Misplaced Optimism

optimism1With the New congress being sworn in and Trump taking the oath is a couple weeks, optimism in the US, for most, seems to be high.  This is especially true on the economic front, as seen by the decent gains in the stock market and companies deciding to stay or return to the US to conduct their business.  All is good in Trumplandia and those who choose to live in Dumbfuckistan are still playing the same identity politics that got them beat miserably in the last election.  The Dumbfuckistanians will soon become the ignored and irrelevant, as a vast majority are ready to move on from that nonsense.  None of this changes the fact that politicians are still politicians and aren’t that much different, regardless of the color of the shirt.

Case in point, Obamacare.  When this all began, the Republicans were opposed to government interference in the health insurance industry and healthcare in general.  Back then, we were lied too, period.  Today, the phrase is to repeal and replace.  Well, WTF happened to just repeal? Get their noses out of the business, as Republican’s claimed was their position before Obamacare.  Answer….it was never their position and once government got their claws involved, it was NEVER going to let go.  There is nothing being reported on how many people are not currently covered with health insurance, which is a sure sign that they are not telling the truth, one way or another.  If the facts ever came out, the Republicans would be called out on the replace part.    This is just one example of the many that are coming of Misplaced Optimism.



  1. I have a long memory, which is odd because my short memory sucks 🙂 What I find sad is that Conservatives were overwhelmingly opposed to government interference in healthcare in 08. Now, because “their” team is in charge, it seems to be OK. Statism is rampant and will continue unabated, to the continued detriment of freedom.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think your memory of your memory is flawed. Even in 08 the Republicans were talking about stopping State bans on interstate sale of insurance, tort reform, and a few other things to increase supply and decrease costs. All of which were “interfering” in the market or interfering in what had been a State issue forever.

      The number of “conservatives” saying nothing should be done could have been counted on one hand.

      Then there is the reality of the body politic. The Dems knew if they could just get it passed the Reps could never eliminate the subsidy or Govt. provided insurance. Especially the provision forcing companies to insure people with existing conditions and regular rates. The Reps knew this as well.

      Trump wants some type of Govt. health insurance for at least part of the population. The only chance we have now is to eliminate the “mandate”. The basic idea of Govt. Insurance is now politically impossible to eliminate.

      • Is True!

      • I do recall those subjects that were considered State issues. We also had government insurance (for some) prior to Obamacare. But recalling the Republican “talking points” soon after Obamacare became law, it was solely “repeal”. It would later morph into “repeal and replace” after well over 60 attempts to do so, knowing they didn’t have the votes in Congress and the TEA party was eaten up and swallowed by the establishment.

        Bottom line….Obamacare was never meant to get repealed by the Republicans and they played the people by making attempts they knew would never stand a chance to succeed. This I like to call “we tried this and it didn’t work, so lets try this, which is exactly what we have been pretending to fight against”. The bottom line……which we can agree on….it’s never going to go away. What we likely don’t agree on is that it was NEVER going to go away from the beginning and the Republicans played the long game, until everyone has been bullshitted enough that they simply would be happy by removing the mandate. The people, especially conservatives have been played like a fiddle by the establishment politicians.

        But beyond that, I have a question. States regulate the insurance industries within their borders. What authority do the Fed’s have in subverting that? While I think I should be able to buy insurance from any company in any State, the product would still have to abide by the State regulations. The cost would likely be more when purchased out of State, unless it was a large multi-state company, at which point would make the out of state purchase moot.

  2. Subject: Russia

    Who here would be willing to make the call to send our young men and women to Europe to fight a war with Russia to defend another nation because of their NATO affiliation? Think hard, because there is plenty of history on how fighting the Russians on their turf has worked out.

    • Statism is evil. Engaging in state endeavors is being evil and stupid.

    • I find that my eldest son, the Army Reserve Major is most outspoken when we discuss “protecting” Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. “Let them rot in hell comes to mind”.

      • I also agree with about what the US would do should Russia (or China) make a deal with Mexico or Canada and start moving in military stuff. We already know what will happen and the Cuban Missile Crisis and after actions tell the story.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        One of my Great Grandfathers was from Memel, now Kleipeda Lithuania. His ancestry is listed as German, Prussian, Polish, Lithuanian and Russian. Sort depends on historical time. His spouse was either Austrian or German, again depending on historical time. Another French or German, from the Alsace region. These people have been trading territory for millenia either by war or treaty, or just plain occupation. Why is it so different today that nothing can possibly change….some law passed in 1947 by an organization that can not back up anything?.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Bottom line though was that none of them wanted anything to do with their past homelands. They did not “-” their ancestry as diverse as they were. They became US citizens as fast as they could and LEARNED english and became AMERICAN’s

  3. I mostly agree with the article, and find the term “Dumfukistan” rather hilarious, ..although I would apply it to all statism, all statists, not just lefties.

    What you are calling Misplaced Optimism, I call stupidity. The same thing happens over and over and over again whereby the people get fuct in one way or another. Yet they continue to demand more of a system that is designed to work to their overall detriment, as if it will be different this time.

    That’s stupid.

  4. “Liberty minded gun makers and companies that supply firearms, accessories and ammunition have determined that they have had it with anti-gun governments at the city, state and Federal levels, even if it means lost revenue. Several companies have announced that they will no longer be supplying equipment to hostile governments, police forces or first responders. New York and California have become the prime targets, making an example of out-of-touch politicians.”


    While the thought is good, it will never work.

    • It can if enough people do it. If enough people can organize to form a violent gang, then enough people can boycott it away.

      I give much credit to those who boycott government. They are not the idiots who are part of the problem, but rare rather part of the solution.

  5. France: Muslim Men Ban All Women from Public Spaces

    This seems to be a great example of how Leftist’s are causing the very problem they will have to fix, but the question is….what is the real motive behind this? What is the endgame? Why are these leftist leaders allowing this to go on in so many countries in Europe? Or is this the globalists attempt at saving the EU?

  6. Obama Aide to Putin Aide: President Obama wants to discuss this issue man to man.

    Putin Aide: Ok, I will get President Putin, put Michele on the line.

    😀 😀 😀

  7. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is one key question on the Russian issue. Is the following statement by Buchanan true or false? And please do not cloud the answer by claiming we did not force anyone to join NATO. That is splitting hairs because we did encourage some of the moves and we certainly did not oppose them. If we did in fact make the agreement we should have been true to our word and openly opposed the new NATO membership. So is this claim true or false?

    “George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon’s ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      We just can’t get any respect out here.

      Add to the list the Nightly News story about logging killing fish on the Clearwater river, with pictures of dead fish floating in the water.

      Only it was picture of electroshocked fish by University researchers on some lake or pond,and the fish were carp and cat fish, not Salmon or Steelhead. And the story was fed to NBC by a KNOWN environmental activist group. Accepted and spread by NBC without question or any attempt to validate the accusations.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Some very relevant questions from Greenwald, regarding the WaPo’s false stories on Russian hacking recently.

    “But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.”

    Someone made the comment to me the other day that if the modern journalist was submitted to the same level of Editor’s “check and double check” that Woodward and Bernstein were subjected, most stories would never get published.

    • That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

      It’s all about money. WaPo is nothing better than the National Inquirer, except they try to make their stuff believable. Liberal’s in action.

  9. The Chinese allegedly broke into the Office of Management and Budget. They got all the personnel files, Social Security numbers, security concerns and clearances for 21.5 million current and former federal employees. Why wasn’t anyone expelled? This a by far much worse than anything that the Russians are being accused of, which I have not seen any real evidence it was Russia. What the hell is Obama really up too!?

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    What strange times we find ourselves living in today.

    Democrats preparing to go to legal war against the Fed. Govt. in order to protect their Tenth Amendment Rights as a sovereign State.

    Now here is where some long term strategic thinking would help the Libertarians and Conservatives down the road. Push California to make a legal case for State Rights. Get it codified by SCOTUS. Cry big crocodile tears and whine about loss of the Republic to the left wing agenda and activist judges.

    Then quietly go back to the States to start fixing the problems and blowing off the Federal Govt., ala., Texas style.

    • Statism does nothing for Libertarians, as statism is completely antithetical to Libertarianism. Either it is liberty or the state. There is no in between or mix or whatever. It is either liberty or not, and statism is anything but liberty.

      There is no such thing as Libertarian government.

      • Nope…..every man for himself.

        • Not really.

          It is about cooperating without force, without bossing your neighbors around and stealing from them.

          Why is that so difficult to understand?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Guess you should take that up with the Libertarians because many of them most certainly support a Nation State. Albeit one with vastly restricted powers over trade.

        • There is no such thing as Libertarian statists. That is a contradiction in terms. Anyone who claims libertarian statism is ignorant, does not understand the basic definition or principles of liberty.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            That is why they call themselves Libertarians and not Anarchists. Guess you didn’t get the memo.

            • I guess you are one of those ignorant persons who doesn’t understand what liberty is.

              Anarchism and Libertarianism are the same thing, as the core values are inalienable rights and principles of liberty. Libertarianism is “No Rulers”, as in self ownership, rule thy self, a.k.a. Anarchy.

            • Freedom is unbridled, unrestricted, limited only by what you are able, your free will choice to do whatever you want with what you are.

              Liberty is freedom governed by valuing and respecting rights. Libertarianism is to say that you are free to do anything but violate another, that your rights end where another’s begin. It is the principle function, the very premise of peaceful coexistence, a way of life that is a pledge to everyone that you will not violate or abuse them.

              Anarchy is a word that means “No(an) Rulers(archy)”, is based in the same inalienable rights as Libertarianism. It is the value and respect for self ownership, self rule, Liberty, the governing of thy self.

              Government in any form is a direct contradiction to either, as it’s only core values are power and growth and principle function of force, violence, enslavement. Force is what defines it as government. Remove force and it is a service. There is nothing free or Libertarian about government, in any form. It is systematic violence, evil, criminal, terrorism by definition.

              There is no argument that can be made in favor of Libertarian government. It simply does not, cannot exist. Libertarian government is like a vegetarian eating an Angus-burger.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      This could get interesting….California suing the Feds over States Rights. Like Climate Change. Nobody will tell them what they can or can not do. Fight Climate change if that is what you believe. Don’t expect the US taxpayer to pay for it though, same with all their social programs because CA encourages ILLEGAL migration to their cities. Same with the high speed rail….do it. It’s intrastate have fun. Just you pay for it.

  11. I watched the entire Hannity interview last night and must say that Assage is one hell of a lot more believable than the US Government. The guy would not allow himself to be sidetracked, or have “words” put in his mouth. Rather than calling the Prez a liar, he called him a lawyer which is true. All comments by the Intel agencies and the White House on these leaks have been lawyerly said Assage, always leaving an out and never directly blaming anyone.

    • http://www.prisonplanet.com/dont-listen-to-julian-assange-on-anything-lindsey-graham-attacks-wikileaks.html

      I consider Lindsey Graham a freaking traitor and a con man. As far as US intelligence, their track record speaks for themselves.

      • He’s a statist criminal, not a traitor. If he were a traitor to the USA, then he would be a friggin’ hero.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Graham and McCain are two very dangerous members of the establishment…Trump beware of these wolves in sheeps clothing.

        The Russian’s did NOT interfere with our elections. If interference is giving out information that the Dems and RNC establishment wanted to stay hidden away so the electorate could not make an informed decision in the election….then bring it on….The way I look at it is it was our very own government who was interfering with the election

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I liked CIA director Brennan’s comments about not believing everything you read or hear and questions Assange and his credibility…Assange’s credibility?….NOBODY, including the originators of the documents, have in any way refuted the information published on Wikileaks. That’s credibility. Not Brennan or Obama who steadfastly refuse to show their evidence because it’ll jeoparodize (sp) National Security….how it leaks like a sieve anyway. The Federal government legitimizes (sarc) itself to STEAL information from anyone anywhere using any means at it’s disposal and they complain when somebody returns the favor.

  12. JAC…..my reading of the different treaties.

    First of all……The ABM Treaty of 1972 refers to Anti Ballistic Missiles ONLY. It specifically excludes Strategic missile defense sysyems. Secondly, the treaty refers to specific areas of testing and development and modernization if existing ABM weaponry.

    I have found no violations of the ABM Treaty by Bush.

    Obviously, we are going to disagree on this next one. Nowhere is there a written agreement on NATO not being expanded to the east,,,,,,,except Eastern Germany. THere have been many statements made that someone said this and someone said that but there is nothing written….ANYWHERE….that prohibits NATO expansion.

    That said…..in the absence of a written agreement, please observe the following:

    “The various players involved have different versions of events. Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO “as much as a thumb’s width further to the East,” Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev’s former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, “was beyond our imagination,” he says.

    Further, ” The year 1990 was one of major negotiations. Washington, Moscow, London, Bonn, Paris, Warsaw, East Berlin and many others were at odds over German unity, comprehensive European disarmament and a new charter of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Soviets insisted that everything be documented in writing, even when all that was at issue was the fate of Soviet military cemeteries in East Germany. However, the numerous agreements and treaties of the day contained not a single word about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. ( Read this last sentence again )

    In late May 1990, Gorbachev finally agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO. But why didn’t Gorbachev and Shevardnadze get the West’s commitments in writing at a time when they still held all the cards? “The Warsaw Pact still existed at the beginning of 1990,” Gorbachev says today. “Merely the notion that NATO might expand to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time.”

    “Some leading Western politicians were under the impression that the Kremlin leader and his foreign minister were ignoring reality and, as Baker said, were “in denial” about the demise of the Soviet Union as a major power. On the other hand, the Baltic countries were still part of the Soviet Union, and NATO membership seemed light years away. No Eastern European government was striving to join NATO in that early phase, and the Western alliance had absolutely no interest in taking on new members. It was too expensive, an unnecessary provocation of Moscow and, if worse came to worst, did the Western governments truly expect French, Italian or German soldiers to risk their lives for Poland and Hungary?”

    Then, in 1991, came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the war in Bosnia, with its hundred thousand dead, raised fears of a Balkanization of Eastern Europe. And in the United States President Bill Clinton, following his inauguration in 1993, was searching for a new mission for the Western alliance. Suddenly everyone wanted to join NATO, and soon NATO wanted to accept everyone.

    D13’s will agree that there were “several” fireside chats with a variety of German, US, and Soviet diplomats of various levels and several things were said in private but none of those things were ever presented to the powers to be put in writing and signed as an agreement. In short, there was no contract. D13 further asserts that fireside chats are nice and many ideas interchanged and many statements made but also recognizes that a chat or a meeting where many things were sais, do not a binding contract or treaty make. It even falls short of a gentleman’s agreement with a handshake. D13 further asserts that Gorbachev “screwed the pooch” by not addressing NATO in a binding agreement.

    Now, understand that I am looking at this from the standpoint of legal status only and that the US does not have a written, standing agreement with Russia. When the Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia started exercising….questionable….rights to former Soviet States….the Eastern Bloc gets nervous. D13 continues in that there is no moral obligation to honor what is not written. We all know that when politicians get together, lots of things are said and lots of backdoor verbal things are said and possiblt agreed upon but those are tacit only. Until it is put into a treaty or an agreement, it is not valid in my opinion. Gorbachev, back in the 90’s did not foresee the fall of the Warsaw Pact…he blew it.

    Now, you also asked me a question about Russian intent. The Russian Federation has a stated desire to return to “days of old”. The goal of United Russia and its president is to make Russia once again an autonomous interna­tional player by returning to the values that made it strong in the past. YOu can interpret that any way you want, I suppose.

    Now, what Putin has done, much to his credit, has put Russia in the energy spot light and is now a competitor….

    So, JAC, tell me where you think I am off base here and where the US is doing something wrong.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I posted a copy of the meeting memo between SOS Christopher and Yeltsen above.

      I agree, there were no legally binding agreements. But there certainly was an agreement.

      And a caveat mealy mouth suggestion that was apparently understood to mean “in some far off galaxy in a time far, far away.”

      I do want to pursue what I think is the real underlying problem. One of our arrogance in claiming WE WON. And the ramifications that had on our potential relationship with Russia. Along with that was our sudden withdrawl of support when Russia really needed it. Of course Yeltsen was a sick puppy by then, which didn’t help. But in my opinion WE DROPPED THE BALL, and that was partly due to the arrogance of the neo-Cons.

      That is those people who think we should reorder the world in our image. Back with another link in a second:


      • Yes….and again…there was no agreement. Just a bunchof back door crap that never works.

        I will agree that we dropped the ball on several things but that was not the subject of the discussion…is NATO wrong….I still stand by the legal application of it….No.

        Now should the US have vetoed any entrance of Eastern European bloc applications…..I would ask why? Simply because it would piss of the Russians….that is no reason to deny it. It seems to me that if NATO denies applications, then it seems as if you are creating a club. If you deny applications to NATO, then would we be in the right to say to Russia to stay out of Ukraine affairs?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          We are a charter member of NATO. So denying an application is within the organizations right. That is not the same as us telling Russia to get out of Ukraine.

          By denying NATO membership we are not interfering in the applicants internal affairs.

          NATO is a club. A dangerous club because it commits its members to defend each other against aggression. It commits the US to sacrifice the lives of its citizens and its treasure to protect people on the other side of the world. It has become interventionist mechanism.

          We should have moved to disband NATO when Russia signed onto an agreement that our two Nations were no longer adversaries, and especially when they made a similar agreement with NATO itself. Because when they signed that deal NATO was not expected to grow to their borders.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Here is another very interesting perspective.


      After this you should be getting some idea of where I think the USA did wrong.

      • I think this from Speigel actually backs me up pretty good. In reading the article, I can see where sub level meetings took place and things were said and taken back to powers but that still does not over rule the fact that nothing was in writing. And even the Speigel article says that Gorbachev blew it. He could have actually shaped NATO and missed the chance.

    • As the nice man said, No one anticipated the end of the Warsaw Pact. I hate to be trite about it but nobody ever thought to ban gay marriage in the Constitution because nobody ever thought it could happen. I feel the same way about the NATO expansion.

      Now, ‘splain to me how the expansion of an organization whose main purpose was to block the Former Soviet Union (Russia) should continue to grow after the reason for their existence ceases to exist?

      Next……As I tell my leftist friends, the harder you pushed and the crazier you became the more likely you would create the opposite effect from what you wanted. Ever think that might just apply here? Harder Russia perceives us to push, the more troublesome they become.

      I have not seen you address the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government with US/German acquiescence if not outright encouragement. C’mon Colonel, what would a Russian Retired Colonel think?

  13. I was also asked to put on my Colonel Russian hat. I cannot do that because I do not think that way. I believe the intent is to ask me what I would do if the situation were reversed. I would exactly what they are doing now. I would immediately do whatever I could to counter whatever threat I perceived.

    • You cannot pretend to be a Russian Patriot who watched his troops die in Afghanistan for lousy politicians who used then as pawns?

      Soldiers have a lot in common regardless of where they serve. Just finished the most recent Gallipoli book. Juts as easy to feel bad for the dead Turks as the Dead ANZACS.

    • Remember the scene in “Patton” where he yells at the battlefield after winning that , regarding Rommel, “I read your book”. Got to get inside their heads. That is part of why we continually F— up. Never got inside the Iraqi heads, never inside the Viets.

  14. JAC…….you said ” One of our arrogance in claiming WE WON. And the ramifications that had on our potential relationship with Russia.”…..

    Intersting….what do you think the “we won” attitude did to the Russians…..Why does arrogance bother you in a situation like this? like spiking the ball in the end zone. Are you in the belief that one should win with dignity and there be no fanfare? No spiking of the ball? No sliding on the ice ripping off your jersey?

    Or would you have preferred just winning in silence and still do the same thing without the arrogance?

    • “That is those people who think we should reorder the world in our image.”

      Now, here is a good point…and I understand your connection of neo con and this point.

      We do not have to reshape anything. Use our economic strength and do not compromise our position in any manner. We set the example of how we want to be and if others follow…so be it. If they do not….so be it. We do not need to meddle in anyone’s affairs…..use our economic strength. If we do not like the way a state is conducting itself….do not do business with that state. Pretty simple really.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Does that include how they choose to handle a civil war within their boundaries? Do we stop trading with them because we don’t like how they treat their own?

        What are the moral/ethical standards by which we decide to use our economic power?

        This was part of the issue with Russia in the 90’s if you recall. We took public issue with Russia over Georgia and Chechnya. To the point of connecting economic aid with their behavior according to “our rules”.

        So I think we need to clean up what the rules should be. So what are your criteria?

        • Do we stop trading with them because we don’t like how they treat their own? Yes. How else do you stand up for your own beliefs. I find it to be the very height of hypocrisy to claim the high moral ground and then trade with individuals or countries that do not subscribe to the same values.

          We took public issue with Russia over Georgia and Chechnya. To the point of connecting economic aid with their behavior according to “our rules”. As we should or we have no business having a say on human rights for anyone.

          POTUS D13: I would treat the world like a business. I would trade with partners on an equal but firm basis. I would have all trade agreements in writing…no hand shakes, no fireside chats…a written agreement. THere would be financial repercussions for violating the written agreement meaning there would be no continued trade. It would stop immediately. There is no world court to turn to that has any auhority much less the enforcement power. I would trade within the boundaries of the USD. Each agreement would have a beginning and an end. I would negotiate the best deal possible for the US and never negotiate a weak deal or a deficit deal..,,,never. I do not believe in the lost leader approach…..give here to take there. There would be no back door deals whatsoever.

          That is what I would do as a start.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            My question to you is this. Why should we care about human rights outside our own borders? Who are we to tell others what those rights should be? Is not “civil or human rights” just another means of imposing “our views” on others?

            You do realize that we wouldn’t have any trading partners per your criteria, don’t you.

            I am asking what YOU think those standards should be.

            I do agree, however, that if we are going to go around preaching about X we should stand up for X, completely and wholeheartedly. Even if it causes us some pain.

            • Is not “civil or human rights” just another means of imposing “our views” on others?

              err…Who’s side are you on here? I thought you were the Natural Law guy. Inalienable rights…all people are born with those. In regard to trade with countries who don’t have our views, it seems simple to me. Assuming they have something we need, like oil, then we trade only corn, or lumber, or cotton. We don’t trade weapons and uranium.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Yes, I am. However, part of those rights is for people to decide for themselves. So who are we, by what right do we have, to impose our view of those “rights” upon others?

                So I agree, don’t trade weapons or strategic materials. But otherwise trade with them.

                Otherwise we need to clearly state what “rights” we view as so sacred we would not trade with you if you did not share them. We would quickly find little agreement on the complete list.

              • It’s not your or my right to decide someone’s rights for them. All humans are born with inalienable rights…among them are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. That reason alone is the basis for trade…with anyone. That their leader is a jerk and wont share with his people is not our problem. That’s where leverage comes in though. You don’t want to distribute the food, we don’t sell you weapons.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Football is not diplomacy. Did we really spike the ball on Japan, Germany and Italy? Remember how hard MacArthur fought to treat Japan with dignity?

      Gloating might have been appropriate with an all out win. But we did not really win anything. The Soviet empire disintegrated but the Russian empire did not. We still had the same adversary, so to speak. One wanting to reach out to make peace.

      So our arrogance undermined those wanting normalization and provided fodder for those who were working against it. And it provided a rationalization later on for a fella called Putin.

      And YES, we should have vetoed any NATO expansion based on the conversations between two US and Russian presidents. In fact, we should have proposed a formal agreement with Russia codifying the promises made by our own President.

      Instead we just moved ahead trying to explain to the Russians why they shouldn’t be upset. All the while they were telling us this was going to be a big problem down the road.

      Ever notice how we have a habit of not listening to our adversaries, or others, when they tell us straight up what they are concerned about? I have seen it with other govt. agencies within the US and I see it in our dealings outside the US.

      One more thing. I find spiking the ball, tearing off jerseys, etc. etc. repugnant. YES, one should win with honor and dignity and not rub it in the opponents face. Especially when the battle has been brutal to the end. Grant vs. Lee?

      • This is my main point.We make nicey nice with the people who actually ran the concentration camps and raped Nanking but the “new” Russians who reject Stalin and his sins are still anathema?

        Think I mentioned it the other day or perhaps not. The reason the leftists HATE with a capital H Russia, and Putin is because he killed their God! No punishment is bad enough, not even nuclear war for apostasy.

  15. Just A Citizen says:


    An interesting perspective on the “Restart” with Russia. Note this was written in 2009. So much promise and so little progress.


    • Interesting perspective but I do not see anything changing. But let me ask you……since we are in basic disagreement here,,,,,,What would POTUS JAC due if he were in charge right now. How would you restart with Russia?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        First of all what are we in disagreement over?

        Second, I would go to Russia and make a major speech to the Russian People. Explain I am there to visit with them and meet with their President to try and discover why there seems to be such animosity between our great nations. Tell them WE are confused and because of this may have unintentionally made mistakes. It is time to make sure we clearly understand each others needs and concerns.

        Then I would LISTEN carefully. I would also ask Mr. Putin some very hard questions, in order to make sure I DO UNDERSTAND what is going on.

        I would then ask what we should JOINTLY do to curb the expansion of the Wahhabi movement and eventually destroy it. Trump is on the right path on this issue, at least for now. Team up with Russia in Syria, or at least leave them alone and stop chastising them.

        If NATO truly is an issue today then I would try hard to reduce that stress point. Too late to eliminate members but not to prevent new ones. Also back off on missile defense deployments or any other “arming” within NATO states bordering Russia.

        Depending on what I heard I would let the NATO members know, publicly, that if Europe truly wants peace and security that the goal should be to disband NATO, not make it bigger. To that end we need to find a way that provides security for EVERYONE, including Russia.

        I honestly think that at this point in time we have to make a unilateral move to reduce tensions. But do not take this as weakness. I also do not trust Putin although I think I understand his motives. Or should I say I trust him to act according to his view, not mine or that of Yeltsin 20 years ago. I would be prepared to counter any efforts to exploit our good will. I am assuming we could do that now. If not we need to increase strength first.

        If I were POTUS I would tell the members of my own party to stop all the Russia bashing and the claims of Victory over Russia, etc, etc.. I would explain to the American people that we do not have definitive proof of the Russian Govt. hacking our systems. But we will be on the lookout and will call them out if we find it.

        All of this is one scenario. One more geared to existing geopolitical realities and not necessarily what I would consider ideal. It is hard to jump to the ideal set of principles when the world is on fire and we had a hand in it. And it we don’t help put it out it could consume us.

        And before you ask, I would quietly let China know they can build all the sand castles they want in the S. China Sea. But the International waters recognize by International Treaties are “INTERNATIONAL”. The first ship to try and stop a commercial or military vessel in these waters will be sent to the bottom. No need to make blustering public comments. Just deliver the message. We are in support of open oceans and free passage of trade among friendly nations. Anyone who interferes in such will be considered an “aggressor” against such trade and the rights of other Nations. We will defend ourselves and our friends against such aggression.

        Word will get back to the Russians so no need to give them the same speech.

        Now turn about is fair play. What would YOU do about Russia today? How about China?

        You still have not identified your criteria for when we trade or do not trade with others.

  16. A few thoughts on today’s discussion(s).

    Let me begin with political ideology, including Anarchism. All of them are quite alike as they all use propaganda to try and convince people to follow their respective ideology. The different methods of convincing, whether by attempting to use shame, economics, violence in it’s many forms, it all comes down to one thing that all humans seem to demand……that others live as they are told.

    As say this because not all people are created equal. Some folks can’t live an Anarchist’s life, because they are not mentally or physically capable. Others desire power and would rather rule over others. Others still would just assume kill you than bother to talk to you at all, much less come to any agreement.

    People use the various types of convincing to achieve their ideological goals. Government’s, including the US government is no less guilty in trying to “spread” democracy. Just like Liberal/Progressives want to “spread” totalitarianism powerful central governments, including Communism, Socialism etc. Despite the Anarchist’s view that anarchy can exist peacefully, it would be no more peaceful than any other ideology. People just ain’t wired that way. Shit, even with all of our laws and rules, look at the murders in Chicago last year, look at the number of shootings, robberies, theft, rape, assault and all the other stuff that Anarchist’s think will just go away. The same can be said of powerful nations. They will never stop trying to “spread” their ideology either. Even religions act like political ideologies, and Anarchy would have to be equal to a religion to work.

    Or maybe we just need to understand we can’t all be like minded, because it’s impossible to believe it can work, because we people have proven that it can’t.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      A thought for you to consider. Specialization is largely responsible for expansion of human well being. Govt. is a natural evolution of specialization, even allowing it to expand further. Because Govt. takes on the services that might otherwise not be efficiently provided individually. Like “security” or “judgment of crimes” and “punishment of criminals”.

      Govt., like all other things, can be a force of good or bad. And humans are fully capable of finding the bad. But now and then we find the good as well. Seek the good, instead of trying to kill the institutions themselves.

      NOTE: If we were ALL wealthy there would not be as great a demand for Govt. Because we could all afford to pay our equal share towards things like police, courts and prisons. Not to mention the roads and power/sewer/water systems.

      • “Govt., like all other things, can be a force of good or bad.”

        Government is evil. It is systematic violence, slavery, criminal, terrorism, by definition. You do what it says, wrong or right, or die. That is never good.

        If you vote you are a criminal. If you do so knowing the things we discuss here, knowing you are demanding evil, it makes you a terrorist, evil.

        That is why my “Plan B: Kill all of the statists” holds weight, is reasonable. It really is an act of defense to kill statists, at least the pigs anyway.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          It would be much easier to kill all the Anarchists. Just sayin.

          • 🙂

          • Your reluctance to recognize reality is tiring, JAC. Again, I point to the difference between offense and defense. The state is the aggressor. Defense is rightful.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I have never seen the nebulous concept “state” attack anyone.

              It is ALWAYS people who attack or try to control other people.

              Your continued accusations that I and others simply do not understand or fail to recognize reality is equally tiring. So I guess we are even on that score.

        • Anarchism, with all it’s good stuff, is just another utopian ideology. You, much like Liberal’s, try to sell your ideology through negative propaganda. You already lost before the bell rang, people don’t tolerate negative propaganda. Just ask Hillary.

          • You are a serf because you cannot rationalize anything in terms of principle. Hence your inconsistency and blindness. If you could get past that, you would definitely have a better understanding of the universe.

            I know your politics, Gman. Your mantra is that it is not okay to force your opinion onto the guy 300 miles away, but it’s perfectly acceptable to violate your next door neighbor.

            • I’m NOT the one here that is trying to sell my ideology to people all over the country….YOU ARE. And for the record, me and my neighbors get along great and are always helping one another when the need arises. It’s much different out in the country than in the cities. While Anarchy has a chance to succeed in my neck of the woods, it can never happen in higher populated areas. I don’t see anything wrong with a group of people like yourself getting together and buying land and making your community as you see fit. I think it would be a great experiment.

              • I am not trying to sell you anything. I am here telling you all to GET YOUR GOD DAMNED EVIL FUCT UP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE.

                (I am not sure that applies to you specifically, as you only force your neighbors)

                I am not really your friend anymore. Granted we’ve had some good interaction here, and I do at least have some appreciation for you as humans. But we are not allies as long as you continue to demand my violation.

                And you and your neighbors only get along because they too demand serfdom. Fine by me, not my issue. But for those who demand any government that may encroach restrict or violate my rights, they are nothing but criminals to me.

                Whatever the case, I am ‘standing up for america’ in standing up for myself against an evil statist regime.

                …not to mention the entertainment value of it.

    • “Despite the Anarchist’s view that anarchy can exist peacefully, it would be no more peaceful than any other ideology. People just ain’t wired that way. Shit, even with all of our laws and rules, look at the murders in Chicago last year, look at the number of shootings, robberies, theft, rape, assault and all the other stuff that Anarchist’s think will just go away.”

      Anarchy is reality. It exists peacefully everywhere, every day, all day. It is any time people organize without being coerced/forced to do so, as they choose. i.e.-Traffic, the average workplace, your average day in middle class suburban neighborhood, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc… … …

      Does all hell break loose in your neighborhood when there are no pigs around? Do your neighbors suddenly go militant gangster like the government does threatening, killing, extorting and stealing?

      No, they do it by proxy because they don’t want to do it themselves. They hire people to do it for them called government and pigs. I digress.

      Want security? You can even have militias and security forces in anarchy. It’s not about them bossing you around with a gun. They can actually patrol your neighborhood to defend against would-be violators. They don’t care about stupid numbers on your cars or what you eat or smoke, or anything other than what you and your community pay them to do. If they start violating or harassing the people in the community who pay them, they get fired or shot.

      Your above comment is you rationalizing slavery, the necessity of an army of overlords in super hero costumes bossing everyone around with weapons to make them obey a heap of a faux world paper bullshit.

      As a thought exercise, try thinking about how to do something that government normally does, but without government or forcing anything. How to organize and not be coerced into it? That’s anarchy.

      Want roads and sewage systems and electrical grids? Then build them, duh. How do you do that? You organize to pool goods in exchange for services to produce infrastructure. Pitch in and hire a contractor for half the price.

      And Chicago is government, with pigs, has a jurisdiction, is an example of statism. And it disarms people, leaves them defenseless to be raped, robbed, killed, etc. If it were anarchy, it would indeed likely be a more peaceful environment. Try raping a woman when she has an assault rifle pointed at you.

      • Anarchy is nothing but mass chaos. I’ll pass. As far as pigs go, I’m not sure what that has to do with anything here. We had a pig farm down the road from us for years. I haven’t noticed any difference in the way people act since the pig farm is gone. Maybe people in my area just act more civilized, with or without a pig farm, than do the people in your area. I dunno.

        • 🙂 Prepare for your lecture…. LOL

        • No. Anarchy is order without power, self rule, self organization. It is not chaos, nor is it serfdom. Educate yourself. Read Proudhon or Bastiat.

          And when I refer to pigs, I am referring to police officers, the scum of the Earth, the state’s instrument of coercion and violence upon the nonviolent, those worthless pieces of shit trying to play overlord super hero.

      • Here’s your fatal flaw…contractors. How do you guarantee that there will be available contractors? Available contractors who will get the job done in a timely manner? At the price you claim (half price)? What happens when only ONE contractor is available in your local area and wants to charge 5 times your half price? What if the contractor doesn’t finish the job, takes the money and runs? See question one when this happens. What do you do when said contractor IS the only one will not let any other contractors work in the area (it happens all the time)? What happens when the job gets too big for the cheap contractor (snow removal)? Does your Aunt Lucy just die because she can’t get to the hospital because you got a cheap contractor who couldn’t handle the job, because you were both cheap and nieve’? How much time can you take away from work to deal with collecting money to pay contractors, hire contractors, make sure contractors are getting the job done, following up on complaints, paying contractors etc? That last sentence is a full time job. You now have to quit your job to manage contractors. You are now the government. Welcome to the real world 😀

        • Are you so myopic in your thinking that you cannot fathom a way to do anything without force? Can you not see the countless examples in the real world that can indeed answer your questions?

          Why does anyone handle their financial commercial business honestly?

          What happens any time those issues you mention exist?

          Why do you contextualize your position under the false premise that government does not incur the same issues as any other entity in the real world?

          Why do you not even consider the basics of economics in your questioning?

          Have you recently been in an accident or something, Gman? Or is this simply another one of those fence riding things as per whatever is popular?

          • Sorry, I asked the questions first. If you can’t answer them, in an effective manner that supports your position and keeping things real. People do not act as you wish them too, just because of your special ideology, nor will they just conform. It is both a pipedream and living in a fantasy world that does not exist.

            Now, answer the questions I posed, or your argument is moot because you can’t even deal with the simple issue of road maintenance in your community WITHOUT an authoritative force to protect the interests of the people.

            • Your questions are all contextualized under a false premise, ..as if government is the only way to get things done. You are grossly myopic in your reply. Ask real questions.

              How do you get anything done without government? How does a free market function?

              • Bullshit! I can deal with mu individual needs just fine. Your society requires that issues are dealt with that affect the entire society. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS TOTALLY.

                Now, answer the simple questions. Your dodging and it’s showing. You can’t answer those questions can you? Because in your special snowflake society, everybody would have to think the same where as my questions would not need to be answered. This is the flaw in your ideology. Or, answer the questions and prove me wrong 🙂

              • You aren’t very good with principle, are you?

                Individual, family, community needs, whatever the case may be, …in order to have an orderly and peaceful civilization, you must deal with all issues or needs according to a set of values and principles, or you will have chaos..

                The only values and principles that will work in the long term are those that recognize and respect rights, because they are universal to all humans, part of our very identity and existence, god’s reality as nature dictates.

                This self evident reality is even recognized by your own form of government in the declaration of independence, and attempts to outline a government accordingly in the bill of rights. While well intentioned, and not bad at all for the time and circumstances, etc. while a hell of a good try at Classic Liberalism/Libertarianism gubment, it has ultimately failed into a Republican Socialist Fascist Empirical police state.

                …because it is all ultimately structured on the use of deadly force to impose opinions.

                But to answer your questions….

                You do it like you do it now, only without force. You do it by organizing and pitching in with your community like you do now, by choice instead of by theft and coercion and threat of death or being locked in a dungeon or whatever deplorable shit the state will do.

                You do it voluntarily, according to free market principles. Want a freeway? Then get on the local media and everywhere else and voice your idea to any and all who may care or need a freeway. Hire someone to manage a bank account and put everything where everyone can see it, can see who donates what exactly and when to the freeway fund.

                When/as you collect the money to actually build it, take bids for the job, just like government does. Hire a staff to manage it, just like now. Make contracts or whatever agreement in plain sight in truth and fairness and good will and honor like it is done now. Take whatever agreeable necessary measures to ensure things are kept honest.

                But do not use a system of violence and enslavement to make it happen. It is as vile as it is unnecessary.

                Because everyone involved is getting something out of it. That’s what makes it happen. That’s what makes it work. It does not require force. It requires mutual gain or need, an acceptable solution to a popular problem, dependent upon human life and perception.

                In terms of keeping things honest, consider social pressures similar to the function of pro bono attorneys, being their motive is advertising, creating a reputation, increasing their worth. Contractors are better served not ripping people off.

                Force is not necessary to satisfy social needs. Basic economic principles of supply and demand and free choice will work just fine. There is no need for barbarism to get things done. That is only necessary where reason fails and violence is committed.

                If people will simply understand and value this very very very very very very elemental simple truth that we are all usually taught as small children, then maybe we may get something done without having to bash anyone’s head in.

              • What you have explained so eloquently, I can do in one sentence: Everyone MUST think the same. That is the only premise that makes it work. The problem is that everyone don’t think the same, period. Let me repeat:

                If it weren’t for the actions of people, in contradiction of the Anarchist ideology, there would not be government, because there would be no need.

                BOOM! Confucius ain’t got shit on me! 😀

                You simply can’t accept the reality that people will not act as though you claim is so simple, because the human psych isn’t capable of such ability, even in small numbers.

              • Again you offer a grotesque retort, Gman. You deny reality once again, and as I have already noted.

                You do not need to think the same as everyone else to have mutual needs or wants such as infrastructure. You do not need to be forced into cooperation, such as the normal workplace or traffic demonstrates.

                You simply need to all individually benefit from it enough to put forth the effort to organize. It’s simple supply/demand, very very simple economics that I know you are already familiar with.

              • You simply need to all individually benefit from it enough to put forth the effort to organize.

                This requires everyone to think the same. Your failing miserably What if half don’t want to organize? What if a third don’t want the project because it will negatively affect there philosophy. You continue to think that all people want the same, they don’t and I can prove it in ONE WORD…..AMISH

              • “This requires everyone to think the same.”

                Only in terms of general needs, as is with any market for anything. It does not require people to be the same, but to simply have common needs. It is a common goal for social creatures called humans, very simple. And it does not require force.

                For those who do not want to organize, they don’t have to organize. If they don’t like it, they do not have to engage. Leave them be.

                The average workplace destroys your position, another example of reality. All sorts of different people from all walks of life with all sorts of differing idealism convene and organize with great efficiency accomplishing a wide range of goals all over the world.

                Traffic is another example. How many people need to get from A to B safely?

  17. Make America Sick Again

    Are you kidding me? They still don’t get it. Racist didn’t stick. Homophobe didn’t stick. On and on. Oh, Deplorables stuck…like a badge of honor. That’s ok…keep talking Ds…talk yourself right into irrelevance.

    • Trump called Schumer “head clown” on Twitter this morning. 😀 It’s going to be a fun 8 years isn’t it? 🙂

      • Hahaha. Hadn’t seen that yet. Thanks for the laugh. Hope it continues to be fun. He’ll have to play wack a mole daily so we should be able to keep having fun.

    • Statist applies to both ‘sides’ of your ridiculousness.

      Tit for tat with force, arguing over skin and sex, other people’s medical bills.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      You have to give the Dems credit. If nothing else they are great at coming up with catchy slogans.

  18. http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story

    4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live

    Liberal’s in action!

  19. Listening to the Congressional Hearing on the Russian hack nonsense, here’s what we WON’T hear come out in these hearings:

    1: Nobody speaking will admit that the US also engages in hacking overseas.
    2. Nobody will admit that the US interferes with foreign governments ability to govern or their elections.
    3. No one will admit that the Fed’s are still actively spying on it’s citizens without proper consent.
    4. No one will say that whistleblowers who leak information of illegal activity against those citizens are NOT criminals, simply because the government that’s conducting the illegal activity has determined that such activity is classified.

    • Holy Cow…#1 was admitted!

      • So was number two…

        • Exactly why this whole thing is a farce. I ask a question, who benefits from these hearings? My answer…..the two political parties. As I posted below, the whole Russian narrative was put out with in hours of the release of the DNC emails. I’m throwing the bullshit flag on the whole thing. The end result…..The RNC and DNC will be considered critical government infrastructure and be treated as such (including funding for security and special laws concerning the release of their operations). This will end our Republican form of government.

  20. i have to admit that John Podesta has done a huge favor for millions. All those who had used the word password as their password have now changed it to their birthday.

  21. Sir JAC……

    Well, I do not know what to say, my friend. You and I are quite different in how to handle some things. I will try to answer what I would do. I am not geared towards compromise as much as you are, but here goes.

    “Second, I would go to Russia and make a major speech to the Russian People. Explain I am there to visit with them and meet with their President to try and discover why there seems to be such animosity between our great nations. Tell them WE are confused and because of this may have unintentionally made mistakes. It is time to make sure we clearly understand each others needs and concerns.”

    D13…..This sounds a lot like an Obama tour but I will give you the benefit of doubt in that you are trying to isolate specific issues to see if there is common ground and I can see and agree that this is a viable first step.
    “Then I would LISTEN carefully. I would also ask Mr. Putin some very hard questions, in order to make sure I DO UNDERSTAND what is going on. ”

    D13……Redundant… but ok….I can go along with this as well. I say redundant because I think that his position is already well stated, but I will digress.

    “I would then ask what we should JOINTLY do to curb the expansion of the Wahhabi movement and eventually destroy it. Trump is on the right path on this issue, at least for now. Team up with Russia in Syria, or at least leave them alone and stop chastising them.”

    D13…..The enemy of my enemy is my friend routine but I can even agree to this on this specific issue because I recognize that the Russians have as much problem as we do in curbing this. It would be impossible to team up with Russia because Putin nor the Russian hardliners will allow this but leave them alone is a viable option…you realize that you give up Syria in this case but who cares.

    “If NATO truly is an issue today then I would try hard to reduce that stress point. Too late to eliminate members but not to prevent new ones. Also back off on missile defense deployments or any other “arming” within NATO states bordering Russia.”

    D13…. You and I can agree on this ONLY if this is a starting point in negotiations and not a unilateral decision with some misguided design that it would bring them to the bargaining table. I would agree to stopping where we are at this point to begin negotiations but I would give up nothing at this point. Not even as a gesture of good will.

    “Depending on what I heard I would let the NATO members know, publicly, that if Europe truly wants peace and security that the goal should be to disband NATO, not make it bigger. To that end we need to find a way that provides security for EVERYONE, including Russia.”

    D13…..Since you used the phrase “depending on what I heard”…I will give you leeway here. I will disagree, at this time, that disbanding NATO alone, will give Europe peace. I firmly believe that it will not. However, it is a bargaining tool to use in negotiations. I firmly believe that the Russian culture is not European by the slightest of margins and you seem to think that there is a “Kumbayah” moment here. But if there is a way to provide Russia with the security it thinks it needs, I will be on board BUT my terms of negotiation are different than yours. I only negotiate from a position of strength.

    ” I also do not trust Putin although I think I understand his motives. Or should I say I trust him to act according to his view, not mine or that of Yeltsin 20 years ago. I would be prepared to counter any efforts to exploit our good will. I am assuming we could do that now. If not we need to increase strength first.”

    D13….I find your statement here to be contradictory but I think I understand where you are going. Our strength to any negotiations with Russia lies totally with NATO and economics. Furthermore, our strength lies in other Eastern European states that wish alliance with NATO and/or Europe. I do not care about lands 300 years ago that used to be Russian. Russian history provides nothing more than an understanding of Russian philosophy and perhaps ideology but it does not factor as a bargaining chip.

    “If I were POTUS I would tell the members of my own party to stop all the Russia bashing and the claims of Victory over Russia, etc, etc.. I would explain to the American people that we do not have definitive proof of the Russian Govt. hacking our systems. But we will be on the lookout and will call them out if we find it.”

    D13…..I can agree with the Russia bashing. As to the hacking, this is where you and I will be in total disagreement, I am afraid. As you know, I do not subscribe to the theory of proportioned response. I never have and I never will, so you will have to give me this. I firmly believe and have experience with proportioned responses, both in business and military, and they simply do not work. I view and believe that hacking into computers with the intent of state thefts or disruption of grids or disruption of state elections is an act of war and we should act accordingly. To me,,,,,,my opinion…..hacking into a state computer is just as serious as pulling a trigger or firing a missile. Why, you ask. Because the consequences can be just as serious whether the finger is on a trigger or computer key. AND, it works both ways. We would be conducting an act of war if we do the same.

    China is not part of this, but since you made it, you already know my answer. I would have sent their brand new carrier to the bottom for a drone. JAC, in both business and war, the end result is to win. You can compromise, if you wish, but you compromise to win. You win honestly and with integrity…but you win. You do not cheat and you do not lie…but you win.

    Also, with reference to China, it is their position that the entire South China Sea belongs to them and they have also stated that they do not subscribe nor believe that any court or treaty pertains to them. Pretty clear to me.

    So, I described what I would do with Russia. Diplomacy, such as it is, can work but only from strength.

    China……I would have sent their carrier to the bottom. The fact that they have now moved hundreds of missiles, offensive missiles, to their sand castles is a direct threat to the shipping lanes of the United States. I do not care about the world…only about the United States. I would send, immediately, two carrier groups and two air wings to the region and the minute one of our ships was approached, stopped, or captured, including a row boat…..not only would the islands disappear but so would their navy. including their two brand new submarines.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I do not think we are as far apart as you think. I might just be a little more strategic in my thinking. I think you misunderstand what I mean by negotiating and compromise.

      I do differ with you in one critical piece. Compromise is not ME winning. It is BOTH winning. No compromise will ever last if both parties are not better off with the compromise than without it. Have you ever heard of BATNA?

      If you want to get the other side to the table you need to reduce their BATNA. That is their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. This is where strength comes in. But strength or reducing the Russian BATNA does not necessarily mean we have to be overtly threatening. In my view they only need to understand we have the resolve to respond. Hence the need for face to face discussions. One is to make sure I understand what is being said, including addressing my questions about their motivations and desires, and to impart the understanding I mean business.

      As for Putin and my visit, I know that we think we know who he is and what to expect. But I have heard his complaints. And if I was suddenly POTUS I frankly don’t feel comfortable taking the word of the State and Defense Dept. hacks regarding what has been said or not said. I give you the NATO expansion conversations as an example. Clinton promised and then an underling at State went to work undermining the promise. Pretty soon Clinton forgot he made the promise, because he was swayed to something else.

      You also reversed my intended response of eliminating NATO. The purpose of the public statement is to let everyone understand that NATO is not required if peace is achieved. They go hand in hand. NATO is not a bargaining chip. Its elimination is the GOAL. Or part of the GOAL. Achieving peace is the Goal. Part of that is the need that all parties feel secure. In other words, not threatened by others.

      This strategy changes the focus of discussions from NATO to peace and security. And of course giving Russia the stature in the world it seems to badly desire.

      I expect there would be many things that would have to be addressed before we got to the point of “security”. But if that is achieved then NATO should no longer be needed.

      Now key question to you. Do you think it is Russian nature to seek empire by conquest? And by conquest I mean both invasion and clandestine operations, such as in Crimea.

      • JAC….

        “The purpose of the public statement is to let everyone understand that NATO is not required if peace is achieved.”

        But, if peace is to be achieved, then NATO must go away. Hence….it is a major bargaining chip. I would never back off nor pull a single missile, troop, tank, aircraft away until I get the assurances I would want. To use your example, ok, Mr. Putin, NATO will not take in new eastern state members if you agree to leave them alone and stay out of their business. NATO will move off your borders if you agree to ***insert whatever here****. Then the agreement must be put in writing. No verbal agreements and no hand shakes.

        “I do differ with you in one critical piece. Compromise is not ME winning. It is BOTH winning. No compromise will ever last if both parties are not better off with the compromise than without it. Have you ever heard of BATNA? ” Yes sir, this is where we differ. I will compromise but I will not compromise to even. I will only compromise if it is beneficial to me. In being beneficial to me, if the other side is also happy so be it. Some call that hard ball…but in this game, there is no soft ball.

        ” Do you think it is Russian nature to seek empire by conquest? And by conquest I mean both invasion and clandestine operations, such as in Crimea.”

        Interesting way you posed the question…..Yes, I believe it is the Russian nature to seek empire by conquest…whether overtly, covertly, clandestinely or whatever “ly” you want. I firmly believe it is their “nature”.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Again you misinterpret my comment. Both winning does not mean both are the same. Only that both are happy or “accepting” of the outcome. You winning at the “expense” of the other will not last in the long run. Because the other side will work to weaken your BATNA while you think you won.

          This concept is no different than trading goods. Both parties must be happy with the trade. What makes you happy is irrelevant to my happiness. But I need to know what might make you happy in order to help construct the deal I want.

          I need you to clarify: “Interesting way you posed the question…..Yes, I believe it is the Russian nature to seek empire by conquest…whether overtly, covertly, clandestinely or whatever “ly” you want. I firmly believe it is their “nature”.”

          Russian nature or just a few Russians who happen to occupy the head of Govt.? I did not get the impression that Yeltsin was of this “nature”. Gorbachev I always felt just realized they could not sustain the empire under the Soviet agenda, so he changed tactics. Not necessarily the goal or broader strategy.

          Also, I have no problem with your approach to the details of negotiating details. Although I would probably try to table the whole issue of NATO, upon the provision both sides Freeze in place while we try to resolve our issues.

          I think the issues are bigger than NATO. That is why I suggest a meeting to truly LISTEN to the Russians. To find out if their are deeper concerns or if it is all just a ruse to rationalize whatever they can get away with.

          One more question: Do you think there is a limit to the Russian desire for empire? For example, is it limited to the region formally part of the Russian culture, or part of the Russian Empire, or a certain part of the Soviet empire? Or is it unlimited, with Poland again a piece on the board.

          • Since I grew up during the cold war and entered the military in 1969, as an officer, we were required to study Russian History, study Russian tactics, and study the rise of the USSR. The Russian Empire began long ago and is full of wars and conquests and losses. Russian history is full of empire building that once encompassed China, Iran and parts of North Africa. It exended all the way across what is known as Europe.

            There is a fear in Europe and former Eastern bloc countries of an alliance with Russia and Germany. Strategists in both Moscow and Berlin study the celebrated English geographer Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), whose Heartland theory has been part of the debate in Europe since before World War I.

            In a 1904 address at the Royal Geographical Society titled “The Geographical Pivot of History,” later expanded into his 1919 magnum opus, “Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction,” Mackinder proposed the sweeping Heartland theory, which pictures the world as made up of the “World-Island” of Eurasia and attached Africa, surrounded by “satellite islands” of the Americas and Australia.

            Mackinder argued that whoever controls the World-Island, also called the Heartland, controls the world.

            An early critical component of this theory was the view that Russia is what Mackinder calls the Pivot. Russia forms a geographic bridge from Europe to Asia across an uninterrupted expanse of steppe and forest; this bridge changed history when the Asian horsemen, Mongol and then Turkic, crashed into Europe. In 1904, Mackinder openly admired the Russian potential for dominating both its neighbors and even the sea powers England and France. Mackinder also saw, presciently, well before the catastrophes of the two world wars and the Cold War, that the balance of power in the World-Island invariably favors the Pivot state of Russia.

            Mackinder added a stern warning to Edwardian Whitehall: If Russia expanded over the “marginal lands” of Eurasia, “the empire of the world would be in sight.”

            It is chilling to read Mackinder’s next sentence: “This [empire of the world] might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia.”

            High-level European conversations claim that Putin joins with Chancellor Angela Merkel and their counselors in reading the history of the last century, especially Mackinder, whose work has been a guide for world capitals, including Washington, as recently as the Cold War. Putin and Merkel have renamed Mackinder’s genius into the Common Eurasian Home doctrine.

            Putin and Merkel confer often, not only about Ukraine but also about their plan to develop a stable, prosperous, secure Eurasian supercontinent. The Ukrainian showdown is a small piece in Moscow’s and Berlin’s huge plans for the 21st century. “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland,” Mackinder wrote in 1919, “who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world.” Moscow and Berlin understand that they are constructing a dominating alliance that treats the U.S. as a peripheral force.

            Ukraine begins to define the Kremlin’s aim to recover the Eastern European buffer states that it lost in the failure of the Soviet empire. The sole issue for Ukraine, I am told, is whether the state will be a federation, with eastern Ukraine attached to Moscow, or if it will be broken up, with eastern Ukraine calling itself Novorossiya. The pro-Russian forces in what they have declared the People’s Republic of Donetsk call themselves federalists, not separatists. Their aim is to stay part of a Ukraine that is not bossed by the forces behind Kyiv’s Maidan uprising. The Kremlin is not in a hurry, allowing the media propaganda in Europe, especially in Germany, to paint the Maidan forces as untrustworthy. The Kremlin presents the pro-Russian forces as faithful, churchgoing citizens who are threatened by the gun-toting Kyiv “fascists.”

            After Ukraine, the Kremlin aims to go forward gradually and articulately. For example, Putin and Prime Minister Recep Erdogan of Turkey recently conferred about the Muslim and Turkic Crimean Tatars. Putin told Erdogan that Russia is working to make restitution for what was lost in the Stalinist terror. Putin and Erdogan also discussed energy pipelines through Turkey, which may be needed if there is any disruption in Ukrainian pipelines. Turkey very much desires Russian trade. Putin communicated that the Kremlin appreciates Turkish cooperation in three troubled areas: Syria, Cyprus and Ukraine. The exchange is characterized as Putin’s making Erdogan a most friendly offer that he could not refuse.

            The increasing hostility between Washington and Moscow is seen in Moscow as evidence that Barack Obama’s administration refuses to acknowledge the supreme geographical advantage that Russia and its ally Germany enjoy over the World-Island.

            The Kremlin believes that the White House has made it easy for Russian ambitions by turning the Ukrainian crisis into a contest between NATO and Moscow. The Obama administration has put all its eggs in one basket despite the fact that the other 27 nations in NATO have other priorities.

            There is fresh indication from Berlin that the Germans are ready to turn away from the confrontation. Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier indicated that Germany wants to seek normalization with Russia over Ukraine, not just talk of sanctions. Steinmeier’s remark followed European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger’s assessment that cutting off or even cutting back energy from Russia as a means of pressuring Moscow was not a priority. In sum, the Europeans as a whole recognize, as do the Germans, that Russia is in command of the future of the continent.

            The Kremlin believes the Obama administration makes each new foreign policy dispute into a personal dispute, as in Obama versus Putin. This formula treats leaders who agree with Obama as moderates and leaders who disagree as enemies. In the Kremlin’s view of the century, Putin is neither a friend nor an enemy of the U.S. He and his allies are pursuing Russia’s destiny at long last, after more than a hundred years of war, pestilence, famine and death. America’s destiny, according to the Mackinder theory, can be that of a rich, potent, benevolent satellite to the world-dominating Common Eurasian Home.


            This is a theory, of course, but is of concern for Europe. To Answer your question, JAC, yes, I think Russia has empire designs beyond its current borders. I do not believe that there sphere of influence woud continue past the European Continent, nor further south that the old Asian continent nor further east up to China. I base this on history and a feeling. I also know, for a fact, that Merkel and Putin want an alliance but I think that is not going to happen now given the climate in Germany.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I also think you misunderstood my response to the hacking issue. The supposed hacks of the DNC is their problem as far as I am concerned.

      The hacking of infrastructure system, Govt. computers and records is another matter. So is the hacking of Corporate records and the stealing of intellectual property. Problem is with proving it is a Govt. sponsored actor doing the hacking.

      In China we assume it is the govt. due to their strangling control of the internet. In Russia I am not as sure, because of the rogue elements in that country (criminal).

      I expect in Russia we have two scenarios active. One is direct knowledge by Putin and the Govt. heads. The other is private players acting on their own, but without Govt. opposition. Kind of like us turning our head if Wikileaks started posting stuff on Putin and the Oligarchs. Oh wait, that happened already!!

      So I do take it seriously and some of the reported efforts do rise to acts of war. But in order to address this we need to stop unilaterally doing it ourselves. Retaliation is one thing, but I think we have been initiating some of this. Remember that Putin used the Bush policy to rationalize some of his actions. Once we open Pandora’s box, everyone gets to use the contents.

      We also need to be able to PROVE who the players are. We need to be able to PROVE that the Govt agents are responsible.

  22. I hope everyone is watching the hearings on cyber activity and the questions being asked about assymetrical vs proportioned and non proportioned response.

    • I hear…LIE, LIE LIE, Hypocrisy, LIE et al

      Lindsey Graham is an asshole and a hypocrit.

      • Perhaps you should listen….

        • I am, they all fail to realize that we are being treated as we treat others. This isn’t exactly a secret. When the US under the Obama administration aided in overthrowing the leadership of Ukraine, because they were Russian friendly, then installing the US backed puppet, did they not expect some type of response? The utter hypocrisy of all of this is shameful and I’m embarrassed for our government. Graham wants a freaking war, Insane McCain too! But, I digress. There is more to this than being discussed. There is a goal. I stated that above.

          • I still doubt the Russians were involved, since the DNC hacker already admitted to the job (and released the emails before Wikileaks). But the admitted hacker isn’t Russian and has basically been blown off. Initial reports were that the emails from the DNC came from an insider, who was murdered soon after (shot in back of head, nothing stolen, called a robbery).

            • Seth Rich…shot a couple blocks away from the wooded area where info was handed off…at 4am

  23. Notice the date and the info provided:

    Proving the source of a cyberattack is notoriously difficult. But researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were the same attackers behind previous Russian cyberoperations at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year. And metadata from the released emails suggests that the documents passed through Russian computers. Though a hacker claimed responsibility for giving the emails to WikiLeaks, the same agencies are the prime suspects. Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess.

    The source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?_r=1

  24. Here is what I heard……and understood. Russia is behind hacking and has been so for several years. Everybody knows it. And, everybody knew it. Nothing was done. I heard that it goes to the top and that in Putin’s world, there is nothing that he does not know about.

    I also heard that people ( meaning the US ) that live in a glass house shuld not throw rocks. We do the same thing and we have done the same thing and it was proposed that we keep doing the same thing.

    I also heard that the US engages in mis-direction, fake news, e-mails, social media just as the Russians do. I also heard that this is cold war crap that needs to change. I also heard that espionage is not the same as hacking for the purposes of intent.

    All four directors said that a stronger response to Russian hackers is needed. All of this was reported to the Obama administration as far back as February and nothing was done and all four said that the recent expulsions are strictly politically motivated.

    All four also said that our own organizations are not perfect and we all make mistakes because we are human….but they are still agreed that the Russians were trying to affect the election outcome by hacking…..not in the voting machines but using media and fake news and mis-direction……

    There was no denial of anything saying that the US does not do the same. It was admitted to.

    • That’s much of what I heard. So how is it that we should “punish” Russia for doing exactly what we do? Is this not blaring arrogance and hypocrisy?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Do you believe these men? The same men who have lied under oath before.

      And I wonder why the same level of outrage and Congressional inquiry made public did not occur over Chinese hacking. Which was actually far more threatening to our security.

      • Now you are finally asking me the right questions……of course I do not believe them and their out, as was demonstrated today…….you have to take our word for it because to disclose anything else is a matter of National Security.

        translation: Stick it up your ass.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The intelligence services said that a long time ago…..so the congressional inquiry is just rehashing old news and will except it as gospel…….sort of like how the services and FBI tried to minimize HRC’s trangressions with classified documents…..but then went on to say that they were so sensitive that they could not be disclosed to Congress…..

    • Has anyone bothered to note that the Russians hacked (if they did) the DNC not the USA. What is different from Nixon’s Watergate bunglers?

  25. @ Gman,

    I think this may help you better understand voluntary cooperation, liberty.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    I see someone left the window open this morning and we are suffering a cold wind blowing in from Jotunheim.

  27. @Elisheba,

    The people who choose not to agree and be a part of things will always be punished in some form or manner. It will come from charging them higher prices for goods and services. People who pay will always make those who don’t pay, one way or the other. It is human nature.

    Example: the Anarchist society wants a public well for water. 1/4 of the residents have well’s and provide for the others, at a cost. Supply and demand, as you say. The change will cost X and all society members are asked to chip in. Water will then be free. The 1/4 who provide water say no. What do you do?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      This is a bad example.

    • “Example: the Anarchist society wants a public well for water. 1/4 of the residents have well’s and provide for the others, at a cost. Supply and demand, as you say. The change will cost X and all society members are asked to chip in. Water will then be free. The 1/4 who provide water say no. What do you do?”

      Dig wells.

      In order to charge for water, the 1/4 now have to increase quality of their water if they want to compete. People still have a choice of the two and they still make something from their water. If they are smart, they will engage the community and be a part of the new water endeavor.

      They have no right to impede any well production anyway, unless it is somehow violating their property or person. An example would be that the free water project somehow bled contaminants into their well. Even still, they could always have a peaceful resolution whereby they share water rights. There is always a win/win as long as there is reason and respect and a means.

      • The “greater good” ideology. In short, the minority were told to piss off and deal with it. While I would agree that the water well to serve all would be better on paper, it is never a perfect plan. The new well may require an expensive filter system to clear out the iron (hard water) that those who were supplying the water had in place. The expense just tripled. But because the people were expecting good free water, they are no longer hooked up to the other “pay” well water they once had. The 1/4 who were told to piss off will no longer sell their clean water. LMAO! Majority ruled, now drink hard iron filled water or pay BIG money for the filtration system, whether it’s one big system for all, or single family system for each household. The filter system will require semi annual maintenance, which will now cost more than the 3/4 were paying before. As is typical of the “greater good” ideology….epic fail.

      • I brought up water for a reason, can you figure it out?

        • Water is representative of reality. God’s natural reality dictates that water is an absolute necessary shared resource, a key molecular component of carbon based life on Earth.

          It is about universal need, a must-share resource, a life problem. If we value life or the survival of our species and any sort of peace and order, we HAVE to get along with our water problems.

          Maybe it is god’s way of making us figure out social skills?

          The correct way of doing that, I posit, is to use god’s rules of reality, that being rights as our premise of our values system, as it is as universal as the need for water. Not only do we all need water, we all have rights. The standard is already in place, we simply need to comply with it.

          Reason and respect for rights leads to a best overall solution because it is based on what is universal. That is to say that respecting rights, the basis of Liberty, is the greater good as per dictated by reality.

          Whatever the ordeal with organizing water management, if it is considerate of everyone’s rights, the inevitable result will be rightful, peacefully settled, and regardless of any BS on paper or magic special words, or overlord super-heroes with weapons, etc.

          That said, in your example where they end up paying for expensive filtration, a more likely outcome would be that the 1/4 would continue to sell their water at a cheaper cost, until a comparable less expensive means of filtration is available, whereby the market will shift and balance accordingly. The response would then be a competition to increase value to the water by filtering it better than the competitor for the same price. Once that is maxed out and a balance if found between qualities, services will be added to the water to yet increase the value even more for the same price. Delivery of the well filtered inexpensive water becomes available. After that comes new forms of marketing the water such as bottled form or in a dispenser, etc. …until an even better cheaper means of filtration becomes available and starts the whole process over, and/or until a third competitor drills a better well, etc etc etc….

          As long as rights are respected in the process, the result will be an increasing level of quality/value of the goods/services for everyone. …mutual gain from mutual gain, the real greater good. Majority rule by demand of supply, rightful free market style.

          • “…mutual gain from mutual gain, the real greater good.”

            Correction; …mutual gain from mutual need, the real greater good.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Free will is governed by more than your innate abilities. Think, hint, hint.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The problem with Natural Rights theory is that you are dealing with human constructs and not hard resources or matter.

            If the water dries up humans, and other things, will die. Stop to exist.

            If a person’s rights are withheld they will not die, and no other creature or thing is really affected. In fact, that person may live a full and happy life, never realizing his rights were impaired.

            I don’t see this as an impossible obstacle to overcome but it is a complex and difficult one. It cannot be addressed by simply stating that “rights” come from God, or nature.

            If Rights are truly natural, from nature, then you also have to address what those rights are, and how they apply to all other things. Because if they are ONLY human rights, does that not mean that we invented them for our own use?

            • This is no theory, nor is it contextualized in religion or some kind of human construct. Understand this line of reasoning as it is all premised on reality, definitive, not a matter of opinion or necessarily perception. It is about recognition of reality.

              Start with god, because that is where everything starts. What is god? I don’t know. Neither do you or anyone. All we know is that it is whatever the origin of all things are. That is the cusp of human knowledge in terms of reality. We know there is a universe that we reside, and that it is defined physically as per all that we know of it.

              We know it has an order, characteristics and properties, aspects and dimensions and processes, standards and limitations, parameters and norms, etc etc etc… This is god’s natural universe, reality defined.

              Part of reality, nature, is what we recognize, study, and call biology, the study of life. Life, in terns of nature and biology, is defined by the building blocks thereof, DNA. It is what determines what we or any carbon based life form is, it’s being and general needs and behaviors, etc.

              This is the basis of rights. They are that which is inalienable to us, that which we must be because god and reality and nature says so. It is to say that you have a right to be a human, hence “Human Being”.

              For example; Humans are individuals who, by order of nature and reality and our DNA, have independent and unique thoughts and ideas sovereign and separate of other humans. We have a mind of our very own inside/part of a physical vessel called a human body.

              This is reality, the basis of free will and self ownership, self determination. I cannot decide the value of your dinner experience or your preferences thereof. Nor can you to mine.

              No matter what you say or do with paper and social organization, rules and laws, etc, …humans think for themselves. You can pretend they don’t and act accordingly, but the real natural universe always gets it’s way, and people will still decide for themselves things like dinner.

              My general point here is that we need to work with reality instead of against it.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                What governs free will?

              • Ability. You can only do what you are able, as per what you are, relative to reality. Free will is unbridled. Limited only by the constraints that reality and nature prescribes.

  28. On the subject of Crimea and Ukraine. Let’s keep in mind that this occurred because of US interference in Ukraine (and yes, I can prove that).


    • You do not have to prove it. It was very clear as it happened. The Uke government had competing bail out deals. The Russkies sweetened the pot and the Uke prez went for it. Next week he was suddenly a traitor, profiteer, corrupt as all get up and probably a closet masturbator! And of course, gone.

      Note how today, after making a wonderful case for Wikileaks on Hannity, Assange is suddenly a child molester!

      Today Clapper said that this was the very worst ever cyber break-in he had ever seen. When the breakee used “Password” as his password! Worst ever, huh?

      The sooner Trump runs these clowns out of town the better off we are going to be.

  29. Obama’s real legacy: http://www.gopusa.com/?p=18874?omhide=true

    Four Arrested for Torture, Kidnapping as They Shouted ‘F*** White People’

  30. MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow has never interviewed Donald Trump. But if she ever does, the liberal TV host says she’d like to ask the president-elect whether he would ever send her to a concentration camp.

    What’s sad is that a lot of Liberal’s believe this crap.

  31. Just A Citizen says:


    Your last sentence completely contradicts your first:

    “It’s not your or my right to decide someone’s rights for them. I AGREE. All humans are born with inalienable rights…among them are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. INALIENABLE BUT NOT UNIVERSAL. JUST ASK THE CHINESE PEOPLE. That reason alone is the basis for trade…with anyone. IT CAN’T BE THE BASIS IF THEY DON’T SHARE THE SAME RIGHTS. That their leader is a jerk and wont share with his people is not our problem. That’s where leverage comes in though. WHY DO YOU NEED LEVERAGE? You don’t want to distribute the food, we don’t sell you weapons. SO NOW YOU ARE DEMANDING THEY CONFORM TO YOUR VIEW OF RIGHTS, CONTRADICTING YOUR FIRST SENTENCE.

    It is time to ask; if all rights are universal among humans and they come from the mere fact of our existence, then why do so few people share the same view of what those rights are or should be?

    Why did an international group feel compelled to identify and document the rights the group felt relevant, and why do those rights often conflict with those of the USA?

    • I knew you were going to mix up two things…people and government. We’ll trade with them because our position is that people have inalienable rights, not because we agree with their government’s treatment of it’s people.

      Who cares what a group said about rights. Any group. International group or citizens of China. We either have inalienable rights or we don’t. You and I agree that we do. So we trade with all people based on those rights. Doesn’t mean we have to trade weapons with a rogue regime.

      I don’t see where I’m off.

      • Leverage. What do they want from us as opposed to what do they need from us. They need food and shelter but they don’t need Hershey bars. So if their government is not in line with inalienable rights, then we don’t trade Hershey bars, but we still trade food and lumber. We still hold our beliefs we’re not imposing anything on them.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The second you withhold anything due to them not respecting “rights” that you believe in, you are using leverage to coerce.

          I better understand the rest of your comment and as long as people trade with people, without restrictions, that is only based on personal desires then the conflict is resolved.

    • “…among them are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. INALIENABLE BUT NOT UNIVERSAL.”

      “It is time to ask; if all rights are universal among humans and they come from the mere fact of our existence, then why do so few people share the same view of what those rights are or should be?”

      Rights are universal, equal among all life everywhere. Rights are inalienable and part of what defines life in whatever form. That is where it starts.

      Few people recognize or understand reality because they are ignorant brainwashed statists and/or religious serfs, hence differing views.

      “Why did an international group feel compelled to identify and document the rights the group felt relevant, and why do those rights often conflict with those of the USA?”

      Because they think they’re god and can redefine reality.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        No, that is not where it starts. Because you have to prove it.

        Otherwise your claim is no better than that of the man who claims God is real and when asked how he knows this claims BECAUSE.

        • It is self evident reality, Duh. (refer to the above)

          Re: God.

          Understand my definition of god is scientific and generic, definitive and based on empirical evidence of effect.

          That is to say that I define god relative to the real physical universe, being the unspecified origin, premise, first cause, design or creation thereof.

          We clearly see the universe in it’s real form. Whatever or whoever or however, whenever or why it is was or will be etc,… …, we cannot yet say, ..but whatever that is, is god.

          The proof is literally everything in it’s true form.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Another flaw in your ideology…not all people see God as you. Religions are very different and even Christian’s are not in agreement in many ways. Example: My God says X and your God says Y….. What happens when one of your Anarchist’s decides to become Muslim and demand your women wear a Hijab?

  32. I have a question for anyone…….

    A person the country of ” I Wannabe ” launches a strategic ICBM at the US of A…..it zeroes in and “boom” wipes out a city of 2,000. An act of war?

    This same person in the country of ” I Wannabe ” hits a key button on their computer and shuts down a power grid in the freezing north of the US of A and kills 20 people due to exposure or some such and costing millions of dolars. An act of war?

    Now, is one act different from the other? IF so, how? and how would you respond?

    • Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      ICBM attack…turn the country into the surface of the moon, being careful to avoid damage to outside countries.

      Power grid attack….turn the country into the surface of the moon, being careful to avoid damage to outside countries.

    • I would also like to see someone’s discussion of an “appropriate or measured response”. How do you measure such and what is the message that you are trying to send?

      And, before I am asked my position, I will state it.

      I see no difference in a missile being fired or a key stroke being done. ( Please, none of this diatribe of the key stroke could be done from a 14 year old in a basement of their daddy’s home ). I am strictly talking about being able to track it properly.

      If you do not want it done again…what would you do?
      D13’s answer, before you ask, would be along the lines of I do not want it done again. Fire a missile and kill 2,000…..I return fire with a missile(s) and kill 40,000. Send a key stroke and kill 20 and shut down a grid, I return with a missile(s) and destroy three grids and paralyze an entire country.

      Now, and I am serious, somebody tell me that I am wrong and then tell me why. I do not want you to mess with me and I am going to make it hurt…..what is wrong with this type of response?

      • There should be no such thing as an “appropriate or measured response” when the citizens of this country are directly attacked. The response should be total destruction ensuring that there is no further ability (or desire) to attack again in the future.

        Our leadership has failed in this on many, many occasions. For example, Tehran should not exist after releasing the hostages taken under Carter.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Suggested Criteria for “measured and reasonable”.

        Will stop further action against us.

        Will not escalate to Nuclear War.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      This is easy, so much so I can’t believe you didn’t see it.

      We blame Bush and then start howling that the Republicans have been blocking the Trillion needed to upgrade our electric grid. We need to spend more now and if Obama Care is repealed it will destroy our ability to fix the grid and secure our computers.

      See there. I retaliated by getting three birds for the one they got.


  33. JAC……I spent a considerable amount of time reading perusing through several history books about two things…(1) the power of hedgemony and, (2) the history of espionage in the 20th Century. Focusing on the history of espionage in the 20th Century, there are several intersting things. Misinformation, spying, theft of documents, control of certain media, clandestine newspapers, getting certain people elected in miniscule jobs but who have control of information systems…..things like that. Cyber hacking is just another way of espionage and meddling.

    All country states have been doing this for hundreds of years. As technology improves, so does espionage and disruption. The United States is no different than any other state out there. No difference whatsoever…..we killed spies and people and everyone else killed spies and people. Posturing in tactical geographical areas has not changed in hundreds of years…..just some new players on the block. Getting involved in elections and deposing heads of state has been in existence for thousands of years before the advent of the United States. There is nothing new that is happening out there…..just the same old thing.

    NOw my question……why is everybody getting their panties in a wad? History repeats itself. Tigers do not change their stripes. Every state will do what is necessary to protect themselves…including the United States. Every state will do whatever is necessary to get “one up”…..so will the United States…..We have not started anything at all. When America joined the world, we simply became a player in a big game. We just played it better. I do not see anyone in the US saying that we are not complicit. Of course we are complicit….and should be if we wish to play in the game. Why is everyone so upset.

    GMAN….I will address this to you. Why are you so down on the United States and its tactics and methods? Why do you blame the United States for creating world problems? We are neophytes in the game of world politics. We are doing no different than states have been doing to each other ofr thousands of years. Why do you claim we are the bad guy.

    For that matter, all you anarchists out there…..what is the US doing that has not been done since time began?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m down, specifically, with the US government. While we are still a young country, we have not climbed above the thousands of years of stupidity that has needlessly cost millions of lives for…….One man’s political power? I’m not all that happy with the 2nd war in Iraq, because it was based on lies. I’m not happy with what has transpired in Syria, because it was the actions of the US government that started it and have funded and armed it, AND ISIS, despite our laws to the contrary. We should be better than the troglodytes of the past, yet we are not, we are as bad or worse.

      It is, by our laws, illegal to assassinate a foreign leader, yet in the last 8 years we have been a party to just such a thing (Libya) and are trying for a double in Syria. Neither country was a threat to us. So let me ask you. Are we freedom loving Americans who wish freedom for all or are we just no better than the violent troglodytes of the past and present?

      • We are no better. But you do understand, that to stop, means we get trampled.

        • No, don’t think so. Libya, Iraq and Syria posed no threat to us.

          Our problem as #1 world power is we have no plan. Never have. Let us take our friends in N. Korea for example. When they took the Pueblo, I thought we should have sunk the Pueblo after we got our guys back. When they killed GI’s at the DMZ I thought we should kill their folks in return. When they launch an ICBM in a test, we should use some of our supposedly good old, made in the USA superior technology to make sure it never laves N. Korean airspace.

          If you remember, a big cause of the Korean War was us supposedly NOT saying it was in our interest to defend it. Just having troops there meant nothing. They judge us by their standard as the Japanese did at Pearl. They cannot understand that killing our folks means something to us. They as Capt Murphy said in ROTC 101, live by the anthill mentality. The Viets and Uncle Ho figured that out. Both the French and us were unwilling to stay the long haul.

          If you have never read Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”, do so. It is never too late. You will finish it in a night. It answers the question somewhere mid book, of what happens if they take 10,000 of your soldiers, 1,000 of your soldiers, 100 of your soldiers or ONE single soldier. Clearly, forcefully and morally. In our history, Jefferson had that clarity as did Teddy R. Have not had it since. That is why we are usually perceived as dumb.

          • It is not Libya, Syria, or Iraq at play….they are pawns.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Such little regard for human life. No wonder we continue to act like troglodytes.

            • You lost me there. Quadaffi was neutralized, Saddam was incompetent and neutralized. Only Assad had a relationship with Moscow which we have strengthened. We have brought Turkey into play who now is developing a relationship with Moscow. Some pawns.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Qadaffi was assassinated by those the US government funded and armed. Clinton’s comment on the matter proves she violated US law and nobody bothered to give a shit. Few probably even remember why the whole attack on Libya took place to begin with.

                Saddam at least had a trial and was found guilty by his own people. That was at least legal, although I doubt the war itself can be considered so.

                Syria, WTF did they do and why are we even acknowledging them? They are no threat to the US or any other country then, and certainly not now. Obama should be in jail for aiding terrorists. I doubt few people remember the real reason all of this began as well.

                All 3 are disgraceful examples of how out of control the political elite are.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I disagree , with all due respect. We don’t have to act like troglodyes and haven’t since 1945. We are a nuclear super power and can wipe out entire cities without endangering one American life. We are better and should act so..

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Gman got to the right point but it needs further discussion. The USA was founded upon an entirely different set of principles that every other country in the world. England is a close second, and those within its commonwealth. But even they do not ascribe to the same freedoms and liberty as America.

          This makes us stronger and weaker. Stronger with respect to our internal power. Weaker in dealing with the world. Because to hold the moral high ground demands turning the other cheek at times, or spending more resources to respond in a way that does not waste innocent lives.

          We also have to realize that we have been slipping into their set of rules, and this is causing us all kinds of problems. The invasion of Iraq by Bush II is a good example. His doctrine of preemptive strike by the US removed the moral barrier that acted as a constraint on Russia and China and anyone else who wanted to invade someone.

          So I think we need to go back to some basics and not get trapped into options because we are in the game. When maybe we should consider removing ourselves from the game.

          Not proposing, just asking. Which is why I often ask everyone what they think our role on something should be. What are OUR core principles/values. Then how do we live by those.

          Above you said withhold trade to stand on our principles. Is retaliating 2 for 1 standing on those same principles? These conflicts have to be removed and replaced with a coherent philosophy devoid of conflicts. This will then guide our actions.

          This is why I cringe when I hear “we need to protect our national interest” from leaders. Nobody ever explains what that means. It leaves each of us to decide on our own, and some of us think that is “maintain our #1 position of power,” to maintain “empire”. While many of us, you included, think we have used that power badly and should withdraw to some extent.

          On the other hand, if our national interest is to establish a global empire, then lets get on with it. So far I think we have been pretty weak at this game. Do it or don’t do it. But stop pretending. Yo Ho, its the Viking life for me.

        • Good morning Colonel, Gman et al.

          When you say we will get trampled…I don’t understand. If we are not standing in front of the stampede, then we can’t get trampled.

          If you are referring to the Billions of dollars that the competing pipelines are worth, and not getting a piece of that pie, then I begin to understand.

          I would tend to be more of an isolationist when it comes to the Middle East. We have more important problems here at home to attend to.

  34. If I was Trump, I wouldn’t believe a word he hears today in the intelligence meeting.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      If I were Trump I would be passed that the media got the report before him. Heads should roll. Obozo acted before he had the report and should be called out, regardless of what’s in the report.

    • I think it instructive that that Clapper guy tried to portray the DNC as the US Government. By doing what Nixon’s people tried to do, pre E-mail, it is an act of war? And there still are NO fingerprints on something that Assage was right about, any competent 14 year old could have done it. If the Russkies did it, the one and only thing that points to them is that supposedly a Russian alphabet keyboard was used. C’mon! They were that dumb!?

      Another interesting thing. Who says there was only one person/group smart enough to think of doing it? Everybody’s Aunt Sally could have been in Podesta’s e-mails. Why maybe even the Republicans!

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    Did not the DNC INTERFERE in the US elections?

    Did not certain people in the MEDIA also participate in this crime?

    Does this not rise to the level of a “conspiracy” to commit fraud upon the American people?

    RICO anyone?

    • I’ve been yelling RICO for a loooong while.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t think the Primaries would qualify under the law, mainly because they are not actual elections for government positions.

      Media collusion and the stuff in Podesta’s email’s concerning the General Election most certainly should be further investigated. But let us remember who is the AG, a Liberal hack who will not touch it with a 10 foot pole. This is another problem that needs to be addressed and another reason why the two party system is failing.

  36. For those of you who follow the trades…….

    What is a trade war to you?
    Example: If Ford sells cars Europe, there is an import tax. If Europe sells cars to Ford there is no tax. If Trump slaps a responsive tariff on imports, does that create a war in your eyes?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The original idea of tariffs was to pay for the operation of the ports. Today that would include security measures.

      So perhaps anything beyond this should be considered as some type of economic sanction.

      Personally I would say it is any tax targeted at particular products. Import taxes based on tons or cubit feet or other objective and unbiased measure would be acceptable as normal. Even if our tax rate were higher.

      Trade war is kind of nebulous but when taxes are targeted they become obvious as intended “protections” against competition. As such this is not Free Trade.

      Trade War should be limited to those types of Govt. actions on trade designed to inflict real and major harm to another Nation. Like our Embargoes on Cuba, Iran, Russia, etc. The irony of such things is the damage it causes to our own citizens. I still remember the harm to farmers over Carter’s wheat embargo against Russia.

      • Was not talking about free trade. Allow me to be more specific. If we wish to trade with Mexico and Mexico charges us a tariff on imports but the US does not charge import fees back. If Trump decides tomake this equal to erase trade deficits, in other words, tit for tat, do you consider that a restraint of trade?

        • Free trade ONLY if it is fair trade. Think I remember someone saying this during the campaign.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Of course it is a restraint of trade. You stated the purpose was to restrict trade, in order to reduce the trade deficit.

          Not a trade war however, if the tax is uniform across all products. Is Mexico’s tariffs selective? Or do they apply to all products and services?

          Apply the same tax to their goods on the same rate, adjusted for currency values. Equal.

          • Actually they are specific. Mostly to cars and appliances. I forgot…junk food items such as cookies and chips and stuff. We cannot sell Lays potato chips to Mexico to compete with Mexican prices. Tariffs are placed on those products….even the products mad in Mexico by Lays. Meaning, if Lays produces chips in Mexico to sell in Mexico, they are priced regulated to be above Mexican chips. NAFTA claims free trade but it is not free. If Mexico wishes to ship Mexican chips to the USA…they are tariff free. But If Lay’s USA wishes to ship to Mexico it is not tariff free.

            As I previously told you, we grow Asparagus and Alfalfa in Mexico….and raise horses. Asparagus prices are regulated down there so we cannot charge what we want. But if we want to sell then to the US, there is an EXPORT tariff. However, there is no export tariff to Europe.

            Now, let us go on to transportation rates. US trucks cannot go into Mexico. You myst trans-ship at the border. You are erquired to hire a Mexican carrier to take your trailer into Mexico. However, a Mexican carrier is free to cross the border into the United States and drive on US highways, without D.O.T rules like American trucks and they do not have to have a driver’s license. Hardly fair.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              First, only a few talking heads have ever claimed NAFTA was truly free trade. Anyone who paid attention knew there were all kinds of carve outs, many to be decided after passage.

              Second, it sounds like Trump and the Republicans have room to raise some revenue on Mexican imports AND exports to Mexico.

              Like I said, make it EQUAL when it comes to taxes.

              Of course you will have to roll over the American companies that are benefiting from these deals. Almost every foreign tax on our goods has a good not taxed to favor somebody on our side. Like the Japanese blocking US Rice, we go along, they allow something else to get in or be increased.

              ONE MORE TIME: Import and Export taxes should be based on uniform units of measure, like TONNAGE or “per container”.

              • No problem with your point. But it is dollar for dollar….if it takes 200 pesos to equal one dollar, then that is what it takes. You do not compensate for weaker currencies.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          One of the things that I’m seeing is Trump is going to punish US companies if their products are made out of country and shipped back into the country for sale.

          This is an interesting situation.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BAN U.S. Corporations from doing business anywhere but in the U.S.A..

            Ban ownership of foreign businesses by U.S. Corporations or foreign ownership of U.S. Corporations. Hell, just ban ownership of any other company by a company. People own and operate companies. Not other companies.

            Much easier solution. Then Feel the pain.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    And the wheels on the bus go round and round: Take note of the names listed in the movement. One industrialist in particular.

    Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Ernest Crosby, and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had become a colonial power, by replacing Spain as the colonial power in the Philippines. Other anti-imperialists opposed annexation on racist grounds. Among these was Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who feared that annexation of the Philippines would lead to an influx of non-white immigrants into the United States. As news of atrocities committed in subduing the Philippines arrived in the United States, support for the war flagged.

    Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He said the war betrayed the ideals of American democracy by not allowing the Filipino people to choose their own destiny.

    “There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it—perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands—but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector—not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now—why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I’m sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.”[122]

    In a diary passage removed by Twain’s first biographical editor Thomas Bigelow Paine, Twain refers to American troops as “our uniformed assassins” and describes their killing of “six hundred helpless and weaponless savages” in the Philippines as “a long and happy picnic with nothing to do but sit in comfort and fire the Golden Rule into those people down there and imagine letters to write home to the admiring families, and pile glory upon glory.”[123]

    • So, if we just sat idly by I guess the Japanese would have sat idly by too. The problem with all this stuff is that it can not be argued in a vacuum. What else was going on in the world at the time?

      I’m old enough to remember my grammar school history books talking about the “White Man’s Burden”. There was the moral/religious component along with United Fruit Company.

      Regarding Japan. They made the move on Okinawa in 1879 and on Korea in the late 19th Century culminating in the annexation in 1905. In between they fought a war with China and Russia. One can argue that their participation in WW 1 was based on further imperial ambitions because they too like the Germans got into the imperialism game late when there were slim pickings.

      One has to actually ask, as one can with Hawaii, if not us, who?

      I believe the US lost some six thousand troops pacifying the Philippine Islands and had our first dealings with Muslim fundamentalism (the Moros).

      • Hollywood’s version. Pretty good.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Your making a false argument. You bitch about us messing around in Ukraine but defend us messing around in the Philippines?

        As you like to say, see their side. Japan is trying to joint the powers of the world on equal footing. Should the world have responded against the US when we decided to join the world on equal footing? Why should we have been concerned about Japan’s efforts circa 1900?

        However, none of this is relevant to my posting the anti-imperialism leagues arguments, or those of Mark Twain. Notice how the same debate exists today? Notice how the same rationalizations exist for “invading someone to protect them from someone worse” ?

        • Different time! Different place! Different circumstance! There was NO government in Manila to overthrow. They exchanged Spain for us. We promised to go and we went, forty years later, on July 4th to be exact.

          Philippines are a bad example. The banana wars and the Caribbean are much better.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            They exchanged nothing. Spain ceded the Philippines to the US. We took POSSESSION. During this time we also ANNEXED Hawaii.

            We promised the Philippines we would turn the country over to them. When they objected to OUR intervention in their politics we responded with force. All in the name of protecting them from the bad Spanish. And then from the bad revolutionaries.

            The moral of the story is that this is how we wound up fighting in a place where nobody cared about. I think Twain’s commentary is a good summation of the confusion among the people.

            And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

            • Again there was NO Philippine Government. You did have the insurrectos headed by Aguinaldo who were very angry that we replaced Spain instead of granting immediate independence as we more or less did to Cuba. I cannot say that I would disagree with them but………There were other forces at work. There obviously was a long range plan since they were granted “commonwealth” status like Puerto Rico.

              I always wondered why the Brits did not annex Hawaii first?

      • Yes, the Moro’s… “BlackJack” Pershing ended it pretty quick by dipping bullets in pig blood. Had a devastating effect.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          LIke how the British ended a Hindu muslim conflict….Beef and pig fat to waterproof the cartridges.

  38. Mexico is rioting over an increase in gas prices. The oligarchs who run the place have decided that while sitting on more oil than Saudi, the peons should pay $ 4.00 per gallon! I guess that is to get them used to California Prices.


    • The government has apparently deregulated the industry.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Is this an admission that Govt. subsidies are paid for by taking money from the poor? Not sure about the basis of this fella’s argument but it may be revealing in either case.

      “I know that allowing gasoline to rise to its international price is a difficult change, but as president, my job is to precisely make difficult decisions now, in order to avoid worse consequences in the future,” Peña Nieto said in a televised address. “Keeping gas prices artificially low would mean taking money away from the poorest Mexicans, and giving it to those who have the most.”

      • They had to do something, The peso is devaluaing so fast it is killing business. It is amazing what we can buy down there right now. It used to take about $7500 USD per month to run our ranch…it now takes only 4700 USD.

      • OK, with Governor Christie’s 23 cent per gallon tax hike, we are at $ 2.27. How’s Mexico at $ 4.00 unless it is all taxes?

        What’s gas in Saudi?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Nation City Price in USD Regular/Gallon
          Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
          Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
          Egypt Cairo $0.65
          Nigeria Lagos $0.38

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          With all the cars getting so much more mileage and people NOT really traveling as much and the highways relying on the “gas” tax the money has to come from somewhere. Cost of production and volume that part of the price of gas is coming down. Tax stays constant/gal. Drive less or buy a high milage vehicle…..duh.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    The beginning of the end to the American Dream and Culture.


    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I posted some of his writing before….I liked his view about the frontier and it being a safety valve. The idea is today is where can all us malcontents go to today…..California? They hit a dam there that’s why CA is the way it is today…..T-Ray excepting. Siberia is a good frontier still….Maybe even Africa, actually many of those countries may just welcome a stronger external force than the ones tearing their lives apart. .

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Shooting at Ft. Lauderdale airport, 5 dead, so far. Suspect reportedly flew in from Canada with gun in his checked baggage, loaded up in bathroom and came out and started shooting.

    Sounds like a Muslim terrorist attack, but will wait to confirm.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      An American with a military ID in his possession.

      • This incident is a good example of what those evil United Statians are capable of. I declare they should all be banned from America.

        You just can’t reason with those barbarians. It is bred into them by their war culture and false religion state-god.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Twitter has all kinds of Muslim stuff on the killer.

      • Peurto Rican National Guard transferred to Alaska Air guard given a general duscharge and kicked out.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          “Unsatisfactory Performance”

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Had a communications guy lose it one night…he drove into the compound. Calmly got out of his car…..opened the trunk and took out his pump shotgun….At this point we all were getting behind something solid and getting word into his ops center….he walked in….discharged all the rounds into his workstation….set the gun down and calmly sat in his chair and waited the guys in their funny white suits and the strait jacket…..never saw him again….at least he didn’t think his co-workers were his nemesis.

            • Have seen it before myself…….even in a special forces unit. A unit that was supposed to be out on a four day recon….it ended up being 12 days because they got cutoff and had to make a long way back….living off the land. A 9 man unit….they all got back, each of them wounded to some extent…..and some 2nd LT ( a straight leg 90 day wonder ) got in the face of unit leader the next morning, chastising him for losing his PRC 25 radio and components. He, the Lt., was a rather vociferous young man worried about the fact that he was responsible for the PRC 25 and was chastising this particular sgt for losing government equipment. It was plain to see that the sgt was trying to control his temper and the fact that he just returned from a two week vacation in hostile territory. The Lt handed him a littany of papers to fill out as to why he lost a PRC 25 radio and why he ws on a patrol for 12 days that was to last only 4. The Lt , again, was very upset that he had to “account for” the radio.

              The sgt very calmly takes his Soviet made AK 47 that he captured while out, walked into the supply room and promptly destroyed the remaining PRC’s with a couple of magazines of well placed rounds…..then said….” That is what a combat loss is.” The Lt was moved out the next day.

              • I can understand the term “fragging” in this case. But, thankfully, the young special forces sergeant worked through his chagrin and everything was fine.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                in my last command, I met my Captain (4 striper) once when I checked in and once when I checked out. over a two year period. No cmdr, Lts and no warrants. I believe I had a chief PO but only saw him when I needed to get his signature on leave chits….my group had a hut outside of any protective perimeter because we needed to be able to get anywhere in case of some need because much of our “equipment” was outside of the NAS field of operations. Where they would pull into a perimeter in case of attack. we needed to get out. We just loved having a fully weaponed up Marines as personal bodyguards as we moved around

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Please do not forget “ALLEGED” shooter at this point. (sarc)

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    John McAfee destroys the Russian hack narrative….TOTALLY! And does so in terms everyone can understand.

  42. gmanfortruth says:
  43. gmanfortruth says:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sometimes the better stuff is among the other links. Strap in. I urge everyone, including Mathius and Buck to watch this if you haven’t already.

      There are several key statements made during this that are very, very, very, revealing about what is going on in the political realm. These people believe with their hearts they have the power they are threatening. How did they come to this point. WHO has empowered them??

      • I do not know what to say.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Ever see anyone condemn the young Turks for any of their behavior or rhetoric?

          Not me. And I actually visit left wing sites and watch their cable channels. These guys make Daily Kos look like Mother Theresa.

          I said the other day I thought there were forces in play to create violence against R’s and Trump but mostly anyone supporting Capitalism and USA exceptionalism. Here is the evidence, in my opinion.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            It’s hard to watch “dicks” be “dicks” and not laugh hysterically. These dicks are the epitome of what young Progressives really are. Arrogant little spoiled snots who never got the proper ass whipping from their parents (with a switch). That was great, to watch the total breakdown of their arrogant views. I also remember the video of Alex Jones ruining their day at the convention and it was hilarious. The tough talker was ‘nothing” when stood up too. Great post JAC!

  44. Dale A Albrecht says:
  45. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I know a lot of the media has really got it’s nose out of joint after Trump’s “surprise” win

    But much of what I’m seeing about the future of MSM journalism they are NOT going to head down the extreme left path being set by the Sander’s, Warren, and Ellisen wing of the “no longer Democratic” party They will stay closer to the left of center, which actually may give Trump some breathing room.

  46. Just A Citizen says:


    Questions for you:

    Should military force be used to protect our commercial shipping?

    Should military force be used to protect US companies on foreign soil?

    Should military force be used to protect the shipments of US companies in other countries, whether by land or sea?

    What do you do to a US owned company in another country if you decide the US should not trade with that company? How about a US based company that ignores your order and trades anyway?

    Should the USA sell arms to any other countries? If so, who and why?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      1) The military forces have been used to protect our commercial shipping….question is do we have the stones to do it anymore and protect the “Freedom of the Seas”
      2) MIlitary forces have been used to protect US companies on foreign soils….example in the late 20’s in Nicauragua against Sandino who was rebelling against the Somozas.
      3) we should not invade another country if that country decides that it is not going to do business with us anymore, just to protect those interests that had existed before, ie iran or Venezuala, or PI or Indonesia…..write off the losses and then try and figure out why those countries have decided to hate our guts..
      4) US companies have with impunity been operating outside of sanctions with countries, like Iran forever. They just set up a legal entity elsewhere. Do all the goods that support N Korea come from Chinese companies only? Or is there a technocality here…all manufacturer’s in China are government owned and US and European companies only contract them to make goods and provide services?
      5) only to our friends and moderates (sarc)

    • JAC…..

      1) Yes, to the extent of commercial shipping lanes. You do not have to escort but you must be in the area.
      2) No
      3) Only to the extent of keeping air and sea lanes open.
      4) Nothing. That is the risk of being in another country. The same risk we ( the family business ) is taking in Mexico. I do not expect US help on anything. I do not know the legal issues of the US declaring a State as a national risk and, thereby, has the lawful right to suspend trade and business. It has been done before….so to answer your question…if there is a legal precedent for it and the business takes its chances, then it suffers the consequence. For example, we have a ranch in Mexico. We are prepared for two things. (1) the US declaring Mexico as a rogue and/or (2) Mexico deciding to Nationalize all US companies…as has happened before.
      5) As to selling arms, I have no problem with this. What is the difference between military arms or wheat. Both economic commodities.

      • Now, I know you……..there is a reason for these questions.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Of course there is. But it is primarily to gain clarity on your position.

          Sometimes while arguing other points you sound like your pushing for use of the military and the economy as weapons to force others to get what you want.

          And other times you say you want to stop being the global police and move to a defensive position. Albeit, one of strength. To keep others from trying to use force against us.

          The full set of questions get to the broader question: “What are our National Interests”? Those things nobody can describe but which we send people off to die to protect.

          Since you won’t use military force to protect a US business in another country, how about a US Citizen? LIke the student being held by N. Korea.

          • Ok, points of clarification. I have seen it argued on here several times that a military presence around the world is provacative. I have seen it argued on here many times about the US being responsive instead of proactive..

            Use of military force. I firmly believe that we should have a 1.5 million man active military force. I firmly believe we should have a 500,000 reserve force. I firmly believe that each state should have a National Guard. The active and reserve military has but one function. To protect the United States and its interests ( I will define interests in a moment ). The purpose of the National Guard is a military trained unit designed to promote and handle local emergencies as well as being trained, just as effective as regular units, to protect specific issues ( I will define these in a moment ).

            I believe that we should have 8 operating carrier groups. 4 groups on station at all times while 4 groups are being retrofitted for rotation. Said rotations are on a 6 month basis. we should have a presence in the Med, the South Pacific, the Persian Gulf, and a demarcation line from South Africa to the Caribbean. I believe we should have a full operating submarine force equipped with nuclear weapons on station at all times, to include an on ground missile shield in Europe. All other bases, army and air force can be pulled out.

            Now, I also believe that if there is to be a NATO, then it should function as it was designed to do. I believe that any state that wishes to join NATO should be able to and is afforded everything that the Operations Order says it is supposed to do. Now, let it be said that I am not a supporter of NATO…I do not want it because the Warsaw PACT is no longer but the reality is……it is here. If I had my way, I would defund NATO and the United Nations. Both are dinosaurs and ineffective. I do not believe that it is possible to have a functioning entity like the United Nations because customs are different and there is no way that the world can get along. If there are problems with each other, then you settle those problems mano y mano. I have worked under NATO and I have worked under the UN…..they both stink worse than a backed up septic tank in 100 degree weather.

            Now, the term National interest is an over used term that means……..whatever we want to do is ok if it is in our national interest. I do not share the popular definition of force. We do not interfere in the internal political workings of anyone. We do not over throw leaders we do not like. If we are asked, then it is up to our elected officials to decide. That is why they are there. ( Please, no diatribe about elected officials…it is what we live under. If you want to change it, then do so but in the meantime it is our system ). International shipping and international air space is to be guarded at all times. I would have used the military the instant China captured our drone. I would have reduced their sand castles to dust and put their Navy on the bottom. I do not believe in proportioned response. I also do not believe that China would have responded if we acted immediately with decisive force and immediately put our military on full alert and tell them that if they even fart with bad food, that will get another response. I am a poker player but I do not bluff. We mind our own business and , yes, have a military that is always ready and on patrol is minding our own business,

            You asked about North Korea….and kidnapping Americans…Any American that decides he/she wishes to travel to any hot spot……takes the risk. Too bad. If you wish to try to play in Iran…you suffer the consequences. There will be no bargaining and no ransom. I believe that any business that goes over seas takes the risk. There is no perceived reason to believe that you should be protected simply because you are a tourist. ( Example: Our ranch in Mexico. We have a written agreement with the Mexicn Government to have a well for drinking water and irrigation. You do NOT own the water on your own land. It costs us $50,000 USD for 10 years to have a well and to use a specified amount. We have no legal standing other than Mexican courts and if Mexico decides it wants to impound our home there and take our well, there is nothing we can do about it. I do not expect the US to come in and render aid, even if we are held against our will. We are in another country…their rules. Period. )

            National Interest……great question…..other than defense, what is our national interest other than recognized international waters and air space? I do not see any.

            Now, let me ask you a question as to national interest. China, at this very moment, declares that the South China Sea is theirs. Is there really such a thing as International Waters…..China as an example. They have openly said that the United Nations declaring International Waters by treaty is bullshit and they do not recognize it…..What now?

            Another question, hypothetical of course, ( or is it?) What if the United States suddenly decided that it wanted a 500 mile territorial limit…and that everything within it belongs to us and then we enforce it. Who wil stop us? The UN? China? Russia? The world? What if we decide that the Gulf of Mexico is a US possession…..and take over foreign owned drilling rigs 15 miles off shore?

  47. I’ll take a crack

    1. Yes, freedom of the seas
    2. No, The risk you take
    3. In country NO, On the sea, same as 1.
    4. Put the CEO in jail. Put the board of directors in jail Threaten to take over the company. The Stockholders will solve the problem.
    5. Only if in our national interest. Strategic allies

  48. The curse of living too long is remembering things like Watergate.

    It mattered not who was “Deep Throat” nor how he came by his information. What mattered was exposing Nixon’s “Dirty Tricks”

    Every day the NY Times and Wash. Post reveled over new leaks about “enemies lists” and break-ins at Dan Ellsberg’s shrinks office. The fact that it weakened the administration and the subsequent administration on National Security issues and on extracting ourselves from Viet-Nam, mattered not one iota. Personally at that time I thought the KGB WAS behind it not just a disgruntled, passed over political hack in the FBI . That is, if it was him. Only Woodstein Bernwood know for sure.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The Russians were never “Hacks” when it came to psyops…they are masters of the game, that’s why they have so many grand masters at chess. Look at what happened to our intelligence agencies with just the rumor of a deep agent. It tore them apart and subsequent rules put inplace that opened the door for some REAL damage

  49. Dale A Albrecht says:


    “Here we are just days before a new presidential administration on January 20th. We have no aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, but tomorrow we will have three female infantry Marines assigned to a battalion at Camp Lejeune. What does that say about priorities? President John F. Kennedy had the vision to put a man on the moon … Barack Obama wanted to put men into the women’s restroom. There’s a maxim in shooting: “aim small, miss small.” For Obama it’s “aim small, hit nothing.”

    Congratulations to these three female Marines for earning the title of Marine Infantryman. Yes, rather ironic, but the real test comes on the battlefield, when they are deployed as the BLT (Battalion Landing Team) of the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) SOC, Special Operations Capable. And, no, three female “support” Marines ain’t gonna make the bad guy go away.”

    • Nope…..but I will bet you a dozen chocolate donuts with sprinkles……they never see combat and will always be support.

      • Like the three women who went through “Ranger” school. They get to wear a different color patch and are not part of the 75th,

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        That is kind of what the author was saying……..compare the lofty goals of Kennedy and putting a man on the moon…vs…Obama’s and bathrooms…..the women will never hit the beach with the 1st wave.

        I ask many of the military folks here about what they think about Obamas and Carters edicts and the political generals kowtowing,,,they just say it’ll sort itself out, we handle it ourselves.

        • And they are correct. We just shut up with all the hoopla of dont ask/dont tell. We just shut up when the Obama administration and politically appointed generals say that homosexuality is acceptable in the US armed forces. Is there anyone on here that thinks that there is homosexuality on the military bases or practiced openly? The answer to this is no……you will not come back from a two week operational exercise.

  50. Dale A Albrecht says:


    Without putting this in it’s proper placement between the Colonel and JAC, SK and Gman over Russia…..we’re just entering a newer phase of the same conflict, even with religion included…..consider the Pope’s comment the other year. Russia will save Christianity….Europe sure as heck won’t. The only new player in this is the US, and I believe our overall foreign policy has been to contain and destabilize Russia even up to today. We’ll support anybody to that end. Including Iran….We just took over the mantle of the major European powers who used to do it, because they no longer have the will or means to do it.

    • Dale, it is my belief that Russia is not going to save anything. However, I also believe that if NATO goes away……..Russia will not.

      • You are frustrating me.

        You are starting to remind me of the old WW 2 vets who would never buy anything German or Japanese.

        Funny thing, both of those countries eventually accomplished their goals without firing a shot!

        • Now now Stephen…….I was asked an opinion and that is my opinion. But I have been known to frustrate the devil. But…it is still my opinon. I do not eat caviar because I do not like it, not because it is primarily Russian, and I do not drink..so vodka is out of the question.

          It is my opinion because I know (past) Russian history. I also know that Putin is an old guard KGB Colonel…..whose belief, in my opinion, has not changed. But he has learned how to function in today’s environment. He is an excellent chess player in real life and I personally feel that his chess board is very large.

          THe people of Russia are not responsible but the state is…….However, there is only one way to prove my theory…….pull out and see what happens.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Well…in one regard you are correct…if NATO goes away Russia will not. NATO is a club/organization/agreement….Russia is a nation.

        Russia is operating in it’s self interests. Europe is not. Europe in it’s policies is following a course of MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SUICIDE. Obama hast ied his coat tails to that policy. They are inviting the very same people/religion they have been fighting since 700. Europe does not believe in itself any longer and all the things that did make them great nations at one time.

        There will be some force involved, but I believe we will see a realignment away from the EU by those nations that just joined. That fracture can be seen with the enforcment of borders by the “eastern” bloc countries, even Austria, and Brexit will be Englands freedom call from the EU because the US policy will shift with Trump. AS long as Russia doesn ot go Stalin but actually acts like the protector of these unique countries Putin will succeed in his neck of the woods. Europe and the M/E can continue to fight until one is gone. Three spheres of influence will evolve….Euroasia (Russia and eastern Europe) Asia etal and the area of the anglo empire which includes the US.

        • Come on Dale…..you know better. But I will digress……pull out. I am no fan of NATO at all. BUt I do not believe Putin in the slightest. Not even a smidgen…..at any rate…..it does not matter….

          Just look at the EU……yesterday it was 1.05 to the dollar……it is falling fast.

        • Yes, Russia is operating in its self interest…I totally agree.

          Europe is operating in its own self interest as well….

          It is a matter of perspective, is it not?

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    For those who claim Republicans have lied about eliminating Obama Care, maybe they know the reality of their constituency. And maybe that is not people like us at SUFA. Well at least not like some of us.

    I have told you many times that it is going to take a long time to get the Republic restored, IF AT ALL. And here is the reason why:

    “”I thought it was a good idea, even though I’m a conservative,” he said. “It’s a social program, but a lot of social programs are for the good. And this is one of them.”

    A conservative Republican voting man who wants Trump to lighten up on the Repeal mantra. OK to kill it IF IT IS REPLACED with something as good.

    • Republic = Force

      That’s all it is; force, with a big stack of BS on paper and bunch of religious nonsense attached to it. It means nothing but force.

      They all equal force, demo-this, republi-that socio-something or commu-whatever, …all the same, all force. They are nothing to value unless you value coercion death and destruction, suffrage, slavery, violence.

      The republic needs to fall. Not only is it not worth saving, it is the enemy of liberty.

  52. New article will be posted later this morning 🙂

%d bloggers like this: