Be Careful What You Ask For

baltimore27n-6-webFirst it was in Ferguson, Missouri.  Then it was in Baltimore, Maryland.  Now, it’s in Clevelend, Ohio.  These are events surrounding the actions of police officers and blacks.  Hopefully, Cleveland will not slip into the riot trap, but it’s still early and the paid instigators are just getting there.  That’s for Buck  🙂 .  What has happened most recently, in response to all the protest’s, chants of killing cops, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot and the actual assassination of police officers, is the police have stood down and are no longer engaging in proactive policing.  Results, huge spikes in crime and shootings in Baltimore and Chicago on Memorial Day.  Now, people are crying the blues that it’s the cops fault for not protecting the public.  Newsflash folks, it isn’t the cops job to protect the public.  Blacks wanted the cops out of their communities and that’s what they have gotten, a response that seems to be to their own detriment.  If Black Lives matter, they should have mattered a long time ago when they were slaughtering each other in the streets of our cities. It’s cultural violence that will not go away, with or without the presence of police, until they have finally wiped up the streets with their last drop of blood.  The police never could stop black on black killings, but at least they seemed to slow things down a little.  Now, we are seeing something that is rare in our time.  WE are seeing blacks without their police baby sitters, because that is what they demanded.  They asked, they demanded, but they weren’t careful.  Now they have to deal with the results of their actions.  What a waste of life.



  1. 😎


    Coming to a city near you. Neutered cops. Can’t say I blame them. Frankly, I’d sit at the police station and wait for a call.

  3. There are numerous reasons why. Chief among them: The big, savvy and smart money knows what’s coming. Western socialist governments, on their death beds, are on a witch hunt to find every penny of wealth you have, track it, and tax it.

    Some of you may think the rich deserve to be taxed more. Maybe so, maybe not. I’m not going to get into that debate today.

    But what I am going to tell you is that if you think it’s only the rich under attack, think again.

    Washington and Brussels want your money, too. They want to know how you’re earning it. Where it’s coming from. Where it’s going. Every penny of it.

    They also want to control it. They want to get you to spend more to boost the economy. Hence, why negative interest rates, a tax on your money, is spreading through Europe.
    Why JP Morgan is the first in the U.S. to impose negative interest rates on customer funds in excess of $250,000. Why more such policies are coming, yes, even here in the U.S.

    And perhaps most important of all, why authorities in Europe and the U.S. are moving to abolish cash.

    Never mind most of what you already do is electronic. You bank online. You trade online. You conduct business online.

    That’s not enough for Washington or Brussels. They want all cash gone from the system.

    Authorities in Europe and the U.S. are moving to abolish cash transactions.

    Think I’m kidding, or fear-mongering? Think again. I have long warned that the world was headed to a new, cashless monetary system and to a new reserve currency.

    The first such steps have already been taken. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is now working behind the scenes to make its Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, the new global reserve currency.

    The World Bank is working on its own version.

    All over Europe now, cash is under attack. Spain has banned cash transactions over 2,500 euros. Italians have been banned from using cash transactions of more than 1,000 euros, while France is expected to introduce a similar law in September.

    France, by the way, is also requiring that all gold in the country and transported through the country must be declared and reported to French customs.

    While large cash withdrawals exceeding 10,000 euros per month will also now be monitored and reported.

    Throughout Europe now, foreign exchange offices are now required to obtain a copy of someone’s ID to exchange more than 1,000 euros.

    In the U.K., former Prime Minster Gordon Brown is advocating abolishing all cash and forcing people to use all electronic money via a new nationalized bank.

    In effect, Brown wants to usurp the money supply and control it better, he thinks, via a communist-type move to control your savings and spending, allegedly on your behalf.

    In Denmark, at least, authorities are being more open about it. They’re preparing to introduce a law this fall to make virtually all transactions electronic.

    It’s not just Europe, though. In many Central and South American countries, finger-printing is required by certain stores and businesses if one pays in cash with US$100 or more. Western Union has certain policies in place that require finger-printing outside the U.S.

    Mexico has restrictions on numerous cash transactions.

    Here in the U.S., while there are no national cash bans in place, a new trend is indeed emerging.

    Louisiana, for instance, recently banned cash transactions for second-hand merchandise — making it tough for flea markets to survive.

    In many states, pawn shops are now under very strict scrutiny when it comes to cash transactions, with a good deal of paper work now demanded.

    Of course, the propaganda coming out of governments is that cash is how most terrorists and drug dealers work. Outlaw cash, and we put them out of business.

    But you and I both know it goes well beyond terrorism and drugs. Just like the NSA spying has. It’s simply another way to spy on you, and to track and tax you — so the government can gain greater control over everything you do.

    The problem is that it is going to get worse. Your rights are being trampled on, left and right. The Constitution means nothing these days.

    But you have to stop and ask yourself one question: Why do governments want so much power over me these days to control and tax me?

    The answer is simple: Western socialist governments are on their death bed, they are fighting for their lives, and if it’s a choice between them and you and your rights, they will always choose themselves.

    In the end, they will fail. Governments can indeed fool some of the people some of the time, but over time, they can’t fool the majority. The people of the world, especially Europe and the U.S., will rise up and throw the bums out …

    In one heck of a giant rebellion and revolution that is coming.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      That giant rebellion and revolution exists only in your mind.

      The new American generation will willingly give up their cash transactions, because they already have. Our generation is quickly becoming an insignificant minority.

      • That was written by Larry Edelman, who has a PHD in economics and a very successful investment business. I’ve been following him for about 6 years. I never thought I would here this from him. I won’t bother to try and predict future events, but when the electronic systems fail, like they have in the past, for a lengthy period of time, he will be right, those on welfare will go batshit crazy when their SNAP cards don’t work. It’s already happened, with only a 10 hour stoppage in 10 States. Imagine what a week will bring, or a month.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Yes, there is potential for rioting. Groups exacting revenge on the privileged lottery winners. Those who find their EBIT cards not working for a week or two.

          But that is NOT a revolution. Your post infers that Americans will revolt over the elimination of CASH. I am saying they will not because for the vast majority they already gave up using CASH.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            While I don’t totally agree with the author myself, his reasoning has sufficient cause to go in thst direction. If you look at the article as a whole, a cashless society is basically control and with a new reserve currency possibly making the dollar less valuable if not a complete collapse , I could see it happening. But having all those things happening is a stretch. Time will tell.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Just curious, was you biggining sentence, which was a bit of a personal attack necessary?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Yes, it was necessary. And it was NOT a personal attack, not even a bit.

      • I for one rarely use cash…

        • Most of us rarely use cash-but there is a big difference between rarely doing something by choice and not having the option.

          • I didn’t mean to imply I would agree with efforts to ban the use of cash, just that JAC is most likely correct that this would not lead to some huge rebellion or revolt as more and more people are voluntarily forgoing cash anyway.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          What happens to those who can’t get a bank account due to past stupidities? No more kids shoveling snow or cutting grass, no more doing side jobs for those who can’t afford a contractor. Lemonade stands and most small farm markets couldn’t operate . There is a lot of free market things that will be eliminated or moved to the black market, I’ve missed slit, but no one should have to be forced to do business with a bank. As soon as that happens banks triple fees and the poor are screwed, Plus, it WOULD require an ID. Isn’t that called disenfranchisement!?

        • The more time goes on, the more cash I use. Too much tracking with the cards. Bonus that you get discounts on gas for using cash.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            As I, I was bank free till moving to country, now I have a simple cerd similar to a debit. I take out the cash not needed to pay the bills. I don’t want to wake up and find a bank holiday or a hacking that takes down electronic payments. Plus, it’s not the governments business how much money I have.

          • I just don’t go to those gas stations charging more for using a card…

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You will not know if they do until you actually try to pay cash. Assuming you are at self serve pumps. So to pay cash you have to go inside and hand over a card while you pump. If the price per gallon is the same as the signage you know that is the cash price.

              Next time use the card and check the per gallon pricing. It may be different back there but here every major company adds about 5 cents per gallon if you use a “credit card”. But there is NOTHING on the pumps telling you that is the case.

              • Nope – out here they post the price per gallon at the pumps – lists price of cash and price of credit. I steer clear of those charging more for credit.

  4. D13, I decided to check out the Anarchist’s cookbook thing and here is what I found. It’s from Wiki, but it’s better than nothing:

    Advocates of anarchism dispute the association of the book with anarchist political philosophy. The anarchist collective CrimethInc., which published the book Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook in response, denounces the earlier book, saying it was “not composed or released by anarchists, not derived from anarchist practice, not intended to promote freedom and autonomy or challenge repressive power – and was barely a cookbook, as most of the recipes in it are notoriously unreliable”.[13]

    The original book was written in 1971, as a protest to the Vietnam War. I’ll stick with my position that it does not (nor do riots) have anything to do with the modern day anarchist political philosophy. I have studied the philosophy to better understand Black Flag and his political stance. Today’s anarchist’s are peaceful and non-violent. Black Flags many posts support this theme. I like the philosophy and think it could be a good start to reform the mess we have now.

    For the record, I was not being condescending in the least, but I have pretty extensive knowledge of the modern day Anarchist movement. It is far what you have portrayed. But, hopefully we can all learn more about the philosophy and better understand what today’s Anarchist’s really are all about 🙂

    • Note: The history is vast. I don’t follow anarchism but do have a good understanding of Black Flags philosophy, violence is only used in self defense. It’s quite a subject with a very long history. Interesting stuff.

    • Oh, I understand your position….I was just quoting from the book….I have the book…..however, I know where BF comes from as well…..but he does have a strange sense of violence……violence, to him, does not have to originate with physical violence.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      There is not a “singular” concept of Anarchy. BF tries to tell us there is only one TRUE definition or meaning. Reality does not support his claim.

      Just as one’s belief in free markets as Capitalism, reality is that many other repressive forms of controlled economies can fit the definition of Capitalism.

      Just as there are more than one definition or concept of Freedom or Liberty or Justice.

      Declarations of TRUTH do not make things true. It requires sound and reasoned defense. And even then many will simply reject the reasoned argument in favor or emotional beliefs.

  5. A video, which has been authenticated by Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma, the top academic Syrian expert in America and author of Syria Comment website, has not gotten wide recognition in the US. However, with this week’s document revelation that the Islamic State was a creation of the United States as a tool in proxy war against Syrian President Bashar Assad, it seems that it needs to be reintroduced to the American public.

    • This is because the guys at Intel are as dumb as rocks and totally incapable of learning anything. It is always “different” this time. We can “control” it. The insanity, in my lifetime, goes back to Korea when the US made the mistake of leaving Korea out of a speech regarding areas strategically important to us. Joe Stalin gave Kim the green light after that one. I do wonder though why they thought we would NOT react after our troops were steamrolled .

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I am curious. Do you distinguish in your own mind a difference between ignoring the risk of something happening to gain an advantage vs. directly causing that something to happen?

      I have read the documents you posted and all the claims. Declaring that the US CREATED Isis is not factual. The US recognized the risk of Isis expanding and simply decided to ignore it.

      When you claim that the US CREATED something that infers recruitment, training, funding , etc. etc. I create things by MAKING something that was not there before. That is NOT WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS are telling you.

      • Looked the other way coupled with wishful thinking is a better way to put it. JAC I agree with your use of language here. It can be said we “enabled” it the same way we “enabled” the overthrow of the Shah.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          That is a good term as well. However, I am not convinced we actually “enabled” them either. At least in terms of the eventual outcome. I say that because we do not know they would not have grown anyway. Especially if we did nothing to stop them.

          And lets not forget where they were getting the greatest support. That being the Sunni Arab world in the Middle East.

      • I’ve always figured the Koran created ISIS!

      • JAC,, I figured you would brush this aside. Forget the fact the A US Senator also went to promise money and arms, I think the was well known RINO McCain. Let’s look at the events leading up to this rather sudden uprising of ISIS.

        McCain goes and makes promises to help rebels defeat Assad, something that Obama seamed to want, especially how easily Libya went down. There were chemical weapons used ( later admitted it was the US led rebels who used them), Obama gets on TV with his “line in the sand” BS and basically the Pentagon shut him down and the people went “Meh”. What Obama thought would be “Shock and Awe” and be able to get support for a military action, failed miserably.

        Next chapter of the Obama “Shock and Awe” campaign was the unleashing of ISIS and their Hollywood esque videos, which were expected to get a huge response and the people would want war. The people said ” MEH” and now Obama is stuck with a mess he created. The people ain’t budging on the war issue, despite the ‘Humanitarian issue of Christians on a mountain” propaganda. Obama 0 people 2.

        A few other neat things that fits into Obama’s “Shock and Awe” campaign against the people. Last years immigration “emergency”. Epic fail to get people to fall for it. This Spring, no such issues (even though all the Dreamer stuff is still very active and ongoing, despite the courts ruling)

        Obama’s “Shock and Awe ” campaign continues to be epic failures on the people. The Gun Control effort was formidable, but actually worked in the reverse way Obama had intended (He even claimed so in a speech).

        Ferguson and Baltimore are more examples of the Obama doctrine. This past weekends “Shock and Awe” will be a worse failure than his others.

        Believe as you will. That’s what’s great to be an American. 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I did not brush it aside. I simply pointed out that the documents you cite as proving the USA “created ISIS” do not in fact support that claim. They show that the fundamentalist groups existed before we decided to provide support and that we recognized the threat they posed if left alone or if allowed to go after Assad. We decided to ignore the risk and help them in various ways.

          That is not CREATING ISIS. That is aiding ISIS and then suffering the blow back we predicted but that someone felt was an acceptable risk.

          Now when someone produces documents that explicitly show the USA recruited, organized, trained and funded these groups then I will say that we “created” Isis. But so far that is not what the released documents show.

          Somewhere back when, I stated that McCain’s trip to Syria had to have been cleared with the White House and that it probably meant we were doing more than just drawing a line in the sand.

          Now go to the documents about the gun shipments from Bengahazi. The documents you claim showed the USA was dealing in weapons do not say that. They say we “knew about the shipments”. Which I am certain we did. I also think our Ambassador was there to work out some kinks with the Turkish diplomat on this “gun running” operation. But notice, there has been no documentation to support this “theory” of mine. Only that we “knew about the gun shipments”.

          I recall posting a comment that Glenn Beck was reporting the Libya to Turkey to Syria connection right after Benghazi.

          • The true smoking guns may be lacking for now, buy there is no disputing the US’s involvement in overthrowing Assad. That’s a known fact. It was AFTER Obama failed in getting the military to attack Assad that ISIS became known to the world and still in Syria. The connections are too close to say that our Government didn’t play a major role in forming ISIS. I would also bat that sometime down the road we will find out that the US was always in control of there actions. Too many indicators to dismiss. BUT, still need total proof. I’ll go with indicators, you sit and wait 🙂

          • What difference does the language make? Created, aided, funded, supplied, knew about, ignored…..whatever. My concerns are that the US govment does whatever the hell it wants. And then lies to the people about it. If you or I did the same things, we would be in PRISON!
            Why is it ok for the govment to do the same things that would get us thrown in prison?
            Why do the people continue to allow these criminals to run wild?

  6. Yeah….I do not blame the police in Ferguson nor Baltimore….it is not worth the effort to go into a demilitarized zone and try to reason with murderers……just sit it out. I got tickled at the inference that it is all over Baltimore……but it isn’t.

  7. Ok gotta go…..later.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Good luck my Texican friend. You are correct in that it is a thankless job.

  8. For the purpose of pure entertainment in the ongoing WTC collapse controversy, here is my response to Mr. Flag regarding his latest effort in the last segment to convince me that the WTC did not fall because of the fire. I apparently do not understand metallurgy. By the way, I freely admit that I am by no means an expert in it merely a casual, moderately informed amateur.

    Here is what I am going to do Flag, I have a one inch steel bar left over from a casement window demo. I will put it across my Char-Broil grill next time I use it. Bar is about thirty inches, grill about 28. I will then place a 5lb. barbell on the middle and see what happens. I do not expect any melting but I do expect the bar to deform and fall into the grill with the bar bell.

    • Flag’s answer from the previous:

      Go for it.
      But remember, that steel is NOT the steel they put into buildings.
      What you should really do is get the steel they use for buildings, which, by the way is almost the same steel as the grill you put your steaks on, not your window sill steel.

      I mean, you cook right? You’ve seen and used the grills over fire pits, right? They are still there, night after night, month after month, year after year of use, right? Why don’t they melt?

      Additionally, you raise a point that defeats your own position.
      If, by some failure of construction, the steel was substandard.
      As you will note in your potential experiment, let’s say the bar you use does bend under the weight. Where does it bend?

      The bending is asymmetrical.
      It is a scientific fact that asymmetrical failure causes asymmetrical collapse, NOT a symmetrical one, due to the conservation of momentum law.

      WTC7 was a symmetrical collapse. (As was WTC 1 and 2).

      Either you must deny a law of physics for your theory to exist OR your collapse theory is wrong.

      Not a good spot to place your theory into, SK.

      • Yeah but, these were not I beams they were trusses. In addition, the WTC towers were unique in that support was the exterior walls and the central core. They were totally “Open concept” floors with no interior bearing walls between the outside and core.

        • Many questions regarding the WTC CT:

          1) Who engineered the demolition?
          2) How many workers did it take to rig the building?
          3) How many months/years did it take to install the charges and wire the system?
          4) How could this be accomplished with no one being curious?
          5) Where was the master panel kept?
          6) Where charges placed on every floor? If not at what interval?
          7) If the charges were not on every floor, how come the collapse looked like sequential floor collapse?
          8) How could all the workers be kept quiet this long?
          9) How did the control wires survive the fire up to the impact floors?
          10) With heating, telecom, IT, electrical, fire alarm and suppression engineers/workings crawling all over those buildings daily, why did no one notice an unexplained wiring distribution system?
          11) Why collapse the buildings while people were still being evacuated?
          12) If the police chief and fire chief knew the buildings were rigged, why let their men enter?

          • As I said before, the only thing that would make sense is out of the old James Coburn movie, “The President’s Analyst”.

            The “Phone Company” did it. Disguised as Ma Bell’s workers the nefarious, secret, unknown government group rigged the Trade Center over thirty years with detonation cord disguised as……telephone line. Think about it! Answers almost all your questions, separate Telephone panel in the basement and all.

          • Most of these have logical answers. But I’ll go straight to #8. W. The workers, who did the work long before 9-11 are all dead.

            Thermite cord, used in place of explosives. Theres all kinds of things being said out there. My issue has always been building 7. I also have some issue with a jet flying way faster that it could withstand hitting the Pentagon. I guess when the FBI takes all the security footage and makes it go away, we will never know the truth about that one, except the part of it hit where the investigation of the missing 2 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost was being held. That one just simply went away.

    • Generally speaking, I Love/Hate unions. I find that they are their own worst enemies. I got this from my Father, a union man who Loved/Hated unions and thought they were their own worst enemy.

      • I suspect the love part comes from what you know the unions could and should be, not what the vast majority of them are-so I guess I have a hate/disappointed relationship with unions.

    • Crony socialism

    • Well, I give them an A for effort, but I believe this would also fail…

      As we’ve argued, one solution is in fact to get out of the marriage business and leave ‘marriage’ to religion. While this bill may purport to do that, it doesn’t actually do it as it would effectively result in the state recognizing marriages and conferring special treatment to a married couple while still discriminating against homosexual couples.

      In other words, it doesn’t change a thing.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dang nab it, you beat me to the punch. Although I think mine provides a better explanation as to why we AGREE once again.

      • Actually, I think they are expecting the SCOUTS to rule for Gay marriage (as most of us are). They are doing what we had agreed with long ago, removing the word marriage from the legal document (which should have been done long ago, everywhere).

        I also think SCOTUS will rule that non-governmental business’s will not be required by law to service gay weddings’s if it violates the company owners religious beliefs (as it should be). I don’t see SCOTUS going full Left Wing on this and wouldn’t be surprise if they vote that it’s a State issue, as it always has been.

        • But G, that is NOT what they are doing. See my explanation above and JAC’s below.

          • Let me rephrase by asking you a question — what is it that they are trying to accomplish here?

            • They are simply changing words. By eliminating “marriage” I’m guessing that it would make any SCOTUS decision moot. Since they no longer issue “marriage” licenses, they ain’t part of the issue and can STILL exclude Gays. This is how lawyers work Buckster, you should know that 🙂

              • I’ll say it again – this doesn’t accomplish that goal and, even if it did, could not pass constitutional muster given a SCOTUS decision prohibiting bans on gay marriage.

              • Buck, I’m in agreement on getting the government out of the marriage issue and make everything legal “civil unions”. Sadly, that’s too simple for the current group of politicians and lawyers fighting the issue. Sadly twice, it all really comes down to lawyers. They make up most of those battling this sill issue.

              • You posted this bill claiming it to be the solution; it isn’t even close. Now you are in agreement with me? I’m confused.

              • Sorry, I must have misread it somewhere. It happens when trying to carry on several discussions at once. But, we were in agreement before on the solution, and I stand by what we had previously agreed upon.

              • Gotcha

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I do not see how this “solves” anything. From the article:

      “Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties 16 who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.”

      See those key words? “who are otherwise legally authorized to be married”

      He claims this does not allow gay marriage. Really?? The legal issue before SCOTUS is whether the State can withhold the right to marry from homosexuals. That means “those legally authorized to be married”. The license is only the paper needed to document that the legal requirements were met.

      If the State wants a true solution it must eliminate any “legal requirement” to marry but “ALLOW” contracts for those wishing to enter into such an agreement.

      The age of majority is then needed to enter into a contract, eliminating such agreements for those under 18.

      • Yes, yours does provide a better more pronounced explanation. You’ve always been too long winded for my taste!!

        J/k – I fully agree, just didn’t feel the need to elaborate especially since typing out posts on my phone!

        • Just A Citizen says:


          OK, I will cut you some slack. I couldn’t post anything from a phone, let alone a couple of sentences.

          • Why thank you!

            To add to your post — the solution to avoid ‘gay marriage’ would be to avoid marriage altogether and simply grant civil union licenses to all couples that request one. Grant zero recognition to any religious ‘marriage’.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              WHY even a civil union license??

              Why not just eliminate any special recognition of marriage by Govt.?

              If people want their property treated as community property then write up their own contract and register with the County Recorder.

              • Civil union licenses would’ve necessary if the government were to continue to grant recognition and benefits to registered couples (eg – survivorship rights, jointly filed taxes, etc).

              • Community property remember is a thing only in weird states out west…and Wisconsin for some reason…


              • Yeppers…Texas is a community property state only on things that were done together….estates from deceased relatives, for example, are not part of community property. Prenups are pretty big here as well and they carry pretty much the same force as no contest clauses.

  9. Colonel,

    Meant to ask you — how was your day in my shoes!? it is a thankless and often aggravating job, but someone has to do it!

    • Tedious and lengthy….but a well prepared will and well prepared trusts really makes it easier. The only issue is explaining the difference between estate evaluation and auction evaluations…..people think the higher the value, the higher the distribution. They do not understand that the higher the evaluation, the higher the taxes could be. Get your estate evals….fund the trusts, then auction if you desire.

      One thing that also makes it easier is a non contest clause in the will. Any contest eliminates anyone from the provisions of the will…so that eliminates argument. Going through all of the machinations took awhile but it is finished and all that is left to do is to fund the trusts and then the trust and trustees take over…..that will relieve me from the executor side….but then I will have to deal with being trustee of several trusts.

      All in all……it went ok.

      • Good to hear.

        You make a good point on the valuation, but need to also take into account the increased step up in basis on the higher valuation so no gain on the sale.

        On the no contest also need to be careful on varying state laws as to its effectiveness.

        And make sure you get a release from everyone!

        But you are absolutely correct on the importance of proper planning!

        • Yes, we looked at stepped up basis and compared everything…..Since some of the investments can ride the wave for awhile and you do not unload certain things right away, it has always been my theory to not be too fast. Look at the economic cimate when you decide what is stepped up and what should not be…I am dusting off the crystal ball now…..and we are making some decisions as to the future Presidency….things will undoubtedly change around 2016 if the Repubs actually hold the house and senate and get the POTUS……capital gains may get slashed, and the 3+ surcharge will be a thing of the past….I think that will happen anyway especially if SCOTUS rules in favor of the states that did not set up exchanges. But who the hell knows….just read the crystal ball, then roll the dice.

          No contest in Texas is very strong… just cannot do it. I have never seen it over turned except in cases where last minute decisions were made in codicile form to benefit sudden nurses that appeared on the scene in the last couple of months…the judge, in our probate session, looked at it and signed off on it….told us to proceed.

          Releases are paramount……

          So, all in all, everything went ok…and as executor and trustee, the funding mechanisms of the trusts are mine to make.

          • Interesting on the no contest in Texas. From what I’ve seen the majority of states carve out many exceptions — e.g., if probable cause exists to lodge a contest, that person wouldn’t be disinherited OR would permit certain types of contests like undue influence.

            • Actually , in terrorem clauses are widely used and the law (Section 64 of the Texas Probate Code was added in 2009) was changed to allow some issues to challenge. “No-contest” clauses are enforced, but narrowly. That means, to even run the risk of violating the clause, the beneficiary’s conduct must come within the acts that the clause prohibits. Even then, Texas courts have taken a pretty staunch position on Will Contests that are brought forward in good faith and for just cause. There are some exampes that contests could happen if the just cause is sincere and in good faith……for example…the dying person suddenly falls in love with his/her hospice nurse and changes the will at the last moment because he/she was not in proper mind at the time….Things like that. You know the drill…Perry Masonish….

              Now, Section 64 expressly makes a “no-contest” provision unenforceable against a contestant if their contest was brought forward and maintained in good faith and with just cause.

              Forfeiture of an inheritance can certainly be a just and fair result. But, it should not result in those cases where a legitimate and honest dispute exists.

              • Ah, so it seems Texas actually takes the same position as most states.

                It works and is enforced…sometimes, depending on the facts and the nature of the claim.

              • THe problem I have with this, Buck……it should NEVER EVER be a court to say who could get what……I do have a real problem with a court over turning anything in a will.

              • If someone wanted to give a million bucks to a goldfish……and not to a family member….the goldfish should get it….it is the last will and testament…..and no ones business.

              • I agree and disagree – someone should most certainly be able to leave their money as they see fit… long as they are mentally competent and aren’t being unduly coerced into doing something they don’t truly want. Hence, if a beneficiary has probable cause to believe the decedent wasn’t competent or was unduly coerced, the beneficiary shouldn’t lose their inheritance for contesting, even if ultimately unsuccessful in his claim.

                That being said, of trying to rely on a no contest clause, never completely disinherit an heir – you want there to be something of some significance they may lose by bringing the action!

              • Interesting case probably 40 years back,Philip Girard, a Philadelphia industrialist and Philanthropist left a huge chunk of money in the nineteenth century to establish a home and school for orphaned white boys. Do I need to say more?

                Eventually they basically went around that clause and made it a home for all boys but there was a huge fight over the language. Do0n’t know where it stands on girls or transgenders today.

                The Hyde Foundation which created “the Museum of the American Indian” specifically, in the will of the founder specified that the collection be displayed in a museum built for it in Audubon Terrace in Upper Manhattan (my old hood). Everything was hunky dorey until the Smithsonian wanted it. There were good reasons to want to move the collection (like it was 10 times bigger than the museum) so the first shot was to say that the Museum woudl be kept in NY City, moved to the Battery Area in the disused Custom House. Ultimately they put part of it there but the bulk was stolen by the Smithsonian and moved to DC.

                Good reasons are good reasons but I have an issue with changing the terms of the bequest no matter what the good reasons are.

              • Correct….you and I are on the same wave length

  10. Just A Citizen says:
    • Some of that justice dispensed by Anarchists.

      I guess your not as smart as you think. Where is the mention of Anarchist’s in the article? OH, we ain’t Guatmala , We are in the USA remember?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The people do not trust Govt and there is NO GOVT present in these areas. The people take the law into their own hands.

        NO GOVT = Anarchy

        No Govt, and People enforcing their own laws = Anarchists dispensing their form of justice.

        OH, and since when is the concept of Anarchy limited to the USA? Don’t you remember the great BF example of how Anarchy is better……….SOMALIA?

        • True on the outside USA thing. I don’t think Flag would accept what they did as anarchy, but simply evil. But, I’ll let Flag handle that world, I’m just watching from the sidelines. However, you are assuming there is no form of hierarchy, which is a form of government. Your assumptions could be wrong. But, we don’t live there and the situation issue is incomplete, so I guess your wrong and I’m wrong, due to lack of details 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            By definition a hierarchy does not create a Govt.

            Only the monopoly on the use of legal force. And of course the power to TAX.

  11. I am kinda curious as to why the progressives think that following Europe is the way to go….

    • White wine and French cheese!

    • Funny part is Colonel, there are historical precedents for this. There were people back in the day. They were called Torys. They like everything all nice and neat and not messy, everything just so and no disagreements.

      Of course, they were living then as now in their own Volkenkuckkucksheim. they never understood nor will that progress comes from chaos. Challenging the status quo.

      Our leftist friends since the ’60’s have more or less lived by the mantra, “challenge authority”. If you look at the type of control they really want over every aspect of your life you realize that their “challenge authority” is nothing more than a trite, meaningless phrase. You have the right to do all sorts of things that THEY think are good for you. To hell with what you think!

  12. Hey Colonel, get a chance to check out the “Texas Rising” miniseries yet? Good cast but it drags in places.

    • I am recording it…..I wached part of it…..but want to watch it when I have time to digest it. Texas politics is something else….always has been. But, certainly do not like the Fed Gov’t.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for me to comment on the main story about cops standing down.

    SHAME on the Cops for deliberately not doing the job they are paid to do.

    SHAME on the Cops for responding to legitimate issues about excessive force with a slowdown and all the whining about “they don’t love us”.

    SHAME on those who have inflamed certain parts of the country regardless of the facts or subsequent findings.

    Yes, the Cop’s job is damn tough but that is not an excuse for so many BS killings and injury of people who are not posing real threats. It is wrong to circle the wagons and start rationalizing all the bad events with “try walking a mile in our shoes”.

    I have a message for those Cops pulling this bull…………. if you cannot take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Do your damn job.

    Now one more SHAME. This to certain FOX news pundits who are pushing the meme that Cops are standing down and Obama plus others are responsible for the increase in killings because Cops are afraid to do their jobs.

    I am guessing that aside from the cry babies in NY there has not been that a real abandoning of the streets. Just a reduction in the kind of arrests that will bring unnecessary contact with an agitated public.

    • The cops are going out and investigating these crimes and doing their job. They have simply given the people what they wanted, no more police harassment. I don’t think it’s the right move on their part, which I’m in agreement with you on that. There seems to be more to this story than what we are getting. What is really the main purpose of all of this? Maybe Obama wants to replace them with his own Federal police. Nah, That’s too much conspiracy theory, forget I said it 🙂

    • Regardless of how we got here, the cops are now targets, basically sanctioned by the race baiters and mayors. It’s a chicken/egg thing, who fuels who, but I don’t blame the cops. It’s not Mayberry out there anymore. What’s the difference since they show up after the fact anyway? Little slower response time to the jungle could save their own life. It happened in Detroit for years. Response times were hours. Many moved out, those who stayed were told to protect themselves. They did and started snitching. The thugs killed each other off. It’s not Mayberry but things are in better shape now. It’s worked itself out. Detroit is making positive progress. It’s a process they (other cities) are just going to have to let play out. The alternative is to send a bunch of cops with attitudes into the streets where the same problem is going to continue. Bonus that by backing off they get to go home alive. And , of course, it all goes back to who you vote into office.

      • Anita, we are on the same side on this issue. My concern is that this is growing and will continue to grow. This is how much of the Arab Spring began.

    • YOu are correct about one thing….if they dont like the job, get out…..and they are doing just that…getting out. I have to think more on this…….right now if I were a white cop…..I do not think that I would go into any blak neighborhood…..based solely on the expectation that if I had to shoot, it would probably create a riot regardless of the circumstances.


    The title is way off, as the bill must go through the State Senate, but it is telling that there seems to be fear about the upcoming video releases. Every State and the Fed’s need this kind of video reporting done on them. If the Legislators are doing the jobs correctly, there would be no need for this kind of legislation. I agree with one main thing in the article, make’em wear body cams when doing government business.

    • What is all the hoopla about? Courts are public venues…..try to take a camera into a court without permission. Federal Buildings are public venues….try to take a camera into a Federal Building without permission. Try to interview a District Judge in any state without permission. Try to take a camera into the SCOTUS without permission. Try to film a SCOTUS without permission….see if you can get through Court goons.

      So why is it a violation of the first amendment to restrict cameras in a capitol building or a representative hallway or office? This Phoenix group wants unobstructed access and it is not deserved…and it also is not a violation of the first amendment……Why is securing permission a violation of the first amendment and why is denying permission a violation of the first amendment?

      • Why should a free press need permission to film in a public venue (I do mean anywhere, including Federal buildings). While I can see some exceptions in the court room and areas where top Secret stuff is being discussed, but why shouldn’t the people see what’s going on? If the government can spy on the people, the people should be allowed to spy on them!

        • I say this because corruption is rampant, even in State government. It all, every State, needs to be quelled. How many times have people said we need to fix government at the lowest levels? State politicians often graduate to the Federal level. Let’s nip them in the butt before that happens 🙂

          • I understand the issues….but this Phoenix group is putting out a bunch of crap about violating their version of the first amendment. They keep throwing this term around of ” no expectation of privacy ” as if a public arena is a free for all….

            All of us Texicans……we know what goes on in the capitol….we also know who does what….for example, we stopped Perry’s land grab cold….the I 35 toll corridor he wanted where he tried to use eminent domain to secure ranchland….but….I just want the whole story told……so if there is legislation that says you have to secure permission before filming..I have no problem with this within the capitol or within the hallways and private offices.

            Cspan films and shows every single legislation in Texas…unless there are security issues. And you can go sit yourself….you can stand in the rotundas and watch and listen all you want…….but I guess that I am fed up with news media ( conservative and liberal alike ) because of the way they all edit,….and they edit for the worse possible scenarios…..for ratings.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Good morning Sir. Hope all is well and as dry as possible.

              Does Texas have open meeting laws that apply to the State legislature??

              • The Open Meetings Act (the “Act”) was adopted to help make governmental decision
                -making accessible to the public. It requires meetings of governmental bodies to be open to the public, except for expressly authorized closed sessions,and to be preceded by public notice of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting. “The provisions of [the Act] are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government.”

                Now, in the instance of a closed meeting, it can only be closed if it discusses disaster response to terrorists activities or acts of nature, military considerations, and protections of individual or a company’s proprietary information where said information could result in financial harm. However, in a closed meeting or session, it is tape recorded as well as being recorded by an outside court reporter otherwise known as a certified agenda….In this case, A governmental body must make and keep either a certified agenda or a recording of each closed executive session, except for an executive session held by the governmental body to consult with its attorney in accordance with section 551.071 of the Government Code.
                If a certified agenda is kept, the presiding officer must certify that the agenda is a true and correct record of the executive. session.The certified agenda must include “(1) a statement of the subject matter of each deliberation, (2) a record of any further action taken, and (3)an announcement by the presiding officer at the beginning and the end of the closed meeting indicating the date and time.”While the agenda does not have to be a verbatim transcript of the meeting, it must at least provide a brief summary of each deliberation.
                Whether a particular agenda satisfies the Act is a question that must be addressed by the courts. Attorney General Opinion JM 840 (1988) cautioned governmental bodies to consider providing greater detail in the agenda with regard to topics not authorized for consideration in executive session or to avoid the uncertainty concerning the requisite
                detail required in an agenda by recording executive sessions.Any member of a governmental body participating in a closed session knowing that an agenda or recording is not being made commits a Class C misdemeanor.

                JAC…I have been to and testified in a closed meeting when discussing tactics, planning, and response to terrorists acts and acts of god and nature. For example, when the legislature or the executive branch meets in closed seesion to discuss evacuation routes, law enforcement activities, and the like….that is not a public subject. To discuss law enforcement tactics and staffing with the public or media present, allows undesired elements to be able to circumvent things such as deploymen of LE after a hurricane. Texas has learned that discussing these type of things in open session gave an advantage to the bad guys,

                And for one more issue…..the discussion of the impending JADE HELM was discussed in OPEN session because no tactics or anything was divulged but people were/are concerned.

            • I agree with the editing part. My position is that if politicians have nothing to hide, why all the hoopla about it? Passing this law just shows they are afraid. If that’s the case, they deserve what they get.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                It is probably not about fear but about rude people causing undo stress and interference in daily activities.

  15. Was watching a clip on Fort Worth policemen in a car chase that just happened and when it finally ended four or five guys drag the suspect out through the driver’s side window and he was struggling a bit until a vertical butt stroke to the face calmed him down.

    • Of course, left media is all up in arms….and they interviewed Al Sharpton about it and asked if he was going to protest in Texas…and he said….why do I need to go to Texas……lol.

  16. Ya know, I find it interesting in Baltimore ( I do not have my numbers totally straight but I am close )…since the protests….the homicide rate has increased significantly but the one thing I heard was that all of it except one incident was black on black. Same in New York and Chicago. Anybody know any more on this?

    • It is increasingly difficult to answer this question because the left Wing Media don’t show what race the dead people are. You have to guess by the name or by the name of a relative. I would like to add, the Left Wing Media, including websites like Solon and National Memo certainly have blood on their hands because they have been fostering the race baiting BS for a long time and have supported the protests.

      • But the statistics are out there in public view… is being reported already through conservative media…..but not the liberal media. However, I am seeing interviews with an increasing number of black leaders now saying that the problem with the inner cities is social engineering and that the social engineering is most problematic in black zones of voluntary segregation. There is an increasing number of liberal black leaders saying that the problem of unemployment is not race discrimination with whites or employers but with the black community being kept down by liberal social policies that destroys incentive.

        I also saw an interview on CNN between Al Sharpton and ( I cant remember his name) a black leader in Baltimore where Sharpton was blaming everything on white privilege and this other guy called him out on it…and said if you can show me where white privilege is making our teenagers gun each other down, then I will join you…but what I am seeing in my neighborhood are single parent families with no hope of jobs because no one wants to invest in the area because of the lawless influence and everyone living off EBT cards and Welfare and that is not right. The police will not even come in here anymore to help…and that includes the black policemen as well….So, prove to me it is white privilege and I will be your drum beater…….

        Funny….the interview ended there.

        • I’m in agreement with the social engineering cause, but I would that culture is a part of the problem as well. This is a separate issue that maybe I’ll tackle in the next thread.

  17. The media never mentions the “inconvenient fact” that the results in the EU are so bad even socialist leaders now publicly admit that green energy kills jobs and bankrupts nations. Nor do they mention that while the EU has scuttled the greenhouse gas emissions standards that killed economies, Obama demands we institute those same standards in America. Insanity.

    How can it be that the mainstream media doesn’t think to mention any of this? How could Democrats not notice the tragedy in Spain, Greece, Italy or France? Green energy saves the planet while it destroys the economy. So you’re broke, living in misery, starving. And you’re breathing the same dirty air. Because no matter how many jobs you kill in the interest of saving the planet, China and India just keep doubling their pollution. So you’ve accomplished nothing — except ruining your economy. No one thinks to mention this?

    Global warming is the only possible reason this is happening. It must be like heroin combined with crack cocaine and crystal meth. There must be a genetic weakness within the DNA of Democrats and the mainstream media.

  18. Just A Citizen says:


    You said: “Civil union licenses would’ve necessary if the government were to continue to grant recognition and benefits to registered couples (eg – survivorship rights, jointly filed taxes, etc).”

    I ask WHY should any of this be automatic due to people deciding to live together?

    Also note that your list of requests supports my theory that denying a marriage license does not violate the 14th amendment as the license itself grants no privilege.

    It is all the other laws that use marriage status as a criteria for privileges and immunities.

    • You raise a fair question — my position is only if we as a society decide we are going to confer some governmental recognition and rights.

      Case in point – estate taxes – unlimited marital deduction. There must be some government recognition as to who receives this deduction. Under your approach it seems there would be no such deduction available to anyone?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is true. Under my scenario all privileges and immunities would inure to the INDIVIDUAL.

        Living together for what ever reason would not create a special class of “privileges”, “immunities” or “rights”.

        So in the case of estates, the property goes to those identified in the will or per a trust. Taxes on that “inheritance” are per individual tax rules.

        Now under this I could see “partnerships” established with passage of assets determined per the partnership agreement. Also then taxed per laws on partnerships and individuals.

        • So you wish to raise taxes? I’m shocked by this revelation! 🙂

          Valid argument to be made though. Don’t think you have a chance in hell of succeeding with it though. Way too much backlash.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Good thing you put up that smiley or them would be fightin words.

            Ironically, all these “privileges” associated with marriage status are the result of Progressive legislation. Laws designed to prevent women from being left high and dry by husbands who refused to communicate their financial affairs. To keep wives from the poor house because the Husband’s money was taken by the Tax Man upon his death.

            We agree…….. a snowball’s chance in hell. Unless SCOTUS makes the correct decision on the Gay Marriage challenge. If they come down on the side of the States then the next round of challenges will be on the specific privileges. And then like DOMA, the Supreme’s will strike down discriminatory State and Federal tax laws.

            • Excuuuuuse me,,,,,,correct decision? You mean if they agree with you it is correct…..

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Of course. What else could I mean?

                SCOTUS should uphold States’ Rights on marriage. The arguments made during the orals did not address the privileges of marriage. Only the definition and the prohibition of issuing licenses.

                SCOTUS should uphold the States definitions and bans. That would be the CORRECT decision based on the Constitution and precedence. I doubt they will but that is the CORRECT decision.

                If they do this then there will be other challenges on the actual privileged, I believe. And then SCOTUS will more than likely strike down the limitations on privileges.

                Of course if SCOTUS were true to its own principles and stated legal views ALL special laws would be abolished as they ALL VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION provided by the 14th Amendment. But that also will never happen. They will continue to carve out exceptions based on “compelling Govt interests” and a myriad of other looney arguments.

              • OK……….I got your point…….I think I am a little water logged……all the progressives that think water boarding is torture…..need to be here right now…..we picked up another 7 inches in five hours last night and more to come today.

              • Colonel, on water boarding — how is it not ‘torture’ when we ourselves have prosecuted others for the same tactic? This is the one question I’ve never been able to square away…and have never received anything close to a satisfactory answer on…

                Were we wrong then? Or are we wrong now? Or, is it only torture when someone else does it?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Forgot one thing. The biggest “backlash” would be from the “righteous” right wing who think the Govt. has some special responsibility to “support” the family.

            Maybe if the Govt stopped taxing people to death and stopped all the stupid policies that blow up our economy the Family wouldn’t need any “special support”! Just sayin!

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        This was my argument a long time ago….This argument about marriage is all about benefits, either tax, retirement and social security etc. Private property can be bequethed to anyone, want to give it to your dog or favorite charity so be it so that is not the driving force.
        I am now drawing SS. They wanted to know all the info on my ex-wife and exactly how long we were married, even though we were divorced 20+ years ago. As long as we were married at least 10 years she or I was entitled to the equivalent of 1/2 of the SS payment whose ever was greater. I did not get a raise in the estimated benefit so I have to assume she got one. When it came to our retirement benefits from work, we both were with IBM at the time, we in our divorce settlement agreed to each keep their own with no claim on the others.
        Honestly I could care less about this argument because it doesn’t affect me in the least. But I’d like to know…how long have marriages been lasting on average now anyway, regardless of race, creed, gender or whatever? Why not make it all common law with some sort of documentation filed of a beginning and the end date blank. You last 10 years in a relationship regardless and unless specifically excluded in the contract, you’re to receive X %….period

  19. Finally…..a light shower coming tonight….only going to be 2-4 inches tonight……of course we are already at flood stage,,,,,everywhere. And compared to the 17 inches we have received already in the last couple of weeks, I guess a 2-4 inch rain is a ight shower….wow…and more this weekend….

  20. Dale A Albrecht says:

    As much as I hate the “law” that the government can arrest you for making banking transactions that “appear” to be evading the law of banks required to report cash transactions > $10,000…wouldn’t it be as a 1st step prove that there actually was something illicit being done with the money in the first place? That said…..I can not think pf a better guy to have been swept up and indicted for violating that law. Dennis Haslert, former speaker of the house. Former Chicago high school wrestling coach and politician. From reading past history on him, years ago….just prior to retiring he jammed a road bill through. Before public disclosure he bought up a lot of the distressed farms, on the cheap, that the road will be going through. Bill goes through….government now buys up the land for the road and he makes a fortune….maybe the wheeling and dealing will catch up with Reid also…or Kerry who got up out of an ACA hearing and bought a boatload of big Pharma stock. Later saying well it was legal because it was public information, except it was a closed hearing in the Senate…..that said why would anyone knowing the govnt is really targeting these transactions and your allegedly moving close to 1.7 M around, why in heavens name risk the indictment and losing it all…if it was legal.

  21. Just A Citizen says:


    I asked about the open meeting law because with such a law there is really no reason at all for groups, media, etc to have access to legislators or staff in private offices or in the halls.

    They do not need cameras to take notes on violations of the open meeting law if they witnessed such.

    Our law is severe enough that any discussion of pending issues has to be ONLY during the public meetings. Two legislators or commissioners cannot meet in private to even do fact finding. One local councilwoman got in hot water for visiting a construction site on her own time to see a tree that was controversial, that is some did not want it removed. This was considered a fact finding outside a public meeting and “not allowed”.

    So as you say, these groups raising hell are doing so for some other reason and nothing to do with reporting the legislatures activities.

    • Agreed….and we do have the open meeting except in the case of a compelling reason for security….and even that has to pass a pretty stringent test and it MUST be, without excpetion, recorded word for word.

      What has been happening, is the heckling and protesting coming from the gallery…in other words, no decorum. And when open sessions are shouted down….it does force a clearing of the chambers. It is one thing to want to protest….but I have a hard time with disruption of open legislative sessions, just to disrupt it…….then you force closed sessions to get things done……Texas does have and will allow public discourse in legislative sessions, but you have to request it and you have to stick with the issue being discussed and you have to stick to the time table allowed. For example, when I testified in an open meeting years ago, I asked for a time slot, got it, and I had five minutes….if you can’t say all you want in five minutes, you should not be up there. The other thing that you can do, is request, and you will receive, a free transcript.

  22. An event scheduled for Friday is designed to both spark controversy and send a message. A group of armed bikers plans to host a “Draw Mohammed” event outside a mosque in Arizona. But not just any mosque – this mosque has special meaning, reports Foreign Policy.

    It’s the former site of worship for Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, who were killed after opening fire outside a May 3 contest featuring cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed in suburban Dallas. Simpson had no direct link to the Islamic State but was sympathetic to its cause. Many Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blasphemous.

    The invitation, sent out on Facebook, encourages people to fully exercise their second amendment rights.

    This is in response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorist, with ties to ISIS, attempted Jihad. Everyone is encouraged to bring American Flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen. This Islamic Community Center is a known place that the 2 terrorist frequented. People are also encouraged to utilize there second amendment right at this event just incase our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.

    The organizer of the event, Jon Ritzheimer, describes himself as a politically incorrect former Marine who has “had it.”

    Anyone think these Jihadist’s are going to do anything? LOL, Not likely. This is the whole article with the credit, nothing more to read, no need to click on it.

  23. Everyone should take the time and listen to thins interview. He has a talented way of putting things into perspective:

    Oh, I agree with his assessments.

  24. “Our Congress doesn’t even have the guts to subpoena her documents,” Klayman said in the Washington Examiner. “They’d rather get on Fox News. So we felt had to bring that case. Somebody’s got to do it.”

    There is nothing more true than the above statement. The RepubliCRAP majority are corrupt bums, just like the DemocRATs.

  25. On the Trans Pacific Partnership (which I’m quite concerned with), I give you this:

    “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” — Patrick Henry

  26. @ Buck

    I have been reading the back and forth between you and JAC,,,,,but would you explain this a little further, please… “Case in point – estate taxes – unlimited marital deduction. There must be some government recognition as to who receives this deduction.”

    Why must there be some government recognition for this?

    • A concise answer will suffice….

    • My coffee is only foo foo today because I am drinking the dirty water at the office…

      Simply put, gov’t grants the deduction to a married couple. If there are no ‘marriages’, there would be no such deduction. Allowing couples to enter into contracts are fine to deal with rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. etc. etc., but I don’t see how this can carry over to gov’t benefits.

      My solution on the gay marriage issue (in lieu of simply allowing gay marriage) would be to do away with marriage, leaving that for religion, and allowing any two people to obtain a civil union license. Now, instead of an unlimited marital deduction, you have an unlimited civil union partner deduction.

      • OK…define gov’t benefits….( Yes, I know it sounds like a stupid question, but it really is not..please humor me)…..

        • Admittedly not the best phrase — but basically what I’m getting at is any type of ‘benefit’ being afforded by the government as a result of an individual’s marital status.

          JAC (and JAC, please jump in and correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be arguing that this is fine, do away with all such things and treat all as an individual. This to me would mean that, in the estate tax context, any individual with $5M+ would be subject to the tax regardless of whether the money is being left to his widow.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            That would be true IF we did not address the tax law. Which of course I would.

            As I see it, “partnerships” are a joint venture and the individuals within a partnership should not be taxed on the other partners share because that money was taxed already.

            Instead of distributing the income from partnerships to the individuals we could tax partnerships as an “entity”.

            OR, we could require that all “Union Partnerships” assign all income to the partners on an “equal share basis”. Thus the individual tax would be paid on all income when earned and eliminating the tax on the same income when one partner dies.

            By the way. Did you know that many of these “marriage” benefits, as well as divorce laws, were created by the “Progressives” in response to the perceived injustices to married women??

            We forget that not that long ago a wife could be left destitute by a husband who did not manage his affairs properly or who did not take care to provide for his wife upon his death or his departure.

            OK, I suspect you knew and admit that was more for the general audience. 🙂

            • Your partnership solution isn’t a solution at all in the estate tax context.

              Say you and I have a 50-50 partnership; at my death my 50% interest would be valued and subject to tax, regardless of whether or not it goes to the surviving partner. Perhaps you are getting to something else??

              Or are you merely advocating for the repeal of all estate taxes?? Which again, doesn’t answer the question as it exists today.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The “tax laws” need to be changed to address the partnership. Notice I suggested taxing the partnership as an entity or requiring a 50/50 split on partnership income then taxed at individual rates. The partner who dies would not have that money taxed if it remains in the partnership.

                As for the estate tax laws, absent all this other stuff, I would support repealing the estate tax on hard assets. This would eliminate the need for specific limitations on the tax. Simply tax only the cash that is inherited. Then tax the inherited assets once they are converted to cash.

              • Well now you are just departing from our discussion on ‘marriage’ and moving on to tax laws…..which, I do understand would need to be addressed along with a myriad of other items if we were to abolish marriage.

                And this is why I am proposing switching from ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’ as a solution in lieu of simply recognizing gay marriage. Much simpler and neater. 🙂

              • Buck, I agree with your civil union idea. JAC, I almost agree with your tax ideas, except I fail to see why property and cash that was previously taxed should be taxed again. The death tax is pure theft, and nothing short of double taxation. Fun conversation to read, keep it going 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I agree YOUR solution is “easier”. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the “Gay Activists” if a State proposed this solution. I am guessing they will reject it.

                But that aside, my proposal is more complicated because it fits with my broader goal of increasing “individual freedom” and thus places “societal” burdens on the “individual” as well. Basically to get the Govt. out of the business of carving out “special considerations”. This includes “marriage”.

                Marriage or cohabitation is a “personal” and thus “individual” choice. How the Govt. treats you as a person should not change because of that decision.

                The issue only exists because most people are to lazy, or not smart enough, to protect themselves financially in a “marriage partnership”. Hell, most don’t even protect themselves in a “business partnership”. So they want “a law” to do it for them.

              • “It would be interesting to see the reaction of the “Gay Activists” if a State proposed this solution. I am guessing they will reject it.”

                You’re probably right — but I’m sure you also agree that the religious right would reject it even more vehemently!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Re the estate tax. I am offering a compromise based on moving towards more liberty based options.

              Double taxation is a false argument because it happens all the time when taxed dollars move from one person to another. Most of your income is taxed. Then when you spend it on something the seller pays tax on it again, as his revenue.

              The primary issue with estate taxes is the forced sale of assets to pay taxes. It is destructive to economic activity to force the sale of a business or farm just to pay taxes. Instead those getting the asset could use it to increase their future income and wealth. Paying taxes on the income as it is generated.

              Taxing the cash portion would not create tax sale because the tax is a portion of the cash inherited.

              OH…….the tax on inheritance should be the same as all other income. Both in “rate” and in “type” of tax, ie., capital gains vs. income.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I could agree except I do not believe the money the gotcha demands through use of force was bring spent for the betterment of the people, like infrastructure for example. Instead, it is pissed away paying for nice luxury trips to vacation spots in the land of the rich. Let’s fix the spending part before we start suggesting compromises .

                However, that’s yhe death part of taxes. Wouldn’t it be like government to do the same thing with divorce? Each hall is also taxed. Thst would end the whole issue of taxes and marriage,

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Perhaps a better way to describe the broader issue.

            The only reason we have a Govt issue with marriage is due to the various “benefits” attached to it. And these all come from the Govt.

            If we get Govt. out of marriage then it is necessary to revisit all the laws that have carved out special treatment of this one particular type of partnership arrangement.

            • I agree with that sentiment; just disagree with the ‘need’ to go down that path. But that just highlights our different philosophies on such matters!

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Is there a reason to “not” go down that path other than expediency and/or public opposition to changing something they have become to think of as a “benefit”???

                Oh, I don’t think the “religious right” would be more opposed to YOUR proposal. They would still get the Govt benefits tied to “family” as well as a monopoly on the use of the term “marriage”. That is to the extent the churches would not perform Gay weddings.

              • I disagree — I think the religious right would be up in arms over the government’s refusal to recognize their religious marriage and forcing them to have a separate ‘civil union’…I could be wrong on this, but I sincerely doubt it.

                As for not going down that path — it is not necessary in order to solve the immediate issue of ‘gay marriage’, but more than that, yes – an enormous amount of public opposition. You raise some interesting ideas that need to be fleshed out more but I fear this is a never ending path to go down. For one, as far as the tax issue alone is concerned, you would need to completely delete and re-write the tax code – I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad idea, just that it is completely separate from solving the immediate issue at hand.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I moved to the bottom for easier reading.

  27. It turns out President Barack Obama was right the first time when, in 2012, he explained why he could not change immigration law on his own: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” A federal appeals court has refused to lift an injunction against Obama’s 2014 executive action is now likely going to have to wait until mid-2017 before the Supreme Court delivers a final opinion — and one that many legal experts believe will go against him.

    Hispanics and members of other immigrant groups have a right to be angry with Obama.

    First, he failed to tackle immigration in 2009 and 2010 when his party had overwhelming control of Congress. Then he allowed the problem to fester for several years, chose not to compromise with House Republicans and pass modest reforms first as a confidence-building measure, and then sprang his surprise executive action with almost no consultation. The Obama administration played a cruel trick on Hispanics by promising false hope for reform through an end-run around our legal system….and now he is caught.

    The shame of all of this is the blind eye towards laws on the books….this “selective enforcement” has bitten the lad in the ass.

    • But the D’s will still get the credit and the Rs will be SOL.

    • Now the question is, are they abiding by the court decision or ignoring it and moving forward (since the Republican screwed their constituency and funded it)? It is a good question since Hitlarry Clinton bragged about hiring a Dreamer who was helped through Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Order. IMHO, It’s moving forward, screw the judges.

  28. JAC….no, I don’t think you are wrong….the way I read it…it just did not sound right..but I understand your point…..

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Figured you would get it eventually. Sometimes takes awhile to break through that Colonel “thangy”. LOL

      So when is Texas going to start building some massive Dams to catch all that water that comes alone once every decade?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        You fly into Dallas Fort Worth and you’ll see that any depression that will hold water does.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Not stock ponds……………DAMS…………..REALLY BIG DAMS.

          What’s the matter? Texas got to much FLAT LAND……….. LOL!

          I am guessing if they built them very high the resulting lake would flood the adjoining States. 🙂

  29. Buck asks:

    Colonel, on water boarding — how is it not ‘torture’ when we ourselves have prosecuted others for the same tactic? This is the one question I’ve never been able to square away…and have never received anything close to a satisfactory answer on…

    Were we wrong then? Or are we wrong now? Or, is it only torture when someone else does it?

    Buck…great question and when I saw all this before, I kinda stayed on the fringe because the dialogue just was not conversant enough to really talk about it……I will gladly discuss this with you…

    BUT…………………..please allow me some time this morning. Today is a day for transferring assets around and I must meet with bankers and accountants this AM to fund trusts and such….so about 2 this afternoon ( 3 your time ) expect an answer….and civil discourse. By then, you might be through with your LATTES and such….lol. C ya later.

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    I have posted many times here about how important philosophy and core principles are to resurrecting this country. I have discussed several books and articles the past few years which are evidence of an effort to undermine our basic assumptions about human behavior.

    I believe these “forces” are becoming more emboldened and may reveal the new age effort to support the Collectivist Movement. The following article is one more piece of this evidence.

    I urge you to read it and read it carefully. Once over to get the gist, then read again with a critical eye and “thinking”. See how many fallacies and outright lies you can find which undermine the basic premise.

    For now I will sit back and give everyone a chance to digest it. I will dive back in if anyone has questions or would like to explore the topic more.

    • Read it and will think about while working on a project. My first impression, the Author reached so far his arms fell of at the shoulder. But I’ll make a more serious post later. Hope you and yours are healthy and happy. Have a great day 🙂

    • After some good thought on the article, I have concluded that the author is an idiot! He has completely disregarded the fact that humans are animals and our first instinct is self preservation, even if that means as a species. ALL things begin with the individual and braches out like a tree, both below and above ground. We, as a species, are quite well at understanding the ebb and flow of life, and how quickly it can change. If individualism were to be taken away, which will never happen, because it’s more bullshit Left Wing Utopian crap, our species would cease to exist. WE, as a species, cannot exist without individualism, period. Anti-individualism is anti nature, and a death sentence to mankind.

    • Yeah, well……I am unique, just like everyone else. 😉

    • I am confused about the author tying corporate freedom to individual freedom. A corporation may be made up of individuals but they are two different things.

      And this statement: “Poverty (among many) in the midst of plenty (for some) has afflicted the country for much of its history as capitalism developed and grew to its present juggernaut proportions.”

      The growing poverty of the many and the increasing wealth of the few are not a result of capitalism in America. I think people confuse corporatism for capitalism or visa versa.

      Greed and corruption have ruined this country. Why would the corporations stay in this country and be forced to pay a worker $30/hour (just a random amount for an example) when it can pay a 12 year old in Taiwan to do the same for $1 a day?

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    You just have to scratch your head over the Democrat’s Party these days.

    Hillary is the next anointed “Messiah”. Only this time it is women who will thrive.

    Bernie Sanders is the “serious” candidate running against her, per Daily Kos. Apparently Bernie’s 18% polling shows he is more “serious” than any of the individual Republicans because most of them poll lower than 18%, that is with 20 other candidates as opposed to only one other.

    Now we have the ex Governor of Maryland being pushed as the new “alternative”. Yep, a guy who governed a State and supported passage of special taxes for those citizen fed up which his clap trap and had the audacity to “move out of the state”. Remember that special tax on the assets of those leaving??

    I am anxiously waiting for Jim Webb to throw his hat in the ring. Then we will find out where the Dems stand today regarding their “true heart”.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    As I watch Mc Cain go after Rand Paul over Paul’s view that we cannot go around nation building I have to wonder…………………….Where oh where has that Republican Maverick gone?

    Sure glad I never voted for that ah hem…….eh errr………. person. No, I did not vote for Obama. I wrote Romney’s name in the ballot that year.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Marriage and the Govt.

    There used to be a stated reason why Govt. was involved in marriage. This was before all the tax and other benefits accrued.

    The Govt’s “sanctification” and thus a license was needed to deal with STD’s, incest, close family relations, multiple marriages (thus massive fraud and prolonged court cases) and age of majority. Well kind of on that last one.

    It did also establish a pattern of inheritance absent a Will. But even that was not as uniform as the other requirements to get the Govt. “sanctification”.

    So has this “purpose” of a marriage license disappeared? Is it not the same for Homosexuals and others as it was for men and women alone?? Are the same requirements going to apply or are they going to be different for Homosexuals because we don’t want to offend them. If all the requirements are dropped then what the heck is the purpose of a Govt. issued “permit”????

    I sometimes wonder what the govt did with the data collected from all those “blood tests”. They were supposedly screening for disease, because that was before DNA testing. The one thing that was important to my spouse and I was not even shared with us following the test. That was our opposite rH values. You would have thought the Govt. would have had an interest in telling you that information not just whether your future spouse had Syphilis.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I forgot one thing. The Govt. issued license did provide a “legal” record of a union between man and woman. The license was recorded and thus a record of the marriage. All nice and neat and automatic.

      This ended all kinds of disputes about who had married whom and who was related to whom, as in other offspring. The children of a duly recorded marriage had “legitimacy” in the realm of family inheritance and business matters.

      Of course in the olden days the Govt’s sanctification was needed to assure the new “couple” had the blessing and thus protection of the KING. Kind of like certain churches later on when couples would have to get the priest’s “blessing” to get married.

      Very strange this mixing of Govt. into the most personal aspects of the individual’s life.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Interesting thought about the SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage. In short, it also legalizes incest. Since gays can’t make children, any law concerning incest would be moot. Just sayin.

      • Ummm….what??

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The negative effects of inbreeding do not exist in a gay relationship, because gays cannot procreate . Therefore, incest will not be applicable to gay couples. Add the anti Cristianity mantra of the Left, you get new rules in life. It will come, be patient .

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    As an interesting mental exercise………. imagine our Federal Govt. decides it needs to act in order to reduce the damage from this constant flooding and more importantly to deal with potential “drought” problems. People dying of thirst in particular.

    This is a typical “infrastructure” effort if you look at Federal history. So what might the Federal Govt decide to do?

    Would it build large Dams on the Mississippi and the rest of the Missouri? Is this even possible given the geography of the USA? Who would lose and who would win?

    Will they steal water from those who have and pipe it to those who don’t?? Addresses thirst but not flooding and sets up disaster when the headwater States suffer drought. Which they eventually will. No State has ever been exempt from weather extremes.

    How are we going to feed the growing human population when our most productive ground is covered with houses and pavement? Is the Fed Govt going to start tearing out cities and replacing them with farms???

    Like I said, interesting mental exercises to keep a healthy mind.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      When Uncle decides it needs to move quickly to solve drought…………………flooding.

      This is part of what I call “my home range”. The rivers which I fish here are still suffering from the effects of the flood. Once major sections of river banks are destabilized it takes a long time to stabilize them again. But the fishing is still awesome.

      One other thing………. the thousands of mobile homes that existed before the flood were replaced with very nice stick frame and brick homes. Thanks to those paying their Federal Taxes.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You are now entering the world of conspiracy theory by asking such a question, the answers are so broad and many, it’s a crapshoot. Frankly, I can’t see anything good coming if they do act, above just providing needed and ASKED for assistance.

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    Moved down here to make easier to follow.

    ” I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad idea, just that it is completely separate from solving the immediate issue at hand.”

    I AGREE. If thinking as a “representative” this is an issue that could be quickly put to bed. 🙂

    Then we could move on to dealing with the entire tax code. Otherwise the effort to eliminate the “marriage” controversy would be viewed as a back door way to undermine the existing tax code. Damn it…………. did I say that out loud??

    But in this broader regard, just think how NICELY a “flat tax” would fit with all of this.

    • Why am I not surprised to hear you trot out the flat tax idea!?

      So now we’re completely jumping ship and moving on to the tax code at large? Sorry but I don’t have nearly enough coffee running through my veins for that debate right now.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I was not moving on nor trying to explore the flat tax. Only pointing out that it best fits the underlying principle I explained that are also supporting my proposal to get Govt. out of the marriage business altogether. Including any special benefits.

        By revising the laws with respect to “partnerships” and how they are taxed you can accomplish the same objective AND abolish special treatment of “married people”.

        The goal is for Govt to treat us all INDIVIDUALLY the same. Not as the same but treat us the same. That is when JUSTICE is finally accomplished relative to Govt. force against the people.

        • Understood, and I didn’t mean to come off as being glib. I do see your point and way of thinking on the matter.

  36. @ Buck……Water boarding…..from the Colonel’s perspective.

    In order to answer a question on whether or not water boarding is torture…..we must first define torture and we need to define it not from the perspectives that are listed all over the internet. Now, when we do this, it is going to open up other definitions…..For example, the definition of torture from Webster’s Dictionary is ” the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something”……

    So what is “severe” pain? To you, severe pain may be going to the dentist for a normal filling and not using some form of anesthetic or numbing agent. I am guessing that you would require this…where as I do not use anesthetic or numbing agents for a simple filling. I do not consider that severe pain.

    My point is that the definition of pain is subjective…, we need to define what is severe pain. I have seen so many definitions of torture, I hardly know where to begin…..for example, on Huffpo one time, before I was banned for my beliefs, sleep deprivation was considered torture….The playing of loud music was considered torture….yet none of these are painful….so…where do we start counselor?

    I could say that being an executor of a family will is torture….since I am doing that right now….and sitting in a roomful of lawyers and accountants is PURE torture….so…give me your definition, sir.

    • By the way, I do not care what the Geneva Convention says nor the United Nations….let’s you and I see if we can come to an agreement.

      • I appreciate where you’re going with this, but this is just an evasion of the question.

        How do you square away the fact that we prosecuted others for torture for the very same tactic that we are claiming is not torture?? It boggles the mind.

        There are only two answers — we were wrong then OR we are wrong now. If as you seem to posit, waterboarding is NOT torture, than you would agree with the statement that we were wrong then for prosecuting it as such. Correct?

  37. Sorry, interpreted your sentence “Colonel, on water boarding — how is it not ‘torture’ when we ourselves have prosecuted others for the same tactic?

    You asked how is it not torture…..definitions are in order here….but if the whole sentence is to be taken in context…then I will go that way…I interpreted your question as a question to whether or not it was torture……

    So….IF we have prosecuted others for water boarding, then it does appear that there would be a double standard…..we could not call it torture in one sense and then expect it not to be on another. BUT, I am unaware of prosecutions on water boarding. I will check some military records and see if I can find instances where we prosecuted for water boarding.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    • YOu are referring to the Japanese in WWII?

    • “Were we wrong then? Or are we wrong now? Or, is it only torture when someone else does it?”

      Your answer: If we prosecuted for water boarding and then performed same…..we are wrong. No Question….there should be no double standard.

      I do not consider water boarding as a form of torture under the definition of causing extrememe pain to coerce information……

      It is not painful at all but it does wreak havoc on your sensory perception…..

      However, I can say that the Japanese methods in WWII were not the same methods that we used. But, if you wish to link them, then I would have to answer we cannot have a double standard.

      • Fair answer.

        Now on to the point of what is ‘torture’, I understand your definition but I’m sure you recognize it is a substantial departure from how the U.S. has defined it in the past (see, WW II) and how treaties to which we are a party have defined it.

  38. @ BUck…..

    The UN Convention Against Torture, of which the United States is a signatory, defines torture thusly:

    …any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

    Under this definition, I do not see water boarding as a torture. NOw, I will grant you that to define severe mental pain……is totally subjective…..wonder how that is measured, out of curiosity…..

    • Mental pain…..would be like a workmen’scompensation claim of a “hurt” back…….doctors cannot find anything wrong…but his back still hurts.

  39. BUck, I would have to question who decides water boarding is torture…..if you have not been subjected to it…how can you have anything to say about it. I have been subjected to it several times…in training… did not hurt at all but it did give a foreboding sensory response. Interesting…….because the same people consider loud music, sleep deprivation, standing in a corner…………….all forms of torture.

    They need to add another one to that tho……watching a state of the union address by Obama……..stick me under the water faucet quick.

    • I might add that after the first time, I did take my escape and evade classes a little more seriously.

      The one that sticks with me though, is being captured, stripped naked, and shoved into a 5×4 tin box with air holes all around and a fan sitting on top with small ball bearings attached to each blade in a manner that when the fan was turning, the ball bearings were hitting the tin in a constant rhythmic drum roll for 45 minutes every hour for 8 hours….and during the 15 minute break, water being poured into the air holes to where we stayed wet all the time. The kicker……were frigging mosquitos gnawing on us where we could not scratc because there simply is not much room in a 5×4 box being filled with a 6ft 180 pound guy….

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Since I had to endure Republican talking heads claiming “Obama has trashed the economy” based on the new GDP numbers I thought we should keep some things in perspective.

    First is that the GDP of many nations declined in the last period, including Germany and China. The declines in the rest of the world run from 0.2 to 0.4 % Yes, the US decline is much greater and I do not buy into the “winter did it” once again. No doubt that the shipping slowdown on the west coast did affect real numbers for the quarter.

    Second, lets keep some things in perspective when talking about all the gloom and doom. There are four groups of GDP numbers when looking at the world. That is I have arbitrarily created four groups relative to the Big Boys and Girls.

    First is those with GDP running at 2+ Trillion per year. This includes Russia, England, France, Italy and Brazil. Russia and England are almost identical, in case you wondered.

    Second is a small group at the 3-4+ Trillion per year mark. Only two players here, Germany and Japan. Japan is at 4, TWICE that of Russia.

    Third up, the new bully to the pulpit at 9 Trillion per year, China. So the economy everyone is touting as the greatest thing since sliced bread is only 4 TIMES greater than those in the first group. And only a little over TWICE that of Japan.

    Fourth……………drum roll please…………….. the brow beaten USA, at 16.7 Trillion. Yep, you got it. The USA is 8 TIMES greater than England and its party, over 4 TIMES greater than Japan and Russia and a little under 2 TIMES (1.8) bigger than China.

    Interesting fact………… our lead on China is about equal to the increase in the national debt of the USA since Mr. Obama took office. Not saying they are related, only that it shows you the magnitude of the difference between 9 trillion and 17 trillion. And how quickly that 8 Trillion spread can be dissolved. Because after all, Govt spending is included in the GDP.

    If we got our Govt spending under control and China continues it’s money printing it is possible the gap between the two would be eliminated within 8 years. Not due to actual growth in business activity but due to the changes in Govt. spending alone.

    This should help you see why harping about GDP is a waste of time. If we want to understand what is happening we need to look deeper into the data.

    One interesting thing when doing that. Turns our that all manufacturing, farming, construction, etc accounts for about 17% of GDP. Do you remember what else amounted to about 17% of GDP and was used to partly justify the ACA? Yep, the Health Care industry.

    Today the numerous service industries, including professionals and govt. services account for over 45% of the total economy. Manufacturing and construction………… 17%. Oh, for those who forgot the “Stimulus” debate, if you use those GDP values you get an expansion factor of 2.647.

    That is those “manufacturing and construction” businesses support 2.647 times the value in service business. Remember when Pelosi, et al were claiming the multipliers were near 7 times?

  41. Just A Citizen says:


    Sitting here banging on forehead with hand, trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I have a suggestion for all these freaks…………..that is those making a big deal of people’s sexual proclivities. Most of us don’t care. You have screwed up the meaning of words to the point that “sex” has no meaning at all when it comes to what people do or think, or how they are constructed.

    Let me help these goof balls. “Pansexual” = Someone having sex with the Pan. So is either someone buggering an animal/man or a pedophile having sex with a “forever” boy.
    Both of which are FANTASY…………. got that?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Sex with a Pan………. a man goat.

      Wonder what that makes the women who have sex with Man Bear Pig?? Anyone care to tackle that one……… bwahahahaha

    • Suggestion: Stop reading Left Wing Rags! It is affecting your ability to see reality.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Oh the irony, so thick you can see it.

        • Ah, but does G see it?


          • I only read them on a rare moment just to reaffirm my belief that most on the Left are mentally Ill. Most of what I read come from email links, which, if you notice my links, is quite varied. I also maintain a somewhat open mind and believe the left can be cured. Some folks here are so closed minded you couldn’t beat a thought in it with an iron skillet.

    • I don’t feel good as it is tonight. Aint no way, from your comments, that I’m even clicking the link. Maybe tomorrow, lol

  42. Just A Citizen says:
    • I am sure you are not surprised….good old liberal california, land of the most taxed, least law abiding, most law ignoring, 3rd most corrupt state in the union.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes, I recognize the problems with California. My issue is they are coming here and bringing their “baggage” with them. And these are the supposed “conservatives”.

        • Yeah…we have the same problem. They come here and then they wonder why it is different…we always hear…” Well, in California that would never happen”…to wit…uh huh…that is why this is not California.

          • First they ruin it then they leave and ruin it somewhere else. Just ask us New Jersians. I bailed early on NYC but was followed by a torrent of New Yorkers and Philadelphians who could no longer take what they created and have stood the place on its head.

            They figure they will keep ruining places until they finally get it right.

  43. @ Buck…..I took a lot of time last night to look at the WWII war crimes list….had to wade through all that crap of the European Theater….but finally got to the Japanese trials…..I have some access that the general public does not…however, I did not find where there was any prosecution of “water boarding” as a singular event. As a matter of fact, the term water boarding is a modern term….

    Now, there was something called water cure that was used in conjunction with actual pain giving methods by the Japanese…..for example, cigarette burns or hot poker burns in conjunction with using water for various methods. One of the best being dropping soldiers into shoulder deep water pits with hands and arms tied behind them and then throwing rats and mongoose into the water….the only dry place was the soldiers head and face… can fill in the blanks.

    I did see the South Vietnamese using various forms of water techiques to interrogate but they also always used it in conjunction with pain giving measures. And we were required to not intervene nor help…But, there is no war anywhere that interrogation on the battlefield is not used. The days of “honorable war” have been gone for centuries. You use whatever methods you can to extract information if it will save lives……there is NO due process on the battlefield.

    Now, I have seen many “books” and listened to many “reports” and interviews about torture…and I will tell you that it is discouraged. John Kerry’s diatribe about Vietnam atrocities is bullshit….he did not burn down villages or shoot civilians as he said he did. And neither did 99.9% of the soldiers. You have elements that do horrible things…the Bataan Death March, the Trail of Tears, Malmady, gas chambers of the European theater. My Lai, Cambden in the Revolutionary War…what is happening today in North Africa and Syria and the Ukraine, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition………….all have forms of pain giving torture and/or battlefield interrogation techniques….I saw the after effects of true torture, pain giving, used in Bosnia in dungeons just like the midevil times used by combatants that we were supposed to stop but were ordered not to… the United Nations. Man’s inhumanity to man has been around a long time, and it is not going anywhere….and war brings out the worse….and it will continue. I doubt that you will see any more war crime commissions…the last ones that I know of were in the Bosnia conflict and have not seen any since. Everybody knows and understands that in the Ukraine, it is not Ukranian Rebels…it is Russian soldiers…and they use some really terrible techniques to this very day. We know what they are doing and we know where their torture chambers are…and we will do nothing about it. We know everything that is going on in Mexico…our supposedly good neighbor…..

    It is easy to sit behind desks and carry on “discussions” about these types of things. 20/20 hindsight is remarkable and you can grab your face and say things like “Oh My”…..but it does not change anything and it will not change anything.

    I know that you do not like long discussions…and this one is not about water boarding, which is nothing, but it is about real torture….and it has happened in the happening now…and will continue to happen in the future.

    • And I saw a post by JAC that brought a smile….” Oh the irony…..well, ditto. The irony.

    • I am wondering if the definition should actually say that there is the possibility of permanent physical damage, impairment or death rather than “pain” which I agree is totally subjective.

      John McCain lost flexibility in his joints from torture, I am sure that he suffers from physical pain every day. For the life of me I cannot see that in waterboarding.

      I can see it in being exposed to noise loud enough to cause hearing damage, burning, the old bamboo slivers under finger nails, prolonged bondage, beatings, confinement in small spaces, electric shocks etc.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      When we last had this discussion a couple years back I also spent the time to review most of the cases listed on the Mother Jones site. Your findings are the same as mine.

      They list “water torture” in the charges but there were not many of those charges made. And most of them that were are added to a list of more egregious torture.

      The other thing we concluded with last time was that the Geneva convention definitions were not concrete enough to say waterboarding is torture. It was written by lawyers to be enforced by lawyers. In short, the definitions are subject to what the Victor claims them to be and what they can convince the judges.

      I was a little surprised by Buck’s inquiry as I recall him being part of that discussion back then. I guess he just didn’t like the answer.

      Now…….. as to the solution regarding definitions and writing treaties on such. The definition is hopeless to construct and defend consistently. The only way to address the issue with teeth is to describe the practices that are NOT ALLOWED. Or to describe specifically what IS Allowed.

      Such as; “the captors are permitted to ask questions but the prisoners are obligated to ONLY give name, rank and serial number. Any attempt to get information beyond this from any prisoner in any manner, beyond simply asking questions, will be considered a War Crime under the terms of this agreement.”

      There is no chance in Hades that such a definitive constraint would be approved by the UN or other International body.

      • Yes, we had some pretty good discussions on this…and I think that I am consistent. But, something since the last two years has actually made me change my mind about a few things. One of the things that I have changed is tolerance. At one time, I was trying to be tolerant of the progressive ideas…until I realized that the progressives have never had it rough. I am tired of the excuse making and bitching and moaning and groaning about what the United States has done…..people thinking that we need to apologize and say we were wrong when all we were doing is responding to the times.

        I am particularly getting tired of the progressive mantra and academia proclaiming that they have the answers when they have nothing including experience.

        On the use of torture… I have said the word needs defining because one man’s torture is another man’s folly. When you are in combat or a war zone, everyone wants to act like there are rules….but……there are none. War crimes are a misnomer….I can say that everytime you pull a trigger or lob a grenade or fire off a claymore or call in an airstrike, there is probably some war crime being committed in someone’s mind. The war crimes commission in WWII actually pointed out the folly of such..Nuremberg trials were stupid and most everyone released. The Japanese war crimes were useless…..I am sure it made some feel good but the reality of it……well, let us look at today. All these commissions from the great world wars and all the trials have prevented what? It has not prevented war. It has not prevented atrocities in war. It has not prevented the inhumaity of war… what good are war crimes commissions? It simply does not act as a deterrent. Genocide atrocities in Bosnia and the crimes court has prevented what? Nothing. Genocide and killing innocent civilians by the thousands is still happening and to a much greater extent. NOthing is changing from a thousand years ago…..just more modern weapons and technology.

        There is not a soldier out there on the battlefield that would NOT use any method at his disposal to determine immediate threats to the lives of those around him. I know I would do anything to save the lives I am in chargeof….I am not going to read anyone their miranda if I can get information right then that will save lives immediately…..and my life and the lives of my charges are more important than being nice to the enemy. My point is in dealing with the reality of things.

        People had a real tough time with detaining at GITMO….they were worried about no charges being filed or whether or not they got prayer rugs and three meals a day….when the reality of it….they should not have been taken prisoner. THey should have been left dead on the battlefield.

        So, I would be against strapping someone to a wall and using whips or cutting off fingers. I would be against the old bamboo slivers up the finger nails….I would be against some of the things that McCain suffered through….dislocating arms and shoving broom straws into the ear drums…painful techniques designed to impair.

        Electronic vibrating sounds, water boarding, sleep deprivation…..non lethal and non physically impairing techniques that work well….but as I said…..just talking to someone can be torture..Anyway…I have said enough but my tolerance of the progressive movement is practically gone. Political correctness is gone and this racial diatribe and professional rioters…have no place in honest discussions any longer.

      • Now that you mention it, yes I do vaguely recall this (or at least a similar) discussion awhile back, but I don’t recall receiving an actual answer to that question as the Colonel had provided this time around.

        I find it irrelevant that prosecutions of the Japanese weren’t solely for water boarding, but for a litany of things including water boarding. It doesn’t matter that other perhaps more egregious procedures were utilized — water boarding was included in the list as torture.

        I also find it irrelevant that their use of water boarding wasn’t the exact same as ours – is the argument you wish to make really that we improved upon the technique so it is no longer torture?

        If you want to take the position that only something causing permanent physical injury constitutes torture, fine, that’s an argument to be made. You want to take the position that it doesn’t matter because it’s war, they use worse tactics, etc., fine, that’s an argument to be made as well.

        Personally though I always felt we as a nation should be better than that. I also question the utility and effectiveness of these techniques…Colonel I have no doubt you will say from personal experience it is not only useful and effective but even necessary. Everything I have read though has questioned that premise.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The Japanese prosecutions were NOT for water boarding but “water torture”. As the Colonel explained, the “water torture” did not include “water boarding”. The methods they used would not qualify as water boarding.

          It is not a matter of us improving the technique, it is the difference between a method that inflicted “physical pain and injury” vs one that is designed to cause “mental stress”.

          I understand your points on standards and that the USA should abide by what we claim for others.

          I raised this sub issue because it shows how certain internet sites work so hard to distort truth. Mother Jones and others then go around saying we prosecuted others for “water boarding” when that practice was not what was being prosecuted. Oh, and the list on Mother Jones is the charges, NOT THE CONVICTIONS.

          So the issue on the table is whether “water boarding” is torture given the definition of the Geneva Conventions. I say that it is not a given nor a slam dunk. It is now considered “torture” in the USA ONLY because the Commander in Chief DECLARED it to be torture. Despite having NO AUTHORITY to do so.

          He could have issued orders to the Govt. to NOT CONDUCT this type of interrogation. But to declare it illegal and then NOT PROSECUTE those who he knows conducted it smacks of grandstanding or grounds for impeachment.

  44. Obama wanting to continue Patriot Act…I thought he hated the Patriot Act.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      That was in that other universe which you often frequent. Are you starting to get confused as to which world you are in at any given moment??

      I know I am…………… 🙂

%d bloggers like this: