and will, movement and life, then there is no such science as political economy: there is only an indefinite number of possible and contingent arrangements, and the fate of nations depends on the founding father to whom chance has entrusted its destiny.

    • Gustave de Molinari, in his essay “The Private Production of Security.” Molinari asked if the production of defense services, which even the classical liberals took for granted had to be carried out by the State, might be accomplished by private firms under market competition.

      Molinari made express reference to the insight we have been developing thus far, that society operates according to fixed, intelligible laws. If this is so, he said, then the provision of this service ought to be subject to the same laws of free competition that govern the production of all other goods. Wouldn’t the problems of monopoly exist with any monopoly, even the State’s that we have been conditioned to believe is unavoidable and benign?

      It offends reason to believe that a well-established natural law can admit of exceptions.

      A natural law must hold everywhere and always, or be invalid.

      I cannot believe, for example, that the universal law of gravitation, which governs the physical world, is ever suspended in any instance or at any point of the universe. Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.

      But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole will suffer

    • The reason we focus on these issues in the first place is that we must realize the State cannot be reformed

      The State is a monopolist of aggressive violence and a massive wealth-transfer mechanism, and it is doing precisely what is in its nature to do.

      The dream of “limited government” cannot be realized, since government has no interest in remaining limited.

      A smaller version of what we have now, while preferable, cannot be a stable, long-term solution. So we need to conceive of how we could live without the State or its parasitism and not waste more lives of future generations in a wasted attempted to reform it.

      • As I have said many times before, we need to destroy what we have in DC and replace it with a management system that cannot make laws or demand taxes. And I’m not sure we even need that. What we got, sucks, that’s for sure 😦

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Old friend, nice to see you returning to a more civil discourse. I will respond but must defer the in depth for now. I have some chores to get done.

      Your only error is in accusing me of not recognizing the contradictions, or conundrum, if you will. That and failing to recognize that many of my arguments relate to our current condition rather than the long term ideal.

      However, for now lets look at the original sin relative to the American experience. I think this captures the “conundrum” quite well. From Public Broadcasting, a lesson plan for rediscovering Washington:

      “The Theory of the American Founding, Part One: Why Government?

      In the summer of 1787, 55 delegates from the various states (except Rhode Island) met in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. These delegates included some of the brightest and most talented men of the day, such as Ben Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and, of course, George Washington, who was chosen by his fellow delegates to preside over the meetings. Confronted with the abject failure of the Articles of Confederation, the primary concern for these delegates was to design a new Constitution, which in turn would give rise to a new form of government in America. But, at first sight, there seems to be something of a contradiction between the attempt to form any kind of government and the ideas of the Revolution as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: For, if all men are born equally free, then why should not each man exercise his freedom however he chooses? Why should there be any government at all — with laws and punishments for breaking the law — that restricts man’s natural freedom? If man is free by nature, should not he be allowed to make his own rules, instead of following the rules of others? In short, if the principles of the Declaration are true, why does man need government?

      The first place to begin is to examine what the Founders meant, and did not mean, by the terms “liberty” and “freedom.”

      America was the first nation in human history founded upon an idea, the idea of political freedom. This idea is rooted in the fact that by nature, every human being possesses equal rights, and, by nature, every human being is born equally free. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 – which expressed a view commonly held during the American Founding period – begins with a “declaration of rights,” which states, “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

      By nature, then, there is no social hierarchy among humans—no principle of who rules and who gets ruled—as there is among the rest of the animal kingdom. This is the simple meaning of the proposition that “all men are created equal.” But for the Founders, freedom did not mean the freedom to do whatever one pleases. Humans are free because, unlike the lower animals that possess only instinct or passion, humans possess reason as well. Our freedom stems from the fact that we can use our reason and think freely, and by doing so we demonstrate that we are not enslaved to our passions. Man acts freely when he acts according to his reason and does what is right. But when man acts licentiously – when he does things he knows to be wrong, such as violating the rights of others, or acting irresponsibly and not taking care of one’s self and one’s family – he is no longer acting freely, he is rather acting as a slave to his passions and instincts. As Samuel West, a Revolutionary-era preacher, explained, “where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.” Or as Jefferson once wrote, man is free “from all but the moral law.”

      Freedom or liberty, then, was never understood by the Founders to mean licentiousness, or immorality. Freedom was always understood in the light of the moral obligations imposed by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” referred to in the Declaration. But the fact that some men believe freedom means they can do whatever they choose, even if they choose to follow their greedy and selfish passions and violate the rights of others, indicates the needs for government.

      The Founders explained this problem by reference to the idea of the “state of nature,” which was central to the political teaching of the American Founding. The state of nature is how men live prior to the formation of government: the state of nature is men living among other men without government and without the protection of laws. The problem with the state of nature is that while every man possesses the same rights and liberties by nature, those rights are insecure without government. The stronger always tend to violate the rights of the weaker. In the state of nature there is nothing to prevent the stronger from taking the property of the weaker, or enslaving the weaker. But even the stronger are not always protected, as sometimes the weaker might band together and destroy the stronger. So it is in the interest of all citizens to leave the state of nature, and form a government that will protect the rights of each.

      In Federalist 51, James Madison explained the relationship between the state of nature and government by raising the following question: “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” If men were angels – that is, if men were wholly good and wholly reasonable – there would be no need for government, because every man would behave morally and would respect the rights of others without government or law. But men are not angels. In addition to his reason, man possesses selfish passions, and sometimes men will follow their passions and hurt other men. Thus there is a need for some way to restrain those selfish passions. The answer is government. The need for government stems from human nature itself, by the fact that humans by nature are not wholly good, but capable of both good and evil. The purpose of government is to encourage the good tendencies of human nature, and discourage or regulate the bad. As Madison wrote in Federalist 49, “the reason of the public alone ought to control and regulate the government,” but in turn the government ought to control and regulate “the passions” of the people.

      Thus we see the need for and purpose of government: to protect the rights which all men possess by nature, and to encourage men to act rationally and good. “

      • JAC,

        All your pointless rhetoric does not address your root error and contradiction.

        Once again:
        It offends reason to believe that a well-established natural law can admit of exceptions.

        A natural law must hold everywhere and always, or be invalid.

        I cannot believe, for example, that the universal law of gravitation, which governs the physical world, is ever suspended in any instance or at any point of the universe. Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.

        But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole will suffer

        • Just A Citizen says:


          What error? I made no claims at this point. I simply posted an article that presents the very contradiction that you identified in your post.

          I am not sure that this “Natural” law you claim actually exists. But then you have not articulated what this “Natural” law is, so I am not sure we agree or disagree.

          Perhaps you can articulate it better than the author you quote.

          • JAC,

            Can’t you read today?

            You argue that there must be a monopoly on violence to suppress violence. In other words, you champion the idea that monopolies are the best way to achieve an end.

            Yet, in contradiction, you rage against monopolies elsewhere (correctly) as their root characteristic always leads them, due to their monopolistic positions, to grossly higher costs, grossly worse service, making large and costly errors without fear of being supplanted.

            You ignore this, indeed, argue exactly backwards when it comes to government power and its monopoly of violence.

            Indeed, your idea about government will cause large and costly errors in its provisioning of violence – war, tyranny, corruption – and why no government can be contained by mere constitutions because the means to contain it – the populace – has had their response to government violence removed so to give the government its monopoly.

            As with all Statists, big or small like you, you require a fundamental contradiction in your ideology for it to exist, which always leads to fundamental perversions.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes I can read, but apparently you cannot. Did you not see right up front where I said I would respond LATER to your comments??

              I provided NO response to you TODAY. I simply posted an article that clearly shows the contradiction you are raising. Which should show you that I do in fact recognize the contradiction from a logical argument point of view.

              Nothing more.


    We’ll all be watching this when it occurs. Anyone want to take a guess at how many deaths will result in this?


    The US continues to arm and support ISIS, despite the lie that they are bombing them (which is a joke).

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Remembering and missing a couple of good friends this morning. So thought I would share:

  19. All this hoopla about the XL pipeline is ridiculous. It should be decide by the States and the feds should have no say in the matter, unless there is a dispute between the States. Utter BS.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    OK, lets address your commentary.

    First, you begin with an argument that if I do not accept Natural Law then there is really nothing to discuss.

    WHAT natural law are you proposing I must accept?? You need to identify it before I can determine if I agree or disagree with it.

    • Debates are always going to be one sided if one has to accept something before debating…In a true debate, why does there have to be ANY premise accepted before discussion?

      • To me that is akin to a duel where one side says…yes, I will duel but I will give you the gun to duel with….

        • Good Mornin Colonel 🙂

          How’s the weather we have been sharing with ya? Yesterday, we had a record low/high, by a long shot, never got above 15 here at the house. A peaceful 2 inches of snow preceded the cold spell with more on the way. Love all this Global Warming, 😀

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Good morning my Texican friend. The bitter cold is breaking here today, getting back to a balmy 40 in the day and 30’s/20’s at night. So some relief may be headed your way.

        A premise is included in all debates. But you are correct in that the premise itself could be faulty. So one does not have to simply accept it up front.

        The interesting thing about BF’s line of argument is how the “definition” of something becomes the key component to the entire argument. This goes beyond a premise in the usual sense.

        • Wrongo, JACo

          Definitions are vital – otherwise you’re talking about people’s butts and I am talking about donkeys (ie: ass).

          When it comes to defining “government” most people, like you, are hazy – holding an ill-defined notion instead of holding a definition based on reality.

          The problem with your hazy notion is that you end up supporting the government-as-it-is-now, not your hazy version, thereby continuing to support its tyranny while pretending your notion is the reason of such support.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Yep, that is what I said.

            Although I did leave out the part ridiculing my own judgment and intelligence.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Now where are those Natural Laws you wanted me to accept? Still have not seen them.

            • Read the post

              • Just A Citizen says:


                This? “Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.”

                There is NO LAW stated within that proclamation. The author in fact avoids articulating anything remotely related to the nature of The Law of Gravity.

                Law of division of labor?? Really? And what exactly is that?

                The Law of Free Markets?? What exactly is that??

                Sorry, but unless you build your Natural Law from the bottom up I am not going to simply accept your claims on your strength of conviction.

                • Because you do not understand what a Natural Law “is”, I can understand your confusion.

                  I also know, to support your errant position, you must deny such laws cannot exist.

                  As the argument previously made by Basiat, if you do not believe in the existence of natural law, you operate merely by chance. You cannot prove your assertion whatsoever, since to prove such must appeal to a Natural Law, the very Laws you do not believe exist

                  Hence, you argument for government is dismissed as childish as it contains nothing but chance.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Back to our old run around I see.

                I BELIEVE in Natural Laws. The Law of Gravity being one of these.

                There are others. I see NONE articulated by you or Bastiat or anyone else you have quoted.

                They all make similar arguments as you. Natural laws exist, therefore you must agree with me because Natural laws exist and I am claiming my view is a natural law.

                If you want to discuss/argue/debate then you need to provide the foundation for the discussion. Accusing others of being daft is not an argument. It is in fact the Fallacy of Hyperbole.

                • JAC

                  Nonsense. It is merely your nonintellectual attempt to avoid the existence of such laws because such laws lay waste to your fantasy.

                  I suppose you do not understand the Law of Supply and Demand, as an example, right?

                • JAC,

                  Look, it is very simple.

                  Either you believe that there exists sciences called “Political Science” and “Economics” or you don’t.

                  If you don’t, then your prescriptions regarding “government” is moot. You are pointless and irrational. You are claiming certain actions with a pretense of a certain consequence, but without any rational to make your clams since you have voided the existence of these sciences.

                  If you do, then these sciences work to articulate the natural laws that apply to these areas.

                  You want to try to sit in between – pretend your prescribes can be described and reasoned, without appeal to any natural law which must exist for such descriptions. Hence, you are as irrational as the who doesn’t believe in natural laws.

      • Otherwise you cannot have a reasoned argument. If you presuppose one thing and another something completely else, how can a meaningful dialogue exist?

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Lessons about the affect of Govt “reforming” things, like health care. Also, some very simple solutions to help reduce costs that are consistent with more freedom, not less.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    A little ammunition to deal with the left wing predators (Statists/Keynesians) who are always using Sweden as an example of the socialist success story.

  23. Check this out. Another example of how far we’ve fallen as a nation with the progressive mentality at the head.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      During my recent audit it came to light that the IRS does indeed monitor websites, blogs, facebook, etc, etc, on a DAILY basis. This is not paranoia but a fact stated by the IRS as their policy. They are watching us, all the time.

      They are scouring the internet to find those trying to scheme against taxation and who are trying to undermine the IRS mission. This is apparently one of the main ways they identify areas for “audit priority”. Then a percentage of people falling into the category get selected.

      But the category receives much greater scrutiny than the general population, or other categories.

    • Look out GMan, they’ll be after you next.

      Bunch of whiners. LI is pretty mellow. Have they read some of the comments on Kos or Salon? If you work for the government you should have to answer for your actions, can’t stand the heat?…get outta the kitchen…now matter how high on the chain you are. We’d like to call Jonathon Gruber to the stand at the moment.

      disclaimer…classified stuff still needs to be classified.

  24. Colonel — really now??

    NOTE: I, of course, do not hold you personally responsible for the sheer craziness of Texas as a whole. But seriously!?

    NOTE 2: Hope you and yours are doing well!

    • He’s horribly mentally incapacitated. Just pretend he’s a baby in the womb with this condition and he’s being aborted. All better, right?

      • So Kathy, are you ok with executing the mentally incapacitated?

        • I am OK with executing murderers.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I presume from your posts that you are not.

          Curious as to why not?

          If “ignorance” of the law is no excuse for me why is it an excuse for someone who cannot understand the law or right from wrong??

          • Not sure why you are drawing an analogy here with ignorance of the law. This has nothing to do with ignorance of the law.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Because the often stated objection to executing the mentally ill is their incapacity to understand right from wrong. This at its core goes to understanding the law. In this case the basic human law of “murder is prohibited”.

              That is the general difference between him and me, I understand but may not know a specific law. He may know or not, but he cannot understand why not.

              So why is that reason to not execute a murderer??

              Not some set up here, just curious as to why you are opposed.

              • There is a difference between ‘ignorance of the law’ and an inability to discern right from wrong (not to mention this inability is but one example of mentally incapacitated).

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I am not asking you about legal interpretations or application.

              I am asking you whether you support executing people who commit violent crimes even if they are mentally “incapacitated”.

              If not then explain why not.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Opposition to all executions would indeed cover the question.

              Now why are you opposed to ALL executions? Is it a “proof” issue or do you have some moral quam with executing people?

              Oh, and I don’t want an argument for anything. I was curious why you obviously found the execution of a mentally ill person offensive.

              • In large part it is a matter of proof at to speak — the risk of putting an innocent man to death…

                And let’s not kid ourselves that this has never happened.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I am going to make no such claim. In fact the more we find injustice in our system the more I myself oppose the death penalty as enacted in many states.

                I do believe in the death penalty for violent crimes, but for me it is also in the “proof”.

                How to assure that confessions are not coerced, that prosecutors have not hidden evidence that is not in their favor, etc. etc.

                Until we once again find our moral compass, I would support suspending the death penalty except in “absolutely positive proof”. Like when someone kills a bunch of people and they are caught in the act. And of course there are many witnesses in such a case.

              • I would go one step farther and abolish in ALL cases, regardless of being caught in the act by a number of witnesses.

                Even when these items are present there are still unknowns. Eyewitness testimony is flawed. There can be other things or aspects of the crime overlooked. Etc.

              • David Skekabim says:

                “There can be other things or aspects of the crime overlooked. Etc. ”

                Buck, I agree.

                Many of these people that go into public places and start killing exhibit behavior consistent with being programmed. Not only that, but they also exhibit patterns among and in relation to each other. It is like a signature.

                There is extensive documentation that mind control science has existed for a long time and has been experimented with. Yet people ignore this.

                Can you hold someone accountable for being turned into a virtual robot?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I came across a description of common laws in Scandinavia, during the period near the end of Viking times, that involved “killing” others.

              Basically, if the person did not turn themselves in for “judgment” the family of the murdered person could hunt him down and kill him.

              If he submitted to the “judgment” then his life was given to the Aggrieved family. In short, he became an indentured servant to that family per their desires. They could pardon him or utilize only a portion of his time.

              Thus a life for a life. Only in this case it is a life used to replace the benefits of the life taken.

              I think this concept has great potential in a society less reliant on “Govt. incarceration”.

              • Which concept do you feel has great potential — turning oneself in as a slave to the aggrieved family, or being able to legally go out and kill to take revenge on one’s own??

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The concept of indentured servitude as a punishment. Obviously this would not work in all cases but the concept brings the decision for punishment before those actually involved.

                But to add to the revenge killing of the olden days, the harmed family could not just go out on their own. There was a formal recognition of their “right” to act. Thus not taking the law in their own hands and not acting outside the law (outlaw).

                As I understood it any such revenge killing would also cause the killer to face judgment. In order to validate that the killing was according to the law.

                You can see how some of our common/civil laws evolved from these concepts.

    • I gotta ask a question-if this guy was insane-as in legally insane-didn’t know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong-Why did he specifically go after his ex-wives parents-this to me shows that he did know what he was doing sick or not.

      • Did you read the article? Re the crime itself:

        Sept. 8, 1992: Following a fight with Sonja Alvarado, Panetti shaves his head, dresses in military fatigues, and drives to the home of Amanda and Joe Alvarado, his estranged wife’s parents. He shoots them at close range with a rifle. He takes his wife and their infant daughter to a bunkhouse where he is living but eventually releases them unharmed. Panetti subsequently says that “Sarge” had controlled him at the time of the crime, that divine intervention meant that the victims did not suffer, and that demons had been laughing at him as he left the house.

        • I read it-and I would in general not be for executing the mentally impaired, haven’t decided in this case yet. Just pointing out exactly what it says-he was mad at this woman so he drove to her parents house and killed them-funny how the devil made him do something that would specifically hurt his exwife. He had the control to drive over there and pick out specific targets for his insanity/anger.

      • Also look at the various issues with the hearings to determine if he was even competent to stand trial…

      • VH, the same people who march in support of abortion on Monday, will also march to protect the eggs of a sea turtle on Tuesday. 😉

  25. Obama’s Executive Overreach Is More Dangerous Than Amnesty
    The GOP not only has a strong political reason to fight Obama on executive abuse, they have a constitutional responsibility, as well.
    David Harsanyi
    By David Harsanyi
    November 18, 2014

    Although it may be difficult to imagine, there are things more devastating to a country than a few years of legislative gridlock. For example, allowing slavish partisanship to corrode principles of American governance for temporary political gain. That sort of thing.

    Is this an overreaction? Well, this week, the Senate Majority Leader of the United States sent a letter to the president, urging him to unilaterally change the legal status of millions of people. Since “Republicans have not acted,” Harry Reid and other top Democrats reasoned, “we fully support your decision to use your well-established executive authority to improve as much of the immigration system as you can.”

    Reid, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet, and a number of liberal pundits contend that if the GOP fails to take up the agenda items laid out by the soon-to-be minority Democrats, the well-established constitutional authority to pass bills through two houses of Congress and waiting for the president sign or veto them can be disregarded for the greater good. Ask Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post, who believes the “only reason President Obama has to act on immigration reform is that House Speaker John Boehner won’t.” Boehner, you see, refuses to do his job, which entails taking up bills the president deems important and then passing them.
    Debate Process. Debate Immigration

    Using this rationalization, Obama can act whenever his favored policy is ignored. After all, senators urge Obama to change the status of millions by deferring deportations for illegal immigrants brought here by their parents or families as children—although he may do more. By any reasonable standard, that sort of modification to a law deserves to be wrung through a legislative process. But Obama’s aim, unambiguously laid out by the president in his post-midterm press conference, is to circumvent that process and, as Robinson explains, do Congress’ job. Which, come to think of it, is a perfect definition of executive abuse.

    Everything the president doing is completely legal! Well, just because the president gets away with something doesn’t mean it isn’t a misuse of power. Ask any liberal who’s spent the last 15 years bemoaning the excesses of the security state.

    Yet Congress isn’t compelled to pass anything. For six years, the media framed Washington’s mess as a battle between obstinate conservatives and “democracy.” Obama had often also often argued—on guns and immigration, among other issues—that a troublesome minority stood in the way of the people’s aspirations. And even though the president seems to count every non-voting American as a staunch supporter, that argument doesn’t even work anymore. A USA Today poll found that 46 percent believe that the president should allow the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate to act on immigration reform and 42 percent of Americans want Obama to “act.”
    Should the President Make Laws Without Congress?

    But that’s the wrong question, anyway. Most stories conflate the immigration debate with the debate over executive action. Even if 90 percent of Americans wanted Obama to fundamentally modify immigration law on his own, it would still be abuse. The president, after all, is free to “act” whenever he wants on immigration reform by sending his minions to Congress and working out a deal. The right question to ask voters is: “should the president make laws without Congress?”

    Until the moment he realized he’d lost the opportunity to pass immigration reform, the president was telling audiences that he didn’t have the power to act on his own. Things change. Obama enacts environmental and tax policy through regulatory fiat, so why not simply ignore laws that he finds unfair?

    Slate’s Josh Voorhees says there’s nothing to worry about, arguing “it’s important to remember that the bulk of Obama’s actions will be temporary. There’s no guarantee that they’ll remain in place after he leaves office in two years. What happens after that will be in the hands of the next president.” (This may be true. Then again, it could also be true that the next five president are Democrats.) Certainly there will be opportunity to weaken or overturn whatever the president does. It is probable that some immigration bill, or bills, will pass. But the new standard for executive abuse will no doubt be matched by presidents in the future.

    The policy itself matters, of course. But if Republicans allow President Obama’s executive action on temporary amnesty to become a debate solely about immigration policy, the public will fall into their predictable camps. If Republicans allow it to devolve into a debate about impeachment, the perception will be that the GOP party is out of control. The GOP not only has a strong political reason to fight Obama on executive abuse, they have a constitutional responsibility, as well.

  26. November 19, 2014
    Vermont Halts Payment to Jon Gruber

    Vermont had been paying Gruber major bank to advise them on how to implement deceive their citizens into implementing a single payer health care system.

    The videos of Gruber’s boastful mendacity have made these payments a hot potato of a political issue — and now Vermont is stopping further payments.

    On Wednesday, Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform for the Gov. Peter Shumlin administration, announced that Vermont would stop payment of Gruber’s $400,000 contract with the state.

    As of this week, Vermont has paid Gruber $160,000 on a contract that began July 21 and was expected to continue until Feb. 15.

    Posted by Ace at 07:40 PM

  27. Flag and JAC, Just a quick note on your discussion concerning Natural Laws and Government. JMHO, Government is supposed to protect my individual Natural Laws. They have failed in doing so and continue to try and take more away each day. Government, at the very least, interferes with many Natural Laws, like the law of supply and demand, for instance. In short, I think I understand Flag’s position of government being the “anti-Natural Law” vs. JAC’s position of the need for government (for whatever reason JAC has in mind).

    Don’t mind me, go on with your chat, it’s looks to get interesting 🙂 Now back to your regularly scheduled program 🙂

    • David Skekabim says:

      ” Government, at the very least, interferes with many Natural Laws, like the law of supply and demand, for instance. ”

      That’s the key to all of it.

      Government is completely counter-intuitive to the natural order of the universe, the only exception is that it conveniently recognizes the capacity of humans to do evil, to violate, …whereby it justifies violence upon the nonviolent through law. (a point Flag made above)

      It is essentially displacing violations instead of eliminating or preventing them. The more peaceful a society we create for ourselves, the less legitimacy government has with regard to the idea that it is ‘needed’ to ‘protect’ us.

      It all stems from human nature. Figure a way to get around that, a way to convince everyone to get along, and things start falling into their proper place.

      And what is at the root of all evil actions of humans? What is it about us that causes us to act in a way that often manifests into evil? It is when we take actions that are overly selfish, which appeal to our animalistic nature, that violate or take away from someone else.

      Live and Let Live – Golden Rule – Love thy Neighbor.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Are HUMANS counter intuitive to the natural order of the universe?

        • David Skekabim says:

          Did your mother give birth to you, or did a representative make a law that you exist?

          If you burned your birth certificate, would you disappear?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Try addressing the question. Your questions comprise a fallacious argument.

            • David Skekabim says:

              How so?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I asked a question. How about a direct answer.

                Your questions involve an entirely different concept. Thus a logical fallacy with respect to the question I asked.

              • David Skekabim says:

                The point of my answering your question with questions was to get you to THINK. But as to answer the question…

                No. Humans ARE nature. They are not created with paper and ink.

                Humans are naturally social creatures that will form some kind of appropriate order. Government, while an invention of humans, is an order based on the violation of rights, and therefor not in concert with our nature. …unless you consider that it is our nature to violate. Of course, not everyone wants to violate.

                But everyone DOES have rights. That is a universal standard in which we can (or should) agree on. Government is not universal in that regard, but rather the respect for some people’s right at the expense of others, and by force.

                What part of nature says that your rights are superior to another’s?

                I look at government as somewhat of an artificial construct. That’s what I was trying to suggest when I made the comparison using your birth. Regardless of what government puts on paper, the real world is what it is.

                Should there be a law that it has to rain an average of X inches per year in agricultural states?

              • What part of nature says that your rights are superior to another’s?

                In nature, life revolves around defense and health. Animals can be very wise with great senses, they live. The weak of the same species aren’t quite so lucky. As a species, humans are nothing more than animals and the same rules apply to us humans as to any other species of mammals. While humans have a brain that works much differently than most other mammals, the natural laws don’t change. Only the strong survive, however, strength has many meanings as well as many different actions in defense. One would think a full grown wolf would easily kill a skunk for a meal (based on size and the nature of the beast), but that never works out so good for a wolf ( in fact it could cause a wolf to starve to death in the long run).

                Wolves work well in packs (natural laws that also apply to humans). Government are nothing more than packs of wolves praying on the weakest of other mammals for survival, except government is an invention of the so called intelligent. Don’t seem much better than a pack of wolves to me, which is nature in action. HMMM! Much to consider 🙂

              • David Skekabim says:

                ” HMMM! Much to consider ”


                You are essentially pondering Chaos theory. There are far too many variables to keep track of, and certainly too many to try and control. But Chaos has it’s own Order, whether it be a weather system or an ecosystem, or whatever. It ebbs and flows, but all eventually comes into some kind of overall balance, some kind of Order.

                Government is like an interruption to that Order. It tries to control everything. When it does, someone[s] always loses.

                Government law applies to everyone within it’s jurisdiction, but not everyone has the same wants and needs, values, ideas, etc, etc. We are all equal individuals. The best it can do is to serve the majority at the expense of the minority. But someone always loses with government.

                What is equal and universal is inalienable rights. Therefore to find that balance, we must build a social Order based on said inalienable rights, and not one ‘side’ getting to force their will on the other ‘side’.

                I can find Order and Chaos in just about everything. It is the nature of the universe.

                For example; The Chaos, the ebb and flow of human social interaction can be viewed across time of all the failed societies thus far. Eventually, through trial and error and human intellect, compassion and love, we will find some kind of balance, some kind of working Order.

                (if we don’t destroy ourselves )

              • What is equal and universal is inalienable rights. Therefore to find that balance, we must build a social Order based on said inalienable rights, and not one ‘side’ getting to force their will on the other ‘side’.

                This is exactly what government does, ensure one side forcing their will on the other. We do seem to agree on much of this 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is in fact human nature to violate the rights of other humans. It has been going on for eons.
        It is also quite obvious that it is in our nature to create Govt., since we have been doing so for thousands of years. So if Govt. is a contradiction of natural law yet humans are of nature and thus subject to natural laws, how can it be that humans invented Govt. Not only invented but the vast majority support it and believe it beneficial?

        It is also human nature to conceive of things like rights and then try to claim they exist in nature, irrespective of mankind’s existence.

        Well explain how those rights we so cherish exist in the absence of humans?

        • David Skekabim says:

          ” Well explain how those rights we so cherish exist in the absence of humans? ”

          Rights exist by Order of nature. They exist everywhere in the universe equally for all creatures in all circumstances. That’s the way it is because god said so.

          You have the right to defense of yourself from a thug in downtown Portland as much as you do from an alien trying to attack you while on your visit to Uranus, just as much as it has the right to defense of you if you should attack it, as much as a LION has the right to defend itself against poachers, as much as a deer has the right to defense of itself against a LION.

          The thug has no right to violate you anymore than an alien, any more than you have to violate an alien, any more than poachers have a right to violate a LION, …

          So why and how is government the exception?

          It isn’t.

          ” It is in fact human nature to violate the rights of other humans. It has been going on for eons.”

          Who or what has an inalienable right to violate others?

          And after eons of coercion, it still doesn’t work. It is just trading one form of violence for another. So, how do we get around that? Work on those undesirable aspects of human nature perhaps? How do we do that?

          ” It is also quite obvious that it is in our nature to create Govt., since we have been doing so for thousands of years. So if Govt. is a contradiction of natural law yet humans are of nature and thus subject to natural laws, how can it be that humans invented Govt. Not only invented but the vast majority support it and believe it beneficial? ”

          It is not necessarily in our nature to create government, but it is in our nature to create a social Order. Government, because it is based on a violation of rights is a contradiction to the Order of the universe, and is thus a flawed Order.

          Eventually, just maybe, …we can evolve as to not use coercion to have Order.

          How do we do that?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Contrary to the natural order but created by humans who are subject to natural order.

            Thus the theory of natural law, in this case, is proven wrong.

            I challenge you to point to any RIGHT located anywhere in the universe that is not within the mind of men.

            Of course this will require that you define Rights, including their essence.

            Because you see, using the standard meaning of “inalienable rights” and “natural law/rights” humans and animals do not have a “Right” to defend themselves. Because a Right involves an obligation on others. I have no obligation to allow you to defend yourself. At least not one existing as Natural Law.

            I have no obligation to allow the lion to defend itself against my attack. In fact it is my nature to make sure he cannot defend himself. Since I wish to have him for dinner.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I also urge you use caution in throwing around the analogy of wild animals when trying to describe the “natural order” of the universe, especially relative to humans.

            If that is the order or law you wish to use you will quickly realize that it leads to survival of the fittest, or dog eat dog, the stronger win, and then Social Darwinism.

            Now let me give you what I consider a Natural Law.

            ALL THINGS CHANGE. By things here I am referring to objects, not necessarily forces like the force of gravity. Gravity works always, but the objects which contribute or are affected by it change. All living things change. The Universe itself changes.

            We do not have a Natural Right to live. That is to stay alive. We may have a right to pursue this goal but no RIGHT to LIFE itself. Not for us individually nor for us as a specie.

            • David Skekabim says:

              ” I challenge you to point to any RIGHT located anywhere in the universe that is not within the mind of men. ”

              I did.

              ” Of course this will require that you define Rights, including their essence. ”

              I did. …sort of.

              ” Because you see, using the standard meaning of “inalienable rights” and “natural law/rights” humans and animals do not have a “Right” to defend themselves. Because a Right involves an obligation on others. I have no obligation to allow you to defend yourself. At least not one existing as Natural Law.”

              Rights are inalienable. They are yours because you exist. They do not require an obligation to anything or anyone. If you are on an island stranded alone, do you not have a right to self determination?

              ” I have no obligation to allow the lion to defend itself against my attack. In fact it is my nature to make sure he cannot defend himself. Since I wish to have him for dinner.”

              …to use your own words…

              We do not have a Natural Right to live. That is to stay alive. We may have a right to pursue this goal but no RIGHT to LIFE itself.

              ” I also urge you use caution in throwing around the analogy of wild animals when trying to describe the “natural order” of the universe, especially relative to humans. If that is the order or law you wish to use you will quickly realize that it leads to survival of the fittest, or dog eat dog, the stronger win, and then Social Darwinism.”

              Principally, it is no different than human examples, with or without law. Again, government is only a displacement or trade-off of violence, organized with paper. But it is still a violation of rights. It is still survival of the fittest, only in the context of tribalism and politicking.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I am not claiming that Govt does nothing but good and can not in fact violate “rights”.

                I am saying that there is no such thing as a natural right as most people claim.

                Inalienable simply means that your rights are tied to you and can only be lost by you giving them up. But if you can give them up, how can they be tied to Natural Law. Is not giving up the thing contrary to the law which bestowed the thing?

                Rights do in fact involve obligations. Thus the terms negative and positive rights.

                The obligation is for others to NOT interfere. But since people can and do interfere, this cannot be a Natural Law. Because if it were it could not be violated.

                I don’t reject the concepts of rights or natural law. I simply believe that our ancient philosophers used the phrase to create a category of rights and theoretical laws to rationalize the desire for freedom and liberty.

                Aquianas was the basic founder of the concept. Notice how closely the idea of Natural Laws and Natural Rigths align with Divine laws and rights. All pursuit or reasoned exploration is stopped by declaring them Natural.

                Just as you keep doing by simply proclaiming things to be in violation of some Universal Order. Yet you cannot or have not provided any defense of what this order is or how you know it to exist.

                We humans have a right to pursue our existence according to our nature. This right comes from the Natural Law that all things which exist will pursue existing and such pursuit must be in accord with the nature of the thing.

                There is no natural law beyond this.

                Take self defense. Not all organisms are capable of defending themselves against death or injury. At least not as well as others.

                Natural law dictates that those which cannot defend themselves against premature death will cease to exist. In short, ALL THINGS WILL CHANGE.

                Now with all that said, I understand the concepts of Natural Law and Natural Rights as used by our ancient philosophers and our Founders. I don’ disagree with the general concepts of these rights. I simply disagree that they exist as part of the natural law. Because if they did we would not be debating them, we could not overturn them, we could not constantly decide to ignore them.

                Oh, I forgot about your Island example. It is a good one because the answer is NO. You do not have the Right to self determination because the concept would not apply to you as an individual stranded on an island. Before this “right” could exist in reality, other people would have to join you and then there would have to be some attempt to organize in a way that allowed others to dictate to you what you must do. Then you would claim a right to self determination. The others would disagree and you would then be placed on a raft and sent on your way. So much for your Natural Right.

                If you haven’t figured it out by now, the rift in our arguments is the role of REASON as well as that of morality and ethics as opposed to some Metaphysical declaration that humans are supposed to be free to do what they choose.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                David and Gman

                Here is a great presentation that addresses the concept of Natural Laws and Rights as you have tried to defend, and as conceptualized by the Founding generations.

                But notice how quickly he moves from simply declaring Natural Laws to Natural Rights are tied to the individual. No defense if provided. It is to be taken on FAITH. Now in all fairness this was not the forum to get into a debate on the subject. The judge does a good job of articulating the concept as understood when the Declaration and Constitution were written.



              • David Skekabim says:


                What you’re doing is assigning obligation of others as a qualifier for rights. Your frame of reference, your premise, is fallacious.

                I am arguing from the premise that the universe is as it is, and that we are what we are.

                Think of it like this JAC…

                The universe is. It just simply exist in current form because it does. It is called “reality”. According to the way the universe functions, life forms are the way they are. It is called “nature” Most life forms are individual entities with a mind of their own and a natural inclination to protect the self, to exist as their DNA dictates.

                Possessing rights, exercising rights, respecting rights, defending and being capable of defending them are different but related concepts.


                Put yourself on another planet where there are no other life-forms or law or social order, …just you and a lifetime supply of necessities.

                Do you not have a right to decide what to do with your day?
                Do you not have a right to decide what god to believe in?
                Do you not have a right to protect your stuff against weather or a possible visitor?
                Do you not have a right to behave according to your nature, to be a human?
                If an alien comes along and tries to eat you, do you not have the right to annihilate him with a laser cannon?

                Respecting rights is not obligatory either, but it does have potential consequences as it conflicts with others exercising their rights, to include defense of said rights.

                If you don’t respect them, whoever you are violating has a right to defense against you. Whether or not they are capable is in question, but they still have the right to do whatever they can or is necessary to protect them.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Time to clean up a few details.

    Are their Natural Laws? YES.

    Are their Natural Laws that deal with the creation/existence of Govt.? To be determined just whether there are and what that relationship might be. It is important to note that there is NO general agreement among philosophers on this question.

    Is there such a thing as Economic Science? I would say NO, if one is trying to compare the hard sciences with the study of economics. The latter is a mix of behavioral study, math and some scientific concepts. But the “study” of economics does exist.

    Is there such a thing as Political Science? I believe the answer here is the same as for economics.

    Now some food for thought, for those following along.

    The concept of Natural Law was developed by humans, philosophers, to try and determine what the “natural order” might be for humans. So the integral and defining question relative to the concept is “What is the Nature of Humans?”. Furthermore, the focus of most investigations into the notion of Natural Law and Human Nature are related to the concepts of Morality and its relationship to even more concepts, like Rights and Law.

    When one argues that something done by humans violates the Natural order/law then they are claiming that it is violating Human Nature itself. Yet it is humans that are doing this something. So how can humans be acting in any way other than according to their Nature?

    I have left out a key concept that helps resolve this confusion. Now lets see if anyone is willing to venture forth and try to describe it.

    HInt: What is the key difference between Human Nature and the Nature of all other “animals”?

    One more thing that I believe needs to be mentioned once again. Government is a concept created by Humans, who are in turn part of the natural world. Government is an “institution” it is not a living entity. It does not exist without humans participating in its creation, operation and function.

    So arguments that Govt. MUST follow a certain path is to argue that humans must also follow that same path. Because, after all, it is humans that control it.

    The essence of Govt. is power, as in the “authority” to act in a certain way. This power cannot act without humans enabling it.

    This leads to the conundrum expressed by Madison that I posted here a few days back. “If men were angels we would not need Govt.”. However, given that all men are not angels, then why would a Govt. controlled by men be anymore righteous than a society without Govt.? Obviously the Founders leaned towards the rash assumption that “angels” could be found to run the Govt.. That and the creation of chains to reduce the negative affect of the “non-angels”.

    While we rail against the concept of Govt.. we should keep in mind those good things that Govt. has provided. This does not mean they could not be provided without a Govt.. But in most cases it would certainly be more costly to most of us, or it would be more inconvenient.

    We also seem to forget to distinguish between the various “levels” of Govt.. BF’s arguments against Government hold for ALL Governments. So those who jump on his bandwagon need to think hard about how various towns and cities would function under a NO Govt. scenario. This means starting with the “existing” situation, not building a “Galt’s Gulch” in your mind, or some place in Montana. 😉

    Happy Thinking.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Good lord, we can’t seem to be Number One in anything anymore. Even Mexico has us beat.

    I was surprised to see so many middle east countries on the list.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    US District Judge struck down the Montana Constitutional Amendment stating “marriage is between a man and woman” on the grounds it violates the 14th amendment. Same argument used by the Progressive/Activist judges on many occasions.

    But lets stop and think about that a minute. Per the Wizards no govt. privilege can be withheld from one group. If given to one then it must be given to all.

    Well you know what marriage is not granted to everyone is it. It is in fact not granted by the State Govt. at all. Remember I posted the wording of the Idaho license here some time ago. The law dictates who may secure such a license, which is where the constraint of privilege comes in.

    Such as the prohibition of married people securing another license (polygamy), siblings, first cousins, etc. In fact “homosexuality” was not listed as a prohibited arrangement. But the license clearly stated the man and woman as “Husband” and “Wife”. Despite the relativistic left’s desires, “husband” means MAN, and “wife” means WOMAN.

    We know that the real issue is not the license itself, nor for many the “sanctification” by the State of their desire to live together. It is about the OTHER benefits bestowed upon “married people”.

    And here is where we see the major contradiction in the Wizards arguments. You see if the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination in granting privileges then WHY are “single people” discriminated against when it comes to the same tax breaks, contract dispute resolutions, estate status, etc, etc.??? Why cannot two single people simply declare the same “rights” to the same “privileges” as married people???

    The answer to this requires the Wizards to devise a NEW LAW that governs all laws of men.

    “When it is in the State’s interest”.

    Now go back and remind yourself of how this started with a California judge writing a treatise on why it is NOT in the Govt’s interest to discriminate against homosexuals. That is the ban did not meet the test of “compelling interest” to withhold a “right” or “privilege”.

    When did we give the Govt. such authority?? We did not. It was taken/created by JUDGES.

    Anyone telling you our Constitution created three “co-equal branches of Govt.” doesn’t understand the history of the Constitution or what it created.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sorry, I forgot to add the key point relative to the Idaho license. It did not grant a marriage.

      It authorized the preacher to conduct a ceremony wherein the State “sanctified” the marriage.

      In other words, the State recognized the marriage relative to its other laws and thus grants of privilege for the status of “married”.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    It becomes easier each day to recognize the fraudulent campaigns of activists, left and right.

    Notice how nothing fits the name given to it, when looking at the actual mission?

    Here is an example from a photo on DKos.

    “National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) GOTV canvassing team in Miami-Dade.”

    First of all, I doubt they are a true “institute”. They are in fact part of the Get Out the vote effort of the progressive Democrats.

    Second, wouldn’t “reproductive health” involve making sure all the “lady parts” work properly and are “healthy”? If not then “reproduction” is jeopardized. But in fact what they are using to “canvass” votes are “access to abortions and contraception” and the “threat to planned parenthood”.

    Which leads me to a comment I heard this week after the Gruber stuff hit the air waves in a big way. Basically, this should wake the American people up to the FRAUD contained in ANYTHING that uses the phrase “Comprehensive XYZ Reform”.

    The argument on many left wing sites the past couple days, regarding “immigration reform” is that we have not had “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” since Reagan. Got that??

    Somehow the number of years since reform it and of itself dictates the need for more “reform”. Well tell me you Progressives. If you truly comprehensively reformed something then why did you not reform it properly in the first place? Why is it so broken that you need to “comprehensively” fix it once again.

    Could it be that this is all just a smoke screen to “fundamentally change” the laws of the land to suit your own goals and objectives? Many of which seem at this point in time to be aimed an nothing more than creating a long term voting block for the Democrat party.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    While looking into something else I came across this comparison of three key terms that are thrown around a lot. Especially in our discussions of political and moral philosophy.

    So thought I would share:

    Synonym Discussion of HYPOTHESIS

    hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation . theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth . law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions .

    Now please note that a law in this context, as in natural law, is “invariable”. Meaning it is absolute and cannot vary, no exceptions, “under the same conditions”.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius………….calling on Mathius.

    I was not aware of this connection. Were you aware?

    “The Hobbit[edit]

    The representation of Dwarves as evil changed dramatically with The Hobbit. Here the Dwarves became occasionally comedic and bumbling, but largely seen as honorable, serious-minded, but still portraying some negative characteristics such as being gold-hungry, extremely proud and occasionally officious. Tolkien was now influenced by his own selective reading of medieval texts regarding the Jewish people and their history.[5] The dwarves’ characteristics of being dispossessed of their homeland (the Lonely Mountain, their ancestral home, is the goal the exiled Dwarves seek to reclaim), and living among other groups whilst retaining their own culture are all derived from the medieval image of Jews,[5][6] whilst their warlike nature stems from accounts in the Hebrew Bible.[5] Medieval views of Jews also saw them as having a propensity for making well-crafted and beautiful things,[5] a trait shared with Norse dwarves.[4] For The Hobbit almost all dwarf-names are taken from the Dvergatal or “Catalogue of the Dwarves”, found in the Poetic Edda.[7][8] However, more than just supplying names, the “Catalogue of the Dwarves” appears to have inspired Tolkien to supply meaning and context to the list of names—that they travelled together, and this in turn became the quest told of in The Hobbit.[9] The Dwarves’ written language is represented on maps and in illustrations by Anglo-Saxon Runes. The Dwarven calendar invented for The Hobbit reflects the Jewish calendar in beginning in late autumn.[5] The dwarves taking Bilbo out of his complacent existence has been seen as an eloquent metaphor for the “impoverishment of Western society without Jews.”[6]”

  34. David Skekabim says:
    • So much for your live and let live theory. Wasn’t religious persecution one of the reasons we left England? No one is hurt by freedom of religion, unless you’re an infidel. Many are hurt by freedom from religion. Freedom from religion takes my right of freedom of religion away. Let’s stick with the correct words, take words at their face value, and quit looking for loopholes.

      • David Skekabim says:

        I look at it as an example of failure of law.

        Law is so contradictory and unprincipled, it creates messes like that one.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Clarification: SOME LAWS, not “law” in general, nor “man’s law” in general.

          Proof? Man’s law establishing criminal penalties for murder.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The typical logical fallacy committed by the “left” on this subject. A deliberate distortion of the actual cause/effect relationship.

      “This was inevitable. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which said secular, for-profit corporations have the right to make highly personal medical decisions for their employees based purely on religious dogma, corporations are trying to see just how much freedom they’ve acquired.”

      The SCOTUS decision did not authorize or grant a civil right “to (not) for-profit corporations have the right to make highly personal medical decisions for their employees “.

      The court ruled that the Govt could not force the corporation to provide services that were offensive to their religious values. As this would violate the separation clause, by IMPOSING upon a religious group the religious values of others. Thus negating the religion itself.

      Notice how the atheist group, and most Progressives will conflate the Imposing upon a company/church etc. with that entity somehow “imposing” or “dictating” personal choices upon the employees.

      The employees are free to pursue whatever health care or insurance needs they desire. The are free to pursue these within the realm of the market that provides this service. Just so happens their employer is not part of that market.

      The ACA basically FORCES market participation upon any entity other than a person, because SCOTUS also ruled that was “unconstitutional”. Then turned around and allowed a punitive tax on those not complying with the illegal mandate. 😦

  35. Question on Obama’s amnesty stuff. Did he change the law or simply make up a new one? Or neither?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My skimming of the immigration law (US Code) does not support the assertions of Slate or others defending this action as either a “discretionary” or “explicit” power.

        For starters, temporary immigrant status must be conferred by “consul official” located OUTSIDE the United States. The status is granted “upon application” and then review and approval.

        So at least for now, it looks like POTUS is creating new law because the proposal states that Temporary Visas will be granted by decree.

        I am sure that Mr. O’s lawyers have sweated this to the max, as the Progressive Legal minds always do, but it sure looks weak………….so far.

        By the way, I could find only ONE reference to granting “parents” temporary visas and that involved children of aliens working here and the children later applied for “permanent residency” or “citizenship”, provided the children lived here for many years in the last seven.

        The children being used to give “legal status” to millions were not brought here as children of diplomats or international Executives doing business in the USA.

        Prosecutorial discretion is equally weak in my view, and has even been admitted by Slate/others, as a gross stretch given the Class nature and the numbers. Besides, a decision to not prosecute is not the same as a decisions to grant legal status, even if temporary.

        • If the administration does not have the resources and money to secure the border, how does it have the resources and money to investigate 5 million people applying for work papers?

        • So at least for now, it looks like POTUS is creating new law

          Agreed. He far exceeded his authority. In fact, his job is to make sure laws are followed, which he has failed miserably in. IMHO, he should be impeached and a lesson taught to the left that their BS will not be tolerated. Yes, I have met Joe Biden (not personally) but that is a lame excuse to NOT uphold the law of the land. Justice should be demanded when this new Congress starts in January. Sadly, it won’t, because they’re all on the same damn side .

          • Just A Citizen says:


            While both parties contain many members who are basically the same, in their core values, the parties are not the same.

            And the lack of willingness to impeach is not evidence of such. It is, however, evidence of the influence politics has on what the parties will and will not attempt.

            Why will neither party deal with the coming Social Security crash? One wants us to believe it is fine, because it just needs a little more “revenue” added, you know tweeking. The other which wants to reform it knows they will LOSE any election if they try.

            The Dems did a great job, thanks to their media lackeys, of creating ill will towards Republicans over the Clinton impeachment. They have set the stage for the same thing with Obama.

            Now lets assume the R’s did try. WHAT would happen? HOW would they get Obama impeached and removed?? And then of course, WHO will take his place???

            • WHAT would happen? Simple , the HoR would have a debate over whether or not Obama has done enough wrongdoing to be impeached. They vote. Yea, Obama now must face the Senate in impeachment hearings, No, and it’s the end of it.

              HOW would they get Obama impeached and removed? Se above, where it all begins. If the Senate has hearings of impeachment, it will be much like a criminal trial. The Senate would then vote. You should know all of this, why are your asking the procedures?

              WHO will take his place??? If Obama is in fact impeached, which he will not be because of my above stated reason, Biden will then be the sitting President until Jan 2017. I have no problem with this outcome.

              NOW, if Obama has acted in a way that is deemed impeachable, which I certainly believe he has, many times over, then the rule of law concerning this government should be observed and demanded by the people. When lawlessness is allowed to fester, it will simply continue. If the government fails to hold people responsible for breaking the law, then we are no longer in control of the government, they are in control of us (which is exactly the way it is today, because illegal actions have been and continue to be allowed without accountability)

              THIS is why I side with Flag, because the rule of law doesn’t exist in the Federal Government. They are rogue, and Obama is leading the way.

              • OH, I don’t give a rats ass about future political actions and results, because if Obama is allowed to make up his own laws, illegally use the military etc, then the next asshole will be doing exactly the same, regardless of which color shirt they wear.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You make rash claims about parties being the same. You blame our Govt for failure to enforce the laws.

                Yet you admit this is all because the PEOPLE allow it to happen.

                So where does the real blame lie?

                I was not asking you about the procedure, and I think you knew that. The discussion is about the practical affect and the underlying reasons they happen.

                The PEOPLE would not support an impeachment. Because Gruber is correct…….most of us are not very smart.

              • I actually agree with Gruber, American’s are stupid. They fall for utter BS all the time. Voting works=BS, we need govt=BS, Global warming is a threat=BS, The government is there to protect our rights (technically, that is their job)=BS, because they are doing no such thing, Lower carbon emissions to stop Climate change=BS. EVERYTHING political today is BULLSHIT, all of it. The MSM are paid lackies for the BS artists.

                Gruber didn’t fool that many stupid Americans, because 95% don’t pay any attention to their slave masters. The Left who do, fall for BS all the time and Gruber knew who he targeted and succeeded, because , well, they are easily fooled.

                If folks like you want a government and think that voting works, than step up and hold those elected to the same standard they hold all of us too, stay within the law or deal with the consequences. It’s NOT happening. It’s NOT going to happen because people just don’t have any courage to protect their freedom and demand action. I’ll give you one huge example, Eric Holder, Contempt of Congress. Big Fing deal. What are the consequences from breaking the law? Go into a court of law and be found in contempt of court, your ass is locked up. No Sir, no more preaching this BS about how voting works blah blah blah. Voting will never work if those elected can openly break the laws with no consequences. THAT IS THE CASE with several members of the Federal govt, Obama being one of them.

                Nothing will happen to any of them, Obama, Holder, Lerner, to name a few. NOTHING! because voting is BS. It’s an illusion of choice. An illusion of liberty. It’s an illusion that the Gruber’s of the world have ensured will continue until the idiot humans cause their own extinction.

  36. OMG-these are the ramblings of someone who is obviously insane.

    Woman: I Talked to My Unborn Baby and “Made Peace With It” Before Aborting

    by Sarah Terzo | Washington, DC | | 11/21/14 2:06 PM

    A Planned Parenthood worker who got pregnant and chose to have an abortion said the following:

    ultrasound3d20“I felt this entity within me, flooding me with immense strength and love… While pregnant, there was also the feeling that I was never alone. I spent a lot of time lying on my bed with my hand on my belly letting the buzz of contentment vibrate through me….

    I am selfish and I know it. I want to travel the world and be a perpetual student. I know that, from my perspective, having a child would mean giving up many of my dreams, and until I am as joyful about the prospect of becoming a parent as I am about my other pursuits, I can’t give a child what he/she deserves.

    But the pregnancy helped me see why others would choose parenthood. My pregnancy experience struck a very basic primal chord within me, and I was amazed by the creation occurring within me. .…

    Having an abortion is not always traumatic. If you can get beyond societal shame and expectation, you might find a message just waiting to be discovered. I never turned away from the fact that I would be ending a potential life. Facing and accepting this was the most important thing I could’ve done to prepare myself for my abortion.

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

    This might sound strange to some, but I actually talked with the being inside of me. I made peace with it. I knew that there was a reason for this pregnancy and it wasn’t about becoming a mother.”

    • So why do they allow someone this messed up to kill her baby? If someone is too insane to understand right from wrong and murdered someone, how is an insane woman not too crazy to know what she is doing?

      • Good evening Ladies 🙂

        Let’s go back in time when insane asylums were being used for the mentally ill. That has changed because now the mentally ill can be medicated so they aren’t violent (this was a liberal issue long ago). So, putting people in these places became illegal, unless of course, it was totally clear they were nuts, or they killed people and were deemed “innocent” by reason of insanity. While I’m not too keen on the death penalty, putting someone in prison or an “insane asylum” after they have done their dirty deeds isn’t really solving the issues at which are often discussed.

        I respect Buck’s view of the death penalty, but I find myself wondering why we continue to pay the bill for these killers to live (if being in prison is living). I think being in prison or and “insane asylum”, now known as mental heath hospitals, for the rest of their natural life is also bordering on insane. Frankly, I’m tired of paying for those who will NEVER be allowed in society again.

        The Left, will fight like hell to allow a woman to kill an unborn baby, then turn around the next day and fight to protect the eggs of a fucking sea turtle. Talk about being insane, I think I have just added to the list of the nuts in our society. Women who hunt and legally and successfully harvest game are constantly threatened with death by these very same people who will gladly allow the abortion of their own child. INSANE is a good term to use when confronting the Left and their sick ideology.

        To VH, I love your continued opposition to abortion! But, we both know the only way to stop abortions is by Constitutional Amendment (as I write this). This may change if the govt is removed and a better system applied (like very little).

        We can’t even medicate the mentally ill anymore, much less fix stupid. Just arm yourself and protect your life and those around you. The time to prepare is now.

      • Kathy, Although I see the logic in your question-you have to realize that those who push abortion believe that those who are mentally challenged should not only be encouraged to kill their children- in some instances should be legally forced to do so.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometimes they forget to even pretend…………assuming us STUPID Americans wouldn’t notice, or give a S__T.

    • David Skekabim says:

      I agree with the idea of standing up for freedom of expression. Although I haven’t researched all of the details, it appears as if, in this particular instance, someone[s] are being a little too sensitive.

      However, there is sometimes a fine line between expression and proselytizing, which often gets blurred and overcomplicated by inadequate legal standards. And there is a difference between teaching something from an objective position and proselytizing.

      It is important to take a careful approach with regard to public schools, not only because they are government institutions, thus subject to the separation of church and state, but more importantly, because they are a major influence on the development of children.

      If you have a school program oriented toward a particular belief system, you’re imposing it on whichever students that do not share those beliefs. If you have a program intended to be objective, but is being administered by someone trying to influence from a particular belief, it is not so different.

      It has to be objective, neutral, fair and truly universally beneficial if it is something intended for everyone.

      I have to agree with the purpose of those who are keeping a vigilant watch for these types of situations, as there is clearly a politically active Christian fundamentalist population in the USA who take a very self righteous position and refuse to understand that it is not a ‘Christian Nation’. They’re being unfair, intolerant, stubborn, dishonest and sneaky in their attempts to exert their influence. And they need to be put in check.

      Likewise, there are also those who are unfairly ‘picking on’ Christians, holding a grudge and giving in to the temptation to exercise backlash against the theocrats who’ve influenced public policy for so long.

      Both are detrimental to a free and peaceful society.

      • I look at the state of the Country and I don’t see any real plus’s to the extreme minority controlling everything compared to the religious majority having a bigger say.

        I do find your word choice kinda funny-no doubting where you stand -although I’m sure you feel that you are being very balanced in your opinion. What words are they-lets see-the atheist are being a little too sensitive, holding a grudge, and giving into temtation-while the Christians are unfair, intolerant, stubborn, dishonest and sneaky.

        • David Skekabim says:

          “I look at the state of the Country and I don’t see any real plus’s to the extreme minority controlling everything compared to the religious majority having a bigger say. ”

          First of all, NO ONE should control everything, whether it be a majority or a minority, individual or whatever. Any group controlling things is completely counter-intuitive and antithetical to a free and peaceful society.

          Secondly, The religious majority are mostly moderate, are over their hangups, and aren’t concerned with trying to push their beliefs as to make everyone else conform. The religious majority aren’t really an issue.

          Thirdly, Your “extreme minority” include tens of millions of zealot fundamentalists trying to push their beliefs as to make everyone else conform. The gays and atheists, Muslims, Satanists, Wicca, etc etc… They’re not trying to push their way onto everyone, but rather pushing for inclusion, demanding their rightful equal place in society.

          ” I do find your word choice kinda funny-no doubting where you stand -although I’m sure you feel that you are being very balanced in your opinion. ”

          Indeed I do. I do my best to stay objective and honest in my approach.

          ” What words are they-lets see-the atheist are being a little too sensitive, holding a grudge, and giving into temtation-while the Christians are unfair, intolerant, stubborn, dishonest and sneaky. ”

          That’s because I call it like I see it. I can sit here and point to MANY examples as to demonstrate truth in my statements.

          • There is no doubt that fundamentalism in most religions are a major turn off to religion in general. One’s religion is personal and should/could be shared with like minded people. However, the country was founded on Christian principals and it’s laws are based on those same principals. While we are like minded in what a disaster that our laws have become, a very large majority of the populace are Christian. I have seen statistics that may refute this, but usually, they are statistics from the same core group who claim global warming is a real issue (along with all of those made up stats).
            We are of the same thinking, be who you are and let others be who they are. If kids in school want to pray in the morning or say the Pledge with the word God in it, then that’s the way it is (in this case, I see the atheist’s as being ignorant) Can special arrangements be made to appease Atheist’s (or whomever has an issue with it), sure, send them all to a room where there is silence and their virgin ears can’t hear the word God. I see this issue just as stupid as the transgender BS going on. Keeping the people divided so they’re too stupid to know what the government is doing to them. 🙂 Happy Sunday 🙂

            • David Skekabim says:

              ” However, the country was founded on Christian principals and it’s laws are based on those same principals. ”

              Incorrect. The USA was founded on principles of force, but intended as secular in favor of religious liberty and freedom of expression.

              The only exception I’ve found is Section 18 of the Mississippi State Constitution that allows for The Holy Bible to be used in public schools.

              ” No religious test as a qualification for office shall be required; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect or mode of worship; but the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall be held sacred. The rights hereby secured shall not be construed to justify acts of licentiousness injurious to morals or dangerous to the peace and safety of the state, or to exclude the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state. ”

              Other than that I am in general agreement with you.

              • David Skekabim says:

                Something just occurred to me…

                Where in the US Constitution does it specifically state that the Federal Government has the authority to use force?

                In what context?

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Re; my comments about IRS watching us on the Web………….. and apparently other places.

    Take note of the IRS’s stated policy regarding undercover work:

    • How about the FBI:

      Former member of the original Black Panther Party Larry Pinkney recently spoke to Infowars about a Freedom Of Information Act request that reveals the FBI’s intent to “neutralize him.”

      Pinkney explains how information contained within his own FBI files, retrieved via a FOIA request submitted by author William Mandel, revealed the agency targeted him due to his ability to rally people of different races.

      “Pinkney is potentially dangerous due to his demonstrated ability to unify black and white,” the files state. “His associates are Negro, White and Chinese. Special attention is being given to neutralizing him. The areas of sex and drugs appear to be the most effective ones to utilize. His habits in these areas are unknown, but are being monitored with this objective.”

      • David Skekabim says:

        ..a clear example of violating someone for no other reason than to benefit a divide and conquer strategy.


  39. Just A Citizen says:


    The Republican led House Committee Investigation on Benghazi as supposedly found NOTHING of importance.

    According to all the left wing sites and the MSM the Republicans have “exonerated” the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.

    Your thoughts??????

    • Saw this and haven’t followed up but the pic I saw was of Mike Rogers making a statement. Can’t recall the connection, but Mike Rogers wife runs some company that had connections in Benghazi somehow. Security? If my memory serves me, Rogers also didn’t run for re-election with speculation being it was because of the Benghazi mess. So this was perhaps his last cover-up.

      I don’t believe this is the Trey Gowdy group.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are correct. The report being touted as “proof” is the Intelligence Committee report, not the Special Committee, which Goudy chairs. Here is a statement by the select committee’s communications person regarding the release of the Intelligence Committee report.

        November 21, 2014
        | Press Release

        Washington, DC—Select Committee on Benghazi Communications Director Jamal D. Ware issued the following statement on the declassification of the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Report:

        “The Select Committee on Benghazi received the Intelligence Committee’s report on the Benghazi terrorist attack months ago, and has reviewed it along with other Committee reports and materials as the investigation proceeds. It will aid the Select Committee’s comprehensive investigation to determine the full facts of what happened in Benghazi, Libya before, during and after the attack and contribute toward our final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress.”

        It is possible the Select Committee will come up with different conclusions, because they have authority to investigate a wider range of information. That is why they authorized a “select committee” as opposed to letting the individual committees involved handle it further.

        Now watch as the Dems claim it is OVER due to the Intl. Committee’s report.

  40. BF, given that you are adamant that it isn’t Islam that promotes radical beliefs that in turn results in beheadings, honor killings and the like, but rather just random insane people that are doing these deeds, can you explain why so many Islamic followers become insane?

  41. 1/21/opinion/gingrich-obama-immigration-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

  42. David Skekabim says:

    A group of people sign an agreement to become members of a unified body or organization with standards of rules and behavior. They meet on a regular basis to contribute money and time and ideas to aid them in their organization. They buy black suits, body armor, guns and vehicles, then hire a team of men to go to people’s homes and demand their property by force as well as impose their standards of behavior.

    Does the person being demanded of their property, being told how to behave, have the right to defend themselves against said armed men?

    Does the person being demanded of their property, being told how to behave, have the right to defend themselves against said source, be it the organization itself and/or contributing members?

    • I fight authority, authority always wins. Mellencamp.

      • David Skekabim says:

        What does that have to do with it?

        • it’s just what came to mind as I read your post. Kinda like the ‘sigh’ you post many times.

          You post a scenario as though an armed force just appeared from thin air, then ask questions which can only lead to one answer. Why, I don’t know. Another thought experiment? For what? So that you can show your righteous indignation about an instance that is not based in reality? You always forget the part about we are far from scratch. From the moment of your birth, til the moment you die, there will be authority over you. But you want to argue as though there isn’t. Then next line of the song says:

          So I call up my preacher and say give me the strength for round 5. He said you don’t need no strength, you need to grow up son.

          I have one of those Alaska shows on the TV right now. These guys, who are just homesteaders, living in a town of 6 or more, still understand there is authority over them. They’re out hunting black bear. There’s a brown bear roaming in the crosshairs. What does the guy say? He says he can’t shoot brown because it’s black season. Where did that season come from in the middle of Alaska? It came from authority, and even the most remote of people understand the concept. Most people accept the concept, not sure why you don’t.

          • Just A Citizen says:


          • David Skekabim says:

            ” Most people accept the concept, not sure why you don’t. ”

            It is because I understand the difference. Sadly, you and so many others apparently do not.

            You confuse submission with maturity as to reinforce your rationalizations of why it is acceptable. Your cheerleader does the same with his odd definition of rights.

            Of course, maybe submission isn’t so accurate a term to describe you DEMANDING your enslavement.

    • You could be referring to the mafia, KKK (would need white suits 🙂 ), Black Panthers or Government. But, your point is about the latter. Maybe if more people would look at it in this way, they can see what’s wrong. However, if the demanding and force were removed from the equation things would be good.

      Many people see authority in a different way as well. A higher authority that is not even a physical being. For most, this authority helps guide them through a just and moral life, for a few, not so much. Is it not human nature to have strong and weak? Is it not Natural law that dictates how humans interact? Let me give an example of good. Where I live, the farmers and non-farmers work together to achieve the needs of society. I’m a prime example, as I get my beef and pork from my neighbor farmer. In return for low costs, I help the farmer maintain the deer herd so as not to eat too much of his crops used to feed his animals (which also provides me with meat). However, while on his land, he has the authority of who hunts and where. Hence, I subject myself to his authority as part of our agreement. I can choose not to assist him and not subject myself to such authority, but the benefits outweigh any negatives that may crop up.

      Authority also comes with responsibility, which is where your problem may lie. Government usually abuses their authority and uses force to do so. “Pay me or go to jail” they say. That’s because they would not exist without the force part because they have the people fooled into believing they are needed and important, so the vast majority agree with the force as being proper.

      Now, I would agree to pay for services that are currently being offered by government, if simply asked, such as road maintenance, police and fire services and a few other minor services that we would ALL benefit from. But, that is a pipe dream, as the people will not live without being subjects to a higher authority who has the monopoly on force. Like you, I think we can do much better. But regardless, every society will always have authority, even the most primitive. It is, in my opinion, Natural Law.

      • David Skekabim says:

        ” Maybe if more people would look at it in this way, they can see what’s wrong. However, if the demanding and force were removed from the equation things would be good. ”


  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Clipped from yet another story on the Benghazi Report. This one explaining how there was not cover up:

    “The committee, which released its findings on Friday, concluded that there was no evidence that the Obama administration tried to cover up the deaths of the four Americans who died in that attack.”

    Notice anything wrong with this statement??

    Like maybe how nobody ever accused the Administration of trying to cover up the deaths!

    Create a false accusation, prove it false then declare the entire issue dead.

    That ladies and gentlemen is how the Jack Snipes roll ……………….over the rest of us.

  44. Good morning, Counselor. I doubt that this individual will be executed. I am NOT in agreement with executions of those who are mentally incapable of discerning right from wrong. However, that is a conundrum with me as I am not in agreement that tax payers should support someone in a mental facility for life. If I were King of the forest, any incarceration would not be a ward of the state…..I would do what China does and make the family pay for any incarceration. I fully believe that if the families were made responsible, I think that crime would drop dramatically. But, as to the death penalty…..I still have no problems with it if it is administered fairly and correctly.

    • And that goes to the heart of the issue — it has never been (and probably never can be) administered fairly [and correctly…(seems a bit subjective)].

      I very much disagree with requiring the family to pay for the incarceration — the family should not be held responsible.

      • Yep…..I can see and agree that it does seem a bit subjective…

        As to the family….I can see both sides….but I also feel very strongly that most people who commit these crimes would not, if they actually knew whom it would affect.

  45. Good morning JACster……Benghazi… opinion. There is no question of a cover up. What I find really interesting is who is tryog to throw who under the bus. The State Department is trying to blame the intelligence community and vice versa…Republicans and Dems alike are trying to cover up the findings to protect “friends” and buying influence for later things. It is a tragedy what is happening.

    It is very simple….the consulate was attacked by premeditated terrorists….not criminals, not innocent civilians, but terrorists, well organized with advanced weapons. There was a covert team one mile away that could have changed the outcome. The following teams were available:

    1) CIA Covert ops….one mile away.
    2) 160th Night Stalkers Team (ARSOAC) within 30 minutes.
    3) A detachment of the 22nd SAS one hour away.
    4) Delta Force three hours away.
    5) A submarine detachment of Navy Seals 90 minutes away.

    The “No Response” was calculated and accepted and those men sacrificed for nothing….murdered by our own State Department. That is my opinion. I firmly believe that there was a “do not respond: order given and I believe it goes straight to the “War Room”.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes, it appears that certain members of the Intel. Committee have become a little to cozy with the Intel. Community.

      I’ll bet the same problem exists in many of the other Committees as well. Goes back to my standard problem statement. Lack of Honor. To willing to trade away the good of the country for the butter on their bread.

      Hope all is well in Texas this fine day. I must assume that POTUS’s new “immigration declaration” will solve all the problems you have down under. I’m sure things will be all peace, quite and coming up roses!!

      Give a big howdy to your kin for me.

  46. Texas says: There are immigration laws on the books….they will be enforced regardless of any administrative action.

  47. Defense Sec Chuck Hagle……stepping down today…under pressure supposedly.

    • $10 says Holder is on deck. LOL

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ted Cruz just got put is a bad position with his idea of how Congress should react to Mr. Obama’s immigration declaration.

      He suggested that ZERO of Mr. O’s nominees be confirmed until Mr. O backs off. So NO Attorney General and now NO Secretary of Defense???

      Sorry Mr. Cruz, I may agree with you on the principle but this shows you how the deck has been stacked against Congress over the past several decades.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Profile of potential new Sec Def, done in 2011.

    There is some VERY ENLIGHTENING information contained within that will give many of you some insight into the why of things never seeming to change that much. As well as the role of a “very partisan” person in Govt.

    • JAC….you would not believe the politics at the Pentagon….I was there for just under one year until I got back in the field… is terrible. I got crossways with everyone almost immediately….especially the “protocol” officer ( a Lt.Col that does nothing but tell you where to sit, how to address people, making sure that your ribbons are in the proper order, etc.) Ribbons and badges, as far as I am concerned belong on a full dress uniform and not on everyday wear…I got raked across the coals because of this……AND, when you go into the mess hall ( cafeteria ) to eat…your ribbons and badges determined the seating order. I am considered highly decorated but did not see a reason to the pomp and circumstance projected there…in other words, I did not give a rat’s ass where I sat. But I had to have my ticket punched by being there…I was one of the “token” line officers there….Generals like to have line officers on their staff….makes em look important I guess…

      Believe it or not, there are officers there that have been in the Pentagon their entire career…never been in the dirt or the blood….I was glad to get out of there.

%d bloggers like this: