A Nation Of Lawlessness

CF

The greatness of the United States of America has come to a slow but foreseen end, almost.  We have forsaken the life our own existence, we are self destructive and we are RULED by a criminal elite class of power hungry perverts who get away with breaking laws like they are non existent.  There is NO WAY Hillary Clinton should be running for the President of the United States, EVER!  For this corrupt lying socialist pig to even be a subject of discussion in the matter of the election, is proof positive of how corrupt and ridiculous the whole Federal election process is.  But that is the lawlessness of what the government’s have become.  If the government’s aren’t stealing from people via excess taxation or asset confiscation, their throwing people in jail for not putting out a cigarette after a traffic stop, choking them to death for selling loosies (not paying taxes) or simply shooting them in the head because they are leaving a simple traffic stop.  Yet those who should be the defendant in a court room are running for the highest office in the land or being protected by the current lawless President.  Do Ya’ll see the problem here?

We have a society where the corporate media spend more time on the hunting death of an old retired lion than they do on the selling of human baby parts that look far beyond a mass of cells, yet the idiot in the Whitehouse orders an investigation (where he has ZERO jurisdiction) into the killing of the old retired lion.  People, we have lost the country to the immoral and lawless elite ruling class.  They are above the law, yet if we make some little mistake, like not signaling a lane change, we can get us tossed in jail and our property stolen.  WE are no longer the land of the free, we are the land of the lawless.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Happy Saturday 🙂

  2. @JAC, The question about the different “ism’s” was rhetorical. Mainly because I see all of them all mixed up in the Progressive ideology. They stand for all of them, it just depends on the subject as to which one comes forward. Hope that clarifies a little 🙂

    • It seems that Progressivism is a combination of all the other “ism’s”. But, hey, maybe we can make changes in the next election?! 🙄

      • I’m not so sure there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans anymore. As VH mentioned, is Jeb Bush really a conservative? The professional politicians are all in the same boat, regardless of what they actually say. If the current Congress hasn’t proven that, then there is no hope for some people.

        Hope today finds you and yours happy, healthy and prepared 🙂

        • Doing good here, thanks. I’ve just been working a lot lately. Getting ready to take some time off and start in on the firewood. Hope you have been enjoying some of this nice weather.

    • Socialism and communism predate Progressivism, which was the precursor to Facsism.

      You have to know and acknowledge the difference because Socialism and Communism are far more easily defeated in the USA. Progressivism and its Fascist policial arm is much harder becasue ownership remains in private hands. And it has a nationalistic bent which fits the USA, USA, USA patriotism.

      The reason they look blended in the Progressive movement is the same reason the Tea Party looks like a biggoted fascist group itself at times. Because people in the extremes utilize the titles to be part of a bigger group. The media then willingly makes the link in their stories.

      So the socialists/communists play as part of the Democrats and call themselves Progressives. Yet many self proclaimed Progressives, like Buck, will tell you they are not socialists or communists.

      I believe it is imiportant to be very accurate in our arguments and rhetoric. To know thy enemy, if you know what I mean. Besides, what you call them or what they call themselves is not what makes their ideology evil. It is the moral principles which comprise their views that are the problem.

  3. Gman

    Corruption

    Please specify how our election system is CORRUPT.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Despite that Ray Charles could SEE this it is going to be an article in the not to distant future. A comment is not the avenue to properly put this on the table. I will say that computerized voting is but a part of it. The illusion of choice is also a part. Can you figure out some others?

  4. Uh oh…..we are pissing off Washington……again. (I love pissing off Washington). Governor Abbott has said perhaps it is time to not renew the leases to the US Government for the Immigration Services….we might as well use the buildings ourselves to enforce the border.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      That will be fun. Makes sense. If they are not using them for their intended purposes, possibly written into the lease. Terminate it. Just like any other lease or contract if any party violates the terms.

    • In reading about your Texas history lately, I have noted that Texas has a special status in the union since it entered the union not as a territory but rather as another state/nation. Can you expand on this a bit regarding the differences. One that was mentioned was the ownership of “lands” not settled at the time of statehood. Territories by their nature cede rights to all vacant land to the Federal Government. That power in Texas, supposedly remained with the state.

  5. blackflag says:

    The law of men has been twisted, so that the law protects evil, and the innocent are unprotected by the law.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Agree totally. The good are under attack. The question is…..When will enough be enough. It’s either fight back or perish.

    • So true my friend….I certainly hope you are faring as well as you can……

      Here is something to thnk about. YOu and I both understand the Fed pretty well and how it applies to money…..

      With Texas pulling its gold out of New York and storing it in our own depository…..I have been listening to the Fed that says if State’s take their gold out, it reduces the power of the Fed. I wonder how it does. None of the gold stored in the vault belongs to the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System. The New York Fed acts as the guardian and custodian of the gold on behalf of account holders, which include the U.S. government, foreign governments, other central banks, and official international organizations.

      Now, I can readily see how it affects Texas…..Texas owns $1.15 billion in gold…but that dollar figure is based upon the statutory price of gold set by law. It does not fluctuate with the market price of gold and has been constant at $42 2/9, or $42.2222, per fine troy ounce since 1973. The book value of the gold held by the Treasury is determined using the statutory price. Texas is the only state that owns an actual stockpile of gold, according to public sector and financial industry experts. Texas’ state-owned gold is held by the University of Texas Investment Management Company, the nation’s second largest academic endowment behind Harvard. It began gradually amassing gold futures in 2009 as a hedge against currency weakness in the recession. It eventually transitioned to physical bullion, and by 2011 had $1 billion.

      It is easy to figure out the price of gold on the spot market…today, the spot market is $1,084 per troy ounce. Just extrapolate the value of 1.1 billion today…..THAT is significant. So, round it off …and even my limited mathematics shows that by current spot market today,,,,that is 28 Billion….in physical assets.

      The law Abbott signed calls for the creation of an electronic payments system that will allow gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and rhodium depositors to write checks against their accounts, making the depository into a bank – one that will create a metal-backed money supply intended to challenge the paper currency issued by the Federal Reserve – or “Yankee dollars” as one of the law’s top supporters calls them. And in case the Fed or Obama wants to confiscate Texas’s gold, nice try Fed and Obama! In keeping with this suspicion of the Fed and Washington, the new law also explicitly declares that no “governmental or quasi-governmental authority other than an authority of [Texas]” will be allowed to confiscate or freeze an account inside the depository. Gold that’s entrusted to Texas will stay in Texas.

      Now, BF……I wonder how this would eventually affect the IMF?

      • blackflag says:

        ” it reduces the power of the Fed. I wonder how it does. ”

        Oh, because the Fed has engaged in gold leasing. They’ve lent out the physical gold in exchange for a note, but still regard the note at the same liquidity as the gold itself.

        Taking possession of the physical gold reduces this gold lending; actually, threatens it as the gold bank has to demand return of physical gold and redeem the note.

        This is why the Fed was so reluctant to repatriate Germany’s gold. The actual bars and stamped gold is gone, so they had to replace it with new bars “from somewhere”. Imagine Germany shipping registered bars then being told “well, gold is fungible, we’ll be giving back different bars …. when we get them…”

        • That was my guess……but the interesting part of the Texas issue is the idea proffered about storing gold for other countries and allowing drawing down of the gold in a banking operation…..actually going back to a collateral based monetary system…..pretty cool.

  6. “SOCIALISM ALWAYS STARTS WITH THE SAME PROMISES AND END WITH THE SAME DISASTERS,” Glenn tweeted earlier today, linking to a Bloomberg report that “Venezuelan soldiers seized a food distribution center rented by companies including Nestle SA, PepsiCo. Inc and Empresas Polar SA in Caracas as the government looks to boost support ahead of elections.”

    Nestlé, eh? That business name rings a bell; it’s what launched Jonah Goldberg to write Liberal Fascism, which focused several chapters on a century’s worth of corporatism, the intertwining of government and corporations, much beloved by the namesake publisher of Bloomberg (and in an even more radical form by Bernie Sanders), which the post-Weimer government of Germany dubbed the Gleichschaltung. As Jonah told Kathryn Jean Lopez in 2009, at the apogee of the left’s Hopenchange Obamamania:

    You know, when I first started pondering the book, I thought it might be all about economics. About ten years ago I went on a junket to Switzerland and attended a talk with the CEO of Nestlé. Listening to him, it became very clear to me that he had little to no interest in free markets or capitalism properly understood. He saw his corporation as a “partner” with governments, NGOs, the U.N., and other massive multinationals. The profit motive was good for efficiency and rewarding talent, but beyond that, he wanted order and predictability and as much planning as he could get. I think that mindset informs the entire class of transnational progressives, the shock troops of what H. G. Wells hoped would lead to his liberal-fascist “world brain.”

    If you look at how most liberals think about economics, they want big corporations and big government working in tandem with labor, universities (think industrial policy), and progressive organizations to come up with “inclusive” policies set at the national or international level. That’s not necessarily socialism — it’s corporatism. When you listen to how Obama is making economic policy with “everyone at the table,” he’s describing corporatism, the economic philosophy of fascism. Government is the senior partner, but all of the other institutions are on board — so long as they agree with the government’s agenda. The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along. When you listen to Obama demonize Chrysler’s bondholders simply because they want their contracts enforced and the rule of law sustained, you get a sense of what I’m talking about.

    I don’t think Obama wants a brutal tyranny any more than Hillary Clinton does (which is to say I don’t think he wants anything of the sort). But I do think they honestly believe that progress is best served if everyone falls in line with a national agenda, a unifying purpose, a “village” mentality expanded to include all of society. That sentiment drips from almost every liberal exhortation about everything from global warming to national service. But to point it out earns you the label of crank. As I said a minute ago about that “We’re All Fascists Now” chapter, I think people fail to understand that tyrannies — including soft, Huxleyan tyrannies — aren’t born from criminal conspiracies by evil men; they’re born by progressive groupthink.

    And they all end the same way, as Glenn noted today. In the meantime though, if anybody can up the chocolate ration, I’m sure the post-Chavez government, having seized one of Nestlé’s assets, can.
    16
    Posted at 1:08 pm by Ed Driscoll

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

  7. blackflag says:

    I bought a plane (mostly for the daughter…. ok, that’s a lie 😉 )
    http://iconaircraft.com/news/the-icon-experience/

    They confirmed the order yesterday. (Yipee!)

    Daughter and I will probably go down to California in the next few months to check it out, and get our amphibious rating. My (ooops, “our”) plane is scheduled to be delivered in 2017, but it looks like I can buy my way to an earlier date. (xcross fingers).

    Who wants a ride? 🙂

    • A new toy-those are always fun-this one looks exceptionally fun. Not that I’m nervous or anything but how much experience do you have flying 😉

      • blackflag says:

        Been flying since I was 16, V.H. So…. nearly 40 years?

        • Curious…..instrumentation? I would assume all glass panel?

          • Never mind…..just looked it up….it looks like a load of fun….and stick control….cool beans.

            • blackflag says:

              You getting one, Colonel? 🙂

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                What’s the height of the wing above the water? With no floats we might have some nice docking here. Where is the dingy, or is it inflatable? Nice plane!!!! The Colonel would have to be able to land in a water tank or postage stamp sized scrapes that are seasonal.

                We have a local that puts on free acrobatic shows on the waterfront. Practices here then goes elsewhere for airshows. The guy have a pair. One wind bump and he’s in the water. When he does smoke, we joke and say he ought to spread mosquito stuff instead of colored smoke. But we’ve learned to bring our own.

              • blackflag says:

                Wings are about 4.5 feet above water
                It has water foil on the fuselage, actually its really hard to dip the wings, but if you do it has planing wing tips that cause the wing to ride up on the water and prevent it from dipping down.
                No dingy necessary! The thing screams in the water like a jet ski, so if not in the mood to fly, its a speed boat!
                And yes, it can be launched at a boat launch – watch the video. And it comes with a trailer to haul it around and park it in your garage.

              • Naaah…..I am a little spoiled, I am afraid…..I like the A/C in the summertime….and I lke the speed…..but…you have a sports car. Really neat looking aircraft.

          • blackflag says:

            Oh, it has all the necessary instruments for full IFR flying, nicely laid out like in a car, not all hodgepodge…. but wait! It has the coolest instrument of the all – found on every fighter jet today (and some high end aircraft)…

            Angle of Attack (AoA)

            They took design to a new level, and a new thinking. To reduce the clutter (and cost), the instruments are only on the pilot’s side, keeping the passenger/co-pilot side simple.

            Angle of Attack video
            http://iconaircraft.com/news/a5-angle-of-attack-system/

            And its spin resistant
            http://iconaircraft.com/news/a5-spin-resistance-safety-milestone-demonstration/

            In a full stall, it falls SLOWER than a man in a parachute (1000ft/min vs 1200ft/min)

          • blackflag says:

            Oh come on, Col. It’s a ride!

            Keep the other one for the business, and this one for the weekends! I think it has airco too… there is one video where they explained the cockpit and the heat issue with all the glass, and they solved that one…. and it has cab heat for when you fly to Canada LoL!

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          A boy and his toys!!!! Have a lovely landing area 1/2 block away.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That is cool# Congrats ! I bet your daughter is exited. 🙂

      • blackflag says:

        It’s not a commuter aircraft. It is slow, small range (450nmiles), meant to fly well below 10,000 feet, has only two seats, and “just ok” baggage weight.

        It is meant to be like a “sports car” of the air. Just fun and you can fly it with the side windows open ….. lots of glass for seeing the scenery, experience the wind and the water spray, (it has a bilge pump), very high maneuverability, and safety so the passenger doesn’t freak out.

        It was this or the Equus

        …it was an easy decision 🙂

        • blackflag says:

          It was really an easy decision…. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            That is quite a cool toy. you have something fun to look forward too, awesome! 😀

            • blackflag says:

              Yeah, imagine the cool fishing trips with this thing in the land of 100,000 lakes!

          • Looks like great fun…the instruments in the middle…the glass panel…a variation of the G1000?

            • blackflag says:

              Not sure, but I am sure that it’s replaceable with whatever Aviation GPS can fit in the console.

              Yeah, the AoA makes so much sense. I think these guys setting the standard that this should be a standard instrument will change private aviation for the future.

              • No need to replace it….the AoA is becoming standard equipment. With the G 1000 gaining its popularity and the reduced stall accidents ( they have reduced over the last 5 years to less than one (1) percent.)…it is built it…and what a marvelous application….the AoA is linked to the Nav track which is tied to the normal approach patterns that are now in the G1000….you can fly it from take off to landing when linked to the data computer.

                The only drawback that I see, and I am convinced it is a problem with modern day pilots…..

                Just like soldiers in the field with GPS…they have forgotten how to read a simple topo map with a magnetic compass. Well, it is the same with the technology today….the new pilots that are emerging on the scene, spend all their time in the simulator and not enough time in actual flight……they are losing the skills of flying by hand….they do not need to literally feel the negative G forces…when the turbulence actually hits the aircraft……but the AoA, combined with the Vertical Air Speed indicator and approach flaps….you can increase your angles of attacks on the lifting portions of the wings,..the big old red V will keep you honest.

    • That is pretty awesome! Have fun. 🙂

    • Me. Me. Pick me! I like flying, you can drive. But I want to run that thing around like a jet ski. Michigan, great lake state! I’ll meet you at my place, Goose Lake, Leoni Twp Mi…say 2pm today. Look for the green flag with a big white S. 🙂

  8. Dale A Albrecht says:

    TX AG indicted on felony security exchange charges

    “The most serious allegations are that he encouraged investment in a tech startup that’s now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

    The charges stem from activity before Paxton took office in January.

    UMMM…what about ex-gov Corzine where he mis-used billions of clients money illegally and his buddy J Holder found no grounds for charges.

  9. AS I went through much of the daily news article, I figured I would have a few to throw up for discussion. I did, but then realized that all of you don’t need what i would have posted, because it just supports the original article.

    What is really sad….nobody has posted anything to refute the article.

    • blackflag says:

      True.
      The law has been perverted, away from mitigation of violence, into an imposition of violence.

      As long as people see the law as a means to correct non-violent acts of men, it will continue along this path.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        With the alleged “3500-4000” federal statutes that carry criminal penalties, by the DOJ count. One has to look at the sub-regulations and amendments to those statutes to get the real count that can have “criminal” charges with fine and imprisonment….the estimated count rises to 300,000…..just federal, forget state and local

        I agree with BF. Most are just trying to “adjust” non violent human nature ie “living” into what lawmakers are deeming the correct way to live.

        Isn’t something like 50% of our prison population made up of people who commited NO crime against anyone causing no harm to anyone except potentially themselves?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          For me…9/10 of the commandments passed down to Moses work for me. Live by those and you pretty much can get along with anyone and live a peaceful life in society.

          • blackflag says:

            LOL
            Ok, Dale which one it the 1/10??? Inquiring minds have to know…. 🙂

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              It may vary..selective enforcement. Seriously its about only one god. There’s more to the universe than to limit ones mind. But it is more economical when supporting all the various dieties of old…..but then… they’ve been replaced by the State and that has real power to commit violence upon your person..

    • blackflag says:

      Here GMan, I will give the controversy you are seeking in this post. It shouldn’t be controversial, as it is entirely based on sociological theory, however, because of its conclusion, it will be controversial.

      Some basic premises;

      1) Social order exists to serve the needs of women, not men.
      Social order reduces violence in a violent world. Men have no NEED to reduce violence – they are by their biology well-suited to survive just fine in a very violent world.
      Women, by their biology, are extremely vulnerable in a violent world
      Women REQUIRE social order to prosper; men do NOT need social order (but like it) to prosper.

      2) Law establishes social order. The existence of law was created by women for women to maintain social order.

      3) Women need the power and strength of men to enforce law, and maintain social order; redirecting the natural violence of men into a natural action of defense and protection.

      Women ALWAYS manifest the laws that society lives under. Always.

      It appears indirect as it appears men are doing the action of creating laws as most men are politicians, lawyers, etc. But the actual demand for any law comes from the direct or indirect demand of women in an effort to improve or maintain the social order they live within.

      In the 19th/20th century, women fell under an evil spell of feminism, and the belief that women were merely oppressed men, and began instituting a set of laws to change the natural manifestations of biology differences between men and women, and use the law to hobble men in favor of women.

      The current perversion of modern law, over the last century or so, is entirely the fault of women and their gross confusion about themselves.

      And equally, correction of this issue is fully upon the shoulders of women, too. They are the only ones who can undo it, and if they fail, social order will collapse and they will be the biggest loses in history

      • Yes, that achieves some certain controversy for most. But don’t fear my pirate friend, I have blaming women for the ills of the world all my adult life 🙂 That should get some blood pressure up. Which brings me to this :

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        What’s that old saying “Can’t live with them and you can’t live without them” I can trace my general discontent to the attempts to “conform” to society’s demand and settle down and stay put. That pull to create and sustain that “nest” is just like gravity. It’s hard to resist.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Just thinking through the day…I noted that there had never been any compromise from the other sex. Most disagreements surrounded spending assets such as time, labor and money. If they were focused towards her great. Any thought of any realignment towards me even though an equal portion if not all came from me. But at all times they claimed to be independent. Hah.

          • blackflag says:

            Dale,
            It is necessary to understand the window from which they view the world.

            The external world is a massively huge threat to them. They do not have the physical strength to resist, they do not have the power to fight it. Men do.

            Imagine being a woman in every day life with this analogy.

            You are in a jail, the smallest and most attractive inmate. Every day other inmates pass by your cell, look at you, and you can see in their eyes what they want to do to you. Now, most often, nothing happens – but the THREAT is constant. You have no where to run if it happens.

            This is what women face EVERY DAY in the world. Such a circumstance would begin to drive a man catatonic. Women overcome that fear EVERY DAY.

            You bet they are focused on surviving, just like men. But that cannot achieve survival with the same tactics as men. They have developed different, and very successful, tactics for themselves.

            So when a man pulls his resources away from her and towards him, she cannot stop him and it scares the living breath out of her. Her fears of abandonment and helplessness, countless generations of humanity impressed upon her instincts, genes and mind, invokes a terrifying threat.

            So be humble, and understanding when this happens. You are not wrong in your own wants and needs, but so much more, to make comfort and safety for her will settle her and remove her fears that exist to the very roots of her being.

            • That you would take one of the features of manhood that an actual woman is attracted too, the ability and desire to protect his family though his God given strength and turn it into a supposed weakness of women-Saddens me

              • blackflag says:

                Don’t be sad or mad.

                Women are utterly conflicted and confused about the world as men are.
                Most women cannot reconcile their wants and their desires.
                Further, women naturally interconnect with others, its in their nature. Being weak, their tactic of “strength in numbers” is very successful. It is easier to feed 5 in cooperation then 1 alone.

                Men are the same. They are conflicted as well.
                But their tactic in nature is different. Their strength and ability leads to individualism, for a man, it is easier to feed 1 (himself) then two or more.

                Nature has pitted these two strategies against each other in the same species, and since both need the other, men and women have developed mutual strategies between them. With all these simultaneous strategies, some in conflict and some in cooperation, confusion is inevitable. It takes a lot of work to separate “this from that” in human affairs.

                Add to all of this, conscience choice. If we merely meandered by instinct, must of these conflicts would resolve, with the man winning almost all the time. But humans would not dominate the world. We would be small in numbers.

                But because we are also thinking animals, different decisions come to play based on our conscience choices of seeking better and more for ourselves. Thus, we became complex, both as a thinking and instinctual animal.

                It is of little surprise that inter-human affairs are equally complex.

              • blackflag says:

                Women are NOT weak, V.H. They may be physically weaker then men, but they are mentally stronger then men.

                Look, when your close friend suffers a tragedy, you feel it within yourself as if you suffered that tragedy. The mental emotional link between yourself and others is massive.

                When a close friend of mine suffers a tragedy, I feel hurt to, just like you. But I don’t feel it the same way. Whereas you get close to your friend and share the experience, men go into “trouble shooting mode” and work to solve the problem of the tragedy.

                We both are emotional, but our tactics are different.

                But back to women. Women feel everything, and the emotional trauma they endure is huge. Yet, they are capable of pulling themselves out of the trauma and continue to survive. Men have no such power. Suffering this constant emotional attack would be crushing.

                You can see that in relationships.
                Women fall in love carefully and fall out of love instantly. Men fall into love instantly and takes a very long time to overcome a loss of love. We simply have very limited emotional protection, whereas women are emotionally powerful.

                So its a tradeoff. Women, weak in body, strong in emotional control.
                Men strong in body, weak in emotional control.
                Nature’s balance of power.

                So men give the women his physical strength and she gives him her emotional strength.

                When a man abuses a women with his physical strength, it is a sin, for it is the strong upon the weak.

                When a woman abuses a man with her emotional strength, it is a sin, for it is the strong upon the weak.

              • I agree with your final analysis-marriage is a partnership-I am dependent on my husband he is dependent on me-we are co-dependent-this is what makes a marriage a good marriage-it was the reason we married.

                But we are still individual’s and independent in relation to the rest of the world. Although I respect and want his strength I do not feel helpless without it-nor do I walk around feeling defenseless against the greater physical strength of men. And that is what your first comments seemed to imply. I am weaker without him but not weak,

              • blackflag says:

                It is not that you are incapable, it is that you ARE weaker.

                If society did not exist around you, women are done for.
                In a violent world, they suffer disproportionally.

                When an occupying army arrives, it isn’t 3 million men getting raped…..

              • blackflag says:

                And you example the precise confusion of women, who completely misunderstand who they are.

                They want all the power that men have, and pretend they have it. They meander around the world as it is in their hands. But is it an illusion.

                So they treat men as if they are men. They manifest relationships under this illusion, and then they wonder why they are mistreated, ignored, beaten, abandoned. They do not treat men like men, but pretend they are equals. And you are not.

                So men say “Fine, you can do it yourself? Away you go….”

                In 1960, 90% of the men over 30 were married.
                Today, its 55%.

                Less than half (46%) of U.S. kids younger than 18 years of age are living in a home with two married parents in their first marriage. This is a marked change from 1960, when 73% of children fit this description, and 1980, when 61% did.

                Men are abandoning women.

                MEN DO NOT NEED WOMEN
                MEN DO NOT NEED SOCIAL ORDER
                MEN DO NOT NEED CIVILIZATION

                To the women who think otherwise, good luck!

              • blackflag says:

                *Mistype.
                The treat men as if they are NOT men

              • You claim the relationship between men and women is complicated then you throw out some adamant declarations and try to make it simple. It isn’t simple-man isn’t alone in this world-there wants and needs are affected by the wants and needs of the other 50 % of the population, by the type of society they live in, by the existance of children. If you want to argue that deep down men are selfish animals-suit yourself-I see more in them than that.

                I see a desire to be loved not just satisfied. A desire to raise and love their children. To protect and provide for their families. You seem to think these things are totally dependent on some type of manipulation by women.

                But you are right about one major thing-if women continue to tell men they are not needed and are selfish animals-men will say okay and make do without the commitment needed to form real families and relationships.

              • blackflag says:

                “You claim the relationship between men and women is complicated then you throw out some adamant declarations and try to make it simple.”

                Correct.
                The situation is simple.
                The resolution is complicated.

                Nope. Sorry, biology doesn’t work that way. Men are no more selfish then women, again, your distorted world view on this issue. It is funny to hear a women claim a man is selfish in exercising his own desires, but women are not selfist in exercising hers … just as Dale pointed out.

                Men’s biological imperative is “lots of eggs in lots of basks, and lots of time”, a man can impregnate 1,000 women until the day he dies with each having 10 kids. He gets 10,000 kids or more – and in history there have been men who had this many. He can lose 99% of them and win the battle of the genes without a sweat.

                Women’s biological imperative is “one basket, that expires’. Women have a fixed number and a fixed time. After that, there ain’t no more. At most, she can have a max of 20 kids in a life time. 20 vs 10,000, it ain’t even close. And if she loses 99% of them, her genetic pool is obliterated. The odds are she can’t even produce 20, so the odds are even worse.

                It is wholly against the biological imperative of men to be with one woman and care for her limited basket of children.

                So understand this, women absolutely REQUIRE socialization for their biological imperative to be a success and MEN DO NOT.

                Women forget this, while they undermine the very social order that is required for their success.

                It has been utterly amazing that women, over the course of 25,000 years, were able to manipulate and socialize men to act completely against their biological imperative.
                …and women thing they are powerless in society! Hohohoho!

                Beyond question, they are the most powerful biological force on earth.

                There is no species on earth, the billions of different species that exist or have disappeared, that has been able to overrule a biological imperative, but one exception. EXACTLY ONE EXCEPTION. Women did so upon their men

                But women do not understand how tenuous that is.

                The biological imperative did not go away, and if women squander 25,000 years of their effort by confusing themselves and men about their roles, it will be a disaster for humanity, and for women, but not so much for men.

                So you can pretend men are selfish if they exercise their own desires, and you are pure if you exercise yours. But men are not fooled, and they will easily undo the countless generations of women’s efforts in a snap of their fingers.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                My parents were married 65 years before they passed away. They always used to say that the successful relationship was being like a tripod. Each had their own individual success that they were not competing at. They then had the 3rd piece of them together. My Father traveled with work contantly until retirement in the 80’s. A few years ago before he passed my Mom was getting on me for my “lack” ambition and level at my work. Only staff to a VP’s and designed and implemented the global QC methodology for the Telecom company. Plus a fringe benefit of a much better than average salary and bonuses based on division performance. That said, I had decided a long time ago that I did NOT want to directly manage people anymore. Anyway, I asked her how she like Dad’s career and him working ungodly hours anywhere in the world. She turned to him and said she hated every minute of it. You talk about hitting your partner with an axe handle right between the eyes. Heck they certainly didn’t stay together for the kids…we were out by the time they were in their early 40’s

              • Wow, so woman shouldn’t just respect men for the good they bring to the world they should acknowledge their superiority -and if we go back to a totally uncivilized society woman better watch out. Is that your point?

              • blackflag says:

                “Wow, so woman shouldn’t just respect men for the good they bring to the world they should acknowledge their superiority -and if we go back to a totally uncivilized society woman better watch out. Is that your point?”

                No, they better respect men for what they do for women and respect the power of their violence. If women forget this, the very power of that violence that has been turned to protect women and children will turn against women and children, and yes, women will be the root cause of society becoming uncivilized, not men.

                And yes, women have manipulated men to undermine their biological imperative. Thus the exercise of women’s superior emotional strength.

                They convinced men they would be better served focusing on one instead of 1,000; having 5 or less instead of 10,000. How the heck did they do that? It certainly wasn’t at the point of a sword….

              • So let me see if I’ve got it right-using logic and reason on men is manipulative. I do happen to agree that some woman with the help of some men are already attempting to destroy the family which would go a long way to destroying civilization.

                As far as man’s strength being a good thing for the protection of woman and children-I freely acknowledge it-I also acknowledge that it can be a bad thing.

                What I question is exactly how you think woman should acknowledge this fact because your threats of men uprising sounds a whole lot like-I should watch what I say to my man because he’s bigger than me and he might knock me across the room -well guess what he might and I might shoot his brains out.

                What I find curious about this whole conversation is that I have agreed with most of what you have said-I’ve argued the importance of respecting both men and women and what they bring to society-the importance of forming loving partnerships in order to have strong family bonds but somehow that is not enough to satisfy you. So the importance of mutual respect doesn’t seem to be your aim. Women showing respect to men out of fear seems to be your message.

              • blackflag says:

                “So let me see if I’ve got it right-using logic and reason on men is manipulative”.

                Explain the logic.

                “I might shoot his brains out.”
                Maybe, but not likely.
                He can do whatever you can do, and he can do more than what you can do.

                ” Women showing respect to men out of fear seems to be your message.”

                No. You specifically insulted Dale in expressing his desires as selfish, while the expression of your desires you elevated to “holy”. That’s exactly the problem

                The easy dismissal of men’s desires and the absoluteness of women’s.

              • I did what to Dale-I haven’t responded to Dales comments-so just where and how did I— “You specifically insulted Dale in expressing his desires as selfish, while the expression of your desires you elevated to “holy”. That’s exactly the problem”

              • blackflag says:

                You’re right. It was you insulted.

              • Where and how BF-what did I say that insulted Dale-hell what did I say that insulted men or made my views Holy? Nice use of sarcasm as a deflection but deflection none the less. 🙂

              • blackflag says:

                I meant, no you insulted me.

                And don’t try to pretend deflection, you know you are far off base here.

              • Sorry you feel insulted-not sure why-and you aren’t normally touchy-but no I don’t believe I’m way off here. I happen to believe men and women are more than their impulses-that’s why we have a mind-to differentiate us from the animals.

              • blackflag says:

                Men are, women aren’t.
                Women haven’t changed their impulses over 25,000 years.
                Men have.

              • Well see there-I agree that men are but I also believe that woman are-I also believe that woman had the right to rise up and protest-but I also think the feminist movement and the progressive party that support them have gone off the rails.

                I’m going to bed now -so feel free to have the last word 🙂 Goodnight

              • blackflag says:

                Certainly women have the “right” to apply their strategies for biological success, just as men have the same right

                The problem is when women believe men do not have the same right.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Very wonderfully said. A post worth keeping as a reminder where our true humanity is.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Basically I’ve stopped playing the game. One other hitch. So many women STILL have kids at home due to having them later, and papa hit the road. No way anymore. Also if you go younger, they want kids. No patience anymore.

              • blackflag says:

                So true, Dale.
                By the time a woman figures out what she desires, she is too old and burdened to attract the guy who can give it to her, and the young ones are still confused about their desires, and really aren’t interested in men who know what they are; they want to play and have fun.

                The young utterly do not know there is a time limit and the older are expired. What a mess they are in….

                But there is always an exception, Dale. Keep looking, you’ll find her.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Oh but I had….long ago….all it will take is the right circumstance once again and all will be well.

              • Fascinating topic folks. I think back to the mischief predicted in the spring of 1963 by my Religion teacher, Br. Cronan. Brilliant, down to earth guy. Know what he was talking about, the PILL!

                No more reason to act morally. Just rut all the time no consequences. Maybe not the majority in the ’60’s nor the ’70’s nor the 80’s, 90’s but sure as hell for the least twenty years. Then of course for those who wanted to still have the fun but not the bother of remembering to take that little pill, we had abortion in ’73 and as predicted, abortion has given us Dr. Mengle.

                Consider it “falling dominoes” or as I prefer, the “begats”. First one thing then it bagats and begats again and so on and so forth just keeps giving. Transgender rights are the latest iteration. . It has been one straight line for the last fifty years right to where we are now. I think men and women are equally at fault. When my boss was busy sleeping around after his divorce, he latched onto a woman about his age who also had three kids. Ostensibly religious, I asked him if marriage was in the cards. “Why buy the cow when the milk was free” was his answer. ‘Nuff said!

              • blackflag says:

                No, I can’t agree with “equally at fault”. That doesn’t make sense.

                Men are merely exercising their biological imperative that has been suppressed. It isn’t a “fault” to do so.

                The failure is 100% on the women, who created this social order in the first place, and are knocking it down now. Men did not create this social order, women did. Men are not knocking it down – they could have done that long ago over the last 25,000 years.

                Nope. It’s on the backs of women. Men are merely being themselves.

              • Oy vey

              • Very interesting conversation. It’s fun to sit back, read and think.

              • I’m thinking there should be a book titled ‘BF’s thoughts on humanity’. Would be an interesting book. 🙂

              • Interesting comment Flag. Especially in light of the demise of the beloved “Cecil” in Africa. cat behavior is fun to watch and certainly seconds your biological imperative.

                After the king dies or is defeated, and this is true of all cats, including so called domesticated ones, the new king wipes out all the progeny of the old king and gets busy knocking up all the females.

              • blackflag says:

                Indeed.
                Or consider 4 legged mammals in the wild.
                The male comes along, knocks up the females, and meanders back into the woods, leaving the female the sole task of caring and protecting her young. The buck doesn’t give a hoot about any one of these females, he has dozens scattered throughout his territory. He only needs one set to survive.

                The female however has only THIS SET, and survival is tenuous.

                The human animal at the level of biological imperative is no different. Yet, we are different.

                It has been a monumental effort of women, using their super-power of emotional contro. on men, to convince men to overrule his imperative, and concentrate on a single woman and their offspring.

                And it didn’t happen overnight.

                Go back 5,000 years. Take the myth of Solomon; 700 wives and 300 concubines.
                Go back 3,000 years. A man would have 10 wives and a few concubines.
                Go back 1,000 years (and in Muslim world today), 4 wives, no concubines.
                Go back 500 years. 1 wife and 3 mistresses
                Go back 100 years. 1 wife, no mistresses.

                Now, the women have abused their power, with the expanding result:

                No wife, dozens of mistresses.

              • blackflag says:

                …and women did all of this by instituting law.

                First, they manipulated the law to end the chattel of women; women got rights.
                Thus, wives had legal power.
                Then, they continued to apply this legal power.

                It is one thing to have rights as a women, the rights of a wife, but men had “favorite wives” and applied more resources to favorites then others. If you weren’t in Solomon’s top 10, life was hard for the other 990 women and their children.

                So, the next law was all wives must be treated the same. Well, even Solomon’s wealth couldn’t support 700 like that… imagine giving his favorite a $1,000 trinket of his affection to his favorite; it would cost him $700,000, required to give the same to each of his wives.

                So, suddenly the size, economically, was forced to shrink drastically (4, as in Muslim world).

                Then the applied more law, laws of inheritance. It could only go to one wife.

                So instead of 4 wives, it became 1 wife and 3 mistresses, with the mistresses completely cut out of inheritance.

                This was a plateau. Women, who were wives, had no need to manifest more legal power to enforce their position; they got it all. (Too bad about the mistresses).

                But having mistresses was still only available to the wealthy man. The poor, under the same law, were stuck with just 1 wife. But the poor were the vast majority.

                Over the generations, there was two set of “rules”; the rich had mistresses that they could afford, but the poor had just a wife, which they were barely able to afford. This 1 wife/1 man was ingrained in the socialization of the majority poor, and became “the standard”, though not applied to the rich.

                So when the Industrial Revolution happened, and the poor started getting wealthy (rise of the middle class), the men had the resources to expand their women holdings to include mistresses. But the middle class wife saw this as a threat, and enforced the 1 wife/1 man rule into law; laws against “adultery”, etc. (often under pain of death).

                As the middle class came up, so did their political power, and overruled even the rich man’s polygamy under this same law. The universal standard now, for everyone, was 1man/1woman.

                An incredible feat of emotional power; women moved themselves out of mere chattel, to completely over rule men’s biological imperative to modern times where now the man becomes singly focused on her and her children and no other.

                But along the way, evil caught up with them, and now, ignorantly, women are undoing all the work and suffering they endured for thousands of years, and it is happening “over night”.

                The modern middle class man is actually very rich.
                Modern women is undermining the social order.
                The rich man is being released from this 1man/1woman organization, and sees no determent to himself and increasingly sees a serious determent to the 1man/1woman arrangement.

                With no surprise, he is happy to abrogate the previous arrangement.

              • A certain biological problem exists. We actually are seeing the effects in China and India. If the birth rate is 51% male vs 49% female, that laves a great number of men without female partners (permanent). In India and China, there is abortion for sex selection. Males are more valuable since they traditionally look after the aged parents.

                The same problems have crept up in fundamentalist Mormon communities. Younger, less wealthy males have less or no access to females since they have been taken by the wealthier and older males.

                Assuming that in the next 20 years or so, the Supremes will hold that monogamy violates equal protection rights under the ever widening, ever expanding 14th Amendment, the problem will surface here and probably in the rest of the west.

                Unattached young males with no hope of ever exercising the biological proclivity (even with a single female) are bound to turn their attentions to other endeavors. Now unless we can encourage homosexuality (for males only) by leaps and bounds trouble will be afoot!

              • blackflag says:

                It is true that in the current paradigm that excess males over females, in the paradigm of 1-to-1 is a problem.

                But it is not a problem for men. What will actually happen, as it is in the West, the paradigm will break down, not men.

                There will be abundant women who will entertain many men; the men will be happy and these women will be pregnant and alone. Gee, just like what is happening in the West.

              • HMM… Thinking about the “old West” or “Botany Bay” or Luna as described in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.

              • blackflag says:

                Indeed.

                It is only a paradigm of modern society to have 1man/1woman. There is no necessity for men to remain in this paradigm.

                This is the fundamental observation.

                This paradigm is a huge benefit for women, and not for men.

                However, it is not a win/lose for men (otherwise absolutely it would not have happened).

                They traded the proliferation of their genes, but in ignorance (who is my kid?) with minimal proliferation and knowledge (this is my kid). It also benefited poor men; they could apply the law that women created to protect themselves and their children and apply that law against superior men to prevent these superior men from pillaging their wives. For men, it was a satisfactory tradeoff, all other things being equal.

                But today, most men are not poor.

                Almost any man can provide enormous resources; the functional difference between a middle class man and Bill Gates is very small. Each man is more then capable of providing all the necessary resources for his family, the differences are only measured in the quality, and those differences are actually very small and superficial. The quality of food a middle class man provides his family is exactly the same quality Bill Gates provides to his.

                But today, all things are NOT equal.

                Women have superseded men’s rights. 100% of the man’s present and future resources are under threat from a recalcitrant women. She has no economic break water in her demand. She can marry, produce children and divorce, and continue to receive the husband/father resources indefinitely.

                She gets all she wants without having to deal with the man and his wants and desires. It is a wonderful arrangement for women

                But it is a devastating arrangement for men.

                So men refuse the deal.

                But the deal men refuse is not the allocation of resources after divorce. Men cannot refuse that deal, because of law.

                So they exercise their right to say “No thanks” to marriage and avoid the entire issue completely. They refuse to participate in the root institution required for social order – the family.

                This is a wonderful arrangement for men; massive resources to attract large numbers of females without any concern for the consequences upon the females and their children; welcome back the days of Solomon, except now there are millions of Solomon’s, not just a handful.

                This is a horrific deal for women; they are drifting back to becoming mere chattel once again.

                And in the worse irony, it is the women who are doing this to themselves

              • Flag, your post above this is so true. I was divorced in 1995, paid out my ass for 16 years. I doubt I will be dumb enough to make the same mistake called marriage ever again. It just isn’t worth the gamble, which is all it is, a gamble. The problem is, the gamble is a bad one and the odds are against men, both statistically and legally. A single man has to be utterly stupid to get married these days. The deck is so stacked against them.

              • blackflag says:

                Indeed, Gman.

                I know of friends who are terrified of their wives.

                Any time they express a desire or want for themselves, their wife pulls out the trump card … Divorce … and he is beaten back into submission.

                The threat of economic devastation is so huge upon him, he would rather continue to live in deep suffering, unfulfilled, in pain, and emotionally beaten to a pulp, then risk the economic destruction.

                And she? She is smug in her power, completely oblivious to what she has wrought upon him. Just as Dale said…. axe handle between the eyes…. every day.

                Now our generation of men are lost. They have no way out, so they “take the blow between the eyes” every day.

                But their sons…., they are not so trapped. They see what is happening to their fathers. And they are, in massive numbers, saying That will not be me!

                I give women less then 50 years to utterly reverse this, or they are doomed for thousands of years. With the vast wealth in command of the average man, he will have no reason to return to the paradigm of family. He gets it all. He can massively overwhelm the subtle superpower of the woman’s emotional strength by bypassing it, whereas women cannot bypass the physical and violent superpower of men.

                If you are woman reading this, and know a bit about Star Trek lore, think about the social construct of the “Ferengi”

                Ferengi culture is so devoted to unregulated capitalism that concepts such as labor unions, sick leave, vacations, or paid overtime for workers are considered abhorrent, because they would interfere with the exploitation of workers. Ferengi workers don’t particularly mind this system, because they all want to eventually gather enough wealth to become employers themselves, exploiting their own workers. In addition to the Rules, the Ferengi also recognize the five Stages of Acquisition: infatuation, justification, appropriation, obsession, and resale. The five Stages of Acquisition may be based on the five stages of grief.

                The point here was that by Capitalism, the common man is able to acquire vast resources for himself, and utilize those resources as he deemed fit without considering anyone beyond himself, just like today’s modern man.

                …. the laws and society of the Ferengi were extremely harsh towards its women.

                Selling one’s mother for gold-pressed latinum, the principal form of legal tender, is an act that would be looked on with admiration in Ferengi society. Moreover, female Ferengi were forbidden to learn to read, acquire profit, talk to strangers, or even wear clothes. They could only leave the house with the permission of the eldest male of the family. Ferengi women traditionally softened food for members of their family by chewing it

                If you, the women, wish this as your lot in life in the future, you better wake up right now

              • blackflag says:

                *NOT want this life….
                Darn missing negations….. gotta stop writing comments using negations that I keep forgetting to include….. 😉

      • …told ya it would be controversial! 🙂 …. but correct nonetheless….

  10. I do not agree with the first sentence of this article, or to be more specific, I do not agree with the last word of the first sentence…”almost”. There is no ‘almost’. The greatness of the USA has come to an end. Period. When did it end? I do not know. Maybe future historians can pinpoint when it came to an end. From what I’ve gathered from the World Wide Web is that the slow demise was started long before my birth in the sixties and has continued to the present day.

    We have a country full of people with no moral compass. They enjoy watching while people are violently beat down and even murdered. Our society is more concerned about the treatment of animals rather than the treatment of other human beings. We kill our unborn children. We have men that become women so they can date other men that also became women. We pay asshats millions of dollars to throw a ball, but only pennies to those who are responsible for teaching our children. And don’t try to teach our children at home, you will be raided, children taken from you, and you will be in a mess of ‘legal’ trouble that will bankrupt you and screw up your life for years. Hope you don’t have any cash on you either. You can’t PROVE where it came from? Well, it now belongs to the police because it COULD be drug money. Do not pray in school or even say the G word, that could draw a hefty fine. But it’s ok to teach from the koran. After all we wouldn’t want to offend the muslims. Our muslim in chief tells the Marines to close their blinds and not to wear their uniform in public because it could provoke an attack. Some poor guy has a gun and is suicidal, so the police shoot him dead to prevent him from killing himself? We have a country with no borders. What is a country with no borders? Is it even a country? I could go on and on…..I think y’all get the point.

    No, there is no almost. The great country we once had is lost. It has ended.

    • Good points. Let me explain how “almost” got added, three days after the original writing of the sentence. Thursday after dinner, I decided to go for a walk and do some scouting for deer season. It was a perfect evening for it, a little wind to keep the bugs at bay and the sun was shining. About a mile into it, I saw the head and ears of a doe peeking at me from slightly above the weeds on an old logging trail. I flipped on my camera on the phone, took a picture, then went to video. AS I slowly walked towards her, she looked to my right, made a momma grunt, then broke up and to my left. At that point, I instantly knew she had a fawn or two, so I backed up and continued on my way down the main logging trail (which I actually mow each year, along with about 2 miles of other trails ).

      The point of this little story is that the “almost” was added because there is only one other country where whitetail deer live (Canada) and I have gained the knowledge to know that the doe had fawns, through years of experience and spending time in the woods. This is STILL one of the things that make this country great. We have a wonderful world of wildlife and can access them in their natural habitat. It may be a simple thing, but it’s worth the “almost” word being added 🙂

      • Ahhh, you bring up the one point that could change my mind. Sometimes I think this small plot of wooded land with it’s wildlife, that I live on, is the only thing that keeps my sanity intact.
        I can go for a stroll through the woods to relieve my stress. See plenty of whitetail along with squirrels that will stop and chatter at me for a few seconds. I’ve been trying to identify the different types of birds lately. Have a couple of different hawks around. I even enjoy watching the bats at dusk. Even get a occasional fox through here.
        It may be a simple thing, as you say, but it is also some of the most enjoyable things.

        Ok, I have to get off here. Have things to do. Seems I’m always working harder at home than I am at work. 🙂

  11. http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/01/policy-fail-navy-brings-charges-against-officer-who-fired-back-at-chattanooga-terrorist/

    In this case, I would say that the natural right of self defense outweighs any man made law (It’s a Clinton law, what would we expect).

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Makes you shake your head in astonishment. But as I said before, In the Netherlands just the act of defending yourself, by any means gets you arrested. Especially if you injure the assailant and if they are a minority…ie black and muslim from Africa and most likely an “illegal”

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Stopping armed assailants by letting people defend themselves is NOT our leaders agenda. They are deliberately continuing the practice of disarming our men and women in the services, knowing they are targets of terrorist abroad and domestic just so the outcry of the “John Q Public” will eventually demand a total disarming of the people. But alway forgeting the people who commit most of the violence, the State, will continue to be armed and the so will criminals and terrorists.

      The idiocy of “creating” an “ISIS” free zone between Turkey and Syria. What are they going to do check ID’s.

  12. Damnit BF…….you got me interested in that ICON……SIGH!!!!!

    • blackflag says:

      🙂
      Take a trip to their facility and grab a test flight!
      Actually, don’t do that. If you do, you’ll be infected!

      • When it comes to flying…..I am already infected…..it is now a matter of how “fatal”….

        • Wrong choice of words from a pilot….”fatal” must not be in our vocabulary….Same scenario as a descent….we are not going down…we are descending….Sure scares the hell out of nervous nellies when you say we are going down now…..especially on a hot, summer turbulent afternoon….

          • And the other thing you don’t do when you are on the intercom with nervous passengers….do not forget to isolate your mic when you talk to yourself (yes, all pilots talk to themselves)……They should never hear you talk to your self when you are looking at your instruments and you ask yourself a question aloud…”wonder why it is doing that?”…or “hmmm, interesting”.

            Most people do not understand, we become bilingual in the same language when flying. Pilots have their own vocabulary……..and the last thing you want to say with nervous passengers…..Don’t do a exaggerated scan of your instruments in IFR conditions….and say “Oh Shit”. Really makes people nervous.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Remember the scene in the Harrison Ford and Anne Hecht movie “Six Days and Seven Nights” during their intial flight emergency. Also keep the tranqulizers from the passengers.

  13. Let’s see…..the President exchanges the most dangerous prisoners in the world for Bergdahl….Bergdahl is a traitor and a blight to humanity. The President has John Kerry reach and agreement with Iran that will enable them, Iran, to call the shots and do what they want….and did not negotiate the four U.S. prisoners Iran is holding…..The President, with a single wave of his hand, can dismiss the issue of charging the Navy Commander with weapons possession when the Commander stopped the shooter in Tennessee…..The Pentagon, under the POTUS direction, is actually thinking about courts martial that will ruin the Commanders life…. and if the Commander is forced to resign his commission, the Justice Department is waiting to prosecute.

    Now, tell me why I should even think that the Progressive movement is a worthy movement.

    • You should see Progressives as your mortal enemy, not any different than the VC. This is where it is heading, might as well be mentally prepared.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Big difference. Progressives are destroying our nation and the VC were trying to get their nation back from an oppressive occupier.

  14. Now, Obama does have a real problem on his hands…..first of all, on national TV and also on Fox News this morning, the call went out to all veterans….retired or otherwise to arm up and carry your weapons at all times.

    The second part of this is his new emissions regulations….most of the States have said that the will not comply with the regulations at all. I hope that they hang in there…Abbott has already said that it aint gonna happen here….we still have coal plants and most of the refineries.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      This new regulation Obama wishes to impose on our nation should be immediately struck down by congress. It;s just a regulation. However, they will not say boo. They’ll leave it to the states to fight it out.

      In this AM’s news the UN is putting in place a plan to eliminate poverty and hunger in 15 years and also handle “climate” change at the same time. Possibility of success zero. How many years has just one country been a disaster with UN overseeing it…Sudan just for one.

      So sir…you are saying that if the Pentagon does not prosecute the Commander, the DOJ is lines up to to so. In any case the Commander is finished whether prosecuted or not. He’ll never see another promotion.

      This is just like the USS Stark. Hit by two Iraqi Excocet missles. Commanders on the escort duty of the reflagged tanker had been ORDERED to lock down the very weapons that can automatically defend against such an attack. The fear was that the gun would accidentally SHOOT down Dan Rather (example) in their helicopters buzzing the ships because no reporters were on board. And at the same time the US sold weapons to Iran who at the time were our enemy (alleged) Iraqi brother had been killed by some of those weapons and took revenge……the commander of the ship was court martialed for FOLLOWING orders.

  15. The laws of unintended consequences are indeed amazing. Every time someone lets the POTUS, any POTUS get away with going extra-constitutional, they set the stage for some tin horn dictator to pop up. There is always an excellent reason for doing so, and that may very well be true but the first time makes the second through the one hundred fourteenth that much easier.

    Us elders remember when this was all supposed to have been stopped, post Watergate.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      And to think of the big hub bub over a bit of election espionage compared to today and we now just go ho hum and todays political lawlessness make Nixon and his guys look like honest and trustworthy boy scouts. Nixon must be grinning where ever he may be and Sam Irvin (Erwin ?) must be shaking with rage

      No excuse then. A lawyer aquaintence of ours went to law school with Halderman. Both as crooked as the day is long….he was never the family’s attorney.

  16. @Flag. In addition to your deer analogy, when hunting pressure and or weather forces deer to herd up, most experienced deer hunters know that when a small herd of deer are moving past, the bucks will normally be in the rear end of the herd, with the most senior being the very last, sometimes as much as 15 minutes behind. Most hunters don’t think about this and will shoot the first legal buck that comes through, after the herding occurs. This gives the illusion that the trophy sized bucks are just smarter than hunters, when it’s mostly a lack of patience and a sense of urgency that pushes hunters to accept a buck that is smaller than what may be coming.

    As far as your analogy of women and the social order, I find it quite interesting. I’m concerned that your definition of social order and what VH or others think may be a little different if not completely different. You have however, explained the issue quite well, Kudo’s 🙂

    • First rule of hunting deer……the senior buck always runs the herd ahead of him…including the younger bucks……then laughs and quietly turns to a new direction when some “buck fever” hunter blasts away at the first thing he sees and the young buck is no longer cannon fodder because he is dead…..it is really cool to watch the social aspects of many animals…especially the ones you hunt.

      • Watching a rafter of Turkey’s is quite interesting….there is always a sentry.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          When is that DA in Austin going to get ousted……Does Texas allow students, like at UT, to vote in local elections? That’s what got Bernie Sanders elected in VT to start with. 4 Colleges in Burlington and most were dorm residents. He proudly flew the Cuban flag behind his desk in office.

          • DA or AG?

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              The AG of Texas has been charged. He was arraigned, printed etc in the same place ex-gov Perry was mug shot. I assume the DA in austin and his grand juries are loose cannons.

              • Actually, not in this case…it appears he is guilty of the same things that Hilary Clinton is….making money on insider information….the one problem with this is…..he did it in Texas and, if guilty, he will have to pay the price no matter how much we like him….he is a great individual and a very strong AG…..but if he violated the law….he needs to pay. Regardless of what is not happening to Clinton.

              • Now to the other part of your question,,,,,Austin is our little experiment with the Liberals….we understand that Ausitn is a petrie dish of malignant bacteria…and the DA is a loose cannon that is the largest ameoba in the dish….This DA has filed hundreds of cases…and wins less than 1%….an keeps getting re-elected. They did not get Perry and could not protect Wendy Davis…so this DA keeps firing away.

                The way we look at it..if you are stupid enough to actually get indicted by this DA….you do not need to hold office anyway. This particular DA can’t convict Pee Wee Herman without help.

    • blackflag says:

      That young man has a brilliant future; the modern world is hungry for his level of character and thoughtfulness. He has the power to change the world, and I for one hope he does.

  17. Did anyone listen to that vile crap of a speech on climate change? Who buys into this?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The unfortunate thing is that even though Congress years ago said NO MORE subsidies, they keep backing down. To much money is enlarging their PAC’s and retirement funds.
      They just started the platforms of a windfarm off of Block Island. Was a beautiful vacation spot. Now the beach view will be towering mechanical monsters right out of the War of the Worlds.

    • Few buy into the climate change mantra any more, unless they are in politics. Everyone else ignores them.

      Indeed, it will go nowhere. No one is willing to waste more money on this nonsense. The Prez can preach, his subservient press can write headlines, but the people will ignore it and shoot down any attempt to make it happen.

      It’s all fluff with no substance.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The unfortunate thing is that the government keep approving the windfarms inspite of the peoples wishes. In Maine they’re planning on blowing the tops off of more mountains to put up 1200 windmills. In great country full of peace and natural wonder. After shutting down Maine Yankee in Wiscasset and pulling out hydro dams they have a power short shortage instead of an abundance that could be sold at a profit to BOSTON. One minor pin prick of a site is bad but thousands of generators on top of mountains that can not regrow and the access roads that have to be made are huge. How green is that?

  18. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “Iran’s Ahmadinejad aims for comeback in challenge to moderates behind nuclear deal”

    Even though we all know the adminstration has been had in the Iran nuclear deal,for any number of reasons. Anyone want to bet that Ahmadinejad departure from the presidency of Iran was purely for political “drama” and he will back within the next voting cycle, such as it is.

    I believe this deal will make Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler look like childs play in the overall global impact.

  19. Give me a break-Planned Parenthood stops abortion, woman will be denied health care BS.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/fact-check-the-largest-womens-health-care-provider-in-america-is-not-planned-parenthood/

    • Yep, seems logical. they are riffing 40,000, trying to cut back the pension and welcoming transgendered folk.

      • You are very correct. They are not throwing out the over 20 year soldier..those over 20 and still in already are “vested”….they are throwing out those that are 15-19 years…so they do not have to pay pensions, health..etc. If a civilian company did the same thing, there would be a riot in the streets. And, for the uninformed. those are the sergeants that are needed.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The government should switch the military just like private corporations. You are vested after 5 years. Your benefits grow over time and generally cease expanding growing after 30 so there is no benifit to stay. Assuming you make it that far anyway. Heck I hit 15 with IBM and 15 with at&t. I was actually an old timer with at&t. IBM is switching over to contractors so benefits are all on you. Higher pay, but then the government takes it unless you can put it somewhere. authorized, by you guessed it the government who can disallow it at a whim.

          This putting in just shy of 20 years of dedicated service expecially after these last 20 years that is criminal. But they operate just like T Boone Picket and his corporate raiders. Buy a buiness with an over funded benefits trust. Raid it and pay off his investors and the employee be damned. He bragged on it. But also right in both my IBM and at&t retirement books. 1st sentence. The board of directors as they deem can change, take back as needed

          What is the other government employees retirement plans. Much less the congressional members. They certainly do not lose if they don’t reach 20

    • Better thank the Founders for the 2nd Amendment, we may need it for it’s intended purpose soon.

  20. The US Senate votes against defunded Planned Parenthood. Well DUHHHHH! Did anyone think that these dicks in Congress would do so? Even if they did, Obama would veto it anyway. Killing old lions is a travesty, selling aborted baby parts is business as usual for the Elite Ruling Class. Please, go vote in the next election and show your support for these people.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      So has there been any defining bill to pass through the congress that clearly deliniates any reason to continue a two party system? Everyone votes yes, or goes to Siberia. Putin needs a growth industry. Become the outsource location for the new gulags.
      I’m starting to lean towards a parlimentary system. A zillion parties and the coalisions (sp) are up from. They get pissed off and walk and everyone see that. Here it all behind closed doors. Bingo new election…..McConnell and Boehner talked a good story but somewhere they lost their teststerone.

  21. Dale A Albrecht says:

    http://home.suddenlink.net/news/read/category/AP%20Top%20News%20-%20US%20Headlines/article/the_associated_press-judge_idahos_antidairy_spying_law_is_unconstitutio-ap

    http://home.suddenlink.net/news/read/category/US/article/the_associated_press-judge_extends_hold_on_recordings_made_by_antiabort-ap

    Interesting rulings. OK to secretly record in one instance for potential animal abuse and not OK to get the goods from the horses mouth on even worse case of humian immorality.

    We also have our own Greece just a few miles offshore with PR.

  22. She doesn’t like lectures from men, who are the actual Fathers of these children-Well you know who I get tired of hearing lectures about the importance of abortion from-Lesbians-lets face it, the odds of them getting unintentionally pregnant is slim to none.

    http://therightscoop.com/watch-republican-slap-down-barbara-boxers-attempt-to-shut-out-mens-voices-on-abortion/

  23. Had a conversation with a very nice young woman tonight-she says she is very socially liberal but is an army brat who has a problem with many of the liberal stances on economical issues-we pretty much agreed on immigration and a few other points. She said she likes libertarians and could see voting for Rand Paul-hates Hillary but would love to vote for Bernie Sanders.

    I am so confused!

    • Oh, she was also very concerned about us losing our freedoms-wanted a closed border etc. but she wants to vote for Bernie Sanders.

      Still, so confused!

      • VH, you are not the one in that conversation confused. Your friend doesn’t understand politics and the difference between a socialist and a Libertarian. She also doesn’t realize that the two candidates who will end up running for president, will be politically identical. There is only an illusion of choice. If this Congress don’t prove that, then there are some very blind people.

  24. After our recent discussions-I found this extremely interesting-you guys should listen to it-even if you can’t watch but 10 or 20 minutes.

    • The irony of Sommers:
      She identifies the utter perversity of feminists, and then declares the very legal doctrines that gave rise to this perversity as a great american success

      “It is great that women can’t be fired for being pregnant…”
      So, you inflict upon men, who do not get pregnant and continue to work must pay for these women involuntarily because of her choices. And you believe men think this is fair? Not for one second.

      And once they get such a thing, they do not stop. Their success causes them to push even more.

      The belief is once they hit an indestructible barrier to the demands, what they gained will still remain. They are wrong

      It is not a barrier; it will be a fist. And it will not stop pounding women back until they are driven to the stone age again in their rights.

      Absolutely the confusion in women what they are playing with. They are playing with nuclear fire without a clue to the damage it can do to them.

      Can’t see the forest for the trees.

    • Another comment on the Sommer’s video.

      She highlights the “GamerGate” scenario where the gaming community pushed back, as she says “in open rebellion” against the Politically correct and women “rights” movement that had targeted gamers, with massive success.

      Then she leaded to declare that this type of open rebellion she hopes “starts happening on campuses and in society…”

      Well, she is right. That is exactly what will happen.
      But is she very wrong in hoping it will. The GamerGate scenario demonstrated how powerfully vicious the response will be against the P/C and women rights activists, and it was VIRTUAL, not physical.

      When this becomes not virtual and very physical on campuses and in society, which is not some virtual reality arena, all bets are off.

  25. And before anyone asks……yes, we are fighting the Muslim only cemetery in Farmersville, Tx. Or, I should say, the residents are fighting it. In question is a 35 acre tract that was bought by a yankee from New York and is trying to sell this tract of land for a Muslim Cemetery. Even though the Muslim group says it is only a cemetery with a Pavillion, actual plans for a Mosque leaked out. I doubt that the cemetery will go in…..in has a hard fight ahead,

    • Oh, yes, and before anyone jumps on this,….I am against it…and if that makes me an Islamophobe….then…..I am ok with it. There are plenty of cemeteries around. The citizens of Farmersville are threatening to cover the land with pigs blood…..

      What actually started all of this was the attempt to slip this in without the proper public postings and city hall meetings..they got caught at it….and people are pissed.

  26. Rick, don’t encourage BF to write a book on humanity. We’ve nailed him over the years as being a computer program, not a man. Now I’m thinking he’s a chauvinist computer program 😉

    Let me second VH’s oy vey!

    MEN ARE SIMPLY EXERCIZING THEIR BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE THAT HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED!

    What kinda shit is that? Last I figured, your biological imperative is a behavior, not something like a sneeze that is automatic. Furthermore, if you still want to call it a biological imperative, you are capable of satisfying that supression ON YOUR OWN. NO STIRRING NECESSARY.
    I enjoyed reading your commentary, and can even agree that women have upset your social order. You’re just a little over the top. At the same time, you are not a dog, or a deer, or a gerbil. You are a man who has control over your bodily functions. Women are not your property. And how can you square your commentary with the fact that (I assume) you were a loyal husband to Mrs. Flag? Seems to me, a man with your convictions could have laid it out to Mrs. Flag that your biological imperative requires you to have a concubine. And she, as a loyal wife would have had to accept that. We see how that worked out.

    Further, since men are the absolute alpha in your world, where did lesbians enter the picture? Or how do you explain a problem like (MARIA, points for movie reference) me! Never been married. Why? Because the baby daddies thought they had a biological imperative also, as opposed to realizing that the imperative is just a bonus for the whole loyalty and relationship thing. I’ve survived just fine being single. Left with my belongings from the first one, kicked the second one and his belongings to the curb. No courts or money involved, aside from child support, which is fair. Still friendly with them both, but don’t need them. Also plan to be single for the duration, unless I come across my future husband, the VP of Cabelas.

    • You just proved Flag’s points. I’m sure you do not see it, but reread your post and see how you did so.

      • What, child support? Don’t need it. Own up to your responsibility.

        • I should say..MAN UP!

          • blackflag says:

            Gman, exactly. The root of the issue well displayed by Anita.

            She believe her biological imperative is utterly correct, and men’s are wrong.
            She demands a man needs to pervert his so to accomplish her’s, and demeans any man who follows his own imperative as “not a man”.

            “Last I figured, your biological imperative is a behavior, not something like a sneeze that is automatic.”

            No, it’s instinctual. To believe a man’s instinctual behavior is wrong, while claiming your instinctual behavior is right, is the very root of the problem.

            You demand HE SHOULD CHANGE so to SUPPORT YOUR INSTINCTUAL ACTION.

            You wouldn’t change that for him.

            Sorry, in a violent world, you can stamp your fight and scream all you want about not being a man’s property, while he drags you by your hair into his cave. Good luck with that.

            Do not assume how I organized my life somehow is a counter argument to the basic biological imperatives at work. My wife was NOT like the women who are destroying social order, she worked to improve the social order with a keen awareness of my desires, and made great effort to ensure they were as fulfilled as hers.

            The point is, she was aware of these imperatives, maybe did not articulate them in any way, but sub-conscientiously knew what they were.

            Lesbians are irrelevant.

            Exactly…. since you can, by law, seize the property of a man to support you, while you deny him any support to him is the perversity of the modern woman. You think this is fair, but it is your perversion of thinking due to a perverted social construct that makes you think this is fair.

            You say “I don’t need him”, while at the same time taking his money. LoL! Yeah, your actions certainly contradict your claim.

            • blackflag says:

              The fact is, Anita, he doesn’t need you. This is demonstrated by the fact you need to use violence on him for you to live. He needs no such thing to be applied on you. He is perfectly well enough on his own to merrily continue on filling is desires and imperative.

              He can go and find another woman, easily produce more children, and be perfectly fine. You can’t. You biology has set a specific physical and time limit on your ability to create more children.

              What YOU have is ALL YOU GET. Not so much for him.

          • Anita, VH, Ladies in general. Our friends are doing what they sometimes do best, divorce the biological imperative from the social imperative which I think, includes a moral imperative.

            “We are not animals!” Or so my father taught me. Through thick and thin with my Mom having a nervous breakdown and complete meltdown, he was there for my sister and I. I certainly survived and when I became old enough I realized exactly what he had done and why and in 42 years of marital compromise, I too have hung around. Oh man, were there things I wanted to do……..And, by the way, I do not think I am a martyr. Sometimes what we want is not good for us in teh long run.

            “We are not animals” Or so every single religion teacher I had told me from the time I could understand until my Sr. year in college. While not considering myself particularly religious, I certainly see the societal merit in a tight knit family. I can also see the dangers I mentioned above with hordes of unattached young males and a few older, wealthy men taking the young women out of circulation.

        • NO, your missing the point. Child support is simply the use of government force (in your case) by which you take from men the YOU chose to leave or kick out. Yet, because the government covered your ass, you were able to continue to extract support. This is EXACTLY what Black Flag said was part of the social order issue, it’s upside down.

          I’m sure you have good reasons for your decisions, but that is not the point. The point is that you had the power of the government behind you, which allowed you to make those decisions. You had the continued financial support. Go back a read Flag’s posts, your life’s decisions are exactly what Flag stated. My point isn’t about YOU, it’s about what Flag posted and you, in your life’s decisions, prove his posts to be factual.

          But once again, I’m not commenting on you or your reasons, but on the actions that support Flags comments, so don’t go all personal on me, it’s not about YOU the individual 🙂

          • blackflag says:

            Anita,
            Do you not see the damage such an legal force causes?
            Do you think your sons are blind?
            Your ex is trapped, he can do nothing about it, but his sons sure can!

            Do you believe young men have no brain and do not think “Damn, what a rotten deal he got…I will not make that deal

            Do you not see this as a root cause to why men, in accelerating and drastic numbers, are refusing to marry and create families?

            Do you not understand that the destruction of the very foundation of this social order is the collapse of the family unit?

            Do you not understand that this demand of such legal force came from women?

            Do you not then use reason and understand women are destroying the very social order they need to survive?

            • Negative! Let me throw this wrench at you guys. My ex gained custody of his son from a previous relationship. HE get’s child support. How bout them apples?

              • To claim that something that occurs less than .001 percent of the time is nonsense, shame on you for such a silly notation. I also got custody of my youngest daughter, after paying out my ass for 15 years. That doesn’t change the wrong that was done to begin with, at the hands of those with the monopoly on violence.

              • Gman, from your responses I can tell that you would not have paid absent the barrel of a gun. But women are the problem? THAT is a silly notation.

              • Anita,

                No, the silly notion is yours to believe it is NOT women causing the problem.

                As I laid out, this paradigm of social order was created BY women FOR women. Men were merely followers in this matter.

                The destruction of this social order is created by WOMEN.
                Men do not need social order, women DO

                Men can undo this social order with a snap of their fingers. Women are powerless to stop them if men snap their fingers.

                The only reason men have NOT snapped their fingers yet is because women, in the past, maintained and provided their vital emotional superpower as a benefit to their men.

                Today, women are using their emotional superpower to attack men.

                That “finger snap” is just around the corner….. and it will be so loud, it will shatter thousands of years of women’s “rights” in a second.

              • And one more comment about your silly little notion.

                Even if you believe it is not the fault of women (even though you are wrong here), your belief is irrelevant. It really does not matter who is at fault.

                This is the situation. The prevailing hetrological social order is collapsing, rapidly.
                Men are utterly immune, but will completely obliterate women

                So you can believe who or what ever is the cause.
                You better wake up and understand you and your fellow sisters will be the largest losers in human history

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Likely correct, because she up and took kids out of state. Had I as a man done so, a court order would have demanded the return of the kids, per VS state law. Here is why BF is correct, because it removes consequences from these kids of decisions. Without consequences, men are realizing that marriage is a no win situation, unless it’s on of those rare forever ones. Not worth the gamble anymore. Women will end up the losers in time. BF is spot on.

              • Exceptions do not disprove the rule, Anita.

                83% of mothers receive custody of their children in divorces. Additionally, men are awarded less support on average than mothers who are awarded support.

              • Because…income inequality. 🙂 We are not your property. Keep a penny between your knees if you cant stand the heat!

              • Again, you merely ply a bizarre social construct nonsense believing that women are purposely under paid vs men.

                Your economic ignorance is huge.

                The premise you hold is that there is this vast, superior, economic labor force that is grossly underpaid.

                Therefore, it should be massively profitable to start a business and hire these underpaid labor force into your business by offering them better pay. Your competitors have, in your mind set, ignored them, and you being the smart business person, will act upon their miscue and attract them away.

                Hmmm…. don’t see that happening.

                So, your premise is wrong. There is not a vast superior underpaid economic labor force. They are getting paid exactly what they should be paid for their ability to produce economically.

                But since your mindset can’t hold any water with reason, you advocate violent force to “correct” the reasoning into your mindset.

                And you wonder why you and your sisters are accelerating to disaster.

              • And no, you are not any one’s property…. right now.
                But to wish away an impeding upheaval thinking that will be maintained is foolish.

                Property ownership is based on control.

                If this social order is dismissed, any pretence of control over yourself will be violently dismissed. Men will control you, and do to you what ever he wishes, when ever he wishes and you will be utterly helpless to do anything about it.

              • Wish we could edit these posts. In your case, keep a troy ounce between your knees.

              • Far from it BF. I don’t buy any of the income baloney. I have neved depended on a man for his money. I think you are missing that we dont need you either…we WANT you. The way technology is today,and the way anybody can just ‘get’ a baby, partnerships of any sort can result in the same problem you attribute to women alone.

              • “Far from it BF. I don’t buy any of the income baloney.”

                Interesting. “I have never depended on his money…” “I receive child support…”
                Love when the arguer slaps themselves silly.

                Sorry, you do need us. We don’t need you.
                You pretend your weak physical biology can survive in a violent world.

                What you forget about “technology”.
                Whatever you can do, a man can do.
                BUT you cannot do what a man can do. You simply do not have the biology to do so.

                You don’t need a man for a baby. You can hook up with a stranger, and after send him on his way. Totally agree.

                But you have to care for that kid. He does not.

                It is his genes you are protecting, and he ain’t protecting yours. He has dozens upon dozens like you in this matter with dozens upon dozens of kids, and he isn’t considering one wit about you and yours. You have only THESE KIDS that you make, and that’s it.

                His biological imperative consequences is massive, yours is tiny.

                If you out of the dozens fail, he couldn’t care less. He has dozens more.
                If you fail with what you have, you’re done for. You have no others.

                No, woman, you NEED us. We don’t need you at all.
                Men can take whatever they want by physical force, you can’t.

                As I said before, you can stamp your feet and scream all you want as he drags you into his cave by your hair.

              • Anita,

                Think about your condition in this world.
                There is no “social safety net”. Every person has to work to earn a living, and gather resources.

                A man goes to work every day, earns his keep.
                You, as a woman, do the same thing.
                So far so good. You sit back and say “I don’t need a man”.

                This man knocks you up.
                He still goes to work and earns his keep.
                About 6 to 7 months later, you ain’t working.
                How the heck are you going to live?
                Your biology interferes with the ability to acquire resources for you to live.
                You are now in a position of begging for help.

                After after the child is born;
                He still goes to work and earns his keep.
                There you are, a child latched onto your breast, while you think you can care for the child AND earn your way.
                You remain in a position of begging for help

                He doesn’t give a hoot about you. He is a huge winner.
                You are doing all the work in protecting his genes.
                He has dozens of women with his children, each of these women protecting his genes.
                If you fail, so the hell what? Got dozens of others behind you.
                You and your child are immaterial to him, merely one out of a hundred.

                But that child to you is exactly one out of one. You fail, your genes fail.

                Very quickly, women begin to fall back into beggars of men’s resources.
                The deal men will offer such women will be very, very harsh. Why would it not be?
                Men are in command of their own resources that you are begging for, they will exercise the heaviest and harshest terms upon you because frankly, they don’t care, they have dozens begging behind you, and he is as likely to kick you to the curb on a whim

                Whatcha going to do about this?
                You can do absolutely nothing about this.

                If you and your sisters blow it now, that will be your lot.

                Within THIS social construct you and your sisters have found protection and access to resources that you cannot provide for yourself due to the circumstances of your biological make-up. It has been a resounding success for women.

                But your failure to understand the desires and needs of men, abuse men emotionally, constrain their lives by force and violence, men will respond and it will devastate you.

                Women are using violence (political power) upon the very part of humanity that is supreme in the use of violence, men. It is like taking a stick to a gun fight. Women are provoking men to respond violently and men will do just that. And women will have utterly no power or recourse to prevent it.

              • I wouldn’t put too much stock in how many times women get custody. You would have to tell me how many times men petitioned and were denied. In a perfect world, 100% of women would petition and 100% of men.

                Again, my little anecdotal sample would indicate that if the guy left for another woman, she, the newbie, didn’t want the kids. If he wanted to be “a wild and crazy guy” he wouldn’t want the kids.

                Our recent experiences with minorities and “families” and absent fathers and serial fathers would indicate that Flag is 100% right on the biological imperative. Spread the seed far and wide and DON’T LOOK BACK!

              • Economic inequality.
                Listen to the video above from Sommers about that, around the 51 minute mark…. she crushes it.

          • “You makka da baby, you pay for da baby.” Too much expectation these days that someone else (me the taxpayer) will pay for your baby.

            • While I believe that a father SHOULD provide for his children, when a women chooses to send the man packing, or leaves said man, it’s on her 100%. When a man has to go to court to get “visitation” rights to his own children, then they should have to deal with the plate momma has given them. When a man can’t see his children, through lies of said mother, which happens quite often, then tough, momma needs to back up her decisions and deal with them 100%. If she can’t handle it, get on welfare like those with so many baby daddy’s they can’t keep track, much less collect child support. Most won’t because the support would take away their government cookies.

              I can see how my post may piss a few people off, but good, a few needed pissed off. Black Flag’s postings are 100% correct. I know because I have dealt with it personally. Fortunately, karma came calling and payback was a bitch. Don’t get me wrong, I believe a father should provide for his kids, but not by the barrel of a gun.

              • You touch on a real problem. Truth. Like the recent hub-bub over Trump “raping” his ex-wife during the divorce proceedings. In any event there is a difference between child support and alimony. There is also a difference between providing a “comfortable” lifestyle and an extravagant one.

                Sometimes, it takes the wisdom of Solomon to figure it all out and there are very few Solomon’s out there.

                Perhaps it is a defect in my friendships or acquaintances but I would have to say that three out of every four collapsed marriages I know were initiated by the male. Sometimes it was some pretty young thing catching his eye (or casting her net). Sometimes it was frustration over difficulties financial or otherwise. Sometimes it was because the kid had a defect and it was “too hard” to handle it. Sometimes it was because he suddenly decided he did not “want” to be married. Having said all that I actually do know of two cases where the wife took off, dumped the kids and became a groupie for some Rock band.

              • “Perhaps it is a defect in my friendships or acquaintances but I would have to say that three out of every four collapsed marriages I know were initiated by the male.”

                Yes, it is merely your small sample, and holds no merit.

                According to the National Marriage Project, formerly at Rutgers University, now at the University of Virginia, a lot:

                Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.”

              • The problem SK, is the law only see’s it one way. The man is wrong, the man pays, the women is wrong, the man pays. See where the problem lies?

            • SK,
              Where you are confused.
              You hold as merely a belief that this social order is moral, but it is only an assertion that is circular, it is NOT a declaration based on any biological, sociological, physiological, psychological, philosophical or universal principle.

              You merely declare it out of the ass of society.

              “It is moral for a man to care for his children”. End of argument, in your mind. But demonstrate it. Prove it. Don’t worry, you can’t without entering into an irrational circular argument.

              The FACT remains that this social order is a construct and can just as easily (actually infinitely easy) to de-construct it.

              Biologically, a man has NO NEED TO CARE FOR HIS CHILDREN.

              He can produce 10,000 children in his life time. Who the hell cares about any one of them?.

              It is the profusion of his genes that the biological imperative demands, not the success of any one of his progeny. 9,000 of them can die, and his genes are an overwhelming success story.

              Not so with women. With such a vast limitation on her ability to produce children, every one of the is vital. A loss of a child for a woman is devastating. She cannot produce any more then a very small, fixed limit. Her gene success is always under a very heavy threat, constantly.

              Within the current social order, however, the man has been suppressed into a one woman, one family paradigm. He is stuck by the children production of his wife’s limitation, not his own limitation. Within the constraints of this social order, it does matter to the man about the survival of any one individual of his progeny’s. With the vast limitation he has been shoe-horned into, every one of them counts for the success of his genes. He has been suppressed into the same limitations of women.

              That’s the point.

              Men have suppressed their biological imperative, and women have not.

              YET! Women abuse men when it is the men who have done all the superhuman effort to suppress their imperative to match the women, women who have not lifted one finger to suppress theirs.

              But to be absolute clear, this is merely a paradigm. And with a snap of a finger, the paradigm can be dismissed. And that is exactly what is happening.

              Men are no longer willing to deal with the abuse that women have fostered upon their men, and they are abandoning the paradigm by the millions. More and more stories of men having dozens of children with dozens of different women. He is doing great for his biological imperative. The lives of these women are wholly resting on government to pay for their survival. When government stops doing this, women are, pun intended, screwed. The man is not. He is very, very happy.

              If you think this current social order is a good thing, and should be maintained – and that is a valid assertion – then you must be appalled at the women who are destroying it. And if you think you can sit back and not let your voice be heard, and intellectually shake every women you meet or know back into her senses about what is happening, this social order WILL BE DISMISSED

              It took thousands of years of slow, painful suffering to achieve this social order.
              It will take less than 1/2 a generation to undo it.

              One merely needs to view Boco Harem, or ISS, or any of those groups to see what happens when the prevailing social order collapses. By a snap of the fingers, 5,000 years of women’s rights were vanquished. Women and young girls are kidnapped, raped and sold into slavery.

              To believe that the destruction of the social order around you will not devolve into these same conditions is totally naive.

              The current social conditioning is confusing the senses of both men and women, and this confusion is wholly created by the women and their political nonsense.

              Women in confusion mully around.
              Men in confusion will, at some point, end the confusion by ripping it apart violently with their hands. It will then be very clear. And men will take what they want, when they want, and no woman will be able to stop him.

              • There maybe some who say, should this social order disintegrate, it will be restored back with work.

                Wrong.

                The reasons as I have laid out about how this social order came to be no longer exist.

                The changes to the imperative men existed because the vast majority of men could not produce vast resources, and by that limitation, men were unable to acquire the hordes of women to produce hordes of children. That ability was limited to Kings. The common man by his economic limitations also limited his ability to reproduce. Over time, since it was the vast majority condition of men, became “standardized”. As Nietzsche said, “When men cannot avoid suffering, men turn suffering into a virtue”

                But today, men do NOT suffer economic limitations. The average men is wealthier then ancient Kings. He is not restrained by economics. As such, there is no externalities to recreate the limitations that created this social order

                If this social order is dismissed, it will not return. Another social order will rise, it always does, but it will be nothing like this one.

                And in hetrological terms (man/woman relationship), there is no way and no how it will go back to the 1man/1woman paradigm. There is no force that will exist to manifest it.

                As I said before, review the Star Trek lore of the Ferengi. It will far more likely resemble that then anything else.

              • An interesting take to say the least! Kinda depends on where you are coming from though. In many ways subjective but not wrong.

              • Yes, it is not wrong. It is merely an assertion.

                “Men are good if they give to charity” – bald assertion.
                “Men are good if they give to their family” – bald assertion.

                Both coexist, even if they contradict each by the act of a man – he gives to charity and not his family or gives to his family and not to charity. So both are mere assertions, both are not wrong NOR are right.

                So claiming an assertion is MORAL is usually a mistake.

                In such matters, reality wins, always.

                Thus, a man does what he pleases. Period. No value judgement is valid.

                To manifest patterns of behaviour, morals are created, and morals are created by social constructs.

                So when a social construct is dismissed, the domino effect is that morals are dismissed and the pattern of behaviour is dismissed. It is NOT saying there are no morals, or no patterns of behaviour or no social constructs.

                It merely means a new chain-link is created.

                So when the social construct of family is destroyed, a new pattern of behaviour will manifest.

                It will manifest a new moral paradigm with a new social construct.

                It will be declared, again by mere assertion, that women are the slaves of men. Again, refer to the lore of the Ferengi, where selling your mother into slavery was a proud and honourable thing to do. Or Boko Harem and their social construct. They have done the same thing.

                It will all be declared “moral” and the social construct will be built around that to enforce it.

              • Dropping it down from above.

                I wouldn’t put too much stock in how many times women get custody. You would have to tell me how many times men petitioned and were denied. In a perfect world, 100% of women would petition and 100% of men.

                Again, my little anecdotal sample would indicate that if the guy left for another woman, she, the newbie, didn’t want the kids. If he wanted to be “a wild and crazy guy” he wouldn’t want the kids.

                Our recent experiences with minorities and “families” and absent fathers and serial fathers would indicate that Flag is 100% right on the biological imperative. Spread the seed far and wide and DON’T LOOK BACK!

    • HMMMM….Sound of Music…………..?

  27. Just tripped over a great RAH quote from “Time Enough for Love” . By the way, he was a great advocate in his writings for polygamy or group marriage, not for collecting harems.

    “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.'”

  28. “Only one Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, told me that she had seen any of the videos. McCaskill agreed that the videos were disturbing, but she added that “that’s not the point. The point is to prevent abortions by making sure that women can get birth control.” ”

    So the point is that this organization is exempt from following the law-it can do illegal, unethical, and immoral activities and as long as they hand out birth control the Dems. will support them. They are actually making the case that we as a society have to support evil, and ignore the law or women will not be able to get birth control.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/04/democrats-blocking-bill-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-admit-they-havent-seen-shocking-videos/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Women have plenty of options outside of PP that can resolve this issue. Take away the ability to prescribe birth control and they would continue to ecist. Remember, this is all about women’s rights, and part of BF’s subject matter

    • Too bad we don’t have a Georgie Patton out there who would take the good liberals on a forced journey to the clinic and then make them bury the bodies of the babies. Maybe, as in Germany in ’45, we’d get a few suicides out of it!

  29. BF

    Two questions-if your diagnosis about the nature of man is that they will go out and have sex with every woman they want to, whether the woman is willing or not and then walk away with no regard for the welfare of their children-just a man doing what he is designed to do-yet you argue there is nothing wrong with that-just a man being a man. And woman are somehow betraying her nature by objecting to being treated as if she is a mans property or solely responsible for the children they create are the ones in the wrong. DO you really believe that argument holds.

    Second if this is the state our world will come to if the government goes away-why would any woman ever, ever agree that no government is a good idea?

    And if you are arguing against feminism-which I in so many ways agree is totally out of hand-their actions are harming the family unit which will harm woman probably more than men, except of course when these men are children who have no father figure around, why are you attempting to make the argument for the feminist?

    • Yeah, what she said! Didn’t see this before I posted. This is going to make my reply below much easier.

      Hi V. Haven’t said that to you in a while. 😉

    • “Two questions-if your diagnosis about the nature of man is that they will go out and have sex with every woman they want to, whether the woman is willing or not and then walk away with no regard for the welfare of their children-just a man doing what he is designed to do-yet you argue there is nothing wrong with that-just a man being a man. And woman are somehow betraying her nature by objecting to being treated as if she is a mans property or solely responsible for the children they create are the ones in the wrong. DO you really believe that argument holds.”

      That isn’t my argument. Pay attention.

      The biological imperative of every living thing is the profusion of genes.

      The strategies to accomplish this goal is different between men and women.

      Men’s biology gives them the ability to create 10,000 children, and continue to manifest children until the day he dies. It’s a biological fact. Ignoring this is futile.

      Women’s biology is trapped into creating maybe a maximum of 10 surviving children (exceptions apply, but are so rare they can be ignored, and even if one can point to the extreme outlier of 20, compared to 10,000, it simply is irrelevant).

      Further, the man by his biology has no need to protect his genes. He comes (pun intended) and he goes. The women is saddled with the duty of protecting HER genes and HIS genes. The man is not encumbered at all. She is saddled with this because she has so terribly few children with her genes. She by the simple fact of having to protect her very few children, that she automatically is saddled in protecting his. He is NOT saddled with any need to protect anyone.

      Further, by the FACT OF BIOLOGY, a women is seriously disabled by a pregnancy. A man is never so disabled by a pregnancy at all. In this condition, the ability of a woman to acquire resources is fundamentally disabled. She is at grave risk in her ability to survive, unless she gets external support. A man never has such a risk whatsoever.

      These are fact, V.H. You can rant about “right or wrong” until the end of time and it utterly makes no impact on these facts.

      So the strategies of success for the woman’s biological imperative requires:
      1) access to resources at her greatest time of need.
      2) access to protection at her greatest time of need.

      A man’s strategy is simple:
      1) impregnate as many as he can.

      Who do you think win’s here?

      Thus, historically, women have always been the beggars of resources and protection from men. Men, in the past, have created social paradigms inflicted on women, making women exactly what they are, beggars. So men have made women chattel, enslaved them, treated them less then dogs – because that is the stature of afforded to beggars.

      This is the natural condition of humanity and since it is the natural condition, if you pretend that it is not, it will return to this natural condition as easily as water flows down hill.

      Women, for their own protection, cooperate. Their first ring of cooperation is with other women. Strength in numbers. When of the harem was with child, the other women shared their resources with her evenly. Children were raised cooperatively by all the women in the harem, sharing the burden evenly.

      The only way this can rise is if a woman is emotionally attached to other women and other women’s children to the same degree she feels about herself and her children.

      Over the course of generations, women’s emotional power, the ability to do this, became a superpower.

      Further, all socialization is a result of this female community, the feeling of connection between other people.

      Further, all language is a result of this female community, the ability to communicate needs and wants clearly between different people.

      This is a superpower. And, it absolutely benefited men. Men learned to socialize and learn about cooperation and strength in numbers. They learned to communicate between themselves, improving cooperation in hunting and in war. Men learned that women were valuable in producing these things, and it was valuable to keep women alive and well.

      So men, at the behest of women began instituting social constructs to protect women. In exchange, women shared their emotional superpower with men. Men by their individualistic nature behaviour are emotionally inferior and vulnerable. Women gave men the emotional food necessary for men to be successful in a world that offers far more defeats and failures then success.

      Utilizing the outcomes of this exchange; emotional food and protection in exchange for physical food and protection; the family unit evolved. A man was more then willing to exchange his 10,000 children for ONE (or a small few) WOMEN who would feed his emotional needs, and in that dedication, end up supplying the very fundamental necessities for a woman’s biological success.

      To a man, receiving love (emotion) from a woman is the absolute single greatest thing on Earth, because men by their nature are starved.

      Men will go into futile war for love, exhaust his life for love, exhaust his resources for love, kill and be killed for love …. of a woman. Look at all the songs, stories, myths, biographies in human history, and it is almost nothing but men in acting in love of women.

      Thus, the success of the human race.
      Women got the resources and protection necessary for their survival of themselves and their children, and men willingly suppressed their massive biological imperative for the mere emotional food a women gave him. Humanity exploded in numbers and success.

      Each advance of law; reduction of violence; social norms of charity; institutions around care and maintenance of human beings; comes from women protecting themselves.

      And men, sometime grudgingly, but often willingly, instituted them.

      Women utterly do not understand their superpower of their emotional abilities. It is utterly dominating. With this what appears subtle thing, women run the world.

      With it, they redirect and focus the violence and strength of men into directions that no man himself would seek, to the incredible benefit of all humanity.

      But the modern women, and not just the “Feminists”, have abused their superpower. Almost every modern woman today IS ABUSING HER SUPER POWER.

      Flush with the success of a thousand year history, women have come to believe this superpower cannot be vanquished. That men are to be consumed, and used to lift women beyond “equals” but “more equal then they”. But women can NEVER BE equal to men, by the fact of biology, let alone SUPERIOR.

      You women have forgotten who you are dealing with. Thousands of years of subduing the violence of men, focusing it on a particular direction has made you women believe you control the violence of men, no matter what emotional perversions you deliver against them.

      It is a conscience choice of men to act as protectors, not a biological imperative or instinct.

      And as women destroy men emotionally, do not feed their men the emotional attachment and love that a man is starved for, men look upon themselves with this calculation:

      With woman, get no love, no emotional food.
      Without woman, get no love, no emotional food.
      What the hell am I giving her protection and resources for?

      And will conclude:
      Take what I want from a woman, and throw her away.
      Keep my protection and my resources for myself.

      Woman, you cannot not, even by a minute fraction, compete with the violence of men

      Modern woman, you are infuriating the modern man. Right now, most are holding back, but every day, these numbers are shrinking. Every day, men are getting up and abandoning you to your own demise – and these men do not care whatsoever.

      “Second if this is the state our world will come to if the government goes away-why would any woman ever, ever agree that no government is a good idea?”

      Almost no woman I know would agree.
      But who cares?
      Men control the violence, not women.
      If men say “No more”, you are done for

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Wasn’t it back in the “primitive” days in the jungle….the men’s hut and the women’s and children’s hut. They acted in harmony with nature. Look how hard the women fought to get the “men’s clubs shut down in cities. Claiming they’re chauvenistic blah blah blah. No, they were there to get some peace and quiet where you might be able to read your paper and have a cigar or brandy and the waitstaff kept their mouth shut.

        • Very, very few women fought to close down mens clubs. Just as very few gays who only number some 3% of the population to begin with fought for gay marriage. What they succeeded in doing, in the fine tradition of authoritarian assholes, throughout history is ginning up “outrage” by like minded assholes in authority.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            You’re correct…very few took away the free rights of association of others.

      • Lets look at he government-they have the power to control us-they have the power to stop us from actively using our rights by using force-would you argue that because of that power we should just except this arrangement-accept that we are not equal, have no rights except those the government allows us to have. That we are basically inferior and have no real freedom.

        • “Lets look at he government-they have the power to control us-they have the power to stop us from actively using our rights by using force-would you argue that because of that power we should just except this arrangement-accept that we are not equal, have no rights except those the government allows us to have. That we are basically inferior and have no real freedom.”

          No.
          First assertion you make, you are inferior.

          You are not. You have a superpower, that by fact of society, is the most dominate superpower in biological history. One cannot claim “inferior” when one holds the most dominate superpower.

          You are inferior outside of that superpower.

          Men are a superpower in a violent world.
          In a non-violent world, they are not.

          In a non-violent world, interconnection between people, emotional strength, socialization and cooperation are fundamental, and that is where women dominate.

          The brain of women in these matters is biological superior. The corpus callosum, the nerve fibre that connects the hemispheres of the brain is 50% larger, enabling more inter-hemisphere communication in their brain. Women can talk AND listen at the same time, men tend to do one or the other. Though men have larger brains, women have more dendritic connections between their brain cells, that is, more inputs and outputs per brain cell then men, etc. All of this is BECAUSE of the need to communicate and connect to a far higher degree for survival then men.

          Women are a superpower in a non-violent world.
          In a violent world, force is absolute and men are the ultimate force.

          So women have real freedom in a non-violent world, and they excel in that domain. Look at the stats; more women have better and more education, have far more opportunities and choices then men, live longer, are richer then men. Women own 80% of the property in the USA. Yes, men at the extremes dominate, but at both ends, success and failure. Women dominate the statical mean.

          So inferior? Not a bit.

          But they have extended this into desire to dominate men. Perhaps this desire has come from a seeking of revenge against men for the treatment of the historical past … ” a taste of their own medicine…”

          This desire to dominate men has terrible consequences. The muddling of roles, the use of emotional manipulation, etc. has created confusion. Men do not like confusion. They will first use their superior reasoning to reconcile the confusion, but as the Sommers video explains, reason has no hearing in the modern woman’s mentality in this matter.

          When reason fails for a man, he reaches for his violence.

          This is what Sommer’s completely misses. “What will happen in the future?” and blabbers on about how this program or this law needs be altered or or this attitude needs to be changed…. as if that will even be possible.

          No, men ACT, and if reason does not work in correction, men ACT with VIOLENCE.

          And, in that arena, women are doomed, and will lose everything they have gained, overnight, with no mercy.

          • Since I agree that woman have way overstepped-I understand why men are angry and they have reason-How am I to process this information in the form of a threat-because I’m not willing to pay homage to men out of fear-Respect they can have-the fact that they can use force to control me is simply a reality that I will not willingly bow down too and give up my freedom too out of fear of the consequences. Anymore than you would.

            So what is your point?

  30. BF(F), wish you coulda been right here with me while you were writing that last post. The one that explains the prehistoric view of life after feminism. Lol. You drained me with every sentence. Computer issues, so it’s a pain but I will be back….watch out. 🙂

  31. Holy crap. BF is back with his dissertations. Trying to put his personal situation aside and realize he’s in a place of figuring things out……..

    Men are just overgrown children.

    • No, they are not.
      To pretend you can treat men like children will end with you becoming his slave by force.

      Take grave care with such an attitude, woman.

      • Tell you what. Going on a get-away in a few days with all married women. I will take a scientific poll and report back.

        • What women in a hen house think about the rooster is irrelevant. You can dismiss him, laugh at him, poke fun at his emotional starvation all you want. The rooster does not care.

          But one day, he’ll have enough, and the hens will learn, in a physical world of violence, the physical and violent domination men have on this world. Men are not subtle. They will tear social order to pieces.

          Then will see the hens weep at their demise.

  32. Dale A Albrecht says:

    As much as I feel for “Cecil” not a lot by the way. What is the tragedy is the global uproar caused and the ingnoring of really important things. That said, more airlines are banning shipping trophies. I assume from the big 5 in Africa. I’m wondering if the activists have any concept that they are making these animals even more valueless and a considerable expense to conserve. The peoples 1st consideration is their own survival. If 1 lion culled can feed a family for 1 year. The money earned $55K. The animals will be even more valuless and are competing for the land. They will be gone sooner than later. At least the people had some interest in conservation and controled hunts.

    The lesson is the rain forest. The activist got banned timber from these forests. Made it valueless. It got burned and cut even more quickly just to create space for food production. If they went the opposite way and paid the owner a “fair” price for the timber they might cut one or two trees in a year and live quite well meeting their needs. The greenies got subsidies in place to grow more bio-fuel plants so Brazil can go green. They claim that NO rainforest has been cut for bio-fuel plants. Wrong, the farmers are replacing their food plants with biofuel plants because they can make more money with the subsidies. They still need to eat. So the rainforest is being cut even quicker and still no way to sell the hardwood due to bans.

    • They don’t care. Let’s ban trophy hunting and hunting in general. Stops all the conservation money and money that pays rangers. Then the Chinese get to shoot the last Rhino’s in the wild and the few tigers left for their natural “Viagra”. Meanwhile the hooples out there like our friend Charlie will applaud that they did something worthwhile, sleep like a baby tonight and go off to some new cause tomorrow with nary a look back.

    • I have to ask this of everyone…..Is there really anyone on here that gives a flying rats ass about Cecil the Lion? He’s dead.

      • It would be instructive to show the lioness in South Africa biting on the head of that tourist through the open car window last month.

        They can bitch and moan as much as they want but taking a lion with a bow is something I wouldn’t want to try. .

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Not a bit. The good only thing about it is that it has replaced some of the MSN fawning over “Caitlyn” has been getting.

  33. Dale A Albrecht says:

    So Amanda Bland’s family is suing everyone and their mother for violating their daughters constitutional rights. Including the trooper.

    The initial stop was for failure to use a turn indicater. Was the turn done unsafely and caused people to scrabble for her un-signaled turn. Was it from a left turn lane? why signal there you’re in a special lane. Regardless, the stop got out of control and also something about not putting her cigarette out. Possible, No smoking due to a high risk of fire area? Or di the officer take it as a sign of disrespect. Did she blow smoke in his face?

    Don’t drive in NC. Either these are all New Englanders but along the line turn signal use is rare. Many times they put the wrong one on. NEVER NEVER bet on the signal. Assume it’s wrong and just wait for the vehicle to clear. Traffic law says at a yellow if you can safely stop before it turns red do so. However, here even if its just turned red check your mirror. The guy behind is probably expecting you to run it if traffic has not started from the side street. You actually have to insure the person behind is seeing you start to stop.

  34. Colonel, ya gotta do something about your fellow Texicans. Somebody’s gotta explain to them that NY City is not San Antonio. C’mon, this seems to happen every year don’t you folks have news reports down there?

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/03/texas-tourist-thought-it-was-ok-to-pack-heat-at-the-911-memorial/

    • Yes…silly of us Texans to think that carrying a weapon is as normal as breathing….we do forget that…. when we travel to the National Socialist City of New York….

      The other problem was in being truthful and doing the right thing….However, we do not know how to visit one of the most rude cities in the world.

  35. I posted a new thread. It was a quick article, no links, just to get the ball rolling. Feel free to continue any discussions on the new thread, for the speed of loading. Thanks!

%d bloggers like this: