What”s Next?

The past couple weeks have been full of controversial news as well as the normal stuff.  Violence in Detroit last weekend was ignored, as usual, by the Left Wing media.  It’s not an issue when black people kill black people or when gangs simply shoot into large party crowds.  The current attack on the Confederate Battle Flag seems far more important.  Many Southerners are coming out and fighting back, as numerous rally’s took place yesterday.  No arrests were made and no cities were burning, despite the fact that many in the South see their heritage under attack.  This is a Progressive move, trying to destroy the history of the past and replace it with the new “Progressive” thinking.  This strategy has a history.    Mao Tse-tung  in 1966,  initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a program to remove “counter-revolutionary” elements of Chinese society that lasted 10 years and which was marked by violent class struggle, widespread destruction of cultural artifacts and unprecedented elevation of Mao’s personality culthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

In short, what’s happening in the United States is nothing new.  History is repeating itself once again.  Under Mao is responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, forced labour, and executions, ranking his tenure as the top incidence of democide in human history.   Could this be what is in store for the United States?  The Cultural Revolution seems to have begun.  History is being rewritten on a daily basis.  If one reads the linked history of Mao, there are many things within the history that appear almost daily on the internet.  Mao’s use of re-education camps (Hillary Happy FEMA camps) is one that should make everyone shutter.  Things are much different today.  But, I ask only one question.  How hard would it be to use food as a weapon against the people of the US?  It’s been said that most are only 9 meals from starvation.  Just some food for thought!




  1. Happy Sunday! Buck, I still believe that the Gay marriage ruling applies to CCL. 🙂

  2. Remember Hurricane Katrina and all the hoopla from the Global Warming cultist’s who claimed we would get many more like Katrina and far worse because of Global Warming? I remember it like it was yesterday and boy oh boy did Mother Nature play a cruel joke on the cultist’s prediction. Hurricane Wilma, in 2005, was the last major hurricane to make landfall in the Continental US. That’s 10 years without a major storm, a category 3 or higher. While it’s possible to get one or more on any year, this is the longest stretch since 1860 to 1869. But, Obama claims Climate Change is our biggest threat. Me thinks politicians are our biggest threat, by a thousand fold, followed by Progressive’s 🙂

  3. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/26/the-u-s-stands-out-on-labor-force-participation-rates/

    Looking at the charts in the above link, I found Spain to be a great country to use to prove a point (not that the point needs proved, but WTF). While our LPR has gone down and sits at 1970’s levels, Spain’s has risen a lot over the same period of time. Currently, Spain’s unemployment rate is in the middle 22.7 % : http://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/spain

    When a government lies to it’s people, hides things from its people (TPP), then it’s long past time to realize they are not a representative government any longer. Is it not time to remove and replace?

  4. The confederate flag represents treason against the United States of America in defense of white supremacy and racism. It represents defeat and humiliation. Who would want to be associated with that?

    Elliot J. Stamler > yabbed • 19 hours ago

    Answer: the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party of the United States – everywhere in the country.

    This is the view of many Liberals these days. Ignorance is rampant in the Left Wing, what a shame.

  5. blackflag says:

    Heaven has a new angel

    With a deep sadness beyond an expression in words, my most beloved wife passed away early this morning at our home, in the loving arms of myself and our daughter, after an extraordinary 7 year battle against cancer.

    She was initially given only 6 months to 2 years, and declined the medical industry treatments and took her own care into her own hands. They see her as a miracle.

    I only know her as an angel.

    • Oh my BF, I am so very sorry to read this. My sincere sympathies to you and your daughter. I am so sad for you.

    • Of course she is BF. We share your grief. I know your pain all too well. You and your daughter are in my prayers . Should I ever get a similar diagnosis, I’ll decline treatment as well. Peace BF

    • I can’t express how sorry I am for your loss. God Bless

    • Sorry.

    • So very sorry to hear BF – thoughts with you and your family today and everyday forward my friend.

    • My sincere condolences to you and the Black Flag family. It is most certainly a sad day in SUFAville.

    • Richmond Spitifre says:

      BF, so very sorry for the sorrow that you and your daughter are bearing… May you both find comfort in each other.

      Do not stand at my grave and weep
      I am not there. I do not sleep.
      I am a thousand winds that blow.
      I am the diamond glints on snow.
      I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
      I am the gentle autumn rain.
      When you awaken in the morning’s hush
      I am the swift uplifting rush
      Of quiet birds in circled flight.
      I am the soft stars that shine at night.
      Do not stand at my grave and cry;
      I am not there. I did not die.

    • My apologies, sir. I stand ready to help.

    • My sincere condolences to you and your family.

    • Heartbreaking. A person I have never met, and yet I feel a sense of loss. Cherish the memories and the gift you have in your daughter.

    • Bruce Dotson says:

      BF- So Sorry For Your Loss, It never get better only easier, 19 year for me.

    • BF — my deepest condolences to you and your daughter. My thoughts are with you.

    • I’m so very sorry, BF. I wish words could help.

  6. Judy Sabatini says:

    OH, BF. I’m so, so sorry to hear about the loss of your beloved wife. My deepest condolences goes to you & your daughter at this time. You & your daughter will be in my thoughts & prayers.

  7. I find it interesting that I have not heard anyone remark on the peace in Charleston after this awful event. There was one report, the same day, where authorities were “bracing” for violence but unlike Ferguson, St. Louis or Baltimore, nothing happened.

    The old man predicted back in the 1960’s that the South would throw off the racial hatreds long before the North did. Everything I have seen since makes me agree with him. Too bad the northern “illiberals” don’t take a lesson from those folks, black and white who have handled this atrocity with such quiet dignity.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Interesting comment by your Father. Begs a look at the cities with racial unrest at least since the civil right act was passed….but even so LA and Newark and Detroit had huge riots ’64 onward and they were not in Southern States.

      • Exactly!

        My experiences with the South are quite limited however, the few times I have been down there and outside of the tourist areas I have found that people, black and white seem to quietly go about their business. i do not know what goes on beyond closed doors nor does anyone.

        My experiences here in the North are rife with racism. It is pretty damn open and just because I am white, I get the wink, wink, nod, nod from other whites, quite educated regarding their opinion of blacks and anyone else not quite meeting their social level.

        Dad used the issue of desegregation of the Boston Public Schools and school busing as an example of what really goes on here under the surface. Again cannot see what goes on in the South but if Chicago, Newark, New York and Boston are any indication, integration has totally failed in the North.

        One of the reasons I am so opposed to government programs to “help” the poor is because a long time ago, I saw them as nothing other than the new “massah” giving the folks on his plantation some new shoes to keep them quiet. I have absolutely no problem these days including the President of the US along with notables such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as “house slaves”.

        A special debt of gratitude is owed and will never be paid to Samuel L. Jackson for his portrayal of :”Stephen” the chief house Slave for the Master in “Django Unchaned” I defy any truly open minded person to view this and NOT see parallels.

  8. Interesting back up on the Colonel;s piece about sex trafficking from Mexico and the NYC link.


    Colonel to forward a link, Go topside to the http banner, right click on it, scroll down to copy, left click. Take it to the site or E-mail you want to use, right click again, scroll down to paste and left click.

    • I have all kinds of help on this…..thanks to all…..I STILL CANT FRIGGIN DO IT…….embarrasing….but I suppose that not everyone can throw a hand grenade either.

      • BUt, rest assured, I will not give up…I will overcome….

        • But, if I cannot over come, the liberals have taught me how to handle it…..blame someone else……….so, BUCK……if I cannot over come…..it is your fault.

          THere….I feel better.

        • 🙂 I will give you instructions the way I need them. Step by step:

          1. Look at the top of the page on the left
          2. You will see a long rectangular box-inside this box it will always start with https://
          3. Move your arrow to the left side of the http and left click-this should highlight the information in the box-on my computer it turns the words blue.
          4. Then move your mouse inside the blue area and right click-this will bring up the box with copy and paste on it.
          5. Push copy
          6. Go to where you want to place the information-On sufa -the post comment box-left click on the box-then right click -the copy paste box will appear-click paste.

          • Sorry-one correction-it doesn’t always start with https-sometimes it’s www. or just the name of the site.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Colonel…that task was what Lt’s were for….isn’t your aide-d-camp part of your long term retirement benefits?.

        • Are you kidding? An LT?……nahhhh…sgts are the backbone….will ask a command sgt maj….not only do they know everything, they even give advice to god.

          • Colonel, you gotta get one of the youngins to sit down next to you and show you step by step, with you on the keyboard. 6 or 7 adults couldn’t get through to me. My son at age 10 had me in business in less than 60 seconds. No kidding.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Brings to mind “From Here To Eternity”

            Movies make you forget how long ago so many movies were made. Just started watching the “Professionals” with Lee Marvin, Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, Willy Strode, Jack Palance and my favorite Claudia Cardinale…released in ’66

            • OUTSTANDUINGFLIC!!!

              Bought my first Campaign hat right after I saw it. Used to visit friends in upstate NY on weekends to go shooting. Tooling up the Thruway in my white 4 door ’66 Coronet wondered why for weeks on end people got out of my way till my buddy remarked that in the rear view mirror I looked remarkably like a Statie!

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Egads that Coronet was a beast of a car. Enough steel in it to make a tank.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      So I guess there will be 3 divisions of heads and quarters on board Navy vessels now. This is totally getting out of hand.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      One reads stories about gays in the old British navy. They were accepted as fellow warriors, but generally were in roles as medics and other jobs that neccessitated some level of humanity…..however, what was not in the least way tolerated was “buggering” crudely put in the gun deck venacular. That was severely punished and accepted by all parties.

    • Nothing to worry about here either……ask someone in the military how they handled the gay issue….transgender will be the same.

      It will not be in the open….there will be no seperate billets nor latrines….and it will be kept quiet. You can pass all the laws you want, the military will handle their own issues inside the barracks…..as always.

      • Recent Army Times, surprised you missed it, an Air Force, Air Policeperson, a female transitioning on active duty to male is engaged to be married to an Army reservist who is currently a male transitioning to female.

        As the late Jack Parr might have said, “I kid you not!”

  9. It is really SAD that the most corrupt part of our government is the Department of JUSTICE!


  10. That moment for America, is seems, may have just begun. The blue screen of death is now apparent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions of the week, where the court openly admitted that laws no longer mean what they say. Instead, the government has now established a precedent where it can say laws mean whatever we WISH for them to mean, even if that utterly contradictions what they say.

    In other words, the Bill of Rights is now meaningless. Statutory law is null and void. All contracts with the government mean nothing. Words, like genders, are now said to mean only whatever the person uttering them wants them to mean. In the same way a white woman can claim she “self identifies as black,” lawmakers can now claim the laws they wrote that say one thing actually mean something entirely different because that’s what they wish for them to mean. (Political magical thinking.)

    And what do they mean, exactly? Whatever the hysterical mob wants them to mean that year. As the mob’s biases and revisionist history shifts, so does the wildly fabricated interpretation of the words that make up this nation’s laws, contracts and rights.

    Objective reality has now been abandoned. Sanity has been steamrolled into the pavement, and the very idea of intelligent debate or discourse in subjects like the national debt and free trade has been vilified and eviscerated by the same government that just sold out the entire American public to multinational corporations.

    • You got it! You hit the nail on the head! No more written Constitution, no more absolutes. The Constitution is what five of the nine Supremes say it is.

      We now have the “living”, “breathing” Constitution that the left wanted If God forbid, the right were to ever take over the court, I wonder how the left will enjoy what they have wrought?

      noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies

      a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
      “the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president”
      a country governed by an oligarchy.
      “the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century”
      government by oligarchy.


      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Funny how in recent history it has been only applied to the Russians.

        • We have become the :”enemy”.

          Nothing unusual, plenty of historical precedent for good societies going down the tubes. When they stopped teaching history and civics it all started. Accelerated in the age of the gizmo’s. The concepts we are supposed to live by take more than 140 characters.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I still do not necessarily agree that the teaching of Civics was such a good thing. It was developed and implemented by the Progressives.

            It taught such wonderful notions as “Taxes are the price of civilization”.

            Let us not forget that much of our History and Civics lessons were to create conformity around a set of values and myths created by those same people we blame for the country’s mess today.

            • My curse was that I received instruction at the hands of the LaSalle Brothers of the Christian Schools (FSC). Not a progressive in the bunch. Jr. and Sr. year American History was taught by a former FBI agent turned religious.

    • With the court rulings this week, it is only a matter of time before the 2nd amendment is redefined to mean uniformed militia only.

      • Like that will happen…and just who in the hell will pay attention to it?

      • What are you talking about? It was only recently that the 2d Amendment was ‘expanded’ by SCOTUS.

        Note: admittedly, expanded is not the right term, but not sure what is…

        • Which few Liberal government are following.

          • No – there remains a question as to what restrictions are permitted.

            • Apparently, the Democrats think they are quite lengthy in number. They keep getting sued (DC, Chicago) and losing, only to do the same thing over, just oh so slightly less. Laughable.

            • Actually, “shall not be abridged” is pretty simple, except for democrats and lawyers 😀

              • LOL, infringed, LMAO. Tells what kind of day it’s been.

              • And as I said, not a single amendment to my knowledge has there ever been a ruling that there can be absolutely no restrictions.

              • Redirect counselor, there are also no Amendments that allows restrictions. With the exception of commerce, the peoples rights are clearly defined. Restrictions have simply been allowed, to a point, and are now and have been getting struck down. Touche’

              • G – Ummm…no.

                And JAC – you know as well as I do that there were certain restrictions allowed with respect to many, if not all, the Bill of Rights from inception.

              • Buck ummm…why?

              • G, as I said to JAC, there were certain restrictions from day 1.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Expanded after it was restricted by another Progressive court.

          • Language, language, language! It was AFFIRMED, not expanded.

            • Offhand I am thinking how you would expand the 2nd? By requiring everyone to own and carry including those not fitting the 18th century militia definition? Women, children, old folks?

              An interesting point to chew on since passing 55 I am not covered anymore by original intent. Those of you who held a US commission are covered unless you resigned it. I only had a NY State Commission.

        • Nobody is challenging yet in NYC but somebody sure as hell should and that is not just about Pistols and concealed carry. Everybody has to jump through hoops, even to own a collectors piece or a single shot .22 rifle. NYC and the NYPD are just fine with what they are doing and to hell with SCOTUS.

  11. Well, the Rebel Flag protest contingent showed up at the capitol…..problem was;…no one in the contingent could identify the Texas Confederate flag and it was one of the six flags staring them right oin the face……but they did not know the French or Spanish Flag either……lolol

  12. http://www.dw.com/en/greek-pm-banks-to-remain-closed-capital-controls-to-be-introduced/a-18546221

    We know that Greece will default and leave the EU, that has been said for quite some time. But what of the aftershocks?

    • I would not expect any…..unless more follow suit. Europe is doomed…socialism has killed it..I am betting that most countries will default and go back to their own currency. The only people that get hurt are going to be the investors that play the currency game.

      • Hopefully this is all that will happen. This is Greece now: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/ignoring-tsipras-plea-calm-greeks-storm-atms-stores-gas-stations

        So far, calm and orderly. How long will that last? The government is far Left (as we see it), which makes them even more Socialist than others. Should be interesting to watch, not so interesting if it comes ashore here.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Like how many times has Mexico defaulted and also Argentina. The world did not end. I got a laugh today when Cyprus said that they would write off Greece’s debt to them….I though Cyprus was in the same sinking boat and no bucket to bail with.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I have not followed the Euro-dollar exchange given that I have no plans to travel there. I just saw that the euro is dropping to being almost on par to the $. Shouldn’t have been up where it was anyway….but then the new kid on the world currency market, I guess you have to give them some encouragement.

        Just think how high the Japanese and the Yen were flying just 2 decades ago and nobody thought they could beat them…..actually it was quite easy in the business I was in years ago.

    • Everybody is hot to trot to save Greece and they know it. I am wondering if the collapse will take everything else with it. ie. “The Emperor Has No Clothes”

  13. Gman… I’ve been outta the loop. What violence in Detroit last weekend? My son graduated on that Saturday but I don’t recall hearing anything drastic on the local news.

  14. Buck, D13 posed a question on the other thread. Basically it asked, what is the difference between one license and another license, when the SCOTUS claims the 14th Amendment covers all states? He may have to reword it, but the gist of the question is about licenses, being legal in all the states, why should one license, legally obtained, not be covered by every state, now that the SCOTUS has ruled that way for same sex marriage license is a Right, something that the 2nd Amendment has been for WAYYYY longer.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I have not read the actual SCOTUS decision as yet. If they had simply ruled that all states must recognize the marriage of gays from another state then your argument would be on sound footing. In my opinion but not Buck’s.

      However, I understand that SCOTUS conveyed, created or recognized a Right to marriage. At that point the issue of the 14th amendment becomes moot. Because any RIGHT of the people cannot be infringed, unless of course the Govt. can show a compelling interest.

      So no State may prevent this “right” to marry. And as long as States prescribe the “requirements” of marriage they must all recognize they have no authority to restrict based on sexual orientation or habits, if you will.

      Thus the marriage issue is really not one of “issuing a license” and that license being recognized by other states. SCOTUS has ruled that the “licensing” requirements shall be UNIFORM, at least with regard to homosexuals getting married.

      I know this sounds like hair splitting but there is a distinct difference.

      Now please revisit the California case where the Judge overturned the People’s Const. Amendment.

      That judge did the homework and prepped the battle field, if you will, for the eventual SCOTUS creation of this “right”. Remember, that judges focus was on proving there was no compelling Govt. interest to impede the “right to marriage”.

      • I have read some pertinent points. But the gist was that the marriage license couldn’t be denied. There was no order that would require anyone to actually “marry” gay people. The act or ceremony was not an issue, it was the state sponsored license. That is at least my understanding of the many things I’ve read. While many may disapprove of this on religious grounds, I do understand the legal grounds (licensing) based on the 14th Amendment, as it was written in the ruling opinion. But hell, I see the law as black and white and pretty simple, like, just read the damn thing. That don’t work in today’s strange society where words meanings change based on political views.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The only reason the 14th would be applicable is because the State “grants” a license for others. So now they MUST “grant” the same license to Homosexuals.

          The legal issue is not one of State A’s license being recognized by State B. Which is the argument you are raising with concealed carry.

          I am with you on the fundamental. The Second Amendment clearly stated that Congress had NO AUTHORITY to “infringe” upon “the right to bear arms”. So if SCOTUS wants to claim that some Rights delineated in the Bill of Rights also apply to States then the Second Amendment must also be applied to the States.

          In the case of guns I think SCOTUS has applied the rule to the States but seems reluctant to declare the right as absolute. Because that would undermine Federal and State restrictions.

          Now lets apply the 14th properly, instead of the way SCOTUS has applied it over time.

          Your permit to carry in State A is recognized by State B as valid. In other words, you can carry while in State A, even if living in State B. But that does not compel State B to honor that permit within State B. That it is not compelled to allow you to carry in State B, whether a resident or a visitor.

          Now I draw your attention to how the States handled the issue of recognizing “drivers licenses”. Perhaps a similar approach to Gun Laws would work. At least for the “Right” States. 😉

          • I see your point! But, now let’s understand that all the States recognize marriage licenses from other States, just like drivers licenses. As D13 asks, why is a conceal carry license not treated equally under the law?

  15. Just A Citizen says:


    “And JAC – you know as well as I do that there were certain restrictions allowed with respect to many, if not all, the Bill of Rights from inception.”

    Actually I do not agree. These mysterious restrictions creep in over time, with most of them coming after 1900.

    Any restrictions to said “rights” came at the state level. Just as STATES had SPONSORED CHURCHES. Because the Constitution for the most part and the Bill of Rights in particular were limited to the FEDERAL govt.

    The Bill of Rights was taken from various State Constitutions and was added to get needed support for ratification. It’s purpose and its understood affect was to RESTRICT FEDERAL AUTHORITY. This is something I would expect you to agree with.

    I listened to a professor recently expound on this ridiculous “militia” connection to the Second Amendment. He also tried to claim that the earliest court rulings did not convey a “personal right”. But he was dishonest in his argument. Because those early cases came down to WHO had the authority to regulate guns. It was not the connection to militia but that ONLY THE STATES had such authority. The connection to the militia was not ruled on because it was not applicable to the underlying legal authority.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Almost forgot the most important point. The fact that various courts create restrictions or uphold those created by others does not negate the absolute nature of the Bill of Rights nor Natural Rights themselves.

      Your argument is a rationalization of tyranny against the Constitution because there was also tyranny against the Constitution in the past.

      Your education taught you this is all acceptable because it falls within this profession and practice of the amorphous LAW. Thus it was nothing but an act of “wizards in black robes” who conjured up the theory that “rights are sacred unless the Govt. can show a compelling interest”. There was no caveat written into the Bill of Rights that the “aforementioned Rights are of course subject to the whim of Govt if it can show a compelling interest to ignore them”.

      No, what it said is that these rights are sacred and that this document should not be construed to limit the rights protected nor to allow restriction on rights not listed. That those “unlisted” rights rest with and are to be defined by the STATES and the PEOPLE.

      This my lawyer friend is the cornerstone of the dissent and disagreement between your side and mine. Over the years I have presented numerous arguments by our Founders which support my view. Yet I am rebuked by the “lawyers” with “legal philosophy” or “precedent”, rather than any evidence that I am fundamentally wrong. Only that your profession allows lawyers and judges to use their magic to ignore such words as “shall not infringe”.

      I saw this very thing play out at the lecture I attended with that Law Professor. An audience member read a letter which completely undermined his argument that NONE of the founders thought there was a personal right to bear arms. His response was to simply dismiss it because the man was not at the Constitutional convention. That man being Jefferson.

      The LAW is a very interesting thing and worthy of study and understanding. But due to its very nature it posses the power of corruption when used by those with particular agendas. And often that agenda seems to be to create fog where none should exist, to create demand for more lawyers and judges to deal with all the “exceptions” and “nuance” created by their predecessors.

      Sorry if this seems harsh but I think it is the reality. Of course as usual, I stand to be shown I am wrong if that is possible.

    • Actually I do not agree. These mysterious restrictions creep in over time, with most of them coming after 1900.

      True, they do creep in over time and I’m sure do so at a faster clip post 1900. I’ll give you that.

      But that doesn’t mean there were no recognized exceptions/restrictions in the days and years immediately following enactment.

      • NY Sullivan law dates back to 1912 I believe and was specifically aimed (pardon the pun) at recent immigrants. It is fascinating that the Progressives of the time who were also big believers in Eugenics were behind it. So, the Eastern and Southern European hordes were not to be trusted with firearms.

        After all, weren’t there a whole lot of Don Vito Corleone (Godfather 2) types running around back then?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I can think of no restrictions on these “rights” that were created at the Federal level in the early years.

        At the State level yes, but not the Federal.

        But it is true that the lawyers immediately started applying “legal doctrine” to find authorities not specifically granted. Such as SCOTUS’ authority to review the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Jefferson was correct in that no such authority was granted.

        The “scholars” had to “assume” that such authority simply flowed from the existence of the Constitution and other laws. Because that is how things were done in English law, so it must be so for American law.

        In the long run, this is the crack which is later exploited to create the flood we have today.

  16. It is not uncommon for our visitors, some who post and some who do not, to not go through all of the comments here at SUFA, as they can be many. I would like to reemphasize an earlier post above. From a longtime friend of all of us, once again, :

    blackflag says:

    June 28, 2015 at 10:11 am (Edit)

    Heaven has a new angel

    With a deep sadness beyond an expression in words, my most beloved wife passed away early this morning at our home, in the loving arms of myself and our daughter, after an extraordinary 7 year battle against cancer.

    She was initially given only 6 months to 2 years, and declined the medical industry treatments and took her own care into her own hands. They see her as a miracle.

    I only know her as an angel.

    These are the toughest of times for our dear friend, please keep him and his daughter in you thoughts and prayers.

  17. You can’t make this stuff up! Only in California could this actually happen: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/no-housing-bubble-man-rents-out-tent-for-1000-a-month-in-ca_062015

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Once again, we should take them up on their challenge.

      End ALL tax exempt organizations.

      Why should the religion of those believing in God be targeted and not those who have a religious belief in Gaea or Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Govt. righteousness?

      If disagreement with homosexual marriage or abortion is enough to garner retribution and attack, then why not those who disagree with me. Why not those who do not believe in the goodness of human kind, who disagree with the moral nature of free market Capitalism?

      Now you want to know the real irony in this? It is from the Right in this case.

      If those claiming to support a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax really do support such a thing, then the issue of “Tax exempt status” is ELIMINATED.

      But you see, each side has its sacred cows. Maybe we should slaughter them all instead of trying to be selective.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    The “LEFT” needs to make up its mind. Are there such things as “Natural Rights” or not.

    Do our Rights come from nature, in other words discovery, or are they grants from Govt.

    How can a Judge argue there is an inherent Human Right to marry, then turn around and claim that other rights are dependent upon Govt. grant.

    If our rights are those delineated by lawyers, legislators and documented in Law, then how can THE PEOPLE have any “inherent right” of any kind? Are not all rights then dependent upon OTHER men deciding for us what they are?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      That “Law Professor” I mentioned here a while back, and again today with Buck, made another statement during his lecture on the Second Amendment.

      “Natural Rights were nothing but a literary fiction” created by certain thinkers of their day. People like, you know, Locke.

      Got that? Nothing but FICTION.

      So now when you hear a “Progressive Academic” making an argument you can ask them if they think this is true. If they say YES, then you will understand why they make no sense.

    • When I was young and in the military, I felt as though I was there for all Americans. Race, religion and political beliefs were not an issue, just protecting the people, all of them. I would still protect Americans, despite race, religion…….that’s where I have changed.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day.

    One of the fundamental problems in our society today, which threatens freedom and liberty in the long run, is the view that laws should be passed that dictate how “individuals” act towards others.

    I noticed a Democrat talking head the other night claim that “in this country people are not allowed to discriminate against others’…blah, blah, blah.

    This is a fundamental error. There was NOTHING in the Federal or State Constitutions that made any such demand or allowed such authority. This was created over time, by the lawyers and self righteous.

    Why is this a threat to freedom. Because when we allow Constitutions to be about personal interactions we grant Govt. unlimited authority to regulate personal interactions.

    The purpose of Constitutions are to control Govt. authority and power, not to regulate the people in their dealings with each other.

    So as the number of laws grow that deal with personal interactions the greater the animosity between the people and their Govt. and among the people themselves.

    As usual, the Progressive seeks harmony but by using the force of Govt as their tool, destroy the very thing they seek.

    Unless of course they can get rid of all the dissenters. Whether they use ovens, deportation or muzzling by threat of your career, it is all the same. They must get rid of the dissent.

    If you cannot force people to like each other and agree with each other, then eliminate those who won’t conform.

    • Good grief, your talking conspiracy theory now! The sky is falling, I say, the sky is falling 😀

    • I concur completely! Looks to me as if we are getting close to Newton’s Third law. I find myself really angry these days over stuff like the Confederate Flag and Gay marriage. The whole race issue is just appalling. 12 1/2 % of the population and falling and you would think the Republicans and whites in general had repealed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments! I have no white privilege and I have no white guilt either. Two men can do whatever they want together or two women but what they can never do is marry nor can a man be another man’s husband nor can a woman be another woman’s wife.

      Correct me if I am wrong but there were only two states where gay marriage was voted in by the legislature. The California Prop 8 vote was the exact opposite. The Oligarchs in black robes have taken it upon themselves to arbitrate things that are, as they say, beyond their pay grade.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I have always looked at the way the progressives/socialists want to try and run society is like a semi-conductor. They do it with laws to contol human nature to get the desired results. The explosion of laws expalins this because of all the variables of human reaction to single stimulus. They have to cover all continginsies. A semi-conductor operates with +’s and -‘s. With a certain stimulus the design says the reaction must be +. If not then it is broken. It must be fixed to get the desired results.

      Of course a shooting like what just happened in Charleston deplorable. But what was the reaction….we need another law, as though there weren’t a zillion on the books to start with. The only option was to go after the confederate battle flag. It is apparently not a protected form of free speech.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    TEXAS has fired another shot across the bow. As the good Colonel explained, Texas takes Religious freedom seriously.


    Now some FREE ADVICE to Texas. I have no problem with you standing your ground on this when it comes to individual “employees” of the Govt. However, you need to identify those willing to “issue a license” within these offices or identify “offices where said licenses” can be acquired.

    This will keep the legal issue one of “personal religious freedom” and not one of a State playing games to circumvent the new law.

    On the other hand, what would Texas do if an employee claimed that it was AGAINST his/her religions to grant a marriage license to a Mixed race couple??

    How will Texas decide what is a legitimate “Religious exemption” and what is not?

    It will be interesting to see what impact this has in real application as opposed to the rhetoric.

    • I think that if an individual is not comfortable with being involved in something they oppose, they should be exempt. If working in a government position, as Buck says, one has no rights to do so. So the issue is this, individual rights versus government imposed edict. Does anyone see where this is going?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        And you call me the Statist.

        If you have a right to refuse service base on your Religion that right extends to all locations and times.

        As I said, the Govt. agency needs to accommodate the person with the Religious objections, not force that person to act contrary to their religion.

        By the way, I am betting that the next big thing on this front is the Clergy of various religion declaring that SERVING someone is not Participating or Condoning the SIN. Thus the religious objection will be undermined by the Religion’s leaders themselves.

        • I think that’s what I said 🙂 I am of the thought that people have the right to refuse service if it falls within the exercise of their religion. I wouldn’t be surprised if many “pastors” sell out and do as you say. Many have already stated they won’t already. I also don’t think it will be an issue for very long. The thrill is gone, so to speak. The activist’s will go home and realize they are bored and find something else to go after.

          • I am of the thought that people have the right to refuse service if it falls within the exercise of their religion.

            To clarify my own position on this a bit — I see a difference between a private individual refusing service and a public employee refusing service.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes, that is your view and is understood.

              However, it is WRONG. 🙂

              Rights cannot be terminated based on who employs you. In fact if we are true to the nature of a Constitution and rights protected under it, the LAST place that your rights can be infringed upon is by a Govt. employer. Because that document is regulating what Govt. can do and not do relative to our rights.

              The right to practice one’s religion is not severable from the person, where as other things like guns are. Thus the ban on guns in a Govt building can be supported, kind of, but forcing participation cannot be supported by Govt. edict.

              Thus my comment that the agency must accommodate the religious person’s values. If the agency must issue a license per the law, then the agency must find someone who can issue that license when another employee cannot perform the task due to religious objection.

              I would think that the failure to make such an accommodation that results in NO LICENSE being available to a particular “group” would be challenged by the couple being denied. And this only due to the Court deciding that affect is proof rather than actual purpose of action.

              Since SCOTUS has pretty much undermined the entire rational for a marriage license anyway, I suggest the States just set up Vending Machines. The buyers can run their credit card as proof of acceptance of the license.

              If the Govt. has no compelling interest in preventing homosexual marriage I do not see how it has any interest in other forms of marriage currently banned. That is marriage between humans.

              • Yes, that is your view and is understood.

                However, it is WRONG. 🙂

                Perhaps…it’s been known to happen…but I don’t think so this time. Though I can come around if at ALL locations it is ensured that at least one clerk will be present ready, willing and able to do his job.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It’s a simple issue to resolve. Have a Kiosks that two people can swipe their ID, the form is generated, pay for it, then the document receives an automated signature and is printed. No people to offend, no denials.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Don’t forget though, it has to be a legal state issued photo id….good solution.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I was married for 8 years from 85 to 93. Never had to show the marriage license once or prove I was married. Not sure why one would ever need it.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Obviously the state license is in part due to the tax system and deductions allowed. However, I also believe it is a legacy of practices in some areas of Europe. Example Germany. One of the stories that had come down through the family was that the Burgermeister had to sign off on the marriage. Not that he may not like you but it was all about housing and space. Land was extremely valuable and not to be wasted. Get married and kids will follow and more resources are used. Pretty much to sum it up…One off the top end by dying and they then allowed a new one to be born.

                I worked with a lot of Germans over the years and they could never get over the space and land here. The last time I traveled to Germany was 25 years ago and villages and towns were very compact. Everything outside of town was agriculture or forest. here you really almost never get away because you can build anywhere literally. The same went in Sicily.

            • @ Buck……public paid employees can refuse service…..it wont be a problem here…there will be ample ways to get a license….might have to travel some…but can still get them.

              What I am worried about, slightly worried, is the business owner that does business with the public….if the stretch goes to the fact…that if you do business with the public, then you are public and cannot refuse. It is going to be interesting because there is no REFUSAL for licensing….you may have to travel a little….maybe not.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Why are you worried about the private business owner? Are they not also protected under Texas STATE law?

                There is no Federal law compelling such service as it does not fall into the “interstate commerce” category. I am thinking cakes and such here.

                This is why the homosexual activists are going to try and get protected status. They want Civil Rights Act enforcement on private citizens who shun them.

              • Not worried about it on State Law…but under the Civil Rights Act…I still dont think that Texas will adhere to it anyway if it was added to the Civil Rights Act….But I guess I do not fret that either….if it was under the Civil Rights Act, then the EEOC would probably get involved…..they have no enforcement power either….only from a judge and what the hell….we pay no attention to judges most of the time.

            • The slippery slope argument here is interesting. I can think of an analogy if you will grant me that. I am a German trainman, I am employed by the government I do not wish to participate in shipping Jews to concentration camps but, I am a government employee. I have no freedom of conscience do I? Sound familiar?

              I’m a baker, I have a bakery, I employ three people, one of whom is my wife, two are cousins. To protect myself from slip and falls and other potential things that can destroy my financial life, cost me my savings, retirement and home, I have incorporated, limiting my financial liability. I refuse on moral grounds to bake the cake for Bill and Steve. I have no protection of conscience because protection is for individuals not corporations. I am personally sued, I lose my business, retirement money and home. Fair?

              This is just the beginning.

              • SK,

                1) Don’t be ridiculous. This isn’t analogous in the least.

                2) As I said, I acknowledge there is a difference between private and public.

    • Darn JAC….you stole my thunder because this is precisely whatBuck and I were talking about.

      This has nothing to do with the State refusing anything….it has everything to do with an individual that is against giving a license if he/she does not believe in it. In other words, the right goes BOTH ways.

      And, as usual, the media is over looking something. First, do not tell Texas what it can or cannot do. The issue with his statement is not about gay rights….Texas has always upheld any issue about gay rights…what it does say is that individual rights extend BOTH ways and Texas is a freedom state. It will not abide by anything that takes freedom away…..licenses are and will be available.

      Texas has proven that it will administer its own issues. That is why you have voter ID despite a Federal ruling, that is why you have the education in our schools assigned to their own districts despite the written memorandum from the US Department of Education…there will be NO COMMON CORE taught as a matter of principle….the local school districts, through their school boards, will have the right to dictate their own requirements. This is why we patrol our own borders enforcing Federal and State Law in the absence of Federal administration….there are several other things that I could andhave pointed out. Abbotts statement is nothing more than reaffirming individual rights extend both ways.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I find this guy’s list of “how” to be disconnected from any semblance of cause and effect.

      For example, pushing or glorifying homosexuality does nothing to “cause” fascism. It is not HOW fascism is established, whether fast or slow.

      The list looks like a list of complaints rather than actual “how” to ideas.

      We have explored the HOW here for several years. I think the stuff offered by many at SUFA is far superior to this persons list.

      • There are other list’s, for sure. Like the 45 ways to bring Communism to the US. I don’t think it’s a stretch to see us a Fascist Nation at this point, we are just short of a fascist dictator….or are we?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          A better summary, and pretty fast read, is Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”.

  21. http://rt.com/business/270304-greece-capital-controls-banks/

    Greek is in a position where no decision will be considered good. Smart move to let the people vote their destiny. Even the far Lefties know that their heads will roll if they made the decisions. Not so sure there is really any decisions that can be made, the Greeks will suffer. This is what socialism eventually ends up giving the people. You paying attention Buck? 😉

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      If my memory serves me correctly Ho studied economics while in the University in Paris. Yes he was a communist/socialist. One of the things he consistantly said was that you can not have a successful socialist society without a strong economy. Greece certainly failed on that score. So did the Soviet Union. They didn’t have to but failed none the less.

  22. Oh oh…….all of a sudden I am not real? EPA chief says deniers of global warming are not real people? Well, shit….and all this time I was wondering.

    So,I guess I need to clarify my position to maintain “non-real” status….Global Warming is a fake and the science is flawed.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I just started reading about the severe drought in the southwest during the 30’s. BIA enforced relocation of native american from the reservations to get the desired population to water ratio…..other reasons also. Re-educate the traditionals.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The EPA Chief says that deniers are not people….I guess supports of this flawed science are then nothing but a bunch of lemmings.

      After a big conference in DC the other month the scientists from the EPA said it was to expensive to plant TREES as a way to combat CO2 and climate change…talk about flawed.

  23. JAC….you said “How will Texas decide what is a legitimate “Religious exemption” and what is not?”

    Just like anything else, sir….we do not discriminate against any religion. The term legitimate seems to me to smack of a state definition of legitimate. We do not care if you want to worship a telephone pole…go for it. It carries no significance here since there is no advantage state wide to be in any religion. You want to doit….then do it. We just do not need nor want Federal interference any longer…and we do not care if gays want to marry or not.

    Abbott is being consistent.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Since he used that term “legitimate” in his speech I was wondering how the State would handle it. Either by legal description or by some sort of “court ruling”.

      I am guessing it will be the latter if ever challenged. It would be near impossible to codify the meaning of “legitimate” religion or religious belief without looking like the “establishment of a religion”.

      But as you say, it is all easily avoided by providing alternative clerks or means of securing said license.

      Next up on the left wing bitch list, “We have to drive to far”!!

      Spousal Unit Leader and I had to go 80 miles to get the medical tests and then again a week later to get the license. I have little sympathy for people who whine about “convenience” as if they have a right to such a thing.

      Of course, maybe convenience is somehow magically linked to one’s dignity. 👿

  24. @ JAC…..”On the other hand, what would Texas do if an employee claimed that it was AGAINST his/her religions to grant a marriage license to a Mixed race couple??”

    Happens all the time……and yet, mixed race couples get married…..there is always a clerk or position available to issue those licenses…..always has been and always will be.

    Where we are having some issues is in small towns that are very conservative. Do not go there if you wish a license as there is usually only one clerk who also acts as a JP…….go to a larger city or to Austin…they are available.

  25. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “Tradition is the enemy of Progress”

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    I laugh at those who criticize Thomas as a non-thinking Jurist. He hits the nail on the head once again.


    I am wondering if anyone will challenge Ginsburg, et al to SHOW us where the concept of Direct Democracy was a foundational principle within the Constitution. Did they not ever read the Founder’s writings on how they view Democracy as destructive?

    Where did the Founders claim that the people should “be the front of Govt.”?? I guess that is why they developed an elaborate system of electing REPRESENTATIVES.

    I thought the Arizona legislatures lawsuit wrong but it has revealed the hypocrisy and outright deliberate ignorance of our Constitution among those sworn to protect it.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Weren’t the writers of the constitution quite skeptical of “democracy”? It’d lead to ruling by the mob and tyranny by the majority. The amendment that allowed Senators to be directly elected during Wilson’s administration was one huge step to mob rule, The house of representaives was the people…the Senate represented the State and the President somewhere in between with the electoral college.

  27. Dale A Albrecht says:

    News flash…been talked about a little bit but today the Governor of Puerto Rico says that they can not pay their public debt. Have to borrow more money to pay the notes due that were borrowed money ad infinitum. Leading excuse was the “CONTINUING RECESSION” I thought our economy was humming and out of recession…(sarc) PR it like Greece. Absolutely relies on tourism to survive.

  28. I dont get it……how many shark attacks is it going to take before you dont go in the water? I love hearing all the excuses of why there that many shark attacks,,,,does it really matter…the reality is that there are shark attacks of the Carolinas….it does not matter the reason………however, if you go into the water…the shark is in the water…..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Why do you keep trying to be rational.

      Reality is out dated, just like the rest of us dinosaurs.

      The modern “cool” way is to simply THINK reality away. If I don’t believe the sharks will bit me they will not bite me. If they do I must not have believed hard enough. Or I am just not as “one with the sharks” as my friends.

      Maybe the problem is some of these modern thinkers should stop thinking they are dolphins, tuna or sea lions. They are obviously attacking the damn sharks with all this type of thinking.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        If there were dolphins in the water it actually was an indication that the water was pretty clear of sharks. Bottlenose dolphins will ram and kill a shark……but either actively schooling usually indicates a food source. In any case all are wild animals and deal with inate instinct. We the intelligent species are being bred stupider and expect everything to be so safe inspite of our own stupidity and errors in judgment and lack of attention to our surroundings…..like selfies next to a bison in Yellowstone….I’ve had relatives hunting in Wyoming get treed by a moose which then proceeded to do some serious damage to their car with its antlers..

      • Ya know, you see all the articles and listen to all the “facts”……..you are 30 more times likely to get struck with lightning than bitten by a shark and all of that clap trap.

        Well, when a thunder storm comes along, I do not stand outside and watch the storm.
        It stands to reason, that if you do not want to be bitten by a shark….stay out of the ocean.

        Now, let us do a risk assessment…..Let’s see…continuing to play golf or any sport during a thunderstorm…….risk assessment says…you COULD get hit….I do not want to play the lottery on whether or not I will be hit….

        Swimming in the ocean on a surf board or boogie board that looks like a seal or a sea turtle…..not good. Swimming in the ocean next to fishermen….not good.
        Swimming in the ocean during a sea turtle migration or bait fish migration…..not good.

        Naaaah…I think that I will just stay out of the ocean unless the swimming area is barriered….even then, I am sure that one of my laser guided rapto-sharks could get through…

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    This author may have a point. How soon we forger recent history and events which do play a role in the flood we see around us.

    This may not have been when the tide started changing regarding attitudes but it certainly was the POINT where vile retribution became ACCEPTABLE. And that in itself does have an affect on attitudes. When debate is stifled there is no opposing view to consider. Which makes it easier to enforce a one view world.


    • I sincerely do not think that the Progressives or the left understand what is going to happen in about 6 months with all of this. I know that they do not understand the transgender issue 6 months from now.

      It simply will not be the boon they think…They think because of a SCOTUS decision that a magic wand was waved and everything is going to be hunky dory…….But just watch..it is going to be interesting. I am sure that the progressives think that this is perfect…..but the acceptance is still not what everyone thinks it is going to be.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    A pleasant change. Brevity that is entertaining yet makes a point.


    I am reminded of “God created whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world”!!

  31. Dale A Albrecht says:


    If this is the case shouldn’t the opposite be true. If a persons children do not participate in the “public” school system shouldn’t they be allowed to NOT pay to support it via taxes? If one logic holds true doesn’t the inverse also.

    That was one of the main issues in the discussion concerning that the Govnt restriction on a state religion. In colonial Maryland you had to pay a tax in support of the anglican church whether you were a member or not…like being a Catholic or Quaker etc. With Maryland being the only colony that allowed Catholics since Lord Baltimore was a Catholic.

    • In conflict with Milwaukee’s program and a few others. Supremes will probably get to chime in.

      One of my pet bitches. Sent the kids to Catholic School and paid full freight for the public schools. Nobody even thanked me for educating their kids let alone keeping THEIR taxes down because my kids were not in the mix.

      The courts are on the side of the unions who have the support of many parents who can’t think. Never could quite figure out what was so hard to understand about the following:

      Catholic schools educate at about 1/3rd the cost of Public Schools

      Part of this savings is low salaries

      If vouchers were given, salaries would go up somewhat

      Catholic schools would then educate at half the cost of Public Schools

      The other half could go to the public Schools to enhance them

      Everybody wins!

      The big lie is that vouchers would “take away” from Public Schools. But the lie becomes true if: your goal is to constantly expand Public Schools, the number of teachers, the number of counselors, the number of aides, the number of administrators, the number of Special Ed kids.

      Hell, most parents in Catholic Schools would be willing to take just a stipend and pay the rest themselves but we are 2nd class citizens.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I’d be hacked off also. The excuse of the “double” tax is that you are a member of the community ergo you pay to support the community whether you use the service or not. My ex’s son went to different school district in which his father lived. He could have gone to the school in our village but it really sucked and I’d never have sent a child willingly to it. This was in VT. We paid $4800/yr and had no kids in that school. OK fine that is part of being in the community. Now Shane if he stayed at our house (permanently) and the school knew about it they would charge tuition to us. But if I was paying tuition elsewhere for my children, ie private school of any form, I’d at least like all of what is deemed the school taxes out of the property taxes deducted…..It will be intersting to see where this all leads. I’ll make lawyers rich.

        between you and I, it didn’t matter for the kid…he wasted his education and is now from what I understand a white supremist out in Idaho somewhere….left the army back in the early 90’s with a “not recommended for re-enlistment” tag on his evals. Ultimately had to divorce his Mom to get the leach out of my life.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The issue is one of LEGAL not Logic. Unless you want to challenge the Colorado Constitution on the basis that it is “illogical”.

      If this case is as presented here, the vouchers were clearly in violation of the law. Whether it took money from the schools or from the treasury did not matter. The money was from the State and therefore prohibited.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The court may have ruled in a legal sense correctly, but I contend that cases will start and also petitions to get the law changed out of being “fair” Parents are pulling their kids out of the public schools more and more because they are being told that they have no say from further and further away from the community. ie Common Core. I am looking at the logic behind why the framers said in the constitution about no State religion…it was precisely due to taxation to the for support of the Church of England whether the people went there or not…Schools the same….In LA at least in the Valley, almost all the schools have become charter schools with specific core studies. That is getting around the Common Core and also bussing….When I was in LA there were an equal amount of Private/church schools as there were public schools….just saying

      • Milwaukee seems to have worked it out. The first schools were not parochial. If the state has the responsibility to educate children and insists on a standard (hah!) what possible difference could it make what type of school they go to? Note the Wisconsin Supremes had no problem. That is why this will eventually head to the top court.


  32. Just A Citizen says:
  33. Just A Citizen says:

    A great read, and not that long, on the issues of secession. Note how these scholars are restating many of the issues we have raised here at SUFA when this topic comes up. The last time was the issue of Ukraine splitting in two and what “right” a State has to preserve itself vs the People’s right to leave.


    While we have discussed the role of slavery/economic in the Civil War, at the core it is this principle of “voluntary association” which triggered the War itself. Regardless of their reason, the southern States were simply carrying out what they viewed as the correct and “allowable” course of action given the political principles expressed at the Nation’s founding. At least as expressed by several of the founders.

    Obviously Hamilton and Washington, as well as Adams, were not of that cloth.

    This is the legacy which allows people to spew hate on the web towards southerners and the Confederacy. The notion that the desire to separate is treason. Of course missing the IRONY that the US was formed by TREASON against Great Britain.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Good lord, are all Yankees this weak in the brain and knees??

    Vandalism?? Really??? Maybe someone should show these people what real VANDALSIM looks like. I am picturing the sacking of Rome at the moment……… and wishing it would happen to certain other “institutions”.


    • Oh the horror! ROFLMAO! The National Memo is a joke and the people that comment there are so brainwashed it could serve as a CIA Psy-op. 🙂

    • But….it is the principle that placed the flag there…..it is a warning.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes it was, and here is another. Got to say, Mr. Baldwin is pretty impressive when making a point. One of those few who took his education seriously, maybe.


        This is where devious minds can come out to play. What happens when the KKK start posting pictures of themselves holding American Flags????

        • I think he is wrong on the use of the term heritage…the confederacy may have lost and yet it is still part of history…..you cannot rewrite or forget history….the war between the states was unfortunate….and a variety of reasons it was fought….slavery being one of those reasons….however, only 5 % of the south even owned them….so, no…..I will never acquiesce that the only reason the war was fought was for slavery….to do so ignores history.

          Hear is how I will view this…to eliminate any references to the south of history……then eliminate Selma, or Dr. King….both were history making times and both equal to their mission.

          Texas will never change…..it had six masters so to speak and it is Six Fags Over Texas. It is not Five Flags over Texas……..and if you have been to the Amusement park….you know that it is divided into six themes…..the confederacy being one of those themes…..now, we do not fly the battle flag but we fly the Texas Confederate Flag….and will continue to do so….and that is heritage. I will not hide the fact that my relatives fought with Bedford Forest and Jeb Stuart. I will not hide the fact nor am I ashamed that my relatives “owned” two slaves….I have the tax certificates. There were no chains nor dogs nor whips…..and both were given freedom Before the war….and they stayed on as share choppers. It was the way things were….and now they are changed……but it is still history and still part of Texas.

          • Trigger Warning: Six Fags? Better call on your typo-raptors for that one! 🙂

            • lol 🙂

            • Ahhhh..I can see it all now…….I probably just accidentally started a movement of some sort……it is actually pretty funny……I was sitting here reading your post going whaaaaa? Then I re read my post ……..saw the error…..now having a hard time containing myself.

              I wonder how many people actually remember the use of the term “fag” and what it meant before it was applied to gays? Hint…….back in the fifties and early sixties.

              • I was cracking up too. You even demanded that it was Six Fags not Five Flags.

                50s and 60s Fags = smokes?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Maybe the “Vandals” sacking Rome is not taught anymore.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    After doing a mental review of last weeks political activities I have to wonder.

    If you put Barack Obama and Donald Trump in Madison Square Garden, would there be any Oxygen left for anyone else in the building?

    Would they themselves finally collapse or would their perception of their self importance and greatness allow them to stand as statues, long after the air ran out? Or would they be able to manufacture more Oxygen by immaculate conception, being demi-Gods that they are.


  36. Just A Citizen says:

    The more the left screams the more guns and ammo I buy.

    The more the left screams the more “rebellious” flags I buy.

    The more the left screams the more I support the very Churches I dislike.

    The more the left screams, the less empathetic I feel towards Black people.

    The more the left screams, the more I support The Donald.

    Will they ever learn that if they just stopped screaming at me they would have less to scream about.

    Under pressure for activist “Latino” and “Hispanic” groups, NBC has severed ties with Mr. Trump. Because telling the truth about the border is obviously an INSULT to all people of Mexican decent and outright RACIST.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Jeb Bush had this to say recently about the “Flag” being racist:

    ” “If you’re trying to lean forward rather than live in the past, you want to eliminate the barriers that create disagreements,” he added. ”

    Now it is time for a POLITICAL AWARENESS Quiz for SUFA.

    What in this statement can be used to “effectively” attack Jeb’s primary run??

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Not an answer to your quiz qustion, but maybe the symbology of the stripes signifying the original 13 colonies should be blended and made “PINK”

    • Lean forward = Progress. He’s a progressive in a Republican mask.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Winner of yesterdays Quiz.

        It is the catch phrase of MSNBC and used by other Progressive groups.

  38. You must mean the statement after that,,,,,”so I did” when he eliminated the confederate flag in Florida from State grounds. Other than that he is for suppressing the free speech by eliminating the “barriers”…..his terminology……rewrite history……

    Even tho Dad and brother are here…..Texas does not support this BUsh…he is far to left for us.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Sorry Sir, but your Awareness is in error.

      I have no doubt he will be unpopular in Texas. But he may still get the nomination thanks to dilution of the freedom vote.

  39. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Saturday saw a demonstration about what I believe was “Black Lives Matter” and I mentioned it earlier. Most folks in the neighborhood when we talked later said yeah so what have you drive by the “free food shelter” lately and seen the vehicles there. Usually very expensive rides.

    Tonight there was a commotion out at the corner with a lot of whooping and hollering. Went out to the porch and saw a LGBT demonstration at the city hall with all the rainbow flags flying. There were around 12 people and the city hall was closed…after 1700. Besides the administration offices where licenses are given is over on another street by the county court house.

  40. Dale A Albrecht says:


    1) This must have cost Chobani a fortune to get this monopoly.
    2) I have been obviously mislead by the current administration, I thought they were against monopolies and all providers or producers given an equal share.
    3) What about all the lactose intolerant people from asia and africa?

    I hope this continues to drive PETA nuts for the obvious violation of animals 14th amendment rights by continuing to be held in slavery.

    • Oh please….

      • Love is love, isn’t it?

        • Please tell me you are joking. If you can’t see any difference between the two…

          • Yes, of course I see the difference silly. But I also expected to hear this, although it will go nowhere. Those who come out will be on the FBI investigation list quite fast.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Here is the thing. Thanks to SCOTUS it really does not matter what difference I see or what I think. Nor does it matter what a majority might think or act upon in the legislative process.

            All that matters is the view points of those Wizards in Black Robes.

            • JAC……I really think it is not going to matter much any longer…..SCOTUS has stepped on it too many times and I really do think that they are becoming ineffective…..they may make rulings….but I really see states not paying much attention in the future. And, you can blame this administration for this….they have actually set a precedent on their “selective” enforcement…..so, I feel that, as it stands right now……specific interests might like SCOTUS but i think that most have lost confidence. The general public is far more educated now days ….SCOTUS may become obsolete….especially if States will go forward anyway. All this one size fits all is simply not going to work.

          • It’s “just” a sexual orientation, is it not? Born that way. Can’t change it. Love is love. Buck must be a real bigot to not support the “child attracted” orientation.

            • sigh

              • gmanfortruth says:

                LMAO! Buck, this is what we get when we try to debate on Left Wing sites. As soon as we do not agree with a Lefty, we are racust, Tea Bagger bigots. It is these people and the millions like them that causes me to have disdain for the majority of the Left. you, are not inclouded in that disdain. But Kathy is doing to you as many on your team do to her.

      • At some point I fully expect polygamy to be legalized as well. I don’t think pedophilia will, for the record. Why polygamy? Muslim’s.

        • Only issue with polygamy I see is how to deal with taxes, benefits and inheritances – no real reason not to allow more than two people to consensually enter into a marital relationship.

          I figured you were joking on the pedophile issue, but sometimes you surprise me.

          • It won’t be long before the beastialty (sp?) crowd speaks up too. All fully expected after this gay marriage ruling. It will go nowhere as well, but, they will have their voices heard at some point. Not sure what other odd crowd may spout off. Maybe some eco-nut will want to marry a tree 😀

          • Maybe a gay Climate Change fanatic will want to marry a HURricane named Fred 🙂

  41. There will be a new thread in the morning folks 🙂

  42. Indiana and Texas first states to tell EPA and White House…….we will not adopt the new EPA rules…..no matter what SCOTUS says.

    • This is what it is going to take to counter act an activist SCOTUS……States taking it upon themselves to say enough is enough. No more infringement.

    • SCOTUS ruled against the EPA! All is well.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      All the court did was kick it back down to the lower court. A non decision just like the defense of marriage decisions a few years ago, by saying it was up to the States to decide..

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is SOP to kick a case back after the upper court OVERRULES the lower court. The lower court then has to REWORK the case based on what the upper court said. As well as deal with several procedural matters the SCOTUS does not deal with.

        This is not the same as no hearing a case or simply remanding without a full ruling.

        In this case the ruling was pretty clear. Economic impacts must be considered. But that does not mean that economics wins over benefit. Only that it must be seriously considered and it should be followed when the values are so far out of whack.

        For those who do not know, and Economic Analysis of the impacts of major federal decisions has been required for quite some time. So those on the left howling about this should read the flippin law.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Agreed, but it still is a non-decision that does not end. It will be back in a couple years. The EPA will put in the costs vs benefit, the companies will argue and go to court. The lower courts will find that the benefits regardless of how small outweight the costs and it will land on the wizards bench again. And mark my words because then they will rule that the EPA does have the power to do just about any damn thing they want.

  43. It didn’t take long to happen……looks like we were prepared for it..apparently, several public clerks did not want to participate and refused to issue the licenses but did hand out phone numbers and directions to clerks that would…..so there is an avenue. I doubt this is going to be a problem except for smaller towns in the boonies…..where there is only one clerk…..but I don’t think any same sex couples would be stupid enough to trek into the Bible Belt unless they have something to prove…..if they stick to the large metropolitan areas…they will be ok.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Just travel to San Francisco, Provincetown out on Cape Cod or Key West FL.

      • Been to Key West……..what a place….I will not be back and one of the things that is hurting the business’……the private planes are no longer flying there….the people are a spectacle to see….

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Never went to Key West. Just made it to Marathon to get some boat parts and then some flyfishing for bonefish off of Islemorada on the ‘glades side and diving the Pennicamp Reefs off of Key Largo….. However, I do want to in time head to the Dry Tortugas and Ft Jefferson and do some diving.

          • I was in Key West this past spring and was surprised that there wasn’t more gay PDA. Lots of guys vacationing together, but only at one end of the main drag (pun intended!) were bars with special shows, soliciting, etc. Asked about it and was told that a few years ago it was so bad that heteros were no longer coming there and businesses decided they needed to change.

  44. There is a new thread posted!

  45. blackflag says:

    Blackflag Alert

    BlackRock Inc. is seeking government clearance to set up an internal program in which mutual funds that get hit with client redemptions could temporarily borrow money from sister funds that are flush with cash. – Bloomberg News

    We may have been early on warning about leaving your savings in the financial system. It’s okay to be too early getting your money out of the system but it’s fatal to be just one second too late. The gates are already in place in money market funds just waiting for the signal to be lowered

    BlackRock’s filing with the SEC to enable “have cash” funds to lend to “heavy redemption” funds should send shivers down the spine of anyone with funds invested in any BlackRock fund. In fact, it should horrify anyone invested in any mutual fund.

    Larry Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive officer, said in December that U.S. bond funds face increased volatility, adding that he expected a “dysfunctional market” lasting days or even weeks within the next two years. – Bloomberg

    I warned last summer when the money market funds received authorization to put redemption gates in place that it was time to remove your money from these instruments. The only reason a gate would be needed is if the people running the funds believed that there were risk events coming that would necessitate the gates.

    BlackRock has already arranged credit lines from banks to cover the possibility of a redemption stampede from its riskier funds. It’s clear the elitists running BlackRock now foresee events coming that will trigger a redemption run because the fund company is seeking SEC approval for the ability to take cash from funds with cash and lend that cash to funds that will need cash when the redemption rush begins.

    Rather than let the market decide the value of the investments in BlackRock’s riskier funds, Larry Fink is going add even more leverage to the equation by enabling riskier funds to take on debt in order to avoid having to sell positions into a market that won’t be able to handle the selling. This adds yet another layer of fraudulent intervention to a system that is ready to blow up from what’s already been done to it.

    And let’s not forget, as I pointed out last summer, that BlackRock funds are already riddled with OTC derivatives, which is why Vice Chairman Barbara Novick has been running around Capitol Hill working to get a bailout mechanism in place for the Depository Trust Company’s derivatives clearing unit.

    BlackRock Changes The Rules Of The Game Because Of An Outcome It Fears

    This move will, in effect, transfer a portion of the risk of BlackRock’s riskier mutual funds – derivative-laced high yield and equity funds – to its more “conservative” funds, like high grade, short duration fixed income funds.


    Anyone who invested in less-risky funds did so with an understanding of the definition and risk parameters of the funds at the time of investment. But now BlackRock is changing the rules and risk parameters of those funds by exposing them to the counterparty risk of the riskier funds in the BlackRock fund complex which will be able to borrow money from the less risky funds.

    This means that the Treasury fund in which your IRA or 401k is invested will now be “invested” in any fund that borrows money from the fund with your money. The risk profile of your “conservative” fund assumes the risk profile of the riskier fund. Because of this, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to leave any of their money in any of BlackRock’s funds.

    The SEC should deny BlackRock’s filing. But it won’t because Wall Street is the SEC.

    This move by BlackRock also signals that the elitists at BlackRock foresee an event that will disrupt the markets and trigger “bank” run on mutual funds. What or when is anyone’s best guess. But the fact that Larry Fink has decided to implement internal lending among funds indicates that he and his band of merry criminals believe an event will happen sooner rather than later.

    To me, this is the signal that everyone should call up their mutual fund company, financial adviser or 401k administrator and get all of their the money out of any mutual fund. Larry Fink has done everyone invested in any mutual fund a favor: he’s unwittingly signaled that it’s time to get out – now. Anyone who is aware of this and does not take action immediately is either a complete idiot or simply does not care about having their money taken from them by the criminal elite.

%d bloggers like this: