The Gun Grabber’s Medusa

gg11With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, hundreds of articles have post published discussing the fear of 2nd Amendment challenges that would happen to hit a Supreme Court with 5 Liberal Judges on board.  While I think that they were seriously jumping the gun on the matter, it isn’t a surprise that the Liberal Left would love to disarm every law abiding American in the country.  Some of them have even said so, quite clearly.  Michael Bloomberg and his gun grabbing lobbyist’s are always out trying to get State level legislation passed to further erode the guaranteed Rights written in the Bill of Rights.  The Left will claim that the 2nd Amendment isn’t all inclusive and should have restrictions (which it has, Nationally).  Too bad they don’t think the same way about abortion, which is based on a SCOTUS decision, not a law or Amendment.

One of the long debunked arguments we hear concerns the militia language in the first part of the Amendment……

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 

 

gg22As the argument goes, only members of the militia should have guns and many claim that the National Guard is the State militia.  That argument was squashed by the Supreme Court in   District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and   McDonald v. Chicago (2010).  Still, the gun grabbers continue their march to disarm the American people.  Their only hope is to get a Liberal Judge confirmed and then get the right case before the court.  This of course could take years to finally get the right case that could reverse the rulings from the above cases.  To make things harder, reversals of previous SCOTUS decisions are rare.  Let’s not also realize that the Court’s integrity is under strain since the Obamacare decisions and the Gay Marriage decision.

But let’s keep this simple and a lot less complicated than a Supreme Court decision.  My proposal is to use the Liberal Left’s “militia” argument against them, right where it belongs, at the State level.   It’s time to get the Gun Lobby to shut down the Gun Grabbers once and for all, or, shut them the hell up!  It’s not hard and all it requires is for s State Legislature to pass a newly written law, and have it signed into law.  Obviously, there will be some States that wouldn’t touch this proposal with a fifty foot pole because the Liberal’s in the Legislature may turn to stone.  This is the Gun Grabber’s Medusa.

gg55The proposal is simple.  Get the Legislatures of States to draft a law that simply states that all law abiding citizens of the State, who are legally permitted to OWN firearms, will hence forth be considered a member of the Regulated State Militia.  The terms of what regulated can be outlined by explaining WHO is a resident of the State, Age when qualified for militia membership and who is restricted from the membership.  The many questions as to when the militia can be called upon and any other important aspects can be outlined.  This law should be as simple as possible, since it’s true goal is to simply protect the Right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The many parts of this proposal can be discussed below in the comments section.

By passing such a law at the State level, any future Supreme Court ruling would be useless, as it is the militia argument that the Court would have to affirm.  Once the State makes it’s citizens members of said militia, any court ruling that would affirm the militia argument would be made moot.  Any thoughts of rescinding the 2nd Amendment is DOA, as about 1/3rd of the population, if not more, legally own firearms.  But there is more to this proposal, one that few understand or have even considered.  Forcing the Federal government to arm and provide weapons training for the citizens of those States that pass such a law.  How you ask?  Article 1, Section 8, line 15.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

gg66The new laws can make specific levels of training for those who volunteer.  For those who choose not to train, but to be untrained reserves, would still enjoy the Rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.  There are plenty of people in every State who would love to get some quality firearms training on their bright shiny (flat black) Federally issued assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns.  But let’s make this part clear.  The demand for Federal involvement should only be a last resort.  Use it as a “can be invoked” in the case of those circumstances deemed necessary to PROTECT the Rights of the citizens.

This proposal is by no means an attempt to raise active militia’s.  It is simply a law that provides protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, regardless of future Supreme Court rulings.   State militia member laws would certainly be the Gun Grabber’s Medusa, let’s turn them to stone!gg33

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I actually don’t think the SCOTUS would reverse their most recent decisions, even if given the chance. If they did, it probably would be the end of the entire Federal government as we know it today.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Four homicides over the weekend and two more Monday morning pushed Chicago’s homicide count so far this year to double the same period last year.

    The city has recorded at least 95 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 47 last year, according to data kept by the Tribune. The city has also more than doubled the amount of people shot – about 420 this year compared to 193 last year.
    http://constitution.com/gun-control-see-how-chicagos-current-homicide-rate-compares-with-1-year-agoit-might-shock-you/

  3. it isn’t a surprise that the Liberal Left would love to disarm every law abiding American in the country

    Bollocks.

    SOME on the Liberal Left would like to disarm every law abiding American. Most of us just want some common sense regulations.

    But I’d like to draw some comparisons, if I might throw some gasoline on the barbecue.

    Argument: If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns (and otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey will become criminals). If you make drugs illegal, only criminals will have drugs (and otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey will become criminals).

    Argument: The right to bear arms is (sort of) guaranteed in the Constitution, therefore efforts to regulate it into oblivion are unconstitutional. Abortion is (sort of) guaranteed in the Constitution (so sayeth the SCOTUS whose job it is to determine such things), therefore efforts to regulate it into oblivion are unconstitutional.

    The Left will claim that the 2nd Amendment isn’t all inclusive and should have restrictions (which it has, Nationally). Too bad they don’t think the same way about abortion, which is based on a SCOTUS decision, not a law or Amendment.

    Yes, precisely. Now let me turn this around because the hypocrisy works both ways. Why is the right (generally) instant that (virtually) any gun regulations are unconstitutional, but they’re (generally) peachy with regulating abortion clinics into the ground?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      To answer your questions in last paragraph. This is quite simple to anyone who understands the Constitution. First, the Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions of the Federal government. States also have their own Constitutions, many of which also protect the Rights to guns. The Federal government is outlawed from making ANY restrictions on gun ownership, by the 2nd Amendment. That Right has been removed from Felons (which needs to exclude non-violent felons) and those who are seriously mentally ill (I can’t argue this one, nobody can, but that should be up to the States).

      Abortion is not a restricted issue under the Bill of Rights. That’s a red herring fails the equality test. But, let’s be honest about the Fed’s, what Right do they have to outlaw any product (like pot)? That isn’t regulating commerce. What authority is given the Fed’s to controll pollution via the EPA? It doesn’t exist, made up bulldookie..

      Now let’s look at the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. They simply made a new law, sort of, didn’t they. The problem is, nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the Fed’s to regulate marriage. But, this decision to me is a good thing, because of some other language in the Constitution, this decision makes it legal that my CCL is allowed in all 50 States and territories, just like a marriage license. Cool Stuff 🙂 It will eventually see the Supreme Court (CCL’s or Constitutional Carry or both).

      Fun subject, didn’t expect so many comments on it this early. Usually we just talk about anything, which is OK too!

      • The Federal government is outlawed from making ANY restrictions on gun ownership, by the 2nd Amendment.

        Close. The Federal government is interpreted by the SCOTUS to be outlawed from making ANY many restrictions on gun ownership by the 2nd Amendment.

        You see, in the Constitution, it also specifies that a judicial system shall make the determinations on how to interpret and extrapolate the Constitution, not you. You do not get to decide unilaterally what it says any more than I do. And, believe me, you don’t want me to be responsible for deciding how to interpret the Constitution.

        Therefore……

        Abortion is not a restricted issue under the Bill of Rights. That’s a red herring fails the equality test. But, let’s be honest about the Fed’s, what Right do they have to outlaw any product (like pot)? That isn’t regulating commerce. What authority is given the Fed’s to controll pollution via the EPA? It doesn’t exist, made up bulldookie..

        Perhaps, perhaps not. It certainly isn’t explicitly mentioned. But then again, the Founders could never have reasonably imagined the need for many of today’s laws and concerns.

        That’s one of the reasons they put in place the judiciary. Because it’s THEIR JOB, not yours to determine what the Constitution says/means/implies.

        The COURTS have determined that the EPA is legal and pot isn’t. I don’t get to legalize marijuana anymore than you get to abolish the EPA.

        The COURTS (again, the courts whose job it is to decide such things) have determined that the Constitution grants a right to abortion access with “reasonable restrictions.” (whatever that means). YOU do not get to unilaterally overrule them. YOU do not get to unilaterally decide that no such right exists.

        Don’t like it? Fine. Go pass an Amendment.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          “You see, in the Constitution, it also specifies that a judicial system shall make the determinations on how to interpret and extrapolate the Constitution, not you. You do not get to decide unilaterally what it says any more than I do. And, believe me, you don’t want me to be responsible for deciding how to interpret the Constitution.”

          See my first response to go with this. First, it specifies no such thing. This authority was created by SCOTUS and was viewed as an “implied” power, based on legal history and philosophy. Jefferson was not the only Founder to disagree with it. But they did not have enough of them to overturn the court. Because once SCOTUS created this power for itself it would take an “Amendment” to take it away. That is how the “tyranny of the court” was described before ratification. It came true.

          Gman and you and I and the rest of us are the absolute and final arbiters of what that document contains and how it should be “interpreted”. The problem is that WE have been excluded because the Court can roll over anything We the People want and the “elites” can stop us from acting to resolve the dispute.

          Once again, this is not a victimhood mind set. The threats to our Liberty are real. You are simply willing to accept some of those loses because you agree with the outcomes. I and others are not.

          Homosexual marriage is a good example. I absolutely oppose the SCOTUS decision. I believe it to be wrong in law and logic. And it violates that covenant that Rights not outlined reside with the PEOPLE.

          This does not mean I have a personal problem or oppose Homosexuals being “married”. It means that I oppose the SCOTUS creating such a right and overriding thousands of years of human moral/ethical standards. They were not given such power and should never have such power.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m for legalizing pot and all such drugs. End the drug war, completely. It’ll never happen, just saying.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Good morning Sir. Glad to see your crisp thinking and sharp wit back on display here. While your logic is good it is still lacking in many respects. Clouded if you will by the “empathy” or “emotion” bug of those who call themselves “left” or “liberal”.

      I want to address what I see as weakness in your response. Not necessarily outright wrong, just weakness caused by changes in the people.

      YOU: “SOME on the Liberal Left would like to disarm every law abiding American. Most of us just want some common sense regulations.”

      ME: There are two parts to this. “Some” and “common sense”. The problem is that “some” appears to be a very large number of the “leaders” among Democrats and “left” thinking people. Now maybe it is blown out of proportion due to the media. But when POTUS himself starts entertaining policies that will make gun ownership prohibitive then some of “us” are going to wonder if the fears of confiscation are not true after all. Remember, POTUS and Reid openly discussed TAXING guns and ammo to make them cost prohibitive.

      As for the “common sense”, I and others have repeatedly shown that those proposals put forth by the “vocal” members of the left/liberal tribe have no impact on violence, as in they are not “common sense” at all, they are “nonsensical”.

      YOU: Argument: If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns (and otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey will become criminals). If you make drugs illegal, only criminals will have drugs (and otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey will become criminals).

      ME: Good argument. However, there is the true issue behind the saying that has existed my entire lifetime. It will be the violent criminals who have the guns. That is the issue. Those who fear Govt. more will give up their means of self defense. Meanwhile the bad guys will have the guns. It seems that many have forgotten this was the situation not but a couple decades back. One of the reasons that the reform in criminal codes occurred along with increased gun ownership.

      YOU: Argument: The right to bear arms is (sort of) guaranteed in the Constitution, therefore efforts to regulate it into oblivion are unconstitutional. Abortion is (sort of) guaranteed in the Constitution (so sayeth the SCOTUS whose job it is to determine such things), therefore efforts to regulate it into oblivion are unconstitutional.

      ME: Serious error in comparison as not accurate. The right to bear arms is absolutely protected, not “sort of”. The fact that SCOTUS has placed “interpretations” on this ban of power is part of the problem not the answer. You place your argument on the fallacy of the Court itself.

      The Constitution did NOT give SCOTUS the authority nor the responsibility to “interpret” the Constitution nor decide what laws passed by Congress were or were not Constitutional. SCOTUS created this authority and it was accepted, to a large but not complete degree by the Congress since then.

      This fallacy of the Court extends to your example of abortion. It now includes their ruling on Homosexual Marriage. Whether you think their decision righteous has no merit when dealing with issues of Constitutional constraints on Govt. authority.

      There is a critical part left out of all these debates involving the “activism” of the Court with respect to authority and rights. We the People never gave the Court the authority nor responsibility to be the keeper of society’s moral code, ethical standards nor our Rights. It is their job to assure those Rights outlined are kept sacred. Nothing beyond that. In fact the document recognizes the proper and sole location of the authority to determine any other rights not enumerated. With the People.

      There was not and is not a “right to abortion”, nor is their a “right to marry” and most of all, there is no “right to a dignified life”. These are all constructs of a small group of people acting contrary to the law and the will of the people. And what the people think is the ONLY thing that matters. Not you or I alone or in some small group.

      And yes, that means that if the people decided tomorrow that slavery is OK then “legally” speaking it will be OK. It is up to the rest of us to make the moral and rational arguments against it. When a “majority” of The People final conclude there is a right deserving of protection then it is incumbent upon them to change the law to protect that right. It is not the role of SCOTUS.

      YOU: “Yes, precisely. Now let me turn this around because the hypocrisy works both ways. Why is the right (generally) instant that (virtually) any gun regulations are unconstitutional, but they’re (generally) peachy with regulating abortion clinics into the ground?”

      ME: The answers are obvious if you understand the role of our Constitution and the limitations it contains. The document prohibits action against gun ownership, it says nothing about abortion nor does any restriction or authority relate to abortion. The “right” was created from thin air by the court. Who has no authority to “create” such rights. The legal argument doing so was twisted in its reasoning and is obviously not supported. Because the court does not apply the same rule to other issues. Like drug ownership or use.

      On the philosophical level this is a fallacy of moral equivalency. Owning a gun is not the same moral issue as killing an unborn child. Based on your prior and clearly stated position on abortion it is clear there is no “right” here. There is the room for law based on human views and compromise. I know. Some have no compromise. But with law it only takes a majority.

      Again, buried within all these issues is the understanding by many of us in this country that the Constitution has been undermined and we are now subject to the whim of those Wizards in Black Robes. These issues and this sense of a “tyrannical court” compounds over time and becomes part of the response to many issues. You see this as the “victimhood” of the right. It is not “victimhood” but a reasoned conclusion of what has happened and the reaction to stop it from continuing.

      I do recognize and admit there are many, on both sides, who simply see threats to their values or belief systems behind every corner. Even when those threats are not real. However, those fears on the right are largely driven by the rhetoric of the left and the media which seems to be in their pocket.

      This was largely why USW created this site. Because the hacks in the media were controlling the debates between We the People. SUFA provides one forum for us to hash these things out without the vitriol and manipulation we see in the media and among “opinion leaders”.

  4. Still, the gun grabbers continue their march to disarm the American people.

    Please stop the victimhood whoa is me mentality. The pro-gun lobby is wiping the floor with the gun-control lobby. There are 300mm Americans and there are (according to Professor Google) 300mm guns. And that number has increased dramatically during Barrack “Coming To Take Your Guns” Obama’s presidency. D13 alone has an entire room dedicated to them.

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a solid F for his efforts at gun control.

    Seriously, when I hear (read) things like this, it reminds me of the War on Christmas™.

    Are there people who want to “grab your guns”? Yup.

    Are they a viable threat? Not a chance.

    Do you people need to take a chill pill? Absolutely.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Do you people need to take a chill pill? Absolutely.

      This is exactly what the gun grabbers want Mathius, exactly. Try to ridicule the pro gun folks to back off so they can move right on in, and it seems either your one of them, or just niave enough to fall for it.

      But you are correct in many ways, the gun grabbers are getting squashed. The problem is that they aren’t extinct. Besides that, I had run out of ideas for an article, 😀

      Now, back to the subject. Thoughts on the idea behind the proposed State law?

      • This is exactly what the gun grabbers want Mathius, exactly. Try to ridicule the pro gun folks to back off so they can move right on in, and it seems either your one of them, or just niave enough to fall for it.

        Bah. You can’t go ballistic over a powerless faction and act like you’re under siege. It’s annoying. Take. Your. Chill. Pill. Take it, I say!

        I had run out of ideas for an article,

        Have you considered talking about the victimhood mentality of the right? 😛

        Thoughts on the idea behind the proposed State law?

        Below, sir.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Have you considered talking about the victimhood mentality of the right? 😛

          Actually, I was thinking about an article on Clinton’s constant claims of victimhood by Right Wing Conspirist’s. That seems to be far more relevant these days, but I can’t stomach her voice or pictures anymore.

          Victimhood, LOL. Coming from a Lefty who’s younger core needs safe spaces from microaggressions. BWAHAHAHA!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/the-gun-grabbers-are-coming-lexington-massachusetts-now-faces-semi-automatic-gun-confiscation/#ixzz416X9EWS6

      This is exactly why chilling won’t work. Just another example of what I’m talking about.

  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. Let’s not also realize that the Court’s integrity is under strain since […] the Gay Marriage decision.

    On what planet? That ruling was so overdue, it’s absurd. Historians are going to look back at this Obergefell on par with Brown v. Board.

    Relevant.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      There are still a lot of people who are against the Gay Marriage ruling. But changing the language of Obamacare from “fine” to “tax” is certainly cause for some strain. Let us not forget Mathius, it was the Democrats who didn’t support the Equal Rights movement. I know that was before your time, but you should consider some serious looking back at the Left and their transgressions. All this race card BS coming from them is hilarious, not to mention hypocritical.

      • There are still a lot of people who are against the Gay Marriage ruling.

        There are still lots of people who are against the interracial marriage ruling, but I simply do not give a shit what they think either.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I could care less about either, they have no bearing on my life at all. Let people live as they choose. The government has no authority to regulate what goes on behind the closed doors of private property. Which is why private property is so important to freedom.

      • Let us not forget Mathius, it was the Democrats who didn’t support the Equal Rights movement.

        This may shock you, but roles change over time. The Republicans, who love to claim to be the party of Lincoln, are wildly different from who they used to be, too. You can’t dine out on your old reputation if you don’t live up to it anymore.

        For the last however many years, the BLUE SHIRTS have been pushing for Equal Rights while the RED SHIRTS pursued the “Southern Strategy.” Remind me again which party is currently aggressively race bating against Muslims and trying to repress homosexuals’ rights?

        If I’d lived in a different era, I would align my votes accordingly. Today’s Democrats more closely match my ideology. In the 60’s, perhaps it would have been the Republicans.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          This may shock you, but roles change over time. You have fallen for Left Wing attempts to change history, which is ongoing today, even by Obama.

          Muslim’s are not a race, so there is no race baiting (stop sounding like Hillary). The homosexual issue is a religious issue for many. Not all Democrats are for gay marriage, just like not all Democrats are for gun control, as you have so nicely reminded everyone 🙂

          • I read “race bating” and “Muslim” as I wrote it, couldn’t think of a better term (“religion bating”??), so I left it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            But that doesn’t mean that (many on) the “right” aren’t demonizing them, trying to institutionalize discrimination against them, and just generally being bigots.

          • This may shock you, but roles change over time. You have fallen for Left Wing attempts to change history

            Oh, do tell. Which party is the party of the Southern Strategy?

            Which party currently has a plausible candidate who actually marched with MLK?

            Things change. This isn’t a conspiracy to change history, it is empirical reality. The Democrats of the 40’s are the not the Democrats of today, nor are the Republicans of the Civil War the Republicans of today. The parties need to be evaluated on their CURRENT merits.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              AGREED.

              Now which party is running two OLD WHITE PEOPLE and which party had an Indian, two Hispanics, a woman, and two OLD white people.

              Which party has elected African Americans to the house and Senate from Utah and S. Carolina recently? Which party elected an Hispanic woman to be Governor of New Mexico. Which party elected that same dark skinned Indian to be Governor of Louisiana and a Woman of Indian decent to be Gov. of S. Carolina?

              Now, despite that I agree with your broader point and that far to many “Republicans” ignore how many of the old “southern Democrats” moved to the Republican party once the Dems went all in on the leftist agenda. That was not just driven by race, by the way. It had a lot to do with crime and the perception the Dem party was abandoning our Judeo/Christian heritage.

              One reason the “moral majority” became so strong in that region and among Republicans.

          • The homosexual issue is a religious issue for many.

            I’ll give you this when it’s a question of requiring a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding or some other such nonsense. (But, then again, if you replaced the word gay with black, would this sound like such a minor issue?)

            But what about the (widespread) Republican position that the STATE should be permitted to block gay marriage. Surely, the STATE is supposed to be secular, no?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              (But, then again, if you replaced the word gay with black, would this sound like such a minor issue?) You would have to ask your ilk on this one. They are the ones keeping them in poverty and their population under control 🙂

              State, in my terms are the several States concerning the Constitutional issue. The STATE you are speaking of is government in general. There is no requirement, outside of State Constitutions that require their governments to be secular. The 1st Amendment is intended to limit the authority of the Federal government ONLY. They simply can’t make a law establishing a religion, it doesn’t say they can’t follow the religious beliefs already in existence at the time. A government cannot “establish” what already exists.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I’ll give you this when it’s a question of requiring a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding or some other such nonsense. (But, then again, if you replaced the word gay with black, would this sound like such a minor issue?)

              False argument. The issue is not whether it is a “minor” thing but whether both are matters of practicing one’s religion. I know of no religion in this country which denies Black people a wedding cake. I know of no religion which could construe one as “participating” or “sanctioning” a black marriage contrary to the Religious doctrine. The closest thing we had to this was the Mormons but they have moved along with another convenient Revelation. Yes, that is my sarcasm dripping through.

              But the real underlying issue is the same one we have kicked around here before and it does apply to ANYONE and EVERYONE. The Govt. has no authority to tell people who they must do business with. It has taken this authority and used the Courts to sanctify it. In many cases the people agree and in others they do not.

              The conflict arises because the people did not grant complete power in this matter but primarily that relating to racial segregation.

              This shows the problem with Govt or Court created laws that are not included in the governing documents.

  7. Get the Legislatures of States to draft a law that simply states that all law abiding citizens of the State, who are legally permitted to OWN firearms, will hence forth be considered a member of the Regulated State Militia.

    Didn’t one of the midwest states try exactly this a few years ago? I don’t think it went anywhere.

    1) Don’t forget about the well regulated portion. I know you touched on it, but don’t think for a second that it would go unchallenged.

    2) Be aware that doing this would always and forever surrender the progress pro-gun groups have made in obliterating the militia clause. You’d be tacitly accepting that the intent and purpose is for use by the militia. Thereafter, you’d be fighting a perpetual battle over what constitutes “well regulated.” In other words, you’d be feeding the gun-control groups, not circumventing them. You’d be trading “shall not be infringed” for “well regulated” – I don’t know if that’s a good move.

    Forcing the Federal government to arm and provide weapons training for the citizens of those States that pass such a law. How you ask? Article 1, Section 8, line 15.

    Does this not butt heads with your small government mindset? I thought you were all about getting rid of the free handouts – or does this not apply when the government is giving you your own howitzer?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Didn’t one of the midwest states try exactly this a few years ago? I don’t think it went anywhere. I don’t recall.

      1. This is the gist of the article. The Left’s nonsensical argument about the militia (which is made up of regular citizens and has been forever). Since they won’t give it up, use it against them.

      2. Not at all. These are simple laws for the States, simply clarifying who are the militia (the people). The law would have the regulation part taken care of, e.g. People who are not violent felons, not mentally ill, of a certain age (at least 16). More importantly, a volunteer in the very unlikely event of invasion from an outside enemy force. That’s regulated. There is not “degree” of regulation required, because it isn’t called for.

      Lastly, on getting the Fed’s to arm the people. It was something I threw in, to remind the Left, that this battle could get much worse for them.. If these laws start to pass, and the gun grabbers continue their nonsense (like Bloomberg’s groups of losers), then the people will force the Fed’s to follow the Constitution. The language is very clear. They will be forced to provide the weapons of our modern military, the ammo, and pay for the training that the State leaders will conduct. But, we really don’t need any new laws, as militia are the people, all we need is a good lawyer and lots of financing. LOTS OF FINANCING 🙂

      • It was something I threw in, to remind the Left, that this battle could get much worse for them.

        “To remind the Left”?

        What left?

        I’d wager you a tankard of DPM’s finest grog that I’m the only “left” that will ever read what you wrote.

        This blog’s demographics are pretty skewed.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          It’ll get read. Sometimes it just takes a little effort! 🙂

        • That is too bad because by and large they are intellectually lazy. I painfully read their crap. By doing so, I can “relate” to Bernie Sanders. Can even agree with the points he makes though can see alternative solutions. By paying attention, I can see where politics converge. The political “circle” is evident rather than the left-right straight line most claim exist.

          The Nazi’s and Commies on the clock of politics are about half a minute apart. Young Americans for Freedom and Students for a Democratic Society were about three minutes apart back in the late 1960’s. Hard to convince anybody at the time but if you followed members of both and saw how they morphed over 50 years it was very evident.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Most States, maybe all for all I know, have had “Militia” laws on their books from day one. As does the Federal Govt. Federal law defines the “Militia” and it is NOT the National Guard.

      The effort you are remembering was an effort to “require” gun ownership by everyone meeting the definition of militia. Such laws existed in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s to assure the militia was armed and could meet the “regulated” needs. That being a certain type of rifle, along with adequate ball and powder to use it.

  8. Hey G-

    How do you feel about the “Bundy Militia” and such? I’d love your thoughts.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Well, there is no “Bundy militia”. That’s just Left Wing nonsense they made up to sell bullshit to their readers.. The last event in Oregon was wrongheaded and had no chance of success. I said that from the beginning. But at the same time, I was waiting for another WACO burn out to occur. Fortunately, that didn’t happen. Too bad the cops started all the shooting when bullets did fly. Can’t wait for video to come out with audio.

      But let me correct the record, there is no such thing as a “Bundy militia”. Thats just media sensationalizing the event to make more money. I did like some of the comments from the left calling for the government to kill them, blow the hell out of them and burn them to death that were made public from many of the Left Wing sites (I saw many myself). Just another reason to fight for the 2nd Amendment, your people are nucking futs.

    • A joke!

      Anybody can organize and call themselves a militia. How do you feel about the Black Panther “militia”?

  9. I’ve always found the arguments about the “militia” fascinating. Being a gun guy since I was 15 and living in the very built up borough of Manhattan, studying the 2nd Amendment as a teen was interesting.

    54 years ago, in a different world my impression of the Amendment were formed. They have not changed.

    The state needs a well-regulated militia. Well, the term regulated generally meant “trained” in reference to the militia. Parts of the militia were called out for practice from time to time. OK so far?

    The “militia” was drawn from the body of the people. Various laws and statutes required participation. Follow?

    The people, in order to be part of that Militia needed arms and were required to possess and supply them . Got it?

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms (so that they may participate in the militia) shall not be infringed.

    So damned simple. Designed as all the amendments were to be that simple so that even a poorly educated country bumpkin could get it.

    Very logical, very well drawn out. Now, regardless of the size of the militia or it’s being called upon to fight Brits or Indians or secessionists, or the Federal government (1861-65) there is nothing in the amendment that says when eh population reaches 100,000,000 the militia goes away. When police forces are organized, the militia goes away, when the national Guard is organized, the militia goes away. Like the other 9 amendments, you are stuck with it. Unless!

    The unless part is what Major Owned (D. Brooklyn) had the guts to call for a dozen years ago. Repeal it!

    We, unlike many other places have always had the ability to add or delete from our constitution. That however requires work. In many ways this is the hardest type of work, to get all your ducks in a row, go out in the hustings and convince the ordinary un or over educated American that the thing needs tweaking.

    In my 69 years I have come to the conclusion that liberals do not like work. Not the hard stuff. Not going toe to toe and using argument and logic. They prefer the “easy” way. Get the judges to do it. Appeal not to the law, original intent, practicality, usefulness, tradition, freedom but rather to emotion. “If we can save one child’s life, etc,. etc. etc. Last night I again heard a variation on this during hearings televised on C-Span. Congresswoman Giffords husband, Mr. Scott appealed yet again to the “youth” lost to gun violence. Nowhere did he break this down into gang violence. Nowhere did he fault the failure of the legal system to use the tools it has. Nowhere did he praise the efforts that have halved gun accidents at the same time population has doubled. It is the old lazy man’s way. Ban, restrict, control, register, confiscate in whatever order but do not ever attempt to do what the framers required. CHANGE THE AMENDMENT!

    A modern militia that “evolved”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpeper_Minutemen

  10. I’m not in favor of any new laws. We have too many laws the way it is…

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Comment on Lincoln’s statement included by Gman above.

    Sounds great but is a RUSE.

    As I explained above to Mathius, once the Court takes power the people cannot simply throw them out. The people cannot simply ignore them and apply the law as they see it properly applied.

    The people can only pass an amendment to overturn the Court’s ruling. And that means that FIVE “unelected” people can make law, while it takes 75% of the STATES to overrule them.

    There is no justice nor democratic principle is such an unbalanced power structure.

    The only thing that has stood between we the people and tyranny of the court was the personal commitment of the justices to the Constitutional precepts. That commitment has long since been lost. While more so by the “left/liberal” judges it still is true for all of them. Clarence Thomas may be one of the few who has held staid fast in my memory.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      the government, in particular the democrats because they talk about it does not want to be bothered with the amendment process. That really gets to the heart of “we the people” the amendment process makes the constitution a living document subject to the will of the people. Progressives loath the constitution all the back to Wilson , who viewed it as an impediment. that is why packing the court is so all fired important. It’s the lazy mans way of getting an agenda through without gaining a buy in by the “overwhelming” majority of the people. We have to ask….why are the democrats ALWAYS so adamently opposed to appointing judges to the Supreme Court that have a judicial record of stricly ruling on the Constitution and not one who rules on an interpretation and inventing rights where they do not exist in our highest legal document.

      I can see the most dangerous opinion that Obama, Hillary and Sanders rail on is freedom of speech. They say it’s only individuals with that right…not businesses, groups etc. Both NY and CA AG’s are going after companies that are not parroting the administrations AGW stand. newspapers, internet, all are at risk. That just an opening salvo. PRAVDA anyone.

      • And, in California and New York, they are losing their business base. This is why both states are introducing state legislation to forbid companies from moving without out three and five year , respectively, notices and fines.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          While I do believe a company should do what is in their self interest, just like an individual, but then also if you F!!! up that choice, do not dump, the problem, if any occur on the State or community. I also believe if company directors and managers would have any moral compass today, they might just make some better decisions, negating the need to move.

          Two cases of the same company 20 years apart. IBM in the 50’s built a large fabricator in Kingston, NY. It was primarily for the SAGE project. Over time the plant built main frames and other IBM equipment. In the mid 70’s, the company decided to relocate to RTP (Research Triangle Park) here in NC. The migration took years. They slowly moved the operation south. Retired employees that had reached those golden years or desired to relocate or just plain do something else. This allowed Kingston and all the companies that grew up around IBM, supplying parts etc to get other contracts, or maybe move themselves. Kingston was able to adjust and attract other businesses to fill the void. The whole move was to keep the impact as minimal as possible for everyone. management cared and there was NO subsequent ill feelings. The move was driven only by a desire to reduce costs.

          In the 90’s, the same company in Fishkill NY was making semi-conductors. The product they made was very archaic and they should have moved into newer technologies. The management had a captive market and could charge anything to cover their costs. Eventually the economics of those BAD decisions caught up when the consumer of those parts started buying from us up in VT. New technology, better, faster and a whole hell of a lot cheaper. Fishkill, one day directed everyone to the cafeteria, 13,000 + employees, and handed them all their severance checks and said BYE-BYE and they shuttered the facility. All this could have ben averted IF management had made better decisions that were knocking on them for years. But those warnings were ignored. The executives who made those decisions moved on and up. No cost to them…..however Fishkill even in 2013 still had not recovered and the anger was so thick in the air you could cut it with a knife.

          Up in a very high cost area of VT, the semi-conductor plant was the best in the world. We kicked ass against any and all competitors in the world. Including Intel, AMP, NEC, Toshiba regardless of location of manufacture etc As long as management had a vision we made it happen. We actually were set up to be an independent business unit. Huge desire to be # 1. However, in ’95 IBM decided to head in a different direction. Instead of selling the fabricator when it was # 1 they dragged their feet for years, stopped making capital investments and the other year wound up paying a company to take the business. Now to upgrade the facility it will take around $6B. The people for the most part are retirement age. My bet is that the new owners will shutter the place soon. They wanted the patents and contracts that still existed…..I’ve said this before, the major hit came in ’94. We invented tools and had exclusive rights to those tools. Those tools made an entire new generation of 5 level metal semi-conductors possible. Intel’s attempt to make the product resulted in the ability to cook hot dogs. No joke. Finance told us that we had to stop buying the tools and cut the money. The chips that were produced from that technology could be sold for $1K plus. One full yield wafer could result in $1M. 40 in a box = $40M. 1000 wafer starts a day. That’s a whole lot of money. The executives in NY opened up the ability for that privately held company to sell those tools. Intel bought the next several years of production. Finance all of a sudden realized their error. We could NOT increase production, beyond what it was to meet the demand. It was the beginning of the end. Our division president was livid…..Armonk fired him.

          What I’m trying to say…..is that no state is demanding a company to stay. But I do believe, if our Harvard business managers are so all fired smart they could figure out a way to stay very competitive and keep business open. Been there and done it. But today a person is less than a brass tag on a piece of furniture……But the past years that I worked, my team spent huge amounts of time and efffort increasing our efficiencies and productivity. 1st thing management did was move stuff overseas and then lay off here. Eventually the engineers would just give up and say why bother,

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            One further thought. Areas like RTP gave huge tax and infrastructure incentives to relocate from NY. I hate to say it but the costs dumped, by a company, on a community by an instant relocation and shuttering and unemployement should be covered by the company. Do the move right and there would be no need. Be the innovators we think we are and again there would be no need……IBM has dropped in stock price by over 1/3’d in the past 2 years. So if all this migration to a service economy is so great and the return to the shareholder is # 1….what’s the problem. The people/workers/contractors really do not care anymore. Generalization of course, but it was extremely hard to keep the employees motivated, knowing full well that they will possibly, at a drop of a hat or productivity gain be gone. The executives were very angry that the engineers started giving notice and quiting. I said why not. They’re operating in their self interest. You’d lay them off if finance said to for the self interest of the company, regardless of their performance. Many times they’d lay off the best engineers, because they got paid more. Keeping the lesser skilled ones…..all to the detriment of the client…..I actually was glad when I retired. I was so tired of the BS.

            In Durham NC is the flagship network management facilty for at&t. Contracts managed there are ones that the client pays a premium to retain the service in the US or are restricted by law to not be overseas. ie anything that touches government agencies in anyway. We’s have X engineers managing the networks. They’d be worked very hard. No additional bandwidth to add more contracts. We’d invent tools or procedures to increase productivity and give the guys some space, the company would immediately lay off the headcount declared excess by the productivity improvements. So an individual was still worked to near breaking points and many did. Sales was still out pounding the streets. When new contracts would get inked the company would try and rehire the trained engineers. Usually that was within 1 maybe 2 months. Some came back, none came back after 2 times. To unstable. Family problems were huge. Health issues, awful. All stress. It would take up to 1 full year to train a new college graduate to do the work required. These are engineering graduates. A totally short sighted management practice.

  12. I remember some of you said you read Trump’s book-Is this true?

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/hammernhank/2016/02/23/converted-trump-voter/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Yes, it is true. Although Trump to this day claims the lawsuits were over shoddy work. But he had a pattern of this. I understand he has used the same tactic on several projects since he wrote that book. But I have no solid evidence. Only the comments of others on this web thing.

      • Very few are really attacking Trump. I assume the left and the media are waiting until he wins the nomination to attack him. I just can’t imagine what is gonna come out about him-when that day comes-if it comes.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Well for starters, it will look and sound a lot like what they did to Fiorina in California, and then what they did to Romney in the POTUS race. That is just for starters.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    And the dopes eat this stuff up.

    Oh, it is so intellectual and objective. One little problem. His THIRD criteria eliminates the first two. But what the hell, logic is not a strong suit of the media.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/

  14. .

  15. Beautiful day in Sandpoint. Mixed clouds and sun, reflecting off the great lake Pend Orielle.

    • Those voting for this man have announced loud and clear that the Tea Party movement FAILED.

      The only remaining question is whether it is dead or just got run over by those seeking to get REVENGE by using the same unethical and immoral standards as have been used the past 100 years or so. And put on steroids by this Administration.

      • Tea party whatever. They are announcing they indeed, have no higher principles than the ones supporting the likes of Hillary. I see Trump as a perfect competitor to Hilary – in the Dem party campaign. I just don’t get it. I had much higher expectations of people. Instead they are clapping like seals the more vulgar he gets and blindly disregarding his history and acting like revolutionaries when they vote for him. Very similar to Obama voters, who they supposedly despised for their naivete and intellectual laziness.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Kathy

          🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

          Well said and I totally agree. I am equally disappointed.

          The upside is the over 50% not voting for Trump at this point. I am hoping that does not change.

          • JAC……just what is it that bothers you about Trump?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13thecolonel

              I have explained it several times now.

              Boiled down: NO HONOR and NO EXPERIENCE

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Trump has plenty of experience screwing people, just like all the politicians. You not only pegged Trump, you pegged them ALL! I think Cruz is dirty and Rubio is just a mouthpiece for the establishment. Of all of them, Rubio is a typical politician when speaking, Cruz is a dirty player, which means I have as much trust in him as I do the current failure of a Congress. I like Kasich, but not his demeanor, he needs to be a little more tempermentle. I like Carson and think he would make a great VP. I still am not sold on Trump either, still watching and weighing the issues. So far he is winning the two biggest, failed trade deals and immigration.

              • Admit it G 🙂 you don’t really like anyone.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                HI V! 🙂 You are mostly correct. Can’t believe what the Democrats have running. Disgraceful and completely disrespectful to the American people. On the Right, not much better. It’s fun to watch and talk about, but much like the ’14 elections, not a damn thing will change. One team, two different colored shirts heading down the same pathetic path. More at the bottom 🙂

        • I too, feel like people are ignoring all the negatives just like the dems. did with Obama.

          And I suspect his rude and crude ways will get annoying very fast. There’s not being PC and then there’s just being childish-the two aren’t the same thing.

          But from responses I’ve been reading on various blogs-I don’t think people are gonna change their minds.

          • People are ignoring Trump’s negatives because his negatives are less negative than established politicians….Trump is a kindergarten reject compared to the entrenched politicians. But…I will give you a chance…please name one……just one……currently elected member of congress or the administration with less negatives. Just one……and before you try, it will require you to look up voting records and submission of bills to make this determination……but, if you can find one…….I can be persuaded.

            • I will pick Cruz-but looking at his voting record isn’t necessary-those bills are so full of crap there’s no way I can figure out who is really voting for conservative values. But I can look at his numbers given out by those who keep up with conservative loyalty and for whatever it’s worth he gets a 97.

              As far as being entrenched he’s a second year Jr. senator and all except a few Tea
              Party candidates hate him-so I feel pretty confident in assuming he wasn’t entrenched with anybody. People keep talking about the establishment trying to destroy Trump-but if you are paying attention-they are in full attack mode trying to destroy Cruz. I wonder why.

              But lets look at Cruz-he has spent most of his life, learning and arguing for conservative, constitutional values. He started in college, maybe even before, fighting for those values by arguing with his professors and continued that fight in his professional life. From everything I’ve read he did a great job in Texas as an attorney and working for the Fed, fighting for our Constitutional rights and he won many of those battles.

              Now as a senator, people have three main complaints-he supported the trade bill before he was against it-but free trade is a natural thing for conservatives to support and he was a Jr. Senator and I suspect it is a learning experience. He, while Working to stop the amnesty bill-said he wasn’t against immigration reform and wasn’t against the bill passing if his amendments went through. People claim he was saying he was for legalization. I don’t know if that’s true because he had I believe 9 amendments and this was only talking about one of them. But even if he was saying he’s not against some legalization -he made it clear he was against citizenship-which is good enough for me. Because there is going to be some legalization, everyone including Trump-who says he’s gonna kick everyone out and then let some back in- Knows there is gonna be some legalization and that there should be some legalization. There’s something else but it won’t come to me-but I’m sure someone will be happy to remind me. 🙂

              People have also accused Cruz of just putting on a show to help his career. But what have we been asking our representatives to do-to Fight-to get bills passed and stand up for our values even if you know you’re gonna lose, even if Obama will just veto them-just get them passed, make him veto them. Which is exactly what Cruz did!!!!!!

              So, now you tell me Why anyone should believe that Trump would be better than Cruz to lead the fight to save our Country. The only arguments I’ve heard, when they are boiled down are that Trump is a businessman and he has a loud mouth.

              What we need to do to save this Country is return to our Constitutional Founding Principals-Trump’s business principals may be good to a point -but Cruz has a good background in economics too. That leaves his mouth. People really gonna vote for someone because of his words and totally ignore his record. Does anyone really believe Trump is better prepared to fight for our Constitutional Founding principals than Cruz is-because I don’t.

              Even the people who believe that voting for Trump is the only way we can beat the power of the elites-What difference does it make if we beat them-if we vote for someone who doesn’t stand for our values. A deal maker-is that really what we want.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                While I share your first choice, do not let the flapping jaws scare you away from a solid back up plan.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/02/13/marco-rubio-is-more-conservative-than-you-think/

                Oh, the Cruz commentary on immigration, which was played by his opponents, was gamesmanship played against the Dems on the Reform bill. Even Megyn Kelley had to admit this during one of the debates. Cruz has been consistent in his actual opposition.

                However, his accusations against Rubio are in fact false. He is trying to inflate Rubio’s position based solely on Rubio’s participation in trying to get immigration reform passed after he was elected. Something that many conservatives wanted, but oh how quickly we forget.

                Rubio has explained many times why he tried and why he backed out of the deal. But because this is politics and most of us are stupid nobody wants to listen to those reasons.

                One of the reasons I like Rubio relates to his “immigration reform” experience. This same trait came out yesterday in his response to his opposition to abortion. That is that he has “personal beliefs” that he puts aside to meet his responsibility as an “elected official”. He recognizes when issues are not ripe for Govt. solutions so he backs off forcing them down our throats. In immigration he has clearly stated he will not support “citizenship”. But if that issue ever does come up it will be long after he was sitting in the POTUS chair. And nothing he could do now would prevent it from being proposed later. On abortion he has stated he is absolutely opposed but that because of the nature of the issue he is not going to push for legislation to outlaw the practice. He will try to nibble at the edges where there is larger agreement. Late term abortions, for example.

                My wish is that Cruz and Rubio STOP trying to portray the other as supporting the legalization of illegal aliens. They are on the same page, at least they were until Cruz started taking Trumps position of “deporting” all 12 million illegals in the country. Just STOP talking about deportation and start talking about HOW you plan to secure the border and then HOW you plan to enforce labor rules against use of illegals. You know, like putting the monkey on employers backs instead of the labor force alone. Stop issuing work permits for unskilled labor and show how that is linked to the welfare programs that create disincentives to work.

                Good grief, this isn’t rocket science. These two need to return to the issues and unity they had when they were elected and during their first 4 years in the Senate. If they are essentially equal Rubio can win on “I am more likable”. If they are not Cruz can win on “I am a stricter Constitutionalist”.

                My current Plan A is Cruz for POTUS, but

                My original Plan B is still in play. Rubio for POTUS and he appoints Cruz to SCOTUS. That may actually be the best option on the table. Especially now that Rand Paul is gone and both Rubio and Cruz are spouting neo-con rhetoric over ISIS.

    • Your points are very well taken. My eyes are wide open here. This could well be “The Donald Trump Medicine Show”.

      After dismissing him as just a publicity seeking blow-hard in the beginning, his staying with the race has changed my mind. I was burnt before, by Ross Perot and am still smarting over that one. Talk about a fit of pique! Crashing the country and the Republican Party because you hate the Bush family. Trump is right, without him there would be NO discussion on the border or on China or on the uncontrolled hemorrhaging of jobs overseas or currency manipulation or Wall street pouring money into the pockets of the candidates. Tell me if you can show otherwise. I don’t think Bernie would be getting the traction on the issue he is if it were not a constant left-right series of punches from Trump and him.

      Both Trump and Sanders have tapped the mood in 21st Century America. The hopelessness is palpable. My kids owe minuscule amounts of student loan debt but, talk to them about their friends! One of my greatest accomplishments with them which shall go unrecognized till long after my death was to show them, the fallacy of debt and the need to “earn” your education and stamp “paid” on the bill ASAP. .

      Being an observer of trends and weirdness in society I am going to throw in an apparent non sequitur here. TV commercials have always fascinated me . The latest ones to catch my attention are the ones for drugs to ease OPIOD INDUCED CONSTIPATION. Pay attention now, they are on all the time and there is more than one. For these commercials to become as ubiquitous as they are, half the friggen country must be on Oxycontin or Oxycodene or just jamming a needle in their arm. Why? The three twenty something lethal overdoses in my circle in the past six months among their twentysomethings also say something, loudly.

      This is a huge risk this November but based on the performance of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and the namby pamby talk of Bush III, the anointed one, it is no time for half measures any more, the opposition is almost Stalinist in their methodology. I want half of yours then I want 50% of what is left before I ask for my fair share of the remainder! And the go along, get along gang just rolls on thinking it’s still 1962 and they are dealing with JFK. This is the final roll of the dice for us all or nothing, odd or even, red or black.

      I’ll quote Winnie here:

      “This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning!”

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        My Father hated Ross Perot, from way back in the early 60’s.

        I do enjoy the pharmaceutical ads. They describe thie malady. OK, then they go on to describe this great drug that aleviates, but does not cure the problem. “check with your doctor to see if this drug is right for you”…..then that launch into all the side affects at a speed like an auctioneer. Seems that the original problem would be desired above all the side affects.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The beginning was the establishment of life on this planet and the end is the planets destruction.

        Everything else in between is just a series of events, one leading to another.

        Empires come and go, Ideologies come and go, usually morphing from one thing to another until unrecognizable. Economies flourish and then collapse. Any attempt to identify steps or subparts to that scenario are fruitless. More rhetoric and exacting science or conclusion.

        Much like those who try to identify a single point where the Roman Empire stepped over the line, or took the first step off the cliff.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          I always believed history is taught backwards. Starting back when history began. Interesting stuff, but when you get to more contemporary times the prof says read chapters 10-15 and you’ll be tested tomorrow. All through the 60’s kids in class said…”what is the relevence”? Start with a current event today, any event and trace it back. You find there is NO single point that created todays event. but multiple events and decisions. Stop at some point and pick another one work back…..just like the science program on nova, “Connections” Stating one single event caused the current event is to simplistic. But easy to teach. Maybe if the teachers would turn the students on and make the class interesting. And I’m not just talking about glitter. A lot of individual events in the course of human endeavor have found a path to the current crisis in Syria. The debate is limitless.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Dale

            “Connections” was a favorite show in our house. The kids and I would watch it religiously together. Very educational. They often challenged teachers at school with what they learned on that show. That and the “History” channel before it became the Nazi and Reality TV channel.

          • It is always the “begats”. It is just that some are worse than others. WW 1 begat the mid-east map of today. That could have been changed at Versailles but was not. WW 2 begat the Viet-nam war because we did not discourage the French from coming back in. On the other hand WW 2 may have saved the Brits a whole lot of trouble because they decided to give up India/Pakistan. The cold war begat the overthrow of the elected government in Iran/Persia. That led to the Shah. The overthrow of the Shah, instead of working to reform him led to every single problem we now face in the vicinity.

            Of course, you can go all the way back and blame the Romans for the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of Palestine. That ultimately created a power vacuum.

            The could have, would have, should have’s in history are fascinating.

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Food for thought: Since the people gave the Republicans control of Congress, they have thanked the voters by funding everything the Democrat’s wanted. Their next shot at showing their voters that voting is useless in Federal elections will come shortly after the election, when Obama’s SCOTUS nominee will be promptly confirmed prior to the end of this Congress’s tenure. By 2017, we will have a new Congress and President, and a new Liberal SCOTUS Judge. I wonder how betrayed many will feel when this occurs?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I loved listening to Obama this morning. So reasonable and calm about appointing a nominee to the court….but every word was a partisan threat, yet he claimed that the Senate process has become so partisan and divided lately. No kidding. But what group literally tore one of the best constitutional minds to shreds back in the 80’s and attempted the same against Thomas.

      Pardon the question…..but what are the “reasonable” gun control laws the Dems keep harping on? I keep hearing the word “reasonable”, but no concrete proposal. We have hundreds of local and state and federal gun control laws that are deemed reasonable. But like all laws some processes get missed and a few spectacular leakers get through. At NO time does the governments from top to bottom ever claim it was their fault and dereliction of duty….but always want to tack on more laws…we’ll fix it with another law…..prove that you can administer the 1st set of laws first before adding more. But unfortunately I’m dreaming a total fantasy.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        To answer the question, one is something the refer to as Universal background checks. First and foremost, it would require 100% registration, which is DOA. They would like to ban those scary “assault” weapons, because they know nothing about guns and can’t figure out that we have the same stuff with wooden stocks that look like normal (not assault style) guns. Nothing they claim as common sense gun safety laws resembles common sense. Ask one of the gun grabbers a simple question. If all guns are banned does that include the cops and all LEO’s? If they say no, which they will, ask why. Their answer always goes back to the bad guys will still have guns. Hence, the idiocy of the movement.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The semantics of the gun crime argument. The law abiding person is turned into a crimianl if they do not follow the law. The criminal is already one and will not follow it anyway. In Europe, crime did not go away with guns bans. The criminal just still used guns, used knives or just beat you knowing full well most people have been pacified, by being prosecuted for defending their persons and property. Guns are used quite heavily between rival groups of criminals. Just because Europe generally does not prosecute for drug use, it is STILL illegal even in Holland. However, the crime associated to obtain those drugs due to affordability is still rampant. While I was away from my house on a daily work schedule, I hired an ARMED guard to protect the house. He was NOT a licensed security guard. While I was home especially during the summer, the house and people in it were protected by fully automatic weapons. That was NOT because it was all peaceful. The week before I was due to come stateside, I had an accident. A drunk driver came into the oncoming lane and we had a head on collison. The Carbineiri all were very well armed. Smelled alcohol and assumed the “american” was drinking and driving. When they realized it was the Italian that was totally wasted. A rare event. But when his friends started showing up with a whole lot of weapons, a crisis had to be averted. These were civilians who were not supposed to be armed. Bottom line is that the State in all forms of policing can not even begin to protect you, they say it over and over. When a society decays to such a level the people WILL provide their own protection, law or not.

      • One would, listening to them, think that NOTHING has changed since Lee Harvey Oswald ordered that Carcano for $12.95 through the mail under an alias. Half the population still thinks you can do that. Do you think that’s an accident or dizinformacion?

  17. R’s are the worst at PR. Good grief. Why create this kind of brouha now? Let O make his nomination and then just let it sit there and not do anything with it. Nothing. Don’t talk about it to the media, let it sit there and die.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

  19. Just A Citizen says:
  20. Just A Citizen says:
  21. I remember studying the IL Constitution in school decades ago and reading in it that all able bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were members of the state militia. I believe many other state constitutions have similar language. The clauses may have been excised in more recent history. I tried a quick search on the subject but could not find a listing of which states have the clause. if my member holds, I think I posted on this a few years back so it may be in the archives.

    Most of the soldiers that fought in the CW were members of state militia. It was not until WWI that this pattern was broken by Wilson. This was another peg in Wilson’s desire to make the federal government dominant over the states.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I thought I would check the PA Constitution. Here’s is what I found:

      National Guard to be Organized and Maintained
      Section 16.
      The citizens of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized and disciplined for its
      defense when and in such manner as may be directed by law. The General Assembly
      shall provide for maintaining the National Guard by appropriations from the Treasury of
      the Commonwealth, and may exempt from State military service persons having
      conscientious scruples against bearing arms.

      From the 1776 Constitution:

      XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      Current Constitution:

      Right to Bear Arms
      Section 21.
      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

      Basically, I see the State Constitution as affirmation of gun ownership for self defense and the defense of the State aka MILITIA! The National Guard section above is in addition to the current Right to Bear Arms section. How do you interpret these two things?

      • http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
        http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841

        I still can not find the list of state constitutions with their militia clauses. Most links concentrate on gun rights with respect to militia.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Two sections of the VT constitution. Look at the subtle twist in article 9. If you do not wish to own guns, you will be taxed appropriately for someone else to provide that protection of your property. The AG in VT several years ago actually started enforcing that clause. But article 16 make it very clear about gun ownership and personal protection.. Not just militia.

          Article 9th. Citizens’ rights and duties in the state; bearing arms; taxation
          That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member’s proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto, but no part of any person’s property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person’s own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.

          Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
          That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Here is my conclusion at this point. The new militia law could still be useful. However, it’s not likely that gun ownership will be outlawed unless there is an Amendment that would provide for that, which has zero chance of ever being ratified. What happens with SCOTUS isn’t likely to have any impact on the Rights of people in States with State Constitutional protection. In short, the gun grabbers can pound sand and I can tell them, often.

          @ Mathius: As you can see, the gun grabbers aren’t going to get very far in the foreseeable future, why don’t you give them a call and tell them to chill out 😀

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The VT constitution makes if very clear about the right to bear arms for self defense. VT has one of the most liberal gun laws in the country, believe it or not.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          PA has very good laws (if one can call a law good), as compared to other States when it comes to guns and self defense. Our Stand Your Ground and Castle laws are excellent and we are an open carry/must issue CCL State. Even Texas has some catching up to do with Pa 🙂

  22. Dear Mathius,

    …….you owe me an apology. I do NOT have an entire room dedicated to guns…just a half of a room….the other half is dedicated to knives.

    And, there is NO grog…..but, I did manage to salvage Thor’s Hammer brass wound canon.

    But, since you are on the subject…..weaponry is and should be a state issue. But that is moot anyway….since, and I happen to agree, since courts, especially the SCOTUS, are beginning to legislate and not interpret…..states are beginning to ignore them. That is good, in my opinion.

    And, since I count myself a pretty good historian, and since you appear to against something called ” Southern Strategy “…. Please outline, or name for me, the Republican South of the 1860’s.

    Thanking you in advance, I remain.

    Sincerely,

    D13 The Colonel

    • Wish I had an extra room Colonel or even a walk in closet. The damn Lee-Enfields are still affordable and there are so many variations. That’s not to mention the WW 1 vintage French Lebel carbine that has been taking up space in the closet since 1972 unshootable because of the bulged barrel. Someone kindly threw a barreled action on gunbroker for spit and it dropped nicely into the stock which is probably worth as much as the whole gun all by itself. Back in the bad old days I would have taken the bad action, plugged the barrel, spent some time on making a “stock” out of pine and turned it over to the grand kids to play “war” with. Growing up in the city, one of my friends had an ’03 Springfield like that. Today they would get shot.

      I take it you are referring to the “carpetbagger” post Civil War South?

      Your Texican historian Fehrenbach makes it all pretty clear about how the South got to be the South. Too bad the slavery thing screws up the narrative so badly. Remove slavery from the table and the South with its wandering Scots-Irish roots is almost heroic. Jim Webb’s done the same thing for Scots-Irish and their impact on the nation especially pushing its frontiers and fighting its wars. Crockett-Bowie-Boone-Earp-York for example.

      • Not the carpet bagged south….I believe Mathius was referring to the pre-civil war south.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK, d13, Mathius

        This is what Mathius is talking about:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

        Please note how this supposed strategy can only exist in the eyes of those who review history with a single lens. Somebody decided they would turn it into a racial issue, as in assign bigotry to the R’s. So all the other factors become ignored. Like the fact that Goldwater and Nixon did not carry the entire south.

        Or that the onset of States Rights as an issue was coming from more “Libertarian” type folks than “conservatives”. So while some southerners may have reacted to “States Rights” for one reason, those of us in other parts of the country support the idea for differing reasons. And they have NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY OR RACISM.

        Also notice how the person who supposedly created this idea was not talking about using race to gather Republicans. He was simply recognizing demographic shifts that would happen after the voting rights act. And that those who hated that act would move from D to R. How is that different than todays Democratic Party’s “Hispanic Strategy”?????

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I believe that those of us who are older and had educations that weren’t so political (as far as the textbooks) received probably the last correct history lessons this country will likely ever see. When I was in High School, history was my favorite subject, especially US history. It also helped to have been lucky enough to have the best teacher I have ever had (and modeled my own teaching techniques in the military after) teach US history. Some of this nonsense that is coming out of the Liberal education system, including the Liberal textbooks, isn’t anything near what we were taught. Even as far as the Civil War, we were taught that slavery wasn’t the main issue that caused the war, and didn’t become a major issue until near the end (to keep the British from siding with the South).

          One thing I have learned over the last few years, honesty isn’t a Liberal attribute they can be proud of.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Slavery was absolutely THE major factor in the Civil War. And I went to school at the same time as you and that is what we were taught.

            Was slavery related to other economic issues? Absolutely. But lets assume no slavery existed. Would there still have been cause for a Civil War? DOUBTFUL to HELL NO.

            • Absolutely FALSE, old friend.

              It was absolutely ABOUT STATE RIGHTS and whether a State as per the Constitution had the right to cede from the Union itself. Slavery was never the issue – both sides of the time said so.

              It is post-revisionism that created the “slave” hypothesis about the War – 600,000 died and stating “well, it was all about Federalism vs the State” was a pretty hard sell. A “higher, noble goal” was necessary to placate the loss.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                States rights and property rights…..OK….but slavery and expansion of slavery was the foundation that argument was sitting upon. And it all was economic in nature and also rooted in the constitution. Without slavery would there even been the problem. Economic problems for sure, but those could be resolved by innovation.

                If the hot heads had NOT fired on Ft Sumter and armed insurrection started Lincoln had had his hands tied up to that time. Refusal to give up the Federal forts because the States were claiming them. Sure Lincoln was trying to supply the forts, forcing the issue.

                The South ademently stated they’d secede if Lincoln was elected. He did not run on an abolishionist platform. Slavery was a part of every campaign and debate for decades leading up to the war. To say it had no bearing on the Civil War is false. Sure emancipation came later when the Federals could back it up and the Confederacy was losing. What to do with the “contraband” was a huge issue with the generals and government. For sure soldiers were upset when the emphasis was put on abolishing slavery. Most knew it was wrong, but really could care less. Preserving the UNION was job one. Isn’t disrupting the economy of the opposing county/states fair game and one of the moves on the board.

              • Dale,
                States rights and property rights…..OK….but slavery and expansion of slavery was the foundation that argument was sitting upon.

                Wrong, sir.

                The foundation of the argument was the TARIFFS the Northern states were placing upon Southern exported goods. That was the argument. The more populous Northern States excepted their goods from tariffs and issued them upon the less populous Southern population and their goods.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1824

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, the victor usually writes the official version, in the case of the Civil War, The Fed’s wanted to have the moral high ground to justify their future existence. What JAC learned was the PRO-FED version. LOL, he still lives it today, BWAHAHAHA 😀

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                And WHY did those States want to secede??

                WHY was there a fight over whether new States would be Free or Slave???

                If the southern States simply wanted to secede then why did they care about the new States?? Maybe because they feared losing their Slaves????

                I never said the war was about freeing slaves. I said that Slavery was at the root cause of the war. That was because under the Constitution Congress could outlaw slavery. Without the South’s desire to protect slavery there would have been no test of secession or a War to stop it.

              • See above. It was not about “slaves”, it was about tariffs.

            • Good, you used the word factor. It was a major factor in the war, but one of many.

              The abolitionists may have been a minority but they were a loud minority. the same kind we have today who drive issues like Gay marriage that the bulk of us could care less about.

              I too was taught by my ex-FBI agent History teacher that secession was about “States Rights”. It is certainly true that the compromises done regarding the entry of slave and non slave states would not have continued. History was on the side of abolition. Eventually there would have been a move for emancipation and a Constitutional Amendment. Actually once the compromises on entry of states was over the abolitionist side would have gradually gotten their 2/3rds.

              I do not think that anyone could deny the establishment in the South anticipated that and acted preemptively.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                SK

                I once fell for the argument that it was all about states rights. That argument is only valid if you ignore the whole reason states rights became an issue for people in the south. And that was the fear of losing Slavery. It was not about tariffs as again, the issue of tariffs was tied to slavery.

                So yes, there are many factors but they all come back to the fact the south and its economy was dependent upon slavery. Just read the Constitution of the new Confederate States of America.

                What is FALSE from the Yankee side is the notion the war was fought to “abolish slavery”. It was fought because Lincoln and others were unwilling to allow the south to secede. But as I stated above, without the issue of slavery secession would have never been considered by the “South”.

                I will posit one other “alternative history” idea for you to ponder. Assuming slavery was outlawed in 1787 and thus without the memory of the Civil War, would there have been another period where certain States would sue to secede?

                Would that not possibly have been the focus of the “Sagebrush Rebellion”, for example?

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/coulter-talking-head-twit-year-contest

    Republican strategists and weather guessers have a lot in common. Two jobs were being wrong often still leads to a successful career. The Democrat strategists are even worse 🙂

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    This is one of the informative seminars I have ever attended. I’m happy to see that another one has been scheduled:

    Mark Your Calendar
    Concealed Carry Seminar Set for May 14

    State Sen. Scott Hutchinson and I would like to invite you to attend our next FREE Concealed Carry Seminar.

    Learn about Pennsylvania’s process for acquiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the details surrounding Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine and other valuable information regarding state gun laws and firearms safety.

    Saturday, May 14
    9 – 11 a.m.
    Warren Holiday Inn
    210 Ludlow Street

    Joining me will be special guests:

    Warren County Sheriff Ken Klakamp, Warren County District Attorney Rob Greene, Crawford County Sheriff Nick Hoke and Forest County Sheriff Robert Wolfgang.

    SEATING IS LIMITED!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Email from State Representative Kathy Rapp, a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. She runs a good office as well, quick to address issues raised via email or phone calls.

  25. I listened to a lecture by DeSousa at Gonzaga U. last night about justice. This guy had it figured out. The GOP could take some lessons from him. Why is it that outsiders like DeSousa and Tocqueville seem to understand America better than the natives?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      De Tocqueville had the US correctly analyzed and the potential future, even back in 1835. “Democracy in America” should be required reading. Same with Bastiat and his essays..

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    More on Trump. I explored the issue of China’s currency manipulation since you have raised that several times. And you have stated that Trump understands this issue alone. Now obviously others recognize it as well, as they have mentioned it before Trump decided to run. But that is not the point here.

    My point is that China’s actions have not been unilateral. My reading reveals that the US Govt. itself is largely the cause of the current situation. Apparently China had “pegged” its currency to the US dollar with a constant 10% discount. Dollar goes up, Yuan goes up, but remains 10% separation. Same for going down.

    Then the US got in China’s face and insisted they let the Yuan float. You see WE needed that in order to export more of our inflation to China. So they did what we asked. And then when the USA decided to put devaluation of the dollar on steroids the Chinese reciprocated. Using even more steroids than we did.

    It is our Fed that has led the world into this theory of devaluation to create growth. So why should we be howling about the Natives learning what we taught them.

    • Your reading of the situation is largely correct but you are leaving out the why…and most of the why lies within the trade barriers between the two countries. I do not think I buy too much the theory of letting the Yuan float as a hedge against inflation with one exception….trade. We wanted China to keep that 10 % gap but that also created the trade barriers of cheap labor so that big business could use the cheap labor….which also stabilzed the Yuan.

      This is the fault of both sides of the barrel with one major exception…..lettung the Yuan float is recent in the last 10 years…..why? And which administration took the controls off?

      Ok that is the problem…..elitism. Now…..how to fix the problem. I only see one way…..and that is the business approach.Something that trump understands that no economist that I know understands. And that Rubio, Cruz or any of the others understand. Now, here is where you roll the dice…..does a Trump presidency actually do what he says….make us strong economically….does he approach economics with the idea of fixing it or putting a bandaid on it…..in military combat with a wounded soldier….1. stop the bleeding, 2. Protect the wound, and 3. treat for shock.

      In business, to stop the bleeding means to stop the red ink. In business, protect the wound means making trade completely equal, dollar for dollar, and, in business, treat for shock would be to have a procedure to answer the shock of big business and the masses that have invested in big business driving profits for returns.

      There has been several great ideas in progress now….but they are being blocked by a reluctant CONGRESS and that is both sides.

      • Trump scares Washington…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          I do not think Trump actually scares Washington, if you define Washington as K Street.

          The R establishment dislikes Trump primarily because they do not think he is electable. They fear loss of “position” and the power that goes with it. They are driven to win POTUS. If the national polls start showing Trump can beat Hillary you will see the “establishment” get on board real fast. They will abandon Rubio, because he is more of an actual threat than Trump, and will continue to try and destroy Cruz. Because he is the greatest threat to them of all.

          To say Trump is an outsider or Maverick defies logic. He has worked within and has been part of that establishment for decades. I think Fiorina was probably more of an outsider that Trump. Yes they have to play the game to protect their business. But at some point in time you either become part of the Borg or you rebel. Fiorina started rebelling several years ago, very vocally and pointedly, I might add. Trump is a late comer to this game and has yet to show me he understands how the power structure has been hijacked or can be dismantled.

          Simply using left wing rhetoric about “hedge fund managers” making to much is NOT identifying a problem and certainly not proposing a solution. “Taxing the Investment Bankers” is just so………… leftwing.

          • Just look at Karl Rove’s face and the sweat when he talks of Trump. They are scared that they might never have a job again. Their world is being turned upside down. It may all shake out in the end for them, they are consummate survivors but the transition will be painful.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              SK

              I disagree. Who you think Trump is going to hire? The supposed best minds in the country he touts are telling him they will NOT work for him He will have to have insiders next to him or he will fall flat on his face.

              As I said, the fear is over losing POUTS and the Senate if Trump is the candidate. It is not about their influence or job prospects.

              Those who have jobs on the line are the operatives within the campaigns, which includes some donors.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The supposed best minds in the country he touts are telling him they will NOT work for him

                Interesting. Could you provide a link? When I read this, my first thoughts were….some self avoided experts who probably won’t get a shot at a job on Trumps administration are already speaking out because they want the attention. I think this way because so far, nobody has been right about anything concerning Trump and this campaign. The media and the pundit’s have all blown it. Now, I’m curious who the self avowed experts are.

              • I would imagine he will bring over a number of his own people and there will be hell to pay on that. You will hear the blah, blah, blah about “government experience”.

                If he were smart he would bring in some of the people he just ran against. The most interesting thing in Doris Goodwin’s book about Lincoln was how he hired the guys he ran against.

                JFK brought in “the best and brightest” which turned out badly. They were too bright (and full of themselves) for their own good. I have to research Eisenhower’s picks.

                Another thought, Harry Truman’s selection of Marshall as Secretary and confidant. A military man who knew how to get big things done.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Here was a story printed in June 2005 on the US effort to get China to decouple. This story as a good Q & A section for SUFA readers to get an idea of why and how this all works.

        While the Q&A addresses the effect on the dollars movement and China’s conversion of dollars it is missing the critical part. The one we all complain about. When China converts dollars to T-Bills it is LOANING our dollars back to us, WITH INTEREST. This allows our Govt. to increase spending because their is no anchor to the dollar. In the olden days China would have exchanged those excess dollars for Gold, instead of making loans to us.

        http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/U-S-pushes-China-to-unlink-currency-2628572.php

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the morning:

    Stalin begat Hitler

    Obama begat ??????

    • gmanfortruth says:

      himself 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Gman

        Nope…………. by the way how is that prediction of absolute certainty that BUSH would be the Republican candidate going these days?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          A prediction of absolute certainty is a contradiction. Since predictions of future events are nothing more than guesses, even an educated one has flaws. You just keep living in your world of contradictions and dreams, i’ll sit back and laugh 🙂

  28. Isn’t it interesting……..the first two American business’ authorized to now do business in Cuba……..there are only two so far…….very large contributors to Clinton.

    But I am sure that is just mere coincidence.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Good lord. So many distortions and ignorance of history. An example of dishonest media, as in compare the headlines to what is actually happening here.

    And of course the greatest lesson of all…………. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Along with Central Planners are ALWAYS tinkering and RARELY can predict the outcomes of their tinkering.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/25/african-american-student-transfer-schools-state-law-pkg.ktvi

    Go to love the teacher……….. “I don’t understand why we can’t do what we and the parents want”.

    Wonder what her response was to Bundy claiming he “wanted to graze on Federal lands without paying a fee”.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Selected from my email bag. A little truth wrapped in humor.

    “To their credit, neither Trump nor Sanders has been completely captured by the Deep State.

    Trump has lots of money. Sanders finances his campaign with small donations from his supporters. It’s Hillary who sucks up the big money from Wall Street and defense contractors.

    But politics is never quite what it seems. The slogans are claptrap. The promises are empty. The claims are bogus. And many of the “facts” wheeled out in the debates are proven to be false within a matter of hours.

    Bernie bases his candidacy on a theory… which is bogus.

    Trump bases his candidacy on a personality… which is a part fraud, part genuine, loveable oaf.

    If you met either of them at an alumni event or a bull roast, you would probably find him insufferable – Bernie because he is a hack politician with a one-track mind… and Donald because he is a big-mouthed bore.

    Most likely, neither of them understands what is really going on. And almost certainly, neither will want to.

    Give up the system of Deep State finance, and Sanders will have less of other people’s money to redistribute.

    As for Trump, he will probably go broke… “

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Mitt Romney, loser, comes out with some total BULLSHIT about Trump that he could not possible have any knowledge of….and FOX news runs with it, full speed ahead. But, Trump already released his financial papers, as required by law. So Romney is now calling Trump a liar. FOX News should be ashamed to even cover such nonsense. One more solid reason to discount elections as nothing more that playing the people who fall for all the crap they feed you.

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    http://personalliberty.com/teen-demonstrates-political-ignorance-by-impersonating-lawmaker-unnoticed/

    What do liberal school officials do when they are made fools of…call the cops of course….then run to their safe space and cry 😀

  33. gmanfortruth says:
  34. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.trunews.com/saudis-offer-stern-words-to-oil-executives/

    Looks like gas prices might stay low 🙂

  35. gmanfortruth says:
  36. gmanfortruth says:

    OMG! Trump is killing both of the Senators. Who cares about tax forms Cruz, you idiot, the people want jobs so that they can have one too! Rubio, Mr. Statist, Trump was explaining the “Free Market” you mental midget. Oh my! What a sad showing by the whining Senators.

    • Did we watch the Same debate? i couldn’t agree less.

      I can’t remember ever enjoying a debate so much-I was laughing through most of it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I was laughing too! The politicians were being typical politicians. Did you even catch the part about healthcare? Trump will save that moment for the future. What I saw was two politicians, Rubio and Cruz, that couldn’t identify what Trump was referring too, the Free Market with State borders holding back the competition. They will BOTH probably pay for that down the road.

        Cruz and the tax documents….who freaking cares? I’ve never been audited, but if I were audited HR Block would be handling it. Trump has lawyers and accountants and such handling his, and I’m going to guess that because the issue was brought up, he was told nothing gets released. Well DUH. Apparently Cruz would go against the wishes of his attorney and just do exactly the opposite..

        One thing Trump brought out was Rubio getting steamrolled by Christie. I saw that and he failed miserably. We don’t need a guy that does that when he’s sitting in front of a Putin. He likes war too much and he has similar experience as Obama, not much.

        Cruz lost me in Iowa. He’s a snake and a sleaze.

        I like Carson, but he needs to be more boisterous, at least a little. I could support him if he were to win the nomination.

        Kasich has all the intangibles the I would want in someone running for the Presidency. Good orator, lots of experience etc. His downfall to me is his open desire to desire war and more war. That turns me off.

        Now for Trump. People don’t care about who his company hired 30 years ago, if anything, that will bring crossovers during the General election. I thought that Rubio going back to when he was in diapers was funny though. Trump took it from both sides. His life has been an open book for most to research. His supporters don’t care about what happened 30 years ago, they don’t care when he releases his taxes (few will look at them anyway). One thing is for sure, when his taxes are released, being that they have been audited by the IRS, likely won’t show anything worthy of a Romney bombshell.

        Romney’s comments: When I heard them I laughed, because tax forms won’t show net worth. Any idiot knows that. But he said it to get the low info voters riled up against him.

        CNN, they egged on the attacks for ratings. All that did was take away from Kasich and the important issues that we would like to hear about. The Pro Wrestling nonsense is nothing more than reality TV. I did think it was entertaining, if nothing else. Plus it makes for some interesting conversation. 🙂

        • I have to agree on the health care question. The post debate commentators did not get it either. It ain’t never going to be done away with. No more than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or ADA. That is just a fact of life. President CruzRubio can rant and rave all day long (the norm, scream and then when nothing happens say, “I tried”).

          • gmanfortruth says:

            The President can’t just repeal it anyway, but at least Trump has a plan that most of us should be on board with. Remove the regulations that stifle competition and watch prices fall as competition grows. The insurance lobbyist’s will be spending millions to fight this (and probably support Hillary). If the Republicans can hold onto Congress after kicking their voters in the balls the last year or so, it might have a chance.

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    CNN isn’t very good, it seems like they just want ratings. Rubio just got beat on Israel too. Sounded more like a RINO than anything else.

    • Again-there must have been another debate-CNN did great!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        For entertainment purposes, your right. To learn what the candidates will do concerning the important issues, not so much. Howard Dean’s daughter screaming for Rubio was annoying as hell. Must have been a Cruz plant, LMAO 😀

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    If Kasich didn’t seem to like war so much…….What a shame because he has the experience.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    TRUMP/CARSON 2016 😀

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    A dose of reality that will change how you see debates forever:

    Politics is not what the people assume it to be.

    American voters these days are actively working to elect someone who will right the sinking ship of state. They go to the polls in good faith. They vote in good faith. They caucus and they volunteer to work for campaigns in good faith.

    But they believe a lie.

    Politics is staged. It’s not reality. To the establishment, politics is both a game and a livelihood. Politicians, consultants, pollsters and campaign operatives are in the game for the money and power and prestige. They have no core values. This applies to the political hacks, especially, who will go from one politician to the next at the drop of a hat.

    Just watch, as one candidate after the other drops out, how the consulting-class political operatives who worked to smear one candidate on behalf another jump to the team of the candidate they were smearing just the week before.

    The voting people watch town hall events and what passes today for political debates and see crowds and hear cheers, or alternatively, boos, and presume the crowds are passionate supporters or detractors, reacting based on their political beliefs.

    It’s all fake. Talent agencies and acting pools supply people for the crowds based on whatever criteria is needed to drive a particular narrative. Need a Hispanic to agitate and make this candidate look like he hates brown people? There’s an ad for that, and an actor to fill the role. Need a black person or two in order to dilute a white crowd and make that candidate look like a champion for black causes – whatever those are? The talent pool has some willing black actors on hand.

    A company called Crowds on Demand is one such “talent agency.” Others include Crowds for Rent and Extra Mile Casting. They provide actors with assignments and scripts and have been doing so for several years.

    “I have worked with dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates,” Crowds on Demand CEO Adam Swart told NBC4, adding that he won’t name any names. “I can’t go in to (sic) detail… if I did, nobody would hire us.”

    Beyond just paying people to show up, Swart told NBC Los Angeles that sometimes clients want more. “Yes, I have scripted it on some occasions,” he said.

    Last year, Personal Liberty’s Sam Rolley interviewed Swart. Swart admitted:

    Yes, we do designate specific crowd members to approach members of the press and of course we tell them what to say. Sometimes it’s just a list of talking points, while some campaigns give us an exact script. More often than not, they want a specific type of person to approach the press to get a certain point across.

    Read the story, “For some campaigns, political rallies are just commercials… complete with paid actors,” for the whole interview and more on staged politics.

    http://personalliberty.com/all-politics-is-staged-reality/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I always love how people who never paid attention start spouting off about how some “cabal” of people run everything when they discover how the system works.

      It does not seem to dawn on them that about 40 to 50% of those they know are “part of the system”. Those people they look up to in the community are also the people who run the political apparatus.

      The system is now so big it has its own cadre of experts and managers. How else does somebody run and election bid? But then this is evidence of some “the fix is in” clap trap.

      Learn the system, learn who the players are, understand how to affect changes, but be realistic in what is needed and how long it will take.

      Yes, those already in the seat of power have the advantage. But like all empires, those in power will someday be out of power. Who replaces them when all the sheep are standing around crying about how unfair the system is??

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The only “CLAP TRAP” is the one that has you bullshitted into believing you have a voice and a choice. You have neither, you just can’t accept reality. The 14’s proved how well elections worked. Oh, they DIDN’T!

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    http://personalliberty.com/chomsky-trumps-success-signals-breakdown-of-society-2/

    While not a fan of Chomsky, what is he really saying in this interview……The Obama led progressive ideology is a failure, period.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/left-tries-shut-down-shapiro

    And so it begins. Violence will be the story of this election season.

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Drudge poll on who won the debate. Not even close: http://drudgereport.com/nowtx.htm

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    On the Apple issue. Search warrants apply to ones property etc. Apple sold the phone, it isn’t their property any longer. If this were just a matter of getting into the phone, downloading all the info, and Apple KEEPS the phone, would this be a different situation? How can the courts demand Apple provide a service by dictate, when it’s against the law? Compulsory service is against the Constitution and Federal Law, unless your the fed’s, who are above those laws. Just sayin 😦

    • Andrew P. Napolitano
      February 25, 2016

      “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” — Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

      After the San Bernardino massacre on Dec. 2, 2015, the FBI lawfully acquired the cellphone of one of the killers and persuaded a federal judge to authorize its agents to access the contents of the phone. Some of what it found revealed that the killer used the phone to communicate with victims and perhaps confederates and even innocents who unwittingly provided material assistance.

      Then the FBI hit a wall. It appears that the killer took advantage of the phone’s encryption features to protect some of his data from prying eyes unarmed with his password.

      The cellphone was an iPhone, designed and manufactured by Apple, the wealthiest publicly traded corporation on the planet. Apple built the iPhone so that its users can store sensitive, private, personal data on the phone without fear of being hacked by friend or foe.

      After the FBI determined it could not replicate the killer’s password without jeopardizing the phone’s content, it approached Apple, and representatives of each negotiated for weeks trying to find a way for Apple to help the FBI without compromising the security of the Internet itself. They failed.

      Apple has argued that the government has no legal right to compel it to assist in a government investigation, or to compel it to alter or destroy its business model of guaranteeing the safety and privacy of its customers’ data. Apple knows that any “key” it creates for the FBI, once used on the Internet, is itself vulnerable to hacking, thereby jeopardizing all Apple products and negating the privacy of tens of millions, and even exposing the government to foreign hackers.

      The Department of Justice has argued that Apple has a legal duty to help solve the mystery of who knew about the San Bernardino attacks so that the guilty can be prosecuted and the rest of us protected from future harm. Its lawyers asserted that the government would keep securing whatever key Apple created.

      After the DoJ/Apple talks broke down, the DoJ made a secret application on Feb. 16, 2016, two and a half months after the massacre, to a federal judge for a search warrant for this key to access the killer’s iPhone.

      The warrant was improperly granted because Apple was not given notice of the DoJ application. So, the judge who issued the order denied Apple due process — its day in court. That alone is sufficient to invalidate the order. Were Apple a defendant in a criminal case or were Apple to possess hard evidence that could exonerate or help to convict, the secret application would have been justified.

      But that is not the case here.

      Instead, the DoJ has obtained a unique search warrant I have ever seen in 40 years of examining them. Here, the DoJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for A THING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

      There is no authority for the government to compel a nonparty to its case to do its work, against the nonparty’s will, and against profound constitutional values. Essentially, the DoJ wants Apple to hack into its own computer product, thereby telling anyone who can access the key how to do the same.

      If the courts conscripted Apple to work for the government and thereby destroy or diminish its own product, the decision would constitute a form of slavery, which is prohibited by our values and by the Thirteenth Amendment.

      Yet, somewhere, the government has the data it seeks but will not admit to it, lest a myth it has foisted upon us all be burst. Since at least 2009, the government’s domestic spies have captured the metadata — the time, place, telephone numbers and duration of all telephone calls — as well as the content of telephone calls made in America under a perverse interpretation of the FISA statute and the Patriot Act, which a federal appeals court has since invalidated.

      The DoJ knows where this data on this killer’s cellphone can be found, but if it subpoenas the NSA, and the NSA complies with that subpoena, and all this becomes public, that will put the lie to the government’s incredible denials that it spies upon all of us all the time. Surely it was spying on the San Bernardino killers.

      There is more at stake here than the privacy of Apple’s millions of customers and the security of power grids and all that the Internet serves. Personal liberty in a free society is at stake. A government that stays within the confines of the Constitution is at stake.

      The late great Justice Antonin Scalia recognized that liberty and safety are not in equipoise when he wrote that there is nothing novel about liberty trumping safety under the Constitution. The primacy of liberty and a government subject to the rule of law is the core constitutional principle that, while honored, will keep tyranny at bay. And when dishonored, will let tyranny thrive.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H. , Kathy

    Trump the inside job. Looks like someone else is feeling the same thing we are. Someone who also shares my view of what Trump will do as opposed to what the delusional think he will do.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/three_simple_questions_for_trump_supporters.html

    The comments attached to this article are mind boggling and sad. Apparently all the “education” the Tea Party movement was providing to Grass Roots folks did not take.

    Notice how similar the rhetoric is to what you find on hard core leftwing sites. The lack of thinking is also similar. Mostly emotional ranting.

    • Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s enough of us. I’ve been amazed at how much this election reminds me of when Obama ran-the real Obama didn’t really figure into the arguments-it was just this makeup belief in Hope and Change that he represented in their minds.

      • Ummm, that would be Made-up not makeup

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        My feelings as well. People have abandoned their supposed principles and taken on the “means” of the other side. All the while screaming “if you can do it we can do it better”.

        Thus my tongue in cheek comment the other day:

        Stalin begat Hitler
        Obama begat Trump

        I did express my concerns here 7 years ago about what would happen if the revolution was triggered before we were really ready. That is before our moral principles were deeply engrained in our daily values. This is a good example of what I was talking about. I had hoped that people like Beck were having a greater influence than it now appears to be.

        My concern now is that the premature start will destroy the very revolution itself. I was surprised to see the author of the article essentially landing on the same concern. The war has begun, as they often do, per its own timeline and not that of long term thinkers.

        So as with all wars, we must now regroup and figure out how to win it with the tools we have, while at the same time building more tools which will allow us victory in the long run.

        The absolutely worst thing we can do now is succumb to despair and cynicism. That will just play into the hands of the Anarchists and the left wing “isms” out there.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Interestingly, your post could have easily been written 8 years ago, on a Left Wing blog, claiming the same nonsense. There is no Revolution yet. Elections will never be a part of a real one until the corrupt can be removed from their perches. The long term self proclaimed thinkers will have been long buried by the time that happens. While I’m not a full Anarchist like Flaggy, I’m awful close these days. Maybe the actions of the “saviors” in Congress have finally accomplished something. Proving the illusion….BRAVO! Glad to see Cruz and Rubio are a part of that as well. Yet, some still support them, amazing, truly amazing.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            There has been a revolution going on for over 100 years now. The Progressives have been winning that war and they did it by VOTING and turning brains to mush.

            The problem with most “self proclaimed thinkers” is they do not actually think. They simply react to stimuli provided by someone else.

            One cannot be a “not full fledged Anarchist”. There is no “partially Anarchist” just as there is no “partially pregnant”.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Question for the SUFA ladies.

    I have a strong and independent daughter. Very smart but not “schooled” in the Universities. Instead educated by real life.

    Recently she shared with me her view of how a marriage should work. It is a team effort but only to a point. She believes the MAN should be the final decision maker. The one who breaks all ties.

    So SUFA, how do you and your spouse break ties on the big things in your family?

    • Hmmmm, yikes?!? is my first reaction.

      I know I never came into my marriage with the view that either of us was the final decision maker. We each have our strong points and areas of experience, so naturally rely on that for decisions. For instance, I did a ton of babysitting and had younger sibs, so I was very comfortable making decisions for our kids early on, whereas, my husband had no experience and certainly deferred to me.

      We are good communicators – for the most part – although I probably roll my eyes more often than he does, especially as we get older. I tend to see the big picture better and can break things down for options to consider, and I know he expects that. Not unusual for him to ask, “what am I missing?” just as sometimes an assurance, more than he can’t figure something out.

      (Haha! Not kidding! While typing this, he just came up the stairs to my office door and asked about a car rental that he is handling for an upcoming trip we are taking. There are a few variables involved but he is perfectly capable of making the decisions, but instead just wanted to run it by me before committing.)

      I have talked to each of my kids about being committed to a relationship, but never losing yourself in that relationship; you should always take time for yourself and interests and likewise, be supportive of your partner doing the same. I am very independent that way and am more open to trying things that my husband won’t. So I often do things with other people or by myself, rather than deferring to his choices. For instance, last fall I wanted to book a rim to rim climb at the Grand Canyon and hubs had no interest, so I am now going with a friend.

      I do defer to inconsequential things…….like do you want to go to BDubs or Dotty Dumplings before the last home Badger game on Sunday? He picked Dotty’s so that is where we’ll go! 😉 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        Thanks. But how about bigger things? Like major financial investments, to move or not move, new job or not new job, whether to refinance your house, those kinds of things.

        • Ya know, we’ve always been on the same page with the big stuff, or at least, very close. Fortunate I guess, or just very similar in our goals and ideas. Again, we’ve always been good communicators and planners. While certainly life has thrown us curves, we are in a place today that we pretty much mapped out. We met with a financial planner six months into our marriage and have had regular updates through the years. We have done “self tests”, ie are we at where we thought we’d be, and have adjusted course a few times after comparing notes. We looked into moving away once……to Milwaukee (!) and after looking at two houses, got back in the car, looked at each other and said, “what and why?” and told the realtor we were done and my husband’s job application (for a promotion in his company that was pretty much a given) was yanked. We both knew then it would be highly unlikely we’d ever move away. We both appreciate the quality of life here and like being near and involved with family.

          Hope this helps!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kind of explains why Christie laid off Trump during the campaign and focused on Cruz/Rubio instead.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Memo to: All Republican candidates

    Subject: Healthcare

    Please continue your fight to abolish the ACA. But do not fall into the trap of arguing about “how to replace it”. This is a trap you cannot win. Why?

    Because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Federal Govt. can do to reduce the cost of Medical Care unless you are willing to launch illegal “price controls” on Doctors, Other medical professionals, and Hospitals.

    You need to pound this in the thick heads of the public and your Democratic opponents.

    One more thing………… Health Insurance is NOT HEALTH CARE. The same rules governing pricing of medical care hold for health insurance.

    Health Care itself is already free. Americans just seem to not care about it so they ignore it until it is to late. That is when they need Medical Care.

    I know it is a lot to expect from you, and probably one bridge to far, but it is the truth. It would be nice if some of you started speaking truth to power, that being the American People.

    Thanks,
    JAC

    • Actually it could. Drop all federal programs. Education, Housing and Medicine have all gone through the roof since the 1970’s. Federal loan guarantees and Medicare/medicaid have come into play in that time.

      Any politician who says they will do away with ACA is blowing smoke. NOTHING GOES AWAY. What is needed is a better plan. Unfortunately history is on the side of some type of universal healthcare just as it was for Social Security and Medicare. Not saying it is right it is just a fact of life.

      Logic would indicate we can do medical savings accounts, expand competition by opening up geographic limitations (Jersey did this very successfully with Auto Insurance during McGreevy’s term) and just biting the bullet and having subsidized catastrophic coverage. We already do anyway since the hospitals never leave you lying in the street.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        My comment of nothing they can do is with respect to “replacing” the ACA. The fallacy that the fed govt can “manage” health care in some way to bring down costs.

        The cost of medical care is driven by supply/demand. A lot of demand in an aging population and not enough supply.

        The ONLY thing the Govt could do to reduce costs immediately, short of price controls, is to eliminate the “Guild Protection” barriers to doctors and others practicing medicine in the USA.

        The other thing they could due is halt inflationary money printing and fiscal policies. When the rent on the Doc’s office drops their costs will drop and so will their pricing.

        Of course we could also eliminate the statutory requirement that anyone walking into a hospital MUST be treated. Fat chance of that happening.

        And as you say, we could eliminate all Govt. provided health care entirely. Fat chance of that.

        But notice, none of these solutions involve replacing or tweaking the ACA. They all require Radical Truth Telling and action based on economic realities instead of central planning algorithims, charts, formulae, etc..

        Austin Goolsbey and those like him should be strung up on a barbed wire fence.

        Saw a great comment today. Economists should not be allowed to use numbers. Because they are always wrong and worst of all, they are used to mislead people about the brilliance and abilities of those using them.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let me be a Trump supporter for a moment. Trump paved the road. at least as his solution to the ACA, commonly known as Free Market. The reaction of Rubio and Tea Party Ted (sarc intended) show just how right all of us are, the government has control and they ain’t giving it up, INCLUDING Rubio and Tea Party Ted. Both made that quite clear last night. What I simply shake my headat is that so called Conservatives think Rubio and Tea Party ted are actually Conservatives. They are both fake to the core and nothing more than puppets for the establishment.

        At this point in time, 537 Chimps could probably run the federal government better. Regardless, I still have a hard time thinking Trump will win the nomination. I see a tragedy ahead. Just sayin 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Trump paved the road?? Are you flippin kidding me? The remove state barriers position has been part of the Republican platform for over ten years.

          And he did not say “free market”. Well he may have said it, but then he described something else, with expanded Medicaid.

          Rubio and Cruz’s response had nothing to do with who is in control. Where do you get this stuff? The made WHAT CLEAR??

          Fallacy of hyperbole and fallacy of ad hominem ………… you don’t have to pretend to be a Trump supporter. Your rhetoric and his share the same lack of reason, logic and substance.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Your rhetoric and his share the same lack of reason, logic and substance.

            OK, I’ll give up and just say I like the Donald. And guess what, we are winning! 😀

  48. Good post I saw on FB. Not sure who to give credits to:

    Last night I saw a glimpse of 1930’s Germany.

    For weeks I have sought to understand what Trump’s supporters see in the man. It can’t be principles – he has none. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting politicians who work tirelessly to give socialism life in America. His vaunted business dealings have been tainted by mafia connections, employing illegal labor, seeking to bulldoze anyone who stood in his way and repeated bankruptcies which failed to impact the man himself, but left a trail of wreckage in his wake. He is the walking embodiment of the things Christians and conservatives have railed against for years; yet he wins their votes. Why?

    Last night I understood. Those who support Trump have given up on America. They have lost faith in God and our founding principles. For them, the American dream is dead. They do not seek a restoration of our country, they seek to wield the same kind of illegal power that has been the trademark of the Obama administration.

    Most who follow Trump understand that he has no principles, and that is their primary reason for supporting him. They no longer believe in the Constitution and its critical importance in the cause of liberty. They no longer believe a lawful remedy to our nation’s woes exists, so they have turned to a man whose sole preparation for entering the race was to study a book of Hitler’s speeches to hone his own appeal. A man who has shown, in his every word and deed, that his own glorification is his only absolute. A man who has no understanding of, or respect for, the rule of law and reason.

    In Trump, they see only a winner, and they are willing to let the end justify the means. Whatever it takes, they have told me, it matters not HOW they get prosperity, only that they do. It matters not who must be trampled underfoot, as long as their side wins this time. They refuse to see that they are inviting tyranny and begging for an all-powerful dictator. They seem not to recognize the peril they invite upon themselves. Having spent years being frustrated by the corrupt politicians in Washington, they seek to punish them, and see the tyrant Trump as their best avenue for revenge.

    It makes perfect sense. The more outrageous and unacceptable he becomes, the more they love him. The more people he insults and demeans, the more power they see in him. Arguments of qualifications for the job mean nothing, because the only qualification they seek is that of a thug, a bully, a hit man who works for them. It has not yet occurred to them that they will have no control over their thug once they hand him the reins of power and that the next house he seeks to bulldoze may be their own. Their anger and frustration has blinded them to history and they fail to see the terrifying parallels to the rise of Adolf Hitler, the charismatic leader who promised delivery to a desperate nation. Trump loves them, they say, he loves America, he wants what they want. Really? Are they willing to stake their lives on that? For that is exactly what they are doing when they vote to grant massive power to a man who has shown no respect for the rule of law. They are betting on his character and nothing more. They seek to create an all-powerful dictator, not realizing that once he has power he has no further need for those who helped him claim it.

    I will not follow their thug. I will not be a part of their revolution. If they want their dictator, they will have to create him without the assistance of those among us who still believe that all men are created equal. Indeed, they will have to elevate him, in the primary or the general, over our strident and outspoken objections. They may belittle us, as he does his foes, calling us names, insulting our intelligence, casting aspersions on our character. It will never silence us. It will never change our minds. We have seen the dangers they have not, and we are trying to save them from themselves. We understand that America can only be made great again by following the principles which made her great in the first place.

    I will lay down my life for those principles. I firmly believe that ours is the side of all that is good and decent in our land. We stand on the beliefs of our founders and share their reliance on God’s mercy. We seek to educate and uplift, not to destroy and demean. We do not believe that embracing the evil that has been done us and making it our own is the path to salvation. If this seems blind to you, so be it.

    Should they prevail in the primary and force their tyrant into the general election, we will fight him exactly as we would any other enemy of freedom. Do not expect our support, it will not be forthcoming. Do not delude yourselves into believing that the threat of a Clinton or a Sanders in the White House will change our minds. Do not expect us to put power over principle – it will not happen.

    If you are a follower of King Trump and manage to gain him the Republican nomination, then you will bear the full responsibility for your choices. Do not attempt to blame us – we are giving fair warning. We are prepared for your insults and invective; do not think that we will be bullied. Your refusal to recognize the horribly flawed nature of your savior will give us another four years of socialism on the march in our country. You will own this. Choose wisely.

  49. Here’s another: (this was from a friend April’s post and she’s sharing a commenter’s remarks).

    I was just hit by a bolt of lightning. I keep trying to get Trump people who show an inclination to talk, instead of just hating, to ask them to explain their positions to me. I asked a gentleman tonight why he didn’t like Cruz, specifically I asked what he found objectionable about a man who based his every position on the Constitution. In his response, I found truth. Glenn Beck warned about this years ago. When things get really bad, people start screaming for someone to save them – usually government. But when government is the oppressor, the cause of the problems, in their desperation they seek a savior. Here is what the gentleman said:

    “April right now I don’t care about the Constitution, I want Trump to do the same thing Obama did only for the good of the right, if he has to give executive orders then good for him. Democrats always fight dirty and we always have to fight fair and I am sick of it.
    I don’t like Cruz as he sounds like Jim Baker, he loses big time and he gets up there and acts like he won.”

    My friends, this man is voluntarily throwing away his Constitutional rights and voting for a man he not only believes, but HOPES, will break all the rules, throw aside the law, and make everything happen by magic. It is much worse than we feared.

  50. gmanfortruth says:
  51. gmanfortruth says:
  52. Just A Citizen says:

    February 26, 2016•Mark Thornton (Mises institute)

    Tags Big Government, Taxes and Spending, Fiscal Theory

    Simon Black reports that Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, just released the government’s audited financial statement for 2015 and it makes Bernie Madoff’s books look like Warren Buffet’s financial statements!

    To begin with, the federal government reportedly has $3.2 trillion in assets, but that includes rusty tanks, outdated weapon systems, and the biggest item is $1.2 trillion in student loans (delinquency rates are 11.5 percent and rising)!

    On the other side of the balance sheet sits $21.5 trillion in liabilities. This leaves us with $18.2 trillion in negative net worth, a figure that is growing by about 1/2 trillion per year.

    Of course these numbers are not the true picture because (a) they are not audited like a public corporation is, and (b) these figures to not account for the enormous unfunded future liabilities associated with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. A truer figure would be around $200 trillion negative net worth.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      OK, lets see who the business people really are on SUFA.

      Identify one major flaw in the Govt’s balance sheet, based only on this short article.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The government auditing itself is a flaw! The numbers don’t mean shit.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m thinking an article on the “debt” is due, any ideas?

      • First of all, JAC, there can be nothing very much ascertained without seeing the headings of the costs….For, example, you just cannot say we have x in assets and have x in liabiities and then take the difference, positive or negative. There are many things that are “off balance sheet” that really needs to be included in a true picture. I would need to see all long and short term liabilities and assets. You mentioned student loans above, and in reading your short narrative, shows a deliquency rate of 11.5% and the true deliquency rate is actually over 50% approaching 75%. I can tell you that in business if you carry that on your balance sheet ( ie: notes receivable ), the IRS will discount it or usually disallow it. There is no mention of contingent liabilities ( ie: commercial letters of credit, trade imbalances etc). Unfunded liabilities are usually carried off balance sheet. They are carried off balance sheet because there is no end. Balance sheets are designed to show current position and, as corporations know well, unfunded liabilities were not carried on balance sheets because it would destroy a net worth for investment purposes.

        Your short narrative mixed on sheet and off sheet items. You cannot do that.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A perfect campaign move! While not likely to ever see a courtroom, he just put the media on notice, which at the very least will put the thought in the back of their mind. Using this kind of messaging can be a good thing for his campaign. I don’t know too many people that thinks the media is all that honest anyway, so he is saying what needs to be said. Plus, it’s better than attacking other Republicans 🙂

      • It may be a “GOOD” political move for the low information voter-but it Is Not a good idea. Something you already know and would rake anyone else over the coals for even suggesting.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          There isn’t anything that Trump could do, legally, to change anything, come on V! These clowns running for President will say some really stupid stuff this year, add this one to the list. I am enjoying the entertainment, still won’t waste my time voting though. Trump is giving us a great show and finally, the rest are joining in on the fun. I’m still not convinced Trump will get the nomination. If this goes to a brokered convention, all bets are off. Relax my friend, enjoy the show. 🙂

          • V, please clarify something for me…..why is not going after the media not a good idea or not a good move? Is your commentary based on the fact that the media will skewer him or is it based ont he fact that you think the media has carte banche to do or say anything they want……if the former, ok. If the latter, the media should be held to a greater standard for improper or inflammed false reporting

            • It is may be freedom of speech to say anything you want, verified or unverified, but that same freedom can be tempered with counter attacks, including siots for defamatory comment or unverified sources. I have never…ever….and do not subscribe now to protected sources.

            • Because the only thing worse than a biased media is a silenced media scared to speak the truth-because they will be sued into oblivion. And as we all know you don’t have to be guilty to be sued-and liberals do so love to take people to court.

              • If the media is telling the truth, then they have no worries. A truthful media will never be silenced. And I will completely disagree with you…I would rather have a silenced media than a lying media.

  53. gmanfortruth says:
  54. Thank you Governor Abbott….The University of Texas just lost a dean to a northern state because of the decision in the State of Texas to allow on campus concealed carry by students so upset him he left. well, Kudos to Fritz Steiner, dean of the Texas School of Architecture, who was named dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design. He said he wouldn’t have considered leaving if not for the new law, which takes effect prior to the start of the fall semester Aug. 1. At least he stood up for his beliefs and principles. He did not like it so he left……NOW…..perhaps the others will follow suit? Let’s see how many of te liberal University of Texas profs and deans will actually put their beliefs above money and tenure….or will they be two faced.

    Governor Abbott said that with the recent attacks and more impending attacks on veterans…all veterans should carry and protect themselves and that includes open and concealed carry on college campus. I can see no reason to intervene. All persons, both veteran and non veteran, that have passed the background checks will be allowed to carry their weapons

  55. Now….would someone please, prolonged commentary give me a reason why trump would not make a good president? Not hyperbole and not because ” I don’t like him “…a reason. I will start, to give you a good idea. I do not think Cruz would make a good President because of his stance on the international issues. I believe that his personality will signal weakness and indecisiveness to foreign leaders the same os Obama’s. I believe that he lacks the fundamental economic prowess to understand debt to equity and the balanced budget. While in Texas, he did not believe that Texas should have a constitutional requirement to have a forced balanced budget. He was also against the line item veto, which the Texas governor has. On the other hand, he did not walk lock step with the RINOS and the established republicans in Washington….which is why he does not have and support.

    Rubio has a stance on immigration of which I could never agree………..

    Well, horse piss….I have to run…..more later.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This would be a good subject for the next article, which I will get started. We can do this for all the candidates.

    • Yet, you voted for Cruz-am I mistaken- did you not say that you thought Cruz would be better handling non international matters and the economy. I could have sworn you did.

  56. gmanfortruth says:
  57. gmanfortruth says:

    New thread is up!

%d bloggers like this: