An Optimistic End

thA6MJFAKNI couldn’t help but enjoying Black Flags very optimistic demise of the American Empire that he recently posted.  Using the historical demise of Rome as an example, I found it to be a refreshing view of today’s turbulent times.  I have just about given up on predicting the future, as it’s nearly impossible, with some exceptions.  Exceptions, while not really predictions, but an understanding of events that are likely to occur in the future.  One such prediction I feel is very plausible is a major power outage.  This could be a local issue due to weather, it could be regional, also due to weather or maybe an attack on the electrical grid.  It could also be a National event, due to a major solar storm or a nuclear EMP attack by one of our many enemies.  I think we all can agree, that a few short years ago the “Cold War” was part of the history books.  Now, it has reared it’s ugly head again.  Without electricity, this nation could regress very quickly into a very dangerous place.  Let’s hope that any power outages are just kept down in size and scope.

Lies, lies, everywhere there are lies.  What the hell is the truth anymore?  How many lies have been told by the current administration in D.C.?   Or the last five or six administrations? Far too many to write about in a blog post.  Maybe one thing our Liar-N-Chief has stated in the past is the love of Lincoln and likening himself to the same.  Here’s an excerpt from a recent article about Lincoln from here:  http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

Lincoln was likely a very bad President when it came to silencing those opposed to him,  as bad as the Nazi’s of German lore in the 30’s and 40’s.  Had Lincoln not been assassinated, it’s possible he could have been President for a very long time.  Possibly, until he died.  His claim of saving the Union and freeing the slaves could have made all of this possible.  Fast forward to our time and maybe there is a lot about Obama that gives his “I’m like Lincoln” claim some validity.  He has clamped down on those who oppose him, notably in the military hierarchy.  The IRS and DOJ attacks against law abiding citizens is also another example of what a modern day Lincoln may have done or did do back in his day.

thK8ZD151R

The only thing missing is a major war.  Or maybe it just hasn’t started yet.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Just some things to ponder, feel free to chat about anything, as is the norm 🙂

  2. “Without electricity, this nation could regress very quickly into a very dangerous place. Let’s hope that any power outages are just kept down in size and scope.”

    I always find it amusing that the default position of most people’s mindset is in a disaster situation, humanity becomes barbaric, the typical dystopia mindset. Hollywood has made billions of dollars promoting such thinking.

    Yet, the demonstrable fact is people do not become barbarians in these conditions.

    Look at nearly every example of any fundamental disaster, you find people in massive cooperation promoting survival. From the tsunami’s in Indonesia, mass flooding in China, to hurricanes in the America south, to tornado alley, to earthquakes, you find people, strangers, pulling together for the continued support and survival of the victims.

    Certainly in all aspects of human society there are predators, but they are relatively minor in numbers compared to the rest of the survivors, and quickly, amongst the survivors, there are groups that form to provide security against such human predators, security that is not rooted in the State.

    Indeed, what is the dominate condition is the failure of the State under these dire conditions.

    Whenever the survivors abandon their own methods to await the State’s rescue, the conditions of the people collapse as the State is incapable of providing the necessary goods by its violence. People resist the seizure of their goods by violence, yet, at the same time, are generous in distributing their goods voluntarily the same dire circumstances.

    As soon as the State appears, goods disappear, and shortages expand.

    Hoping for a fundamental disaster as a means to end the State is no goal, nor is such a thing necessary. The State will on its own evaporate as the People realize its fundamental contradictions. This may take generations, but it is inevitable.

    Though we, in the current time, may not see the consequences of this expansion of the brilliance of free human action, we certainly can rest in our graves knowing that someday, it will exist, and in that knowing, do our small part in our own lives to move humanity forward.

    • I would not be so concerned about the effects of a large scale and lengthy power outage if not for a few simple things. One, the entitlement mentality is very pervasive, especially in the cities. The younger generation is that of gamers, with no skills and think that war is but a game. Other than those two groups, things will be fine 🙂

    • I agree that people initially cooperate but that is temporary. With every instance you mention, an “outside force” be it domestic or international arrived to, if nothing else, provide supplies. Without the outside force, how long before squabbling over food and water begins?

      When the New Orleans Police Department fell apart during Katrina it was based on looking after my own first. This is human nature at its most basic. If confronted with starvation en masse an awful lot of primal behavior might just emerge.

      • “With every instance you mention, an “outside force” be it domestic or international arrived to, if nothing else, provide supplies. Without the outside force, how long before squabbling over food and water begins?”

        What “force”?
        In all cases, outside people delivered the necessities of life unless prohibited by the government, as exampled in New Orleans.

        It is irrelevant that the police when home in New Orleans. They were wholly unnecessary as the people themselves went about protecting themselves from thieves.

        The problem began when the government arrived, blocking supplies and attempting to centralize by command and control the delivery of these goods.

        ” If confronted with starvation en masse an awful lot of primal behavior might just emerge.”

        Nonsense. People in starvation situations have always pulled together the best they could.
        War-time Leningrad, where a million people were starving en masse did NOT fall to primal behavior; indeed, acted as humanly as possible given the rampant condition.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I agree that the govt screwed things up in New Otleans. Who ever decided to “take all weapons”. Should have been hanged for being so damn stupid. But, violence was a big part of the reason for that decision. While most people will be civil, many will not.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Let me add that there are a fairly large group of people, the far left, that will relish the thought of making the wealthy pay, do not under estimate their immorallity

            • I presumed you would extrapolate to “There are no supplies nor means locally, nationally or internationally to get them”. How long can my ex-home NYC survive if nothing comes over the bridges or through the tunnels.

              I always thought is was about 78% good people and 22% shitheads but in a crunch?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          BF…Not that I disagree with the last part of your statement, but the people of Leningrad had a huge incentive to survive and stick it to the German Wehrmacht and not fight amongst themselves. Double incentive was Stalin on the other side.

          I am of the belief that the further away from some personal crisis, and I do not mean a storm that blows through and you just pick up the pieces. I mean a long drawn out crisis, people will more likely go into a frenzy. Especially like our current culture that for the most part has never worried about anything except do I want a decaf latte or not.

          To support your statement here was very little “riotous” behavior during the depression. The vast majority of the people could produce more than enough food to support themselves and then some. Mortgages were 4 years and what was not paid ballooned the 5th. Not 15-30 to never. The people of that age probably had many more obstacles to have hurdled and survived, than most people of today.

          Going through old photos, every available part of my grandparents yard in Providence was producing FOOD during the early part of the depression. In 34 or 35 they moved into a suburb of Scranton with 10 acres. The gardens were huge and fowl was added to the mix for cash. All other food was produced was on larger farms of relatives further up country. Which are all 100% still in family hands. Right now they produce gas so farming is not needed. But it is a back up plan just in case.

          I think a good benchmark will be watching CA and how they ultimately handle their water problems.

          • Black Flag® says:

            Dale,
            “, but the people of Leningrad had a huge incentive to survive and stick it to the German Wehrmacht and not fight amongst themselves. Double incentive was Stalin on the other side.”

            People do have incentives to help one another in any disaster.
            Heck, in society without a disaster (normal day), people have an incentive to produce so that they can trade for the production of others. In a disaster, this is even more core for no one can survive such disasters alone.

            Thus, it is no surprise that in disasters, people help one another substantially. Again, merely review Indonesia, or Chilean Earthquakes, etc. It is because it is so natural, that it is so easy to miss these examples, we don’t think twice about seeing pictures of thousands of people pulling together to extracate themselves out of the disaster, but we do notice the few that prey on them because these ones stand out from the norm.

            “I mean a long drawn out crisis, people will more likely go into a frenzy. Especially like our current culture that for the most part has never worried about anything except do I want a decaf latte or not.”

            I do not agree at all. Look at war. People even under dire circumstances do not turn against their neighbor, they join hands with them. This is the natural condition.

            Certainly some force can come along to create conditions of neighbor on neighbor, but that force is the abnormal, usually State force where the distribution of provisions becomes “who you know in power”, and the resulting corruption of such State action.

            When people see this distribution as “unfair” since it is based on politics, then they riot.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              I didn’t think I disagreed with your overall premise. My Father used to say about the depression, we were all in the same boat. Now to be fair NEITHER of my Grandfathers were out of work during the depression and they professionally were not farmers.They did grow all their own food or a neighbor grew something you didn’t. He always said they had plenty of chicken and eggs. Not a lot of beef. On my Mother’s side beef was more available, a low producing cow became pot roast or steaks from the up country family farms. War in the past, same deal, everyone participated and sacrificed.

              I’ll reserve further comment on this topic until I see how shangra-la out west handles their water issue, even if they get a reprieve with some precipitation. Theirs is a political self made disaster even without the drought.

              • Black Flag® says:

                I expect lots of conflicts since water rights are determined by corruption, not market forces.

            • And the folks in the Warsaw Ghetto stuck together as best they could as well. The difference is the breakdown in civil authority.

              There is the old saying, Nature abhors a vacuum.”

              • Breakdown of civil authority is automatic in a disaster. It is that condition that creates cooperation

                Cooperation does not rise from violence, it is suppressed.

  3. It is certainly possible, though unlikely, that the Powers will invoke such a war.

    It was certainly a stratagem of the past. Wars are fought by the peons in favor of the Power.

    The Power did not go to the trenches, and benefited greatly in the expansion of their power during war as well as financially, at the loss of the People’s lives, power and wealth.

    But that is not the case today.

    Global war will result in Nuclear war, with ICBM’s and a global reach of such a calamity. The Power cannot recluse themselves from this, indeed, they are the targets.

    Even if some may survive such an exchange, the consequences upon humanity will, as often quoted, be that those that died are the lucky ones, and those that survive live in a human hell on earth. The survivors will not probably last much longer then the dead.

    They know this.
    They are terrified of this.

    The likelihood of a 3rd World War is not zero, but nearly zero.

  4. Within any region, despots certainly can, and will rise.

    Will it rise in the USA?
    Certainly foundations of such despotism is ongoing. There is a rise in the centralization of violent power in the US, and a meandering to a Police state. The State is organizing itself to inflict this upon the people, by design, such as locating military units raised from one part of the Union to locations in another, so to prevent what happened in Russia – where local units raised from local people refused to inflict war violence upon their own families. In the US, it will be New Yorkers enforcing upon Texans, and Texans upon New Yorkers. This is not good.

    However, the mindset of Americans has been moulded by generations of people believing they are free. Americans have prided themselves as being a “free nation”, even it is a myth.

    If by some measure of the Central powers in some action that breaks this myth, the American people will not accept it. Some action will be a tipping point, an action that breaks the myth concretely.

    This does not mean violent revolution. Americans are not “tuned” to revolutions internally. Americans are, as described by Bastiat in the 1800’s, are people of associations, unlike the Europeans who were a people of committees. This difference leads Americans to solve their problems locally, and less likely to pray to a central committee for deliverance. Further, the Civil War still resonates in the consciousness, and it is very unlikely Americans, no matter where, are willing to overtly point their guns en mass upon other Americans.

    The US will more likely “break up” more along the lines of Czech and Slovakia and not like Yugoslavia.

    • We are definitely heading towards a police state. I doubt anything like a civil war would occur, the race pimps have been trying for years and your quite right, most people don’t want anything to do with it. I’m not so sure we would even need to fight the police state as of yet, not to say it won’t happen down the road at some point. The Bundy Ranch standoff was a big wake up call, for everyone. The people know they can stand up to the police state and the police state just learned the same. With camera’s everywhere and the internet exposing so many things, the number one event that will happen if the State is going to act against the people will be a shutdown of the internet and cell service.

      I still won’t put anything past Obama. False Flags have led to many a bad things.

  5. Question for the resident anarchist and conspiracy theorists….

    Make this assumption…do not add anything..do not subtract anything….assume that Texas decides and votes to leave “the union” tomorrow….what do you actually think will happen?

    • D13,
      With lots of negotiation over “Federal” property, Texas would eventually gain internal independence, with some form of separation of military power whereby Texas would still supply troops to the Federal army, the Federals still in charge over international treaties, etc. some what akin to “Independent territory” status like Caribbean nations enjoy with their “mother” countries.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        There is little to none Federal property in Texas to negotiate over. They manage some areas like Big Bend but do not own it. There are forts but are leased and if not used as such would revert to Texas. Compare Texas to Nevada, as an example, it’s the polar opposite.

    • The feds would not have the faintest idea of what to do. If a president like Obama existed, he might issue an “executive order” preventing it.

      This is going to play out a lot sooner than you think. I am on a roll these days with my old predictions coming true so, here is another one. We will not only allow Hawaii to secede we will encourage it to make up for past injustices.

      http://www.thenation.com/article/194745/hawaii-occupied-state

      After that, well there are these native American tribes we have to make up to and then there are the poor Mexicans we stole the land from.

      Lincoln was wrong, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution as currently interpreted are a suicide pact.

      • Following up on the above. One thing that seems to be missing these days is the very common sense fact that people alive today, who had nothing to do with injustices of the past cannot make up for those injustices to those no longer here. Those no longer here are the only people entitled to justice since they were the aggrieved party. Descendents of the aggrieved people can have no claim unless you are willing to take the issue back to the beginning of time. I guess that is why, in the law, there is a statue of limitations.

        My favorite example: Who really deserves Palestine?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

        • The People living there before they were forced from their land.
          One does not need to be nihilist to history merely because such nihilism supports your viewpoint.

          The argument of Rights does not depend on who was there first 10,000 years ago, but who is there now, with the review of the cause and effect of the current issue not some bizarre issue 10,000 years ago.

          • So if Israel now holds that land it is theirs, right?

            If there is not a long term time appropriate then how can you argue that any time line is appropriate or not?

            • Of course not, JAC.
              Seizure of land by force of arms has been outlawed since 1948

              • So you have an established cutoff point for all such discussions. One established by Governments, no less.

                Why is this Govt. agreement more relevant than others you have dismissed?

              • No, I established the barbaric and criminal behaviour of State power in claiming territory by force of arms as declared by the world.

              • Outlawed where?

              • Nuremberg, 1948

              • Right of Conquest
                The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Enforcible by whom? please reference China conquering Tibet by force in 1949 and still is occupied. With world leaders afraid of publicly acknowledging the Tibetan leaders in exile for fear of upsetting the Chinese.

              • A rightful law that is ignored does not dismiss the rightful law.
                A man murdering another, and not held to account, does not dismiss the law against murder.

              • Thought that was where you were headed…..just who pays attention to Nuremberg laws and who is the authority? I mean, we know what the book says….seizure of land may be against the Nuremberg edicts…but are not enforceable….not in reality.

                Consider this: Some time ago….I was asked to teach a military class on “crimes of aggression” as a part of moral interpretation classes to OCS candidates….I have been studying very closely just what is a “crime of aggression” and even the resolution 3314 that you reference cannot definitively define it. There is a ICD brief (International Crimes Database) written in 2013 that points out some very convoluted definitions as it pertains to what they call “contemporary” times.

                “Despite the difficulties with defining the crime of aggression spanning decades, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the crime of aggression into its jurisdiction (ratione materiae). After twelve years of negotiations, in 2010 the
                States Parties reached a breakthrough in defining the crime of aggression through “consensus”. ( D13 says: I have a very hard time with anything that is classified as a consensus because consensus is not absolute. Because it is not absolute, it is a primary factor of non enforceability.)

                ” The aggression amendments are expected to go into force in January 2017. However, its relevance can be questioned.The current definition requires state action or involvement of a state in order for it to be considered a crime of aggression. Nevertheless, the new war theory by Kaldor points out that new wars show a diminishing role of the nationstate. Hence, contemporary armed conflicts do not necessarily fit within the Clausewitzean, state-centric approach and can therefore not be understood through traditional terms.” ( D13 says: Now, this is where things get really convoluted because Mary Kaldor is considered a foremost authority on what is termed “Contemporary”. I am not a subscriber to her theories but some do, therefore, her influence on this subject is important ),

                “This study considers whether the current definition of the crime of aggression indeed fails to capture ‘contemporary’ acts of aggression perpetrated during new wars in order to determine its relevance for the future. It finds that the definition’s literal text cannot be stretched to include non-state actors that do not possess state like characteristics, and
                hence, that the current definition is indeed doomed to become irrelevant. This paper therefore suggests that the widely celebrated breakthrough in reaching a definition of the crime of aggression could be considered an inadequate addition to the ICC’s jurisdiction in its attempt to fight impunity and prevent future crimes of aggression.”
                (D13 says: Hence, you have convoluted ideaology.)

                “Against the grain of widespread assumptions that most wars of the 1990s are merely ‘civil’ wars produced by ‘ethnic conflict’, or that what we are seeing is a simple ‘privatisation’ of violence, Kaldor clearly demonstrates that Bosnia and other conflicts were political conflicts, involving state power as well as various ‘private’ forces, in which ‘identity politics’ is a means by which political elites reproduce their power.” (D13 says: It is obvious that this statement is relevant to the whole United Nations issues and creates further complications as to definitive crimes. Should the definition of the crime of aggression be re-opened in order to consider redefining the definition to explicitly include non-state actors as possible perpetrators of the crime of aggression?)

                Although the Nuremberg Tribunal stated that aggression is“the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, it was not until the 2010 Kampala Review Conference on the Rome Statute that the States Parties were able to reach consensus on an exact definitionof the crime of aggression. As the notion of the criminality of waging aggressive war is based on the ‘legacy’ of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the crime of aggression exclusively focuses on state behaviour.The current definition establishes that only state leaders and state officials with enough authority to engage the state’s forces into aggressive action can be considered for the crime of aggression.Hence, an individual acting alone without state action or the involvement of a state cannot commit a crime of aggression under
                the ICC’s jurisdiction.

                D13 says: Herein lies the problem with International sanction. With the vetoes that specific “Staes” hold, there will be no definitive action that can be taken. For example, the Russian (and that us what it is) invasion of the Ukraine is not going to be declared an invasion…even by consensus because Russia will veto the action. Consequently, there will be a takeover of lands that will not be considered as a war or aggression but a right of acquisition, even if by armed conflict.

                Now….since this is so long, I will stop here. THe other problem that arises is jurisdiction of the ICC and the fact that the ICC is actually powerless. The UN is the only enforcing arm of the ICC and the UN can be vetoed by any hegemonic power.

              • D13,
                They are certainly enforceable, the question of “will they be?” is moot.
                A man can murder, and if it is not enforced, does not make murder legal.

              • The whole damned thing is convoluted and unenforceable. Correct me if I am wrong but did not Germany lose some historic German territory after the Second World War? The mere fact that the victors ignored their own holier than thou writ screams that it was all BS.

                Japan annexed Okinawa in 1870 and it was returned to japan after the war with no consultation of the natives. Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910 (officially) but not returned to Japan.

                What we have here is nothing but power politics with a smiley face.

            • The timeline that determines rightful ownership has long been established. Your perverse claim that this cannot be known is bizarre.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I took some time to think about this, having considered the growing police state, the extraction exercises the Feds and military engages in, here’s what I think would happen.

      In one night after the notification if cessession, the Feds would remove all members of the State govt, by force, place them under arrest for treason and they would be imprisoned.

      Beyond that, nothing will happen.

      • Nope…will not happen, cannot happen, won’t happen.

        • OK, Let’s see……Considering how well things turned out when Texas wanted to throw out the TSA, I’m sure cessession would likely be dealt with in a similar fashion. I would not end well for the State of Texas.

          • I do not think that any federal troops would enter Texas under those circumstances. And even if so…do you not think that once the decision is made, that everyone would be on the lookout for the snatch and grab?

            As to the TSA….they approached it wrong….watch what happens in the future. The Senators that blinked…..will be gone….watch carefully.

            • It wouldn’t need to be troops, just well trained Federal Agents. Not likely to happen anyway, as I don’t think Texas is going anywhere anytime soon. I would, support cessession, as it’s something I wouldn’t mind it happening where I live 🙂

              • displacedokie says:

                The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that the vast majority of federal agents in Texas are either Texans or lived here for a long time(like me). I can positively say that they wouldn’t go along with it. Count me in D13’s “nope…cannot happen, will not happen” camp.

              • The Feds can bring in other agents on short notice. The Feds will not use locals when they act, they have learned from history.

  6. Back in the US Army in my unarmed combat class, the instructor said, “there are 5,000 ways to kill a man with your bare hands but you only have to know three…..really well”. This is not exactly the same thing but close enough.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037356/Hacked-pieces-Samurai-sword-burglars-got-unpleasant-surprise-victim-fought-back.html

    • I loved “hand to hand” combat classes or….unarmed combat….they have all the fancy terminology for those classes…the fancy moves….some Bruce Lee shit…..makes you feel invincible…..

      But…..

      I have had the misfortune of being in “close combat” only twice….both times in Vietnam. There was no “honor”….there were no Hollywood spin moves…there were no rules of combat except to survive….and it was not pretty. There were no Chuck Norris automatic weapons that never ran out of ammo…and you never come out of close combat with your hair combed and you uniform pressed…..both combatants get hurt. The winner? There was none….only a survivor.

  7. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Will the real Hillary please stand up.

  8. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Binghamton is really stuck by its location. It’s to far to get to Albany, Buffalo, Scranton NYC, Philly on a daily basis. One would go for the week, come home but that lasts just so long. You’d move eventually. Now if the passenger rail would resurrect itself between the Binghamton and Scranton, they might have a chance. The electric train was abandoned in 1927 after only being built as far as Scranton and Montrose. My Grand Parents didn’t drive up country, they took the “trolley” As cars became more prevelant the line was abandoned. The buildings, stations etc are used for other purposes today. I remember the trolleys all pulled into a switching yard and repair depot and power station until just recently just waiting to go back to work. I hope they found their way into the Railroad Museum in Scranton.

    Two years ago I drove up through that area on my way to Vermont and Maine. I used to travel through the area quite often. Lucky I knew the general direction I wanted to head, because once I hit the Albany area the roads were so torn up with bad closed roads and detours, two GPS units and a hard copy map were useless. I resorted to the compass and headed NE. I knew I’d hit the northway around Saratoga at that angle.

    Scranton Wilkes Barre for years took a huge economic hit as coal played out. The cities have come to life again with the gas drilling. It was sad though driving through areas that used to have thriving rich farms. All together to many are now abandoned and collapsing with even the houses not lived in.

    • You nailed that one! One of the reasons the F—–s are all over the Radon-Fracking connection. They really, really hate the middle class. Must be that BibleThumping, Red-neck, gun owning thingee.

      There are a lot of really seriously sick puppies out there starting with the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania who for reasons unknown despise this country. Personally, I think it is their inability to see beyond the borders and see the real world as it is. AS IT IS! They live in some kind of idealized world where everything bad elsewhere can be excused or explained away but people alive today in Fargo ND are considered personally responsible for slavery and the eradication of the Amerindian.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        One of the primary reasons State capitals are located where they are is the rural population was much larger and they wanted to keep an eye on the big city “financial” wheeler dealers. Other reason was get them off the coast for defense. The urban vs rural shift the past 110 years….
        Population Urban Rural
        1900 76.0M 39.6% 60.4%
        1910 92.2M 45.6% 54.4%
        1920 106.0M 51.2% 48.8%
        1930 123.0M 56.1% 43.9%
        1940 132.0M 56.5% 43.5%
        1950 151.0M 64.0% 36.0%
        1960 179.0M 69.9% 30.1%
        1970 203.0M 73.6% 26.4%
        1980 226.5M 73.7% 26.3%
        1990 248.7M 75.2% 24.8%
        2000 282.2M 79.0% 21.0%
        2010 309.0M 80.7% 19.3%

        The rural population does not stand a chance by any vote when the interests of the urban areas are threatened. Even when not threatened. In State CA the large cities will take water within state. Out of State the Feds will intervene and increase the allocation of water flowing downstream, citing that the rural area really do not need that much water. Greater need!! Or activists will get something on the ballot that really doesn’t affect the city dwellers but by pulling on heartstrings the vote will overwhelm the rural folks that it does matter a great deal. Case in point, fox hunting in the UK. The activists invoked memories when the gentry rode over everything during the hunt. They also painted a portrait of a cruel blood sport. The birders got involved but didn’t realize that a huge portion of the foxes diet is eggs from the nest of ground birds. If the fox was not thinned out the ground birds would be wiped out…period. The estate owners where I lived at while teaching in the UK said if it passes they will have no choce but to erradicate the fox by other means because a huge portion of their revenue came from grouse and pheasant hunts. The owners had created a balanced eco-system and made a living but then became imbalanced by London voters who didn’t give a damn anyway. The ban passed and a real slaughter began.

  9. By the way…..we, meaning the Texas National Guard, just caught four al shabaab members that crossed the border at Ojinaga, that were released by ICE. But I am so glad our order is secure.

  10. Colonel

    Just curious if you are hip to the Youth ChalleNGe Academies run by the National Guard?

    • Yes…very good program. I have been a guest instructor many times.

      • Oh how cool! My son is in week 13, promoted Sunday to Private First Class. Best thing that ever happened to him. I’d love to see you in action with them!

        • Actually, I am quite popular in the program in Texas. My approach is based upon the reality of situations and since most of these kids are looking and deserving a second chance, I found that they actually do not focus upon the reality of life and the decisions that they make,,,as to how it actually affects life down the road…years from now. The secret is how to actively relate with them without being seen as a “hardened old Colonel” that demands things. Also, the secret is how to relate without them “running” over you. I had one instructor tell a class last month…” I know that you really like the Colonel but look into his eyes…you are not fooling him.” I was defined in a paper written by a student that I had “action eyes”,,,,whatever that means.

          The other thing that I do…..is arrange for some of the more senior classes to get an actual look at the border and the realities of life and not some liberal definition of same. That they are NOT entitled to anything and that includes food, clothes, education, and health care. All items are earned. It is quite intersting to take a class and pass out monopoly money. You put different amounts in the envelopes and throw them all in a box. Each student picks out an envelope……then opens it. Some are rich, while others are poor..and immediately there is a division of the haves and the have nots….and it is interesting to see how the “have nots” automatically condemn those that “have” within the first five minutes. The program then starts there and it goes on with some great results.

          Not everyone makes it, however, but we do reach 85%. What is interesting is seeing which ones do not make it…..and the most startling discovery……………………….it is racial.

          • I KNEW I liked you for some reason. His cycle started with 154. Still had one guy bail last week after this many weeks, they’re down to 122 remaining. Since you mentioned race, I did notice the crowd was lighter since the last visit in Feb. Doesn’t seem right since 2 of 3 platoon leaders are black. All three are very cool and I sense that they are there not for just a job but they really are interested in all kids succeeding. Couple things I learned at the parent workshops. First that staff is very down on public school education. How can you expect a kid to be ready for the real world when schools no longer offer vocational classes? Or how can you expect a kid to excel when the class is held up by the slowest student? Another thing they mentioned was that in the 15 or so years that our program has been running, they have noticed a shift in the candidates mind set…to one more of entitlement…and it’s those students who usually end up bailing. It’s that mind set that they work so hard to get rid of. I couldn’t be happier for my son. He absolutely hated high school here in town and would have done just about anything to not have to go there anymore. He and 5 others from the school are enrolled. 2 of them are his good buddies. All three have come such a long way in a short time. Surprises me that they are actually ‘into’ it. One of them is down 57lbs! My son brags about his ‘guns’ and six pack now. He is talking seriously about joining the National Guard and…gasp… college. All three have excellent grades and all three will be miles ahead of their friends in town. I could go on forever about it, but I’m sure you understand. Best. Thing. Ever. Thank you Colonel for standing with these kids. I’m two hours out from our academy, but I’d love to be on their staff.

            • We have found that the public schools, for the most part, are just not very good. We are much more lucky than most states because we do not have to deal with teachers unions You can get rid of lousy teachers.

              The one good thing about the Guard….you can still have your life and start building credits for school. The Guard will train them but also it will create the team work.

  11. I need a list of all the reason’s Hillary Clinton should not be President. My daughter told me today that she has read many things about Hillary that she likes!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      1) her thesis in college was on Alinsky from Chicago who spent his life trying to collapse the US as we know it and bring about real social justice.
      2) The Alinsky group was so impressed by her paper they invited her to be a part of the group.
      3) A partnership with the Rose Law firm that was up to its nostrils in the illegal campaign finance scheme surrounding “Whitewater” everyone including the lt gov of Arkansas went to prison. The special prosecutor could not find the papers that probably implicated her and Bill in the scheme because it all pointed at them to begin with. She could probably have been an “unindicted co-conspirator” but what do you do with the now 1st lady.
      4) After the statute of limitations expired the papers appeared in the “private” quarters of the White House” The DOJ namely Janet Reno the attorney general at the time said no action will be take because of the time delay.
      5) stood by her man while he was implicated in abuse of workplace laws in place for all other people.
      6) Husband impeached for lying to a grand Jury barred from law forever.
      7) Debacle of healthcare that neither house in congress would consider and even they were totally controled by dems.
      8) could not fire the 1st ladey for incompetance.
      9) convieniently moved to NY to take Daniel Moynihans seat at his passing.
      10) did nothing as senator
      11) ran for president forfitted to yours truly Obama
      12) Disaster as secretary of state
      13) all government correspondance as SOS was outside the law by being on a private server. Destroyed records.
      14) decries the injustice or the wealthy but has $53M from hot air fees producing nothing.
      15) huge financing coming in from FOREIGN sources via Bill’s foundation.
      16) wasn’t this an issue during his presidency with money being funneled in from China to his PAC’s
      17) stole white house property. Claimed they were gifts, Returned only $28,000 worth saying they were broke upon leaving office

      SHE has no foundation. Is a chameleon that changes or says to whatever she thinks will enable her to win.

      Bernie Sanders and acknowledged socialist has more credentials than her. Because in 35 years he says what he is, means what he says and does what he says.

      Besides she is like Obama…can not speak at all extemporaneously. UM UH UM UM

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Forgot, she made a small fortune “being showed” the workings of the stock market by the CEO of Tyson Foods. Deemed a legit deal. 1st time trader made a fortune.

        Husband nicknamed the “Silver Zipper” by the Arkansas SP. Obvious reference to the infidelity.

        Advise your daughter to watch the american version of the “House of Cards” with Kevin Spacey. very Clinton-like

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Not to say, her huge “RESET” with the big red button with Putin. We can see where that lead. The reset is the “cold war redux”

          I believe she can be easily rattled. Looks at her appearance all throught her tenure. Very disheavaled. My neighbor the other year was a retired State Department guy. Spent his career in the M/E. He made a comparison of Condeleeza Rice and Hillary. Rice was as smart as they come and totally put together. When on a mission totally focused on the job. And nice. Hillary is dumb and doesn’t know what she was doing. A bitch and a bad representative by her appearance and on and on.

          To say something he came out of retirement when Kerry took over and volunteered for Mali. That is saying something.

          Before I forget….when she took over as SoS she met with Pres. Assad of Syria. Her newsconference after was that she believed he was a real progressive guy and that we can work well with him. That shows her assessment capabilities of really evil people. Those comments is why I believe there was a multi-year delay by the US on turning our policy.

          We never said boo during her tenure about the absolute fraud of an election in Iran and the people were ready to revolt. Without our backing the people were swiftly and violently put down. Now she quickly threw other governments under the bus for far less. The Arab Spring and its un-godly aftermath is the result of her great leadership as Secretary of State.

          Benghazi…no more to be said there.

          In the news is Brian Williams admitting he lied about being under fire years ago in the Gulf. He was pretty much disgraced and we will not see him in a serious news role ever again. Hillary, in trying to show her calmness under stress tried to pull the same stunt in the Balkans war in the 90’s. She was “outted” on that lie, but people keep marching to her tune…..or should I say propaganda

          God help us if that lot gets in again

          And I’m not even talking about the new version Kerry.

          • You forgot about poor ol’ Vince Foster who ended up dead over the Whitewater controversy. Susan McDougal also spent 18 months in jail for her part in that coverup.

            I’m not to hip on this one but I remember Cyndi used to harp about the 6 billion that came up missing during her time at the State Dept.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              The hacked State dept memo’s from a few years ago that embarassed her actually came from her ptivate server. Everyone assumes it was a government system. This is why there was so little “official” traffic during the Lybian fiasco and the house investigators for nothing. It was an off-line system and whose records have long been purged.

              When petreus was prosecuted for classified docs left in his desk at home after he resigned. And also allegedly the biographer saw them…didn’t get any legs because she had the needed clearance……where is Issa and more to the point the DOJ.

              Unable to conclude a deal with Iraq, creating a talking point for Obama enabling him to say we’re out…..but enabled the collapse of a fragile partnership of Sunni’s and Shia there….and we are back in a far more chaotic catch up postion than before.

    • You can also show her that Clinton is a fraud and totally fake: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillarys-everyday-americans-recruited-and-chosen

      • Thanks guys-you bought up some stuff I had forgotten-now I can add her love for Margaret Sanger and the tape of her laughing about that girl that was raped-hopefully all of this will convince her.

    • 1) She is a politician. That should be enough of a reason.
      2) She is a war monger.
      3) She is a despot.
      4) She is an elitist.
      5) She is a liar.
      6) She is a narcissist sociopath.

      But you can say that about any of them, too. She is just worse then the rest.

  12. During my days as a weapons instructor, we would train around 7000 people a year, and use about 500,000 rounds per year. Yet, the DHS want’s 12.5 million rounds a year for 5 years for training border patrol. While I’m cool with training and staying proficient, with that many rounds, when will they work? http://marketdailynews.com/2015/04/15/dhs-to-purchase-62-million-rounds-of-ar-15-ammo/

    This is on the heals of purchasing around 1 billion rounds not long ago. Are they eating bullets for dinner?

    • Yes, and I remember in the Carter years…..we were qualifying machine gunners with .22 ammo. We were using jeeps to learn tank tactics because of no fuel….I remember driving around in jeeps under the TEWT. (Tactical exercise without troops)..everytime we fired up a jeep…we would drive around saying..” Clankity clank…I am a tank…..

      THere is no shortage of ammunition out there and never wil be again….the private market learned a lesson very well back in the shortage days….I have no problem finding and getting .223 ammo…..or even the .22 long rifle. Private business has picked up the slack….and moved into the Maquiladores in Mexico.

      So, those of you whom feel that the US government is trying to create shortages of ammo by buying everything up…….the black market and private enterprise has already filled the vacuum.

      • I’m not concerned about a shortage, I’m wondering how ONE government agency needs 12.5 million rounds of ammo every years. Unless they train on full auto all the time, this is way more than they could possibly use. So, the question might be, who’s really getting this ammunition? 🙂

        • If they are shooting this much ammo, they need to order lots of replacement parts. Hammer and trigger pins break often, barrels will be shot out and need replaced etc.

        • Indeed. Who IS getting this ammo? Foreign or domestic? I hadn’t thought about from that angle before. That’s why I like reading here…..always gets me thinking.

        • displacedokie says:

          The thing to remember is that when they say DHS it includes a lot of agencies. When you consider that DHS includes the Secret Service, ICE, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and any other little agencies or state and local officers that might be assigned to DHS led task force teams it doesn’t seem quite as outrageous. I’m not DHS, but I probably go through 2-3k rounds of ammo a year easily in training, you can probably double that if you’re in a training academy…it still seems like a pretty high amount to me, just not a super crazy amount….oh, and they might buy it for multiple year cycles(that’s how we do it), so they could be adding several years worth of ammo up, but I dunno.

          • The ammo order was specifically for the Border Patrol. The DHS has already purchased 1 billion rounds of ammo in the recent past. I worked in the third largest weapons training base in the Air Force for 10 years, and we couldn’t touch a billion rounds. We averaged about 7 thousand trainees a year, plus our ammo for practice, which was around 10K a year for all the weapons combined. I rarely used all my allotment, didn’t have the time. 12.5 million rounds is WAY above anything needed by the DHS, much less only the Border patrol.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Weren’t the Carter years great while serving in the military? (sarc)

        • It was a sad time where I lived, as the steel mills were still closing. Thus, the rust belt was born.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Gman…I hope you realize I was being very sarcastic. Granted I was overseas most of his tenure. Life was generally good but the paranoia still is with me about back to the street in a restaurant. And as the Colonel says situational awareness. When planes are grounded due to lack of money to go on patrol. We actually didn’t get paid caused quite a debate, seeing we had a contract. The local JAG officer met with all of us and he was also speaking for himself. let’s agree to come in just so there isn’t any high level S!!! that could flow down happen. Just schedule a big barbecue and kick back. We all agreed the if any serious stuff occured of course we’d respond. Like I managed all the aviation air control and navigation stuff. Cryto links etc, Of course we wouldn’t allow due to down equipment cause a plane crash. They happened enough even when all equipment worked. I left active duty in the late 70’s. When Reagan was elected I was offered my commission, $17K bonus and 6 years of choice of duty station. Unfortunately I suffered a broken back and neck by that time and couldn’t meet the physical requirements anymore. The crap he pulled in the M/E really got our attention. A lot like Hillary and Assad. He was buddy buddy with the shah and then one day Gotta go. And the result was Khomeni.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Gman…maybe you trained your students to hit the target and be efficient. Or just maybe train them to use common sense and restraint, ergo not fire unless absolutely needed.

  13. Now how is this gonna play out? Michigan has a law stating that if you have a CPL you may open carry in a school. Last night, Ann Arbor voted to ban dangerous weapons in school buildings. Whatsupwiththat?

    • Ann Arbor is trying to circumvent State Law. This was tried in Philadelphia as well and was squashed quickly.

    • And here I thought you guys were all about LOCAL GOVERNMENT and LOCAL CONTROL…

      🙂

      • Yeah, yeah. I knew that was going to come up. I guess I’m all for local laws trumping, but I have a feeling we haven’t heard the end of this.

      • There are certain Rights that are not up for debate, at any level. 🙂

        • And who gets to make this judgment call as to (1) which Rights are not up for debate and (2) how far a locality can go in this regard?

          • The people. Local politics is easy to control. For example, if the Feds decided to outlaw all guns, they would likely be told to screw off by most of the States and a huge amount of people. It’s actually happening in NY State as we speak, as about 95% of “assault” gun owners are not registering their guns as required by the SAFE Act. The people are telling the politicians to screw off, the cops are doing the same by saying they will not enforce the Act. I’m surprised you don’t know about this.

            • “The people.” — So, if the people get to decide, why can’t a locality decide to place additional restrictions on gun ownership or the ability to carry in certain places?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I can only speak for PA, when Philly did so, the people called their State reps and wanted action. The passed a law, based on the peoples desires , that basically localities cannot supersede the rights of legal gun carriers. That ended that. Only State laws apply concerning conceal carry.

                That’s how it happened here! 🙂

              • I’m not asking you what did happen; I’m asking for your thoughts on the matter.

                1) Do you believe a state has the right to nullify federal law?

                2) If so, does a locality have the same right to nullify state law?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Well, as it stands , Federal law trumps State law and State trumps localities.

                However, if the Feds exceed their authority , they can and should be challenged in court. Same with the State.

                An example is the Federal ban on pot. If banning liquor took an Amendment, why didn’t the same rule apply to pot?

              • 1) Yes
                2) Yes

              • Morton Grove Ill. years ago banned handguns. The ban stood for a long time.

                Current NYC law on rifles and shotguns tend to make owning them prohibitively expensive (and you have to jump through hoops). It is actually less onerous, believe it or not to own a handgun!

                The SC held that reasonable statutes can be enacted the problem is how do you challenge the unreasonable?

              • Buck

                Since you don’t seem to be getting a direct response let me offer mine.

                First, we must assume our Federalist system, Constitutional Republic is still in functioning order.

                Second, me must assume that the Constitution is enforced based on two differing viewpoints.

                A) Strict construction. In this case the local municipality should be able to outlaw guns if the State Constitution allows it. The authority to regulate guns lies with the States and their lower government entities.

                B) Modern “living document” theory. In short, the 14th Amendment stands as interpreted. In this case NO, neither States or Municipalities can outlaw guns.

                Now lets step into JAC land. Here again we assume our Federalist, Constitutional Republic is in tact. And that the Constitution has been revised to make it consistent with JAC Land’s population of freedom lovers.

                In JAC Land the Federal Constitution would deal almost exclusively with restraints and powers of the Fed Govt. It would prohibit the Feds from passing laws other than in areas expressly authorized. And there would be NO authority for Federal interference in gun ownership.

                Regulation of gun ownership would be up to the States and municipalities. Since the people of JAC Land are righteous freedom lovers, there would be no restrictions at any level. Because the PEOPLE would recognize gun ownership as Natural Right linked to the Natural Right of Self Defense.

                However, and this is the answer you seek, if people are free to regulate themselves, then YES a municipality could regulate gun ownership if the PEOPLE of said town/city so wished.

                I also believe the threshold for imposing on such Rights due to local demand should require a 2/3 threshold and not a simple majority.

              • JAC, my answer was a direct response. Since the 2nd Amendment cannot be understood these days, I will simply state a few words…..The RIGHT to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, PERIOD. It doesn’t say except here or except there or except if a group of people don’t like it. I still don’t get why people cannot understand the very simple language. Fuck the 2/3 threshold, SHALL NOT means NO!

              • I knew I could count on you for an answer to the question!

                As you picked up, my entire point in raising the question is that of you sincerely believe in local control, and believe the states should have the right to nullify or overrule federal law, it would be pretty hypocritical for you to make a blanket argument against the locality.

                I find your 2/3 requirement interesting – would you propose this in all instances or only with respect to those laws dealing with certain rights? And, if the latter, how do you decide which rights warrant the 2/3 requirement?

            • gman

              You were not addressing his question. He was asking you what you thought should be appropriate. Not what the current laws allowed.

              So if you claim LOCAL authority should rule, then why would you defend those being unhappy going to the State to get the State to roll the LOCAL authority??

              If the majority at the LOCAL level were in favor of guns then the local municipality couldn’t pass the laws, or at least they would last only until the next election.

              • Logically, that is the way our system was designed. Generally, I’m not against the system, BUT, the system is out of control. We have far too many laws. Had the Feds stayed within their authority, we might have a really good judicial system. They didn’t and we don’t.

  14. @ BF………………ok…..I have done some real soul searching the last couple of days…not to mention research. Let’s talk ICC and UN…..you make the claim that the “rules” can be enforced..the question is will they. You seem to be a supporter of treaties and commissions. The ONLY enforcement there is in the UN is the establishment of a commission. The only enforcement there is in the world courts are….commissions. The only enforcment in the ICC,,,,,commissions. In the reality of things world wide….there is no physical force du jour, No one in the United Nations is going to take on the United States and that includes Russia and the Chinese….and any treaty or commission to change the laws of the United States on a word order is boggus. No one can enforce it. There is no GLOBAL police and there should not be…..

    I have no respect for the United Nations and neither does most of the world. The United Nations is nothing but lip service and politial clap trap. If anyone decides to bust a treaty….it gets busted. These so called world courts have no authority much less a mechanism to enforce and decisions. There are thousands of treaties out there defining thousands of things….and everyone goes their way……if they disagree with it.

    And if there was a “global” police….it is going to take ALL NATIONS to agree to it…without it being considered an invasion.

    • And…since the European experiement was a basis fr some of the UN……it is failing miserably. The EU is will most likely disentegrate in the near future. As you know, I watch world currencies very close and do not pay attention to those sites that preach doom and gloom and then try to sell you something.

      I watch inflationary signs very close……I do not see the USD dying….I do see massive inflation about to grip the Chinese and Russia….and Japan and they will “manipulate” their currency to try to avoid it. As you know and understand very well….devaluation of currency only is like putting a bandaid on a jugular wound. You still bleed to death..but at a slower rate.

      Germany will survive and as goes Germany…so goes the EU. When Germany cuts off the money……what will happen in Europe will be interesting to watch.

    • “Let’s talk ICC and UN…..you make the claim that the “rules” can be enforced..the question is will they”

      Yes, the can be.
      Will they? “Shrug”. International Law is a code of conduct, and works on the reciprocity theory. “If I do not , you will do not ; If I do , you may ; therefore, the optimal course is to do”

      If the other does not regardless of my “do”, that State becomes a pariah and will be condemned and isolated over time.

      “You seem to be a supporter of treaties and commissions.”
      Of course. Free men make treaties all the time between themselves. There is nothing inherently wrong with treaties or commissions.

      ” No one can enforce it. There is no GLOBAL police and there should not be…..”

      Of course it can be enforced. It does not require police.

      • Not talking free men,…talking states. UN commissions have absolutely no power. Economic enforcement is the only way…..and, again, economic enforcement can be vetoed.

  15. HIGH FIVE SUFA!

    ……..it’s national high five day. Never heard of it, but ok! 🙂

  16. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/16/pro-tip-dont-ask-for-a-christian-cake/

  17. Seems like stopping a beating heart would be enough-but not today-today it is more important to protect the right to stop that beating heart.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/15/think-progress-botches-details-on-death-of-michelle-wilkinss-baby/

  18. This is one of those articles that is so full of the truth you want to cheer and cry at the same time.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/16/exposing-the-truth-about-abortion/

  19. D13, You have any information on this? Didn’t you say a while back that New Mexico was starting to work with Texas on how to secure the border?

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/16/report-fbi-holds-special-meeting-in-juarez-on-press-strategy-to-deny-judicial-watchs-reporting-about-isis-on-the-border/

    • Everyone knows where the training camps are….they know who runs them…where the money comes from..And we have a blueprint of their training guidelines. The Obama administration is trying to quash any reporting, up to and including using administrative departments to single out individuals that report these things. The report you are reading fails to include three more training camps. They have been in Mexico for quite some time.

      • Obama is recruiting for his new army he talked about. He wants a security force as good as the military, which he has managed to weaken quite a bit. Where do you think all the ammo their buying is going? The guns were bought long ago. The feds have bought enough ammo to wage war for 30 years, based on ammo usage in Iraq. Obama is building an army, and buying ammo to arm them. (this is meant as conspiracy theory and I don’t believe this, nor do I disbelieve this)

  20. WOW, just simply unbelievable. http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/cops-can-storm-homes-court-suggests/#c0M1esfb9ZBBG90p.99

    This is absolute ” Police State” bullshit.

    • Gman

      It is not police state bullshit.

      The judges ruling on the Third Amendment was appropriate.

      The Police violated several other restrictions that could be applied Federally, like arrest without cause of testimony, taking of property even if for a limited time, Habeas Corpus, etc.

      If Nevada is lacking adequate defense of private property then that is Nevada’s fault. Not the Judge ruling on the Federal Constitution.

      Police are not Troops and the occupation was nothing close to “being quartered” within said home.

      • When the Jackboot thugs can take over a HOME, it is most certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment. To claim otherwise is “police state ” bullshit. Sorry JAC, nobody has the right to take over private property without permission, EVER. The Jackboot thugs should all be in jail, regardless of the reason.

        • The judges ruling on the THIRD AMENDMENT was CORRECT.

          You don’t bet to mix up the legal issues just because you don’t like the results.

          This was not a case of left wing liberal JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. It was actually more in tune with a CONSERVATIVE approach to the law.

          • I agree on the 3rd Amendment ruling. Either the lawyers were idiots, or the victims in this case were idiots. Regardless, the police should NEVER have the power to take over a persons home, without permission, EVER. Hopefully you agree with that. If so, we can close this issue 🙂

            • Yes, I agree with that. I also agree that any arrest made from such action should not only be voided but the officers prosecuted for violation of the persons Civil Rights and False Imprisonment.

              Far to many “arrests” and “later released” storied these days. You do not have to affect an actual arrest to question people or look into a matter further.

              As I said, the STATES can resolve most of these issues if they had the guts to buck the Police Unions AND the Neo Cons.

      • I have to disagree. The police across America has become militarized using surplus MILITARY equipment. A group of men in military gear and military weapons (look at the picture) jump out of an APC, knock down the door, and occupy the home. But they are not military? I call B.S. You can call them police (or anything else) if you want, but they are soldiers. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck….I really don’t think it’s a cat.

        If we, as a country, allow the police to become militarized then the 3rd amendment should apply.

        • Rick, your using logic 🙂 Lawyers never use that, they just read the words. Legally, the police are not the military. This is a case where another stupid law has to be passed because the cops think they are all powerful. I think they violated the 4th Amendment, entering a home with no warrant and seizing the property for their use for a lengthy period of time. The arrest of the home owner should never have happened.

          Like I said, a new law will likely come from this, stating that the police are now covered under the 3rd Amendment.

          • Gman,

            One of the links you posted about the Newtown shooting had some information about the state police. I can’t remember the exact wording, but as part of the oath they take, they say they are a “soldier” for the state. Again, can’t remember the wording, but they actually use the word soldier.

            That got me thinking a little. (usually not a good thing) As militarized as the police are now, and they are actually using wording such as “soldier”, and saying things like “it’s a war zone out there” our police has transformed into soldiers that are part of a small military. And as all soldiers in a military, they have enemies. Who are the enemies? The citizens, of course.

            The mentality of ‘serve and protect’ has been replaced with ‘we are soldiers entering a war zone to combat the enemy.’ And I believe that this is what is causing a lot of the problems between the citizens and the police now days. The police need to go back to the mentality of ‘a peace officer that is serving and protecting.’

            Just my thoughts. 🙂

            • Great point! Most folks here will remember how I fumed over what happened in Watertown MA trying to catch the Boston marathon bomber. It still boils my blood that we allow such activity, and no, I don’t care what the criminal did. A criminal is a criminal. Murder is murder. Then, over in California, some idiot cop shot up a little truck with two ladies in it, thinking it was Dorner, who they were chasing that day. It didn’t matter that the truck didn’t even match the description of the vehicle they were after, they still got away with it. Absolute bullshit! The actions of the cops in many places is unacceptable, yet, in other places, like where I reside, the cops are just part of the community and treat people with respect. The more urban the area, the worse the problem seems to be.

  21. Something to ponder about:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/involuntary_servitude_returns_to_america.html

    Buck, curious if you recognize his claims of “inequity” as real or not.

    • This is a no brainer. Those who refused service and got screwed shouldn’t have. This is where we should be talking about our fascist police state and what is happening, because the Feds can control the actions of business’s. Maybe I’ll make that the subject of next thread, what do you think?

      • gman

        The problem with the guy’s argument is how he splits hairs between refusing service at a lunch counter or in a store and those services such as baking cakes and taking pictures.

        The owner of the lunch counter who is doing the cooking is forced equally as much as the baker who makes cakes.

        The reason this fight will not be won is because the left will simply invoke images of Blacks being denied service and then being removed by police for trespassing.

        Because of the EMOTIONAL response the vast majority will support laws FORCING people to provide services and goods based on some legal definition of CLASS.

        Oh, and in all the cases listed where people were prosecuted for not serving homosexuals, those were State and/or Local laws that were violated, not Federal. The Feds are showing up to “investigate Civil Rights violations” after the fact. This is nothing but deliberate INTIMIDATION where the Feds are concerned.

    • Can you elaborate on your question. I want to make sure I fully understand to answer.

  22. Buck

    Do you agree there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to how people view “forcing someone to provide service”?

    In the guy’s article he mentions several examples of how people’s opinions seem to change when the offending party is not white or a white Christian.

    I guess I have a second question as well. Do you agree with his effort to split hairs between types of service? As in serving someone at a lunch counter vs. being forced to bake a cake.

    • True, people are generally prone to double standards. That is a problem. Bit one that can be overcome. I don’t buy the argument that because some people would agree that a black lawyer should not have to defend a klansman then it necessarily follows that a Jew does not have to defend a neo-nazi. Either they are both ok or both are not, regardless of the face some people would view the two differently.

      Does that make sense?

      On your other question – no I don’t agree with his splitting hairs. Again, both are ok or both are not.

      • Buck

        Yes it makes sense and I agree.

        I see no difference between providing legal services or baking a cake or serving someone in a café or store.

        I do see a difference between the Homosexual marriage issue and service in general. But that was not the issue he was raising.

        • So how would you define public accommodation? that seemed to be the point of the article that it was being defined very broadly.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            I wouldn’t, if it were up to me. There would be no laws compelling businesses to provide services to anyone.

            But under our current laws, any product or service sold or provided to another person would be considered subject to the law. Even under our current system I would not have “protected classes”. There would simply be a ban on refusing to sell a product or service to anyone who is able and willing to pay for said product or service.

            And if I had my druthers on this, in the current system, those laws would be limited to the “local” authorities.

            • I’m pretty sure that if they followed your plan exactly:

              “But under our current laws, any product or service sold or provided to another person would be considered subject to the law. Even under our current system I would not have “protected classes”. There would simply be a ban on refusing to sell a product or service to anyone who is able and willing to pay for said product or service.”

              These laws would disappear very quickly. 🙂

              I do wonder though-would there be any exceptions not based on class-is it even possible to not have exceptions. And wouldn’t those exceptions lead us right back to where we are now-guilt or innocence based on being PC.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                If we need to carve out exceptions that is an indicator that the law is not founded on sound moral or ethical principles.

                Now in this case, forcing everyone to serve everyone is based on an immoral and unethical principle. Because it violates a basic Natural Right. And because it is not moral, we start looking for exceptions because of conflicts created with other Natural Rights, such as Religious Freedom.

                If there is no law forcing everyone to serve everyone, then there is no need for any exceptions because all Natural Rights are preserved. Right to association, right to property, Right to life, Right to be stupid, etc, etc. …

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The question must be asked, because it just does. When the government DEMANDED by the force of law that blacks cannot be discriminated against, and business’s MUST serve them, is the root cause of a violation of Natural Rights that is now, again under attack?

            • JAC,

              What about guns? In the 80’s I owned a gun shop and offered gunsmithing services. I had the right to refuse service at my discretion. And, in some cases, I was required by law to refuse services. I know a gun is a bit different than a cake but the premise is the same.

              So a man walks in to my shop with all his gang colors on and plops down a few thousand dollars in cash for a Colt AR-15, you are saying that I should be required by law to sell it to him. I don’t know about all that…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Rick

                Under current law, yes you should sell it to him. But also under current law you are required to make sure he is not a felon.

                No where did I say I personally felt that you should be compelled by law to sell anything to everyone.

  23. Buck

    Re the 2/3 majority. I do not have a list but generally such a majority should be required for actions which cause significant imposition upon people. So any law which can be construed as imposing or impeding a Right would certainly qualify.

    So should TAX laws or legislation that Appropriates Govt funds. Since one demands the other, or the former allows the latter they should both require 2/3 majority.

    Posting of speed limits and declarations of “High Five Day” can remain a simple majority.

    Some will argue nothing will get done. I submit if 2/3 of Americans do not agree then maybe something should not get done.

  24. Hillary is already playing the Class Warfare and jealousy cards. For now it is the Hedge Fund Managers.

    This nonsense will continue and will include many Republicans proposing their own “tax plans”.

    Here is the RULE that should be followed by all Citizens and pundits.

    No candidate should be allowed to propose, howl about, extol, or condemn any part of the tax code UNLESS THEY ADDRESS THE ENTIRE DEFICIT AND DEBT in the same discussion.

  25. News this morning was cute. Trying to blame this on Apartheid.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/africa/south-africa-xenophobia-attacks/

    Could it possibly be tribal?

  26. Cop Killings – A interactive graphic

  27. HMMM. Seems to fit many of the warnings I’ve read lately: http://www.gordontlong.com/Articles/art-2015-04-A-Macro_Insights-Shutting_Down_Lending.htm

    Opinions?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      KISS

      Recessions have been running on average of 7 to 10 years. It has now been 7 years since the last one.

      Now add the fact that the financial business that helped cause the last one has not stopped. Add to that the fallout in Europe and the slowdowns in China, Russia, etc.

      Prepare for another down turn in the next 5 years, with a good chance in comes in 2016. Although if the political/economic cycle holds, a Republican will win POTUS and a Recession will hit in the first year of the first term.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Nice prediction! I see it happening sooner , before 2016. Let’s see if Obama can get the blame for this one, like it was “Bush’s fault” back then.

  28. If the cops can’t kill you, break into your house and take over, they will just steal from you.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/04/16/veteran-forfeiture-nebraska/

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Gman…even though it’s happening on the other end of PA, have you been following the Philly police scandle over drug arrests. As one of the officers states…to many to count and remember.

  29. Oh my, Not sure how I feel about this-I will say that before employees try to hurt the business they work for-by staging protests on the biggest selling day of the year and Demand ridiculous salary increases-maybe they should realize that the business owner also has the ability to go the extreme route.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-suddenly-closes-stores-2015-4

    • The stores are reopening in 6 months and are paying employees for two months, at which time they collect unemployment (from tv news). The CT rumor is that they are preparing the stores to process citizens who are arrested as political dissidents (which is even too deep for me). The other CT going around is about these stores being hubs for an underground tunnel system that will move troops and equipment throughout the South (which is also too deep for me). The first, is in conjunction with Jade Helm 15, a military exercise starting in July (I think). Conspiracy theories are very entertaining, ain’t they 🙂

      Beyond tat, I have read that no permits that would be required for a major plumbing issue have been issued. My best guess is that its a major remake of the stores, likely with new floors, that they did on short notice. Why on short notice? Could be a Labor Union issue and they are trying to organize. This, the Labor Union issue I would find more plausible considering Wal-Marts dislike of them.

      Hope you and yours are doing well today 😀

  30. First take that Graphic Warning seriously. And second, if you get any field trip notices proceed with caution. Oy vey!

    http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2015/04/17/teens-shocked-by-graphic-content-at-antibullying-conference-n1986750

    • I cannot comment on this article without having men in SWAT uniforms coming to my house, so I won’t.

      • The shame is-your right-you have to watch what you say or you will be carted off to jail.

        I just don’t get it-gays are out of the closet and some how that translates into corralling children into forums where they talk very graphically about sexual acts. This wasn’t allowed before-I don’t remember anyone taking children to “events” where they talked about heterosexual acts- why the hell is it allowed now? And why would supposed adults allow it and even promote it-Most people aren’t gonna take their underage kids to an adult entertainment venue-like a strip joint or a drag queen show-so why would anyone think it was okay to take other people’s children to crap like this under the banner of a school function. These people need to be put in jail because I know they just broke numerous child protection laws. So why aren’t they being prosecuted??????

        • Black Flag® says:

          Easier solution.
          Home school your kids.

          But parents today are immature, and rather the State do the parenting, then complain about how perverse that is. No thought about their own decision, though.

          • If I had school age kids I would home school them. I used to think it was a really bad idea-but I’ve changed my mind. Plus now it is more common place and groups have naturally formed to help and work together helps counter the cons that concerned me.

            As far as parents-I doubt many parents even know what happened at this event-they trust the schools wayyyyy to much with their children.

  31. 3 to 4 thousand Americans-the administrations response is Screw You-Please let them be doing something behind the scene’s- that they just don’t want to advertise.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/17/obama-administration-declined-to-organize-a-rescue-mission-for-americans-in-yemen/

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Congress is always howling about the need for “Comprehensive XYZ Reform”.

    Notice how nobody ever proposes “Comprehensive BUDGET Reform”!

    You need to share this idea with your friends and antagonists.

    There are only two ways to approach Fiscal responsibility.

    One: Set a tax level that the Citizenry will accept. This is the Founders approach of making sure the people are happy about their Govt, because if they are not the Govt will fail.

    Then you budget for priorities within the constraint of the set income.

    Two: Set the array of services desired and then establish the TAX RATE required to pay for them. This of course will never happen because the Rate would be so high it would immediately devolve to Class Warfare, with each group trying to pawn more of the tax off on the other group. Sound familiar??

    • Maybe you should ask yourself if what you vote for is working. Really simple question, that you should look in the mirror when asking. I have done so.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What I vote for is working just fine. If it (they) stop working just fine I find someone else to vote for.

  33. OMG! Infanticide is What, a Misdemeanor now ? 2 years community service, that’s all a child’s life is worth. IF, and that’s a very big IF- the woman’s mentally unbalanced then why isn’t she at the very least in a mental institution, getting help. The world has just lost it’s mind.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/17/woman-kills-her-newborn-baby-by-stuffing-toilet-paper-down-her-throat/

  34. You now live in the mo0dern day Sodaam and Gamorrah (sp?)

    • Yes, I believe we are. I tried to convince myself that all these cases of woman just having and then throwing their babies in the trash was just a few nuts. But I don’t believe that anymore.They’ve just been convinced that there’s nothing wrong with doing so-their just having a free abortion. I have argued that abortion being made legal and then being extended into later and later in the pregnancy would bring about infanticide-or maybe after birth abortion is a better term. I believe we’ve arrived -it’s just not actually legal Yet, unless you get a sympathetic Judge.

  35. Black Flag® says:

    GE posts first quarter loss of $13.6 billion

    When the best company in the world loses that much money….. get your economic helmets on your head.

  36. Black Flag® says:

    Frederick’s of Hollywood is closing all its 111 stores

    …. tighten the helmet strap….

    When the rich pull back spending …. find cover.

    • Yep…and use cash. Do not use credit cards….and, NO….no one has to use credit cards to survive. It boggles my mind to hear people say if they did not use credit cards they could not live…..well, running up credit cards does exactly the same thing on steroids.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Just don’t get caught with too much cash, the police will confiscate it. Don’t withdraw too much or the bank will report you, and the police will come and confiscate your money. What’s too much, according to the Feds? 5K

  37. Dale A Albrecht says:

    But today the worlds financial leaders see the worlds economy getting better. Buy into whatever pharmaceuticals they’re into

%d bloggers like this: