Booting Obamacare

obamacare-repeal-800x416With all the discussion about Obamacare, I think it’s safe to say that the law will be gutted, repealed and replaced.  I say gutted because I think that small parts will be removed, like the mandate and possibly requiring people to buy coverage for stuff they will never need or use.  For example, requiring a single male to buy insurance for prenatal care is utterly stupid, at least for people that understand how to spend their own money.  The problem with this law is that that choice was taken away, as liberal bureaucrats think that they know far better how you should spend your income than you do.  However, let’s focus on what should go and what should stay.  I’ll throw out some real facts about Obamacare and why it needs to go completely in the comments section.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Let’s start with some facts. Small farmers in Pennsylvania do not have health insurance, despite what they pay each month for what is called insurance under Obamacare and through the exchanges. My neighbor for example, pays over 300 a month but will never see an insurance payment by the company until he hits his “out of pocket” number of 15K. Simply put, short of a catastrophic health event, all expenses come out of pocket for him and his family. This came from his mouth, just yesterday. He also stated he never had a health insurance issue until Obamacare was made into law.

    Let’s add this and go from there: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obamacare-architect-law-was-never-supposed-help-everybody

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/26/nyt-editorial-board-horrified-that-trump-wants-to-end-radical-islamic-terrorism/#ixzz4WxvLib5M

    So let me see, Trump will make terrorist’s mad at us, that’s reason one. Obama’s approach is the better way, despite it’s a complete failure. Freaking hilarious.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    When the speakers at the Women’s March in Washington DC last week said they were “nasty women,” they weren’t kidding.

    One speaker at the march, Donna Hylton, is a convicted felon who took part in the kidnapping, torturing, sodomizing and murder of a homosexual man.

    From The Daily Caller:

    Hylton, along with three men and three other women, kidnapped 62-year-old real-estate broker Thomas Vigliarole and held him for ransom, before eventually killing him. As noted in a 1995 Psychology Today article, when asked about forcibly sodomizing the victim with a three foot steel pole, Hylton replied: “He was a homo anyway.”
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/womens-march-speaker-kidnapped-raped-tortured-gay-man-to-death.html

  4. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/calexit-california-nation-may-begin-collecting-signatures-ballot/

    My prediction was a little off. I forecast that by 2050, there would be a movement to separate CA from the rest of the country. If CA goes so will NM and AZ. TX is on their own. If they would first split off the state of Jefferson (the northern rural counties), this would pass in a flash.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Just to bring reality into play. CA cannot leave unless Congress approves it leaving.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m surprised nobody remembered this about the Chicago PD:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/238793-chicago-homan-square-protest/

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    6. COLORADO

    “In Colorado,” the Intercept reports, “Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg has introduced a bill that would greatly increase penalties for environmental protesters. Under the proposed law, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment would be reclassified from a misdemeanor to a ‘class 6’ felony, a category of crime that reportedly can be punished by up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.”

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-sinister-state-moves-including-killing-protesters-prove-1st-amendment-is-dying_012017

    Lot’s of stuff to think about in this article.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    President Trump is hailing the first victory in his fight against “sanctuary cities” after a South Florida mayor ordered his employees on Thursday to begin working more closely with federal immigration authorities.

    For years, Miami-Dade County has refused to hold some undocumented immigrants in its jails for federal immigration agents. But after Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez changed his mind.

    Gimenez signed an executive order Thursday ordering the director of his corrections department to begin honoring all requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) to hold immigration suspects in Miami-Dade County jails.

    “Miami-Dade County complies with federal law and intends to fully cooperate with the federal government,” the order read.

    Gimenez said he made the decision to ensure that the county does not lose out on $355 million in federal funding it has coming in 2017.

    WINNING!!!!!!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Trump is bringing attention and love to an industry that has been in crisis the last few years, with so many oil jobs disappearing. President Trump’s Energy Plan revives a struggling industry and pumps life back into the U.S. economy.

      During his inauguration speech, Donald Trump laid out a clear message to businesses: “Buy American and Hire American”. And right now, it’s pretty clear our commander in chief is walking the walk and not just talking the talk, like certain past presidents.
      http://absoluterights.com/trumps-energy-plan/

      More WINNING!!!!!! 🙂

  8. Now I know trump is right on this one………Germany’s Merkel says that if Trump and England enter into a trade deal, it will hurt Europe. If Trump makes all trade and tariffs equal, it will hurt Europe. The United States can and should allow trade deficits and not enter into individual free trade agreements.

    REALLY???????

    • Tariffs are not the only impediment to trade. Europe, Mexico and many others have VATs which are essentially sales taxes. Hence even though the tariffs may be equal the added taxes are not. This is one of the reasons that I favor a national sales tax instead of a corporate income tax.

      Also there are many regulations that one must meet to sell in different countries. We run into this all the time with the safety rules for selling into hazardous areas such as refineries. Europe has the CE mark which you see on many appliances and computers, etc. This involves electrical safety (shock hazards etc) plus a heavy dose of RF emissions and susceptibility. The little donuts you see on your computer power cord are chokes to suppress RF coming in or out of the power grid. For explosive environments the EU standards are called ATEX. Now the US also has standards for explosive equipment but these are different. Canada has their own standards and Australia recently tried to create a unified standard that encompassed all others. Unfortunately no one recognizes it so it just became another standard to meet. Getting products certified to sell around the world is extremely expensive and time consuming. If you cannot meet the local area standard or if they do not accept one of the main international standards, you cannot sell the product. In part this is done on purpose to create trade barriers that are not part of the agreements.

      In addition countries like China and Japan often require individual companies that want to sell in their market to partner with a local company. Sometimes they insist that the US company set up an R&D or engineering center. This can look attractive because engineers in India and China make a fraction of those in the US, so you can hire 5-10 for the price of one US employee. The downside is the technology transfer which occurs, which is the purpose of the requirement. This has long term implications.

    • The USA and England should enter into a trade agreement……Europe be damned.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Any grandstanding mayor who actually harbors illegal immigrants should be prosecuted by the feds, said the grieving mother of a Milford man killed by a motorist who faces deportation after his jail sentence is up.

    Maureen Maloney, whose son Matthew Denice was dragged to his death by an illegal immigrant in 2011, said on Boston Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show yesterday she was outraged to hear Mayor Martin J. Walsh offer up City Hall as a sanctuary for people facing deportation.

    “You know, it is a felony to harbor illegal aliens and I hope that President Trump or whoever goes after all these mayors and lawmakers that are harboring illegal aliens in sanctuary cities,” Maloney said. “The fact that our lawmakers keep putting illegal aliens ahead of American citizens and immigrants that are here legally is just an atrocity. They should all be voted out of their positions.”
    http://www.gopusa.com/?p=19892?omhide=true

    I asked yesterday if haboring illegals was a crime, does anyone know?

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Some of my “voted for Hillary” friends stopped by the other night for a visit.

    Discussion of course quickly turned to Trump. My best friend said he liked some of what he sees but Trump is going to get us in a war with China over Taiwan.

    I told him that I doubted that very much. BUT, that we were going to probably get into a shooting war with China eventually so if that looked like a real probability we should do it now rather than later.

    The look on their faces was priceless. End of discussion on China. Moved to immigration.

    Where I was asked to explain how the immigration system actually works and why it seems that some people get in from certain countries and others do not. I was surprised they did not understand how the system works. Especially since one of them was the first American generation.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I told him that I doubted that very much. BUT, that we were going to probably get into a shooting war with China eventually so if that looked like a real probability we should do it now rather than later.

      Interesting. Why now versus later?

      IMHO, I don’t think wants any part of a shooting war with the US. Mainly because it would occur over there. I don’t believe they have the resources to attack us State side, short of long range missiles, which we could counter. That mean the war would be fought over Chinese land. Not to wise given our military resources. I would NEVER support a land invasion, sans a nuclear strike, and even then I would be hard pressed to put boots on the ground.

      Any more thoughts on the subject?

      • There is no need to fight China militarily…….do it economically…..they cannot keep up with us…….and simply default China’s debt. What are they going to do.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Oh, they could strike Taiwan. Create a pain in our backside, that being the southern border.

          I did not say there is a reason to get in a shooting war. I just think that they will push us into one eventually. UNLESS their Govt. finally falls to a more populist and democratic group of people.

          You say go after them economically. What happens when Nations led by despots get in a bad way economically?

          • They get pissed and they get desperate….exactly the type of enemy we want to fight. I want to come face to face with a desperate pissed off enemy…..they are easier to defeat. The Chinese want Taiwan…..but if they really wanted it bad enough….they would go after it…..what is stopping them? Not the USA……but Hong Kong.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              good point. Besides, I think they will get Taiwan the old fashioned Communist way. Subversion and infiltration. As it gets richer they will create the class warfare needed for “democratic socialism” to get voted in.

              As for my friends concerns I do not share them. I think if Trump keeps poking the Chicomms over Taiwan they will start poking us in this hemisphere or in SE Asia.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Because they will get stronger and the cost to defeat them will get higher and higher.

        I am not proposing this.

  11. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      If true this is against the law, I believe. Changing existing Govt. Docs is not copacetic.

  12. France decides that individuals do not have the choice of sugar beverages. They just banned the free refills in France.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Since we are back on trade I moved this forward for everyone to read.

    An example of a very sophisticated piece of propaganda. But is it propaganda when the author actually believes what they wrote? How do we prove they are being deceitful.

    Here is a story today on how NAFTA is not responsible for manufacturing job losses. Please check out the graph closely, that is used to prove the point.

    Then ask yourself, how could this not tell the whole story.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mexico-nafta-tariffs-are-not-the-answer/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And this:

      In reply to Just A Citizen.
      I have to be gone for awhile so I will give you the answer now. At least as it relates to the graph published by the author above. Truth is that NAFTA did cost some jobs, and resulted in others. That study of the Acts impacts is inconclusive as to its benefits and costs but did conclude it fell far short of the “promises” made by those pushing for it.

      • Having to deal with Mexico now….and NAFTA….I do have some pesonal experience. We, our family operation, cannot sell our produce now to the USA….Remember that I told you we grow asparagus….we are prohibited now from selling our produce to the USA because we are not big enough…..the Mexican Government puts a tariff of 50% on asparagus from Mexico to the USA…under NAFTA. But it does not pertain to Del Monte or Green Giant. In addition, asparagus growers in California are paid subsidies from the US government because of the NAFTA agreement that DOES NOT CHARGE Del Monte or Green Giant…but does prohibit competition from smaller growers through import taxes….and the California growers are given money because of the trade deals….they are as corrupt as Clintons initiatives.

        It is a fact, sir, a fact. NAFTA needs to be shit canned between Mexico and the USA.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          You are not going to get an argument from me on that point. But what will it be replaced with, that is the question.

          And there is some good reasons to do the deal with Canada and Mexico at the same time. Which centers on transportation issues, primarily.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          The dirty truth about NAFTA that everyone seems to have forgotten. From the Council on Foreign Relations own website, and their study.

          “How does NAFTA fit into the broader debate over trade policy?
          When negotiations for NAFTA began in 1991, the goal for all three countries was the integration of Mexico with the highly developed, high-wage economies of the United States and Canada. The hope was that freer trade would bring stronger and steadier economic growth to Mexico, providing new jobs and opportunities for its growing workforce and discouraging illegal migration from Mexico. For the United States and Canada, Mexico was seen both as a promising new market for exports and as a lower cost investment location that could enhance the competitiveness of U.S. and Canadian companies.”

          So for the dopes in the R and D parties, do you now see the logic of “Build the Wall”?

          Let me help you. If the wall is done FIRST, then Trump has the ultimate leverage over Mexico when it comes to trade. Mexico will pay one way or another. They will either build the wall or suffer untold economic crisis and revolt. Because the next thing after building the wall is stopping “US investments in Mexico.”

          • Stopping US investments in Mexico will not stop……Mexico cannot afford to have it stopped…I see a trade deal forthcoming where Mexico and the US will have to compete on a level playing field. Same with Canada. The other thing that causes trade deficits is currency devaluations….and the intentional manipulations to keep the currencies lower than USD. The manipulations in is what also spurs the foreign investment…..more bang for the buck. This is simply not right.

            • JAC…..it has to be a two way street. Transportation being the key in a lot of this….Mexican trucks can come into the United States and compete…..we cannot go to Mexico and compete. Mexican rail can come into the United States but we cannot go there. Mexican trucks do not have to pass a DOT inspection and they do not have to have liability insurance. They do not have safety regulations on the depth of tire tread or the weight of their vehicles. They have but destroyed Interstate 35…..Our trucks are limited to 80,000 GVW,,,,,,their ltrucks haul up to 110,000 gvw and greater with tandem. Same with rail……for me to believe in NAFTA……make it the same for all. Allow free trade on BOTH sides….same with Canada.

  14. gmanfortruth says:
  15. GMan…here’s some backup for you. I think this says what you try to get at all the time. Sorry if this takes up a lotta SUFAspace

    Blade says:
    January 28, 2017 at 8:22 am
    Howie, this is a wonderful thing to mention, and critical to the entire power structure of the People relative the Government, and for interpretation of the Constitution. The 1st, 2nd and even the 10th Amendments have advocacy groups, the 4th and 5th get lots of attention but the biggest one of all is all but ignored.

    Younger people may have no idea what we are talking about, so some explanation is in order. The Ninth Amendment is IMHO the single most important article as it speaks of The People. The Tenth Amendment restates it and also adds The Several States. Naturally they are the most ignored by the Supreme Court since they speak to original intent and re-assert The People and The States to highest position in order of precedence relative to the FedGov created by the Constitution. These two Amendments are supposed to remind us that the FedGov is superior only in those few enumerated functions that The People and The States can not manage, thus the Constitution creates the FedGov to handle these few, enumerated items.

    Recall that the power flowchart is from God/Creator/Preferred-Deity to The People who in turn voluntarily create and grant powers to The Several States, who in turn create and voluntarily grant some powers The Federal Government.

    God –> People –> States –> FedGov
    This is limited government and self-evident to any rational person and is expressed in various ways in the Declaration, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and countless writings and speeches. What we have seen though is God stricken from the flow, and the direction reversed leaving the FedGov as the superior entity, and no longer the solution of last resort, but of first resort.

    People <– States <– FedGov
    This is trickle down rights. When the Constitution was sent to The States for ratification, to tamp down the worry and criticism ( the newly liberated people were still on guard even though the post-war economy was in crisis ravaged by Zimbabwe like inflation ) three men, Jay, Madison and Hamilton set out to write an extraordinary number of VERY heavy-reading articles on the Constitution and political theory itself which ran in newspapers ( they are neatly packaged today as The Federalist Papers ).

    Clamor was heard among, well let’s just say it, the less intelligent citizens demanding a Bill Of Rights as a condition to accepting and ratifying the Constitution. The Founders knew this was an extraordinarily bad idea and stated over and over again that the Constitution had nothing to do with “rights” ( reminder here that the former Idiot-in-Chief and alleged scholar Barry Hussein was seen calling the Amendments “negative rights”, a retard with no understanding of America whatsoever ). No Bill of Rights was ever intended, and that was key to keeping the Constitution as a limited document of specific enumerated powers since it is the blueprint for FedGov, not an engineering plan for a new society. The Framers cannot grant rights to the People, they were granting limited powers to this new thing called the federal government.

    Hamilton wrote the brilliant exposition in Federalist #84 and its states the definitive explanation …

    “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John…It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government….

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

    That 2nd paragraph is nothing short of BIGLY, and if the Supreme Court ever respected original intent then that alone should end all discussion of growing the FedGov and most cases sent up there should result in decisions of one word: Unconstitutional.

    The Ninth and Tenth ratified articles ( Amendments ) are the literal restatement of Hamilton’s #84. They are included in there to stop people from abusing the ill-advised Bill Of Rights that they just passed in Congress and sent to the States for ratification. What they are literally stating is that See this Constitution and Bill Of Rights? Well just because something isn’t enumerated here does NOT mean it doesn’t exist since we could not possibly think of every little thing while we sat sweltering in a hot room in Philadelphia in summer 1787. Git it, got it, Good.

    The Ninth is literally saying that our ( The People’s ) rights are not just those listed here, but are vast and infinite. It is by far the most expansive Amendment since the “States” cannot have more rights or power than the very People who created them. The Courts right up to the Supreme Court rarely use these two, and the result is a FedGov behemoth that is like the Steve McQueen blob, only bigger.

    Saving America is daunting when the Courts are on a diet of blue pills. On our current trajectory we are guaranteed a Civil War if we don’t surrender outright letting the drift towards EU style socialism complete. In between there is only two other possibilities, an Article V slate of Amendments, or a miracle of getting a Supreme Court full of Constitutionalists who are not afraid to use the nuclear option: declaring laws unconstitutional for violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Don’t hold your breath!

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Democrats Shocked by Trump’s Refugee Order: Muslim Registry

    Democrats Friday slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugee vetting, charging that it amounted to a Muslim registry. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York took to Twitter: “There are tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.”

    Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the refugee action “goes against the fundamental nature of freedom of religion in our country. “It’s a foundation that we don’t discriminate on the basis of religion,” he told Erin Burnett on CNN, later saying the order was “basically … a Muslim registration operation.” Merkley added that the action would help the Islamic State’s recruiting efforts.

    More WINNING. These dolts ignore the fact that Christians are also refugees from these countries. The 2018’s are going to be easy for the R’s.

  17. gmanfortruth says:
    • Wait. I thought we were living where durable goods are cheap and food is expensive. Trump is aiming for 75% reduction in regulations. Wouldn’t a lot of that have to do with farming? If so, our farmers should be tilling the soil right now in aniticipation of a larger market. So food prices and durable good prices would flip at least temporarily until it evens out. Or am I off?

  18. Forced healthcare is simply another reason to nuke DC and slaughter all of the statists.

    Those idiot criminal statists need to find another planet to fuk up.

    • It’s not forced anymore.

      • Sure it is.

        The mandate to purchase if being done away with, but there are and have been a plethora of regulations on the medical industry that are all forced. Therefore you are free to(or not to) purchase forced healthcare.

        Understand EVERYTHING government does, it does with the threat of murder. Government says “Regulations A B C D etc… shall be the medical industry. …if not comply; fine, revoke license, cage, or murder.”

        Like everything else, if government stayed out of healthcare, price would decrease while quality would increase. More options would become available.

        • Better look a little closer…very shortly, there will be no mandates, no medical taxes, HSA’s, and deregulation among states. The choice will be yours to have insurance or to not have insurance….

          Next thing on the chopping block…..no medicare payroll deductions unless you elect to do so. Very ambitious……

          • That is all good, but it is still forced healthcare system.

            When there are NO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WHATSOEVER, it will no longer be a forced system. Until then, it is just another state turd sandwich.

  19. gmanfortruth says:
    • I would have to really think this through…..WPA, CCC…all those New Deal things were good in one aspect but devastating in another aspect. I remember my dad talking about it and what it did to the economy in the long run and it was the forerunner of entitlement programs.

      • I do not want to see the return of the WPA or CCC. Infrastructure improvements need to go through an ROI analysis like most businesses go through with their capital projects. There are some things that can be done to improve the funding. Stop robbing the highway transportation fund and invest all that money in rebuilding our roads. Eliminate the prevailing wage rules that keep non-union contractors from bidding on projects. This would increase available funds by 10%. Instead of funding projects from the general fund, float bonds specifically for the project. This forces Congress to justify the project. Where possible recoup the cost through user fees. Look for synergistic solutions. One I suggested was covering the CA central valley aqueduct with solar panels. This would reduce evaporation and serve as a good location for solar panels since the real estate is already committed. Eliminate a lot of the environmental red tape that holds up projects. Stop government agencies from suing each other over projects.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TRay

          Based on my experience, a proper economic analysis of infrastructure projects would result in very few ever being constructed.

          • So the Golden Gate Bridge, interstate highway system, Hoover Dam would not have passed a ROI calculation? I agree if we are talking about teapot museums.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              TRay

              They probably would not have passed the test. Most Govt. calculations require and unreasonably low “discount rate” to show that future benefits exceed current costs. Usually less than 4%. They were using this low number even in the 70’s and 80’s when inflation and interest rates were in double digits.

              Furthermore, the cost is a US Govt cost. Where is the US Govt benefit that offsets that cost? If hydroelectric dams were profitable then I wonder why all the private ones were sold to the Govt. by the original investors? And these were small dams with costs far below things like Hoover.

              How about the TVA projects? Built in an area with existing energy and transportation surpluses.

              • If you are talking about the old Tennessee Valley Authority…..this is another paper that I had to do for school. Very interesting project and the ONLY project that the government got involved in during the New Deal days that is actually turning a profit. But it is only turning a profit because it is delivering energy through private competitors……however, it is still a public utility. The question becomes, do you want public utilitites owned by the Feds? I have not investigated it since my paper but anything can turn a profit…if you allocate the expense to the tax payer. ( ie. employee expense ) .

                My complaint, any government project that is designed for a specific area should be paid for by the tax payers in that specific area.

              • IMO…..the only project that you mentioned above that would have passed muster would have been the Interstate system. There is really no way to measure it but you would have to allocate the amount of resources that the highway system provided along with the reason it was built……National Security.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Question

        How many times does a dollar have to be taxed before you get the original dollar paid in taxes.

        Take a dollar from someone, then spend it on something. Tax that new spending. Then spend the new revenue on something else. Then tax something else. Ad infenitum until you get that original dollar back. There are two sides to this equation. The return of the original dollar to the person who paid the tax and the return to the treasury on that dollar.

        This will show you the fallacy of creating growth by Gov.t spending. The only growth is in GDP because govt. spending is included in GDP.

        Oh, and don’t forget to account for the opportunity cost of each tax dollar collected along the way. Everyone forgets that each tax dollar is a dollar less the owner has to invest in their own future.

  20. At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    http://www.truthandaction.org/un-official-real-reason-global-warming-scare-kill-off-capitalism/

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/28/epic-is-team-trump-baiting-liberal-media-and-refugee-protesters-by-using-obamas-own-policy/

    I hope this is a baiting example and I hope Trump holds them to account. The kneejerk Liberal media deserves what they get..

    • gmanfortruth says:
      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

        Don’t we just love the court system in this country…granted the current judge cited sections of the 1965 immigration bill, but totally ignored other sections that do give the president authority to do exactly what Trump did in his executive order with citations.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Don’t we just love the court system in this country

          No, I don’t. To much legislating from the bench and frankly, kneejerk decisions based on politics. What changed since Carter banned Iranians after they took the hostages? Nothing.

          My answer is simple. Stop all immigration period. Limit visitation visa’s, from every country, not just Muslim countries. Extreme vetting needs extreme immigration policies. Enforce our laws, to include jail time before deportation of anyone here with an expired visa. Get ALL illegals out (with some exceptions). If Trump is going to piss of the Left, go full blast! 🙂

    • Yep!! He’s always a step ahead. All he’s doing is enforcing laws already on the books.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I think Trump’s advisers made a mistake. The oversight of not providing for those already vetted and living here under legal status, as well as duel citizens. I also think some govt. agencies are using that oversight to RUB it in Trump’s face. Which is what caused this Temporary restraining order.

      Trump could quickly fix this with another EO clarifying the first. Putting the enforcement agencies on firmer ground. But will his ego allow him to admit his first order was flawed??

      And yes, at this point this is just my opinion.

      • If everybody wasn’t in the business of parsing everything, it wouldn’t be a problem. Were there any dual citizens or legal immigrants detained? I know the judge grandfathered many people on those flights yesterday. If your status is in question, ya betta figure that out before coming or going. I wouldn’t say its on us to figure that out.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          I saw a report of ONE person with dual citizenship that was denied reentry. Not confirmed.

          There were some who were in the air when the order was signed. They were denied access when arriving, despite having APPROVED VISAS.

          People with actual Visas would have undergone review and vetting. Refugee status is different.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            The media hasn’t exactly been accurate or truthful in our recent history. The facts will come out eventually and no doubt the government employees have probably over reacted and screwed up…….again. sometimes it only takes one idiot to F up the whole system.

  22. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      The NAACP leader makes one valid point. The constant harping about FRAUD is dangerous. It has the potential to completely undermine our system. Which is one reason certain people are constantly using it.

      The error is in admitting that Both parties have been spreading this along with the Anarchists. BOTH parties have been trying to subvert the legitimacy of the other side by claiming the elections as fraudulent. The Dems have been a little sneakier about this but they have still been doing it.

      Forgot. This is why a TRUE and OBJECTIVE investigation is needed. I only wish that Trump had made that point instead of focusing on only two States.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

  24. Elizabeth Warren….standing on a podium waving a megaphone……well,nothing else needs to be said.

  25. Chuckie “boy”…….getting emotional……apparently forgot his 2014 statement that…..we need to halt the immigration program until we get a better handle on it…to be exact:

    Q: What changes to our current immigration policy do you support?

    A: I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world’s best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.]
    Source: League of Women Voters 2010 Candidate Questionnaire , Aug 11, 2010

    From Chuckie “boy’s” website: Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated:
    operational control of the border with Mexico;
    Border Patrol increases;
    border barriers, including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles;
    detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border;
    workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and
    Z-visa alien processing.

    “There are so-called sanctuary cities which establish as an official policy of their jurisdiction: We are not going to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement officials. That is wrong. What is more, it is completely contrary to Federal immigration law. My amendment says: We are going to put some consequence to that defiance of Federal law. We are not going to give them COPS funds. We are going to send those funds, instead, to all of those other jurisdictions which abide by Federal law.”

    This was on his website in 2014…..I wonder what changed his mind?

    • Yes, Mathius, I rarely result to name calling but I admit that I will make an exception in the case of this person. I call out his hypocrisy.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Chucky and Pocohontas are good examples of why Trump was elected to begin with. People are fed up with disingenuous lying political hacks who are only serving their own interests, not the interests of American people as a whole (the greater good, if you will).

      Where were the Liberal’s when Obama banned Iraqi’s for 6 months in 2011? Nowhere to be seen or heard, so in response to that I say F*^K them and their opinion.

      End of rant, will try and be nicer now 😀

  26. Hmmmm….I wonder how many have forgotten President Obama’s 6 month refugee ban on Iraq in 2011……interesting. Even green cards did not get in.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      LOL, No doubt. Hypocrits beyond belief.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I have found that Left Wing media seem’s to always…..misreport the facts. From your link Sir:

        Thus far the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

        From well known Congressional testimony:

        Refugees from the Middle East and north Africa are “masking the movement” of terrorists and criminals, Nato’s top commander told Congress on Tuesday, despite the protests of human rights groups who say that refugees overwhelmingly have no ulterior motive but escape.

        In testimony to the Senate armed services committee, US general Philip Breedlove said that the Islamic State terror group is “spreading like a cancer” among refugees. The group’s members are “taking advantage of paths of least resistance, threatening European nations and our own”, he added.
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists

        I simply did a quick search and found 130,000 related articles.

        According to your link this evidence don’t exist…WTF?

        • G – I posted the link for the single proposition that Obama’s ban applied to green card holders. It did not.

          Meanwhile, pretty much all of the Right Wing media seems to be getting this fact completely wrong. So how about we stop calling the kettle black…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Roger that Buck, that you did. However, when an article misreports ONE fact, is it not equally possible that the whole article is misreporting the facts?

            I’m not attacking you, in any form or fashion. I am attacking the media. Their credibility is garbage. The question I’m working on is just how far back do these lies go. The Liberal media has protected Obama at every turn, they will continue to protect the Progressive agenda, and the means will be less than admirable, because the ends are most important.

            I have found that going to some very liberal media sites and reading shows just how sad the articles really are when it comes to being a factual representation of the facts. It’s quite sad and even a little maddening. We all deserve better 🙂

            • Every single article I’ve come across (and from what I can recall of Obama’s actions in 2011) make crystal clear that Obama’s 2011 ban did not apply to green card holders.

              Why then does this false claim appear all over the place on right wing sites? How about we quit with the ‘liberal media’ and ‘fake news’ and ‘progressive agenda’ as if the only ‘legitimate news source’ is from right wing blogs….its annoying, patently untrue, and one of the biggest reasons why I’ve largely stopped posting here.

              Of course I do read along each day with my coffee in hand shaking my head….

      • Meanwhile, where do you come out on the Trump administration’s blatant disregard for court orders? I imagine you’re OK with this…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I haven’t heard of these blatant disregard events, can you provide a link or two? Just a quick note, the Court decisions are not quite what the media has been putting out. I’m still working on that issue as well. But back to 2011, an ABC report is outlined here.

          As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said.
          http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

          Would it be safe to say that those who helped US forces were denied Green Cards?

          • Blatent disregard – most notably the case in DC where DHS refused detained green card holders access to their attorneys following a court order issued Saturday night which said green card holders must be granted access to their attorneys.

            And I don’t think your characterization (that ‘those who helped US forces were denied green cards’) is accurate. Back in 2011 Obama put a 6-month ban on refugees and applications for one type of visa; other visas remained open and it did not apply to individuals already vetted. It could be said that as a result of Obama’s 2011 order some individuals who helped US forces were denied visas.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Actually there were many people from Iraq and Afghanistan who have been delayed and/or denied access to the US by Visa or refugee status. These stories were carried by even the MSM during the Obama administration. Nobody could ever explain why they were not expedited.

              But it was pointed out that we were allowing people in from Syria, under refugee status, while these people who helped us were still waiting.

              As for the green card holders denied access to lawyers, how is that Trump’s personal fault? Could it be just more evidence of bureaucratic bungling by Govt. employees?

              • Yes, clearly people were denied access to the US from Iraq under Obama’s ban. Where did I say this didn’t happen? But Obama’s ban, unlike Trump’s, only applied to one type of visa – it did not apply to green card holders; it did not apply to student visas; it did not apply to business visas; etc. etc. etc. It was much narrower in scope.

                How is it Trump’s personal fault? It is the fault of the Trump administration for not thinking through the implementation of the order and/or issuing guidelines on this point.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          OH, nice to have you around. 😀

        • Which court order? The one issued by Donnely….referring to the two detained at JFK, who were eventually released? Or the one issued by Brinkema, saying the govt must allow legal access to those detained? From what I’ve been reading, only one remains detained, and all were given paperwork explaining the EO and where to seek legal advice. Priebus said that green card holders are not affected. So Trump has said we’ll do both, enforce the EO and obey the court order. What’s the problem? Confusion? Of course. Some got caught in the middle. It’s not like this was a surprise. Well, maybe it was since politicians are not known for keeping their word. Trump did. Was he supposed to give a 30 day notice so they can all hurry on over? Don’t forget, this was Obamas EO as well. (or very similar)Trump just acted on it. Obama just didn’t have the guts to act on it. All talk.

          • sorry. a little behind. you commented while I was typing.

          • Ummm…no….Obama’s was very different in scope, application and implementation.

          • “Or the one issued by Brinkema, saying the govt must allow legal access to those detained? From what I’ve been reading, only one remains detained, and all were given paperwork explaining the EO and where to seek legal advice”

            Paperwork and the ability to ‘seek’ legal advice is very different from being able to meet with your attorney.

            • So would you like to sue someone, or just object? 300k entered from the countries listed in the EO, a little over 300 were affected temporarily, one remains detained. That’s worth it in my book.

              • Meh, only 300 people were illegally detained…only a small handful were denied access to their attorneys after a court order directed them to be granted access…no biggie…sigh…

              • How many more are you willing to accept coming up dead, while you argue the legalities? Do we keep the doors wide open while they continue on with their jihad? Jihad..no biggie….sigh.

              • Anita, I am with Buck on this one….if they were denied access to THEIR attorney…..not to pro bono ones that were there, but if they were denied acess to their attorney…..that is not correct.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          “How is it Trump’s personal fault? It is the fault of the Trump administration for not thinking through the implementation of the order and/or issuing guidelines on this point.”

          I already stated I thought they went off half cocked. But I also believe that some agency people were going overboard to create a problem. The examples given by the Press so far so an abnormal lack of thinking and consideration. Anyone with half a brain should have known that green card holders and anyone with an approved visa should not have been forced to leave the country immediately.

          I do have one point to make regarding the left leaning media’s focus on the detailed difference between Trump’s and Obama’s temporary suspensions. The initial point made by the Administration was that they used the list from Obama’s Admin to identify the countries included.

          The second, about Obama targeting Iraq was initially made in response to claims that Trump was violating the Constitution and had no authority to do what he did. Using Obama’s Iraq decision was appropriate in this context. That being that if Obama had the authority then Trump has the same authority.

          Since then the back and forth has become factually flawed on both sides. And that is putting it as nicely as I can.

          • “Anyone with half a brain should have known that green card holders and anyone with an approved visa should not have been forced to leave the country immediately.” — the order as written did not have any exemption for green card holders nor anyone else previously vetted; I would argue given the language of the order the agents were absolutely correct in detaining these individuals until they received clarification on the scope of Trump’s order.

            “The initial point made by the Administration was that they used the list from Obama’s Admin to identify the countries included.” — OK, so what? That Obama identified these countries as ‘problematic’ (for lack of a better word) does not mean that it is a good idea to impose a blanket ban on all people from these countries. I don’t believe this fact has any bearing.

            “That being that if Obama had the authority then Trump has the same authority.” — Agreed to a point. Yes Obama and Trump both have broad authority over immigration policy and while I may disagree policywise with Trump’s order that has nothing to do with his constitutional authority. And I agree that Obama’s order does provide some measure of precedence for Trump. However, Trump’s order clearly goes much further than Obamas. This does not mean that he lacks authority, just that Obama’s order doesn’t ‘prove’ authority, if that makes sense. Not to mention the religious aspect of Trump’s order…

            • …and there it is…the religious aspect. The guilt trip over Muslims. There are plenty more countries with majority Muslim beliefs that were not listed in the order. It’s about keeping us safe from terrorists, not from Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, we get that. What you don’t get is that terrorists are Muslim. We’re after the terrorists. Who’s side are you on? (says the Christian to the Jew)

              • Religious persecution can most certainly be Muslim on Muslim….

                If the whole idea is we cannot allow people from these countries in absent more extreme vetting procedures, why would we still allow those claiming to be Christian from these same countries to come in? How does one go about proving one’s religion? And this doesn’t even get into the constitutionality of such a scheme…

              • Yeah, how do we do that, especially when taqiyya(sp) is involved? We could just ban all Muslims, but we don’t. So we take the next best route and hope for the best, that’s really all we can do. We still have to root out the ones who are here, why pile on?

              • Not following you at all here….how is this the ‘next best route’?

              • How is it not? What is your suggestion? I’m not getting smart, Buck. What other route can we take? I’m out for a bit.

              • Anita – you indicated that this is the ‘next best route’ to banning all Muslims. Make your case.

              • Buck, my point was that we didn’t ban all Muslims, we banned people who travel here from countries known to harbor, aid, whatever, terrorists. I don’t know how else to go about restricting entry to our country. We haven’t gotten the message across militarily, so we are adding a different route. Inconvenience is a whole lot better than death. Your turn.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              As a former Govt. employee charged with enforcing the law and EO’s I can tell you these guys were being deliberately obnoxious.

              The EO bans people from entering the US. True?

              A person with a green card has already entered the US. And has been sanctioned by the U.S. Govt. and as a legal alien resident has the rights of a citizen. Any officer working in immigration or customs enforcement should know that. And if they were confused by the EO they could have quickly set up areas to hold these people and allow them access to legal counsel. Or hold them until they got clarification.

              Like I said, I think this fiasco has revealed some real problems in how we recruit, train and retain certain Govt. employees.

              • I disagree. As an attorney I would not recommend an employee of some agency to violate the terms of the EO simply because I believe the intent wasn’t to apply to green card holders.

                The EO banned all people from entering regardless of prior vetting so why would I personally risk being sued?

                I do agree with you that these agents should have immediately granted access to legal counsel following the court order. They didn’t. Why not? And, why didn’t the Trump administration immediately notify them to follow the court order?

            • “Anyone with half a brain should have known that green card holders and anyone with an approved visa should not have been forced to leave the country immediately.” ,,,”

              Agreed…..supposedly they have already been vetted, even if by a system that does not have the capability to properly do that right now. But I think that has changed now. I doubt that you will see this anymore.

              Also, you asked a question about a blatant disregard for law…….there should be absolutely no disregard for any law…whether to enforce it or abide by it. Unfortunately, in the last several years, there have been several blatant disregard of several court proceedings and orders….by all sorts of people. I do not know if the stopper is out of the bottle…..but it continues and I am afraid it will continue. My own home state has a disregard for several court rulings and proceedings including the SCOTUS…..therein, lies the problem. Do I think TExas is correct? No, but I also think that we were forced to do so due to lack of action. No matter the administration, the minute that you disregard the law through selective enforcement…not following a court order, or you blatantly ignore the law….you have, in fact, created an atmosphere that it is ok to pick and choose.

              I do not like it……not at all. We are supposed to be a nation of laws…unfortunately, that is diminishing quickly. And…..I am unsure where we go from here.

              You, along with me, should be outraged at the disregard for ALL LAW. We should be looking at the why…..Trump is doing nothing different and that is also sad. Because nothing will be fixed. We are fast getting to a place where…….courts will not matter. No one is listening.

              • Colonel – there is a huge difference between prosecutorial discretion and a refusal to abide by a court order.

                At least you agree that Texas is wrong here…been drinking some coffee???

              • No sir, no coffee…and no Dr Pepper…..Prosecutorial discretion is a lawyers way for saying it is ok to violate the law…and I disagree with you sir, there is no difference…..ignoring the law is…..ignoring the law. There is no in between. Just like you cannot be a little bit pregnant.

                Now. on to court orders…..they have the impact of law…but how do you enforce it? Troops? Ain’t gonna happen. FBI? Ain’t gonna happen. So how do you enforce it? Well, it is going to be interesting in the upcoming sessions…..because if Trump does with-hold Federal Funds from sanctuary cities and some district court rules you cannot do that…..and he does it anyway…..how do you enforce it? Going to arrest the POTUS? I think not.

                And, as a military officer, I have a duty and responsiblity to disobey any order that I feel is contrary to the UCMJ or criminal. But it is open to interpretation and I had better be correct or I am not longer an officer. So, why can’t a STATE, if it decides that an edict to ignore the law creates a hardship and decides to enforce the law on the books…..do so.

                Now, the EO……we were thoroughly briefed on the EO days ahead of time. We were told how to handle the green cards and visas and work permits on the border. THere was no ambiguity and there is none now. What we did run into, however, were some intentional changes designed to make it look unworkable. Those people no longer have jobs.

                Hope you and yours are doing ok.

      • Hiya Buckster…..sorry FP does not relate to a believeable site, in my opinion, however, if I am wrong, I will say so….right now…I have seen nothing that says that I am incorrect…..my information came from a military briefing not a web site nor talking point on TV….I was also told the same thing applied to Carter and Reagan.

        BUT, in the interest of fairness, I will question the briefer tomorrow on his source.

        • Please do because everything I have read makes it perfectly clear that Obama’s ban did not apply (and perhaps of greater importance, was not applied) to green card holders.

          And generally speaking FP is a very good source.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/01/29/florida-mayor-tells-police-officer-didnt-know-serving-pig-tonight/

    It’s time for cops to stay in the office for a few days. Announce it and tell citizens that they are on their own.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    The religion of peace and the party of peace seem to have many things in common, lack of peace just being one of them:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-anti-trump-rioter-knocks-out-trump-supporter-at-portland-airport.html

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    (Via CNN) No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

    Oh Really? No Refugees implicated in terrorism? Read on…
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/30/why-restrict-visas-from-yemen-somalia-sudan-syria-iraq-iran-and-libya/

    It seems that CNN simply cannot tell the truth.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Trump’s election and subsequent actions have caused the roaches to come into the light.

    If you did not believe me before when I tried to explain just how hard restoring liberty would be, you should understand it now. The mass reactions to Trump reveal just how deeply the US has been infiltrated by the socialist ideology. Alinsky is celebrating. The minds of the people have been turned to mush and the capture of the media is fully evident.

    If not for the alternative media today, there would be no way to get information not controlled by the left wing puppet masters.

    • Yes sir…..but you and I are going to hell. So be it….If I beat you there, I will organize it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Thank you. And see if you can’t get that Tyrant locked up or cast out as well. I have no desire to live eternity under the rule of the same ass hats I do now.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m a little curious as to why any foreigner, simply being denied access to the country, has some special Right to an attorney. This is not a criminal issue, it is administrative and there is no Right to legal counsel, unless it becomes criminal, yes?

    A few thoughts. Trump wanted the chaos. At some point the media will get seriously slammed, as they probably deserve.

    @Buck. The MSM are so Left leaning it’s insane. FOX being the only one close to be Right Wing, All the Major networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are all in the can for the Democrats. The Right Wing media you speak of, mostly websites, have cropped up because of the Lies from the Liberal media. Much was exposed via the release of emails.

    More to come.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      The issue of lawyers was relative to “Green Card” holders.

      “Green card also refers to an immigration process of becoming a permanent resident. The green card serves as proof that its holder, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), has been officially granted immigration benefits, which include permission to reside and take employment in the United States.” per google.

      Legal permanent resident = Full protection of the Constitution.

      Now, those holding visitors visas have no guarantee of entering, apparently. The visa states they are approved for travel to but entry is dependent upon approval of customs and immigration offers at the port of entry.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The Green Card issue deserves some more scrutiny, But tend to agree that Federal employees probably acted stupidly. Some may have done so on purpose, to undermine and cause the chaos. I put nothing past Progressives, nothing.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let me add. While circumstances any not dictate extreme actions on non-citizens e4ntry into the country, should other more prudent circumstances occur, like war, it is completely within the authority of the President/government to deny access to ANY non US citizen entry in to the country, is it not?

        With that said, Unless one is a LEGAL US citizen,. it is within the Constitution to deny access to US soil. PERIOD. There are no Constitutional Rights guaranteed to non-citizens, regardless of status, if changes in policy are suddenly made, such as in time of war, which we are supposedly in, with Muslim terrorist’s.

        If Obama can KILL a US citizen, and his child, abroad, then Trump can damn sure stop immigration of any kind from any country that poses a threat from the ideology that the dead father and child held, which we are war with.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          The Constitutional authorities and restrictions on govt. apply to non Citizens who are living on US Soil. This includes our territories and bases around the world. So once an “Alien” passes customs and legally “enters” the country they get the same protections regarding due process.

          Yes, POTUS has authority to deny entry for good cause, AND per the constraints placed on POTUS by Congress.

          Preventing entry, easy. Returning them once they are here, not so easy.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I will give a very specific story about Green Cards. LFR’s. They usually are accepted by other countries like when traveling to Europe as though that person is a US citizen. Not quite as good as a US citizen passport but pretty high up there. It is advisable to get a visa though not required. However a country may AT ITS DISCRESSION deny entry into their country of a US Green Card holder, or anybody for that matter. I was planning on spending a vacation in Paris in 2001 and flew my girlfriend to Gatwick UK so we could meet and then fly onto Paris. She was detained and denied entry and returned back to the US on the plane she flew in on,….the agents said there was no out and out requirement for a visa and yes normally a green card holder would be allowed entry and transit through, we weren’t even leaving the airport, just connecting flights,…..BUT they had had a recent problem with Colombian refugees and they were DENYING anyone with a passport and citizenship from Colombia entry into the UK….PERIOD….her daughter at that time was actually a UK citizen……didn’t matter.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          I had traveled all over sans visa’s but as a US passport holder and military or a businessman traveling, there never was any problem. I did tell her to GET a VISA just as a safeguard because there was a “warning” on the tickets. She said stop treating her like a child because she had traveled there before with no problems…..times do change instantly and it is up to the agents on the scene…..couldn’t do anything about it because she was returned when the plane refueled and reboarded for its return trip……The French consulate had personnel at the airport and they said that they would have issued an immediate visa to paris,,,but I had no time. Plus the return tickets would have had to be changed for her to fly from Paris not London…..I do believe even if she had a visa issued she would have been denied entry anyway….just because they could and had valid reasons to do it regardless of a visa or not. .

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, I have been waiting all day for comments on Trump’s latest E.O.. Declaring agencies SHALL eliminate two regulations for every new regulation.

    So let me begin. STUPID…………….. Stupid is as stupid does. For those that do not know, to eliminate a regulation you issue a “new regulation”. So as the E.O. has been presented by the press, it is clearly STUPID. Yeah, that was me creating my own caveat.

    Further supporting my theory these E.O.s to a large extent are designed to let the agencies know what is coming and to start changing their direction. A shot across the bow……

    • gmanfortruth says:

      We have had much disagreement about Regulations. My opinion is that if the President can change or demand regulations, then the whole issue of regulations is unconstitutional. Congress didn’t delegate it’s authority to the President. Maybe that is the problem and why I think EO’s should also be unconstitutional, all of them.

  33. I propose an update to the Gadsden:

    Bonus:

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    Just watched the local news from Pittsburgh Pa while eating chow. The immigration issue is so blown out of proportion it should be a crime. CLAIMING that people born here are at risk is utter nonsense. Shameful. This is why we must have the alternative media, to put to rest this blatant idiocy.

    Sorry Buck, it is idiocy and totally unnecessary. It is intended to continue the division that has been promoted by Obama and the progressives since 2008. It isn’t working, so they are doubling down….BIG mistake.

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, has told Justice Department attorneys not to defend President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the US from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    WOW, just F-ing WOW!

    Is this a coup? Treason? WTF?

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    Is the immigration issue currently being blown up a Red Herring? What is happening that needs political cover…….

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    A new Rasmussen poll finds that 57 per cent of Americans support President Trump’s travel ban on people arriving from terror-linked countries, with just 33 per cent opposing the measure.

    Asked if they support a temporary 90 day ban on “refugees” from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, a clear majority of Americans back Trump, despite widespread media criticism of the executive order.

    The poll also found that Americans support a visa block on all individuals from those same countries by a margin of 56 per cent to 32 per cent.

    The survey has a +/- 3 percentage points margin of error with a 95% level of confidence.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Like I said earlier, this issue is being blown out of proportion by the Liberal media, but why? Watch for the Red Herring.

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    Watch how the Liberal’s bring up Nixon in the coming days. Watch how the Right brings up SoS Clinton in response.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    MSMBC is reporting two people fired, including head of Immigration?

    • BNO News ✔ @BNONews
      Statement from DHS Secretary John Kelly gives no reason for Trump’s dismissal of Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale
      Follow
      BNO News ✔ @BNONews
      Full text: DHS Secretary Kelly announces Thomas Homan to take over as acting ICE Director, no reason provided pic.twitter.com/Jto98HhW6w
      10:25 PM – 30 Jan 2017

      Thomas Homan..a Dallas, Texan… More help for your border Colonel.

    • Acting head of ICE is gone.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Another thought on this immigration dust up that hasn’t been thought of, or at least reported. Several previos US citizens that committed acts of terror, the Boston bombers and the San Bernadino shooters come to mind, had gone overseas for visits where it was claimed they were radicalized. The new Trump EO’s may have nothing to do with the dust up, but rather what is being looked at that is causing these few people to be detained and questioned. Example, if Achmed is from Iraq, goes overseas and visits Pakistan for several weeks it may set off a red flag. With that said, the new profiling may be the major cause of any detainments.

    It would not be surprise that we are not getting the whole story, and a change in what is being profiled won’t be made public and shouldn’t be. Time will tell if this is or is not the case.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    On February 18, 2015, Al-Hazmah Mohammed Jawad was arrested as he attempted to board a flight to Jordan to join and fight with ISIS in Iraq. Jawad was admitted to the United States in 2013 as an Iraqi refugee and he subsequently obtained a green card.

    Why Green Cards are NOT a reason to simply let people back in.

    More examples here: http://usdefensewatch.com/2017/01/an-open-letter-to-senator-chuck-schumer/

    • “Why Green Cards are NOT a reason to simply let people back in.”

      The same line of thinking can easily be applied to US citizens. So now do you believe ANYONE, regardless of prior vetting / immigration status / citizenship status, can and should be detained, perhaps without access to an attorney or any recourse?

      • I’ve been detained by TSA. I went through their motions and was able to continue. I’ve been detained by US Customs at the Canadian border., taken out of my car, marched in their office, answer their questions, able to continue. It’s not dramatic.

        • Matter of fact..I don’t agree with this…but… I live within 100 miles of a US border so I could, for no reason, be detained an questioned.

        • I believe there may be a slight difference between when you’ve been ‘detained’ by TSA or the border and what these individuals were put through. Just a guess…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            As opposed to the families of those who were killed in Orlando, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, NYC and others?

            • Exactly G!

            • Your point???

              If you have no problem ceding your constitutional rights for the appearance of safety…oh, you know the saying!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I have and always have had a problem with airport security, hence, I prefer to profile. The government’s number one job is to protect the people from enemies, foreign and domestic, of which Radical Islamic terrorists qualify, do they not?

              • Again – are you saying you are OK with giving up certain constitutional rights for the appearance of safety?

                Also, again – I am going to go out on a limb and guess your (or my or Anita’s) experience in being detained and questioned by the TSA or customs is very different from what some of these individuals were put through.

              • You mean the climate controlled holding room, or the Starbucks coffee, or ….
                It’s not like it was and internment camp.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                What Constitutional Rights have I lost? I’ve never been detained anywhere and questioned.

              • Strangely I’m not so sure you would object to internment camps…

              • grrr..twice now I can’t get my an’s and and’s straight. Hate that, sorry

              • Ah, G, so you’re only OK with others losing some of their constitutional rights so you can feel a bit safer??

              • Virtue signaling, Buck?

              • Inquiring minds want to know.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Ah, G, so you’re only OK with others losing some of their constitutional rights so you can feel a bit safer??

                Maybe we should have warned the terrorists planning on coming here to hurry the hell up, right Buck?

              • I meant with respect to citizens and green card holders….

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I meant with respect to citizens and green card holders….

                Take this below!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I fully believe in profiling. If the profile fits, then I see nothing wrong with stopping people and asking questions before entering the country, much like we already do to those getting on an airplane. I have read hundreds of stories of people being pulled from lines at airports for a private shakedown and question period, that seems to be acceptable to people. So why shouldn’t we do the same with those who traveling to places known for radicalizing young Muslim men and women?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        @Buck

        Legal question. Since immigration is an administrative, not a criminal issue, where does the right to an attorney apply?

        • G man…..allow me…….” Nope. Immigrants are not entitled to any legal representation at the cost of the state, as federal law states that any and all immigrants must not become a “charge to the state”. Therefore, they have to pay their own way.
          The exception is in a criminal matter, where everyone is entitled to representation. However, not in immigration or civil matters.” – Eric Holder.

        • The right to an attorney (meaning, state provided) does not attach to an immigration issue from my understanding.

          The issue at question here though related to green card holders being detained and not permitted access to their attorney. Its a very complex issue actually.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Based on rulings by a few Judges, it seems the attorney issue is also overblown. Apparently, there was access to legal aid.

            • G Man…very careful here. There were pro bono attorneys that made themselves available….for what purpose, I do not know. Attorneys, in my realm, do nothing for free….Some firms require pro bono work…some state’s require pro bono work….I certainly would not show up at an airport unless it was to garner exposure.

              That said….since I am on the front lines with green cards, visas, work permits…..for another 13 months…..I know what the briefings were. And contrary to what the media is saying and contrary to the beliefs of some…..everyone…..TSA, Border Patrol, Law Enforcement….were thoroughly briefed 48 hours ahead of time about how to handle green cards, visas, work permits, expired green cards and visas, etc. I was briefed 48 hours in advance and knew what to expect. It was thoroughly discussed about what to do with persons already enroute and those waiting to board at airports when the order was issued. No one can say that they were not properly briefed well ahead of time. I can guarantee you that all those pro bono attorneys did not just happen to be available. Since everyone was briefed 48 hours ahead of time, a non public briefing, there was plenty of time to orchestrate response. But, do not over look the knowledge we gained in this foray. I say no more.

              Now, in the instance of DFW ( only DFW and Houston at this time because I have no knowledge of other locations ), it is a well known fact that the delays and detainments were orchestrated. No green cards were to be held and no visas were to be held. Expired paper work…yes. You hold them. What I find amazing, is the non reporting of those that were held with Visas which were expired and so were some green cards…..and some of the expiration dates were years old. We have some busness’ down here pissed off because they had workers with expired work permits and it is growing season in the valley. Sorry, but a grower or business should properly check their workers.

              Down here on the border, we stopped almost 300 expired work permits and green cards… and rightly so even if properly vetted, THEY WERE EXPIRED. Funny how that does not get reported. But we were also told not to make an issue of it simply return them. The other thing that we have done is check all the names, expired or non-expired, against a legal register and anyone having a speeding ticket or visa expiration fine or missed court date….did not get in until they paid their fine.

              The media, and some in the Democratic Party, certainly have not focused on the border because the same thing is happening there….. but no headlines. We detained hundreds but no one is saying anything. At the checkpoints, you have to declare, under the penalty of perjury, whether or not you are an American citizen. If you are…..be prepared to prove it, if asked. I have never been asked to prove it because I always use a passport. But I have been asked to step out of my car while dogs did their work and mirrors were used to view underneath…..

              But it is nothing different than going into Mexico, except you push a little button….if the light turns green, you move on…if the light turns red…..you are physically checked. At immigration, I have always been asked why am I in Mexico…..Pleasure or business. I am always asked where I am staying. If I reply at my ranch, I am always asked the address. Since we have property there, I carry a non citizen passport. And even when I do present it, I am still asked the same questions. I have been detained for short periods of time….the longest being 3 hours while they checked phone numbers and addresses and check my Mexican papers. I just simply look at it as,,,,it is Mexico and it is their way of doing things. Nothing more. I take no offense,,,,,and I do not protest. You wil go to jail.

              So, everyone needs to chill…..it will soon be a fact of life. Do I like it? Not particularly…but given today’s world…..it is probably going to get worse.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Colonel. It’s time for a new thread so I’m going to move this comment to the next thread!

      • Herein lies a tremendous problem. I am going to come down on the side of…the world has actually changed and is becoming more violent and not less. I do not like the prospect of “Big Brother”…..but……I also believe that, today, open borders and being reactionary is simply not the way. I know that being pro-active has its issues but I wonder which way is best. I do not subscribe that the world’s population is inherently honest….I believe the opposite and my travels…extensive travels…indicates this. Cultures are so different and “foreign ” to us. The seas and no internet kept us isolated but now, we see the world as it really is and people like Soros and Buffet and the like are now in the sunshine and have controlled people for a long time. I think that the populist movement is real but it is also ripe for hijacking….just as the Democratic party was hijacked by Progressives….You and MAthius are lIberal but neither of you are true Progressives….if you were, you would not be in the business you are in. You get labeled in a way that you do not like, just as Republicans were all labeled Tea Party. I never aligned myself with the Tea PArty but was always considered one.

        I saw an interesting interview yesterday but only caught part of it….at DFW, the protesters were claiming to be paid. These were not spur of the moment Americans…..

        I really think that the liberal philosophy is not a good one. But that is from a economic conservative and a social moderate.

        That said…it is going to be interesting…..this immigration thing will be over in a short period of time…..Trump is moving down the highway…..going to be interesting. And, I hope that the Democratic PArty will run Elizabeth Warren and/or Booker……

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Anita is correct and I have had the same happen to me by US Customs and Immigration.

        I have no Right of return that is automatic. I must meet the US requirements to return to the USA. And today that requires a picture ID and one or two other forms of ID proving I am a US citizen or a Passport.

        • Anita is correct about what?

          • About being a US citizen being detained, and not crying about it.

            I was just thinking (don’t be scared) that I live 3 minutes from a major international airport. We see US Customs and Border Patrol on the highways and even minor roadways daily. Doesn’t phase us any differently than State, County, or City police.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Not only about being detained, by both Canadian and US customs, but that the experience is not different from what “others” experience coming to the US.

            If you set off a trigger or just happen to be the random number, you get pulled aside, fully checked and questioned. Some time the questioning can go on and on and on and on.

            True story: My friends and I got delayed and questioned for an hour going into Canada one time. First because we said we were headed to Alaska to go fishing, which triggered repeated questions about having guns with us, and then because one of us had a hand gun show up on their “computer data base”. So we sat there while they grilled him over and over about where was that handgun. Guess how they knew he had that handgun? Which was in the nightstand at home in Montana, by the way. The US gun registry. The one the Govt. told us would not be shared with anyone unless the gun was used in a crime.

            • Wait — your anecdote is that you were stopped, detained and questioned in Canada? Were you stopped by the US or by Canada?

              On the larger point, I’ve been stopped and questioned by TSA and/or customs on multiple occasions. That is a minor inconvenience, I agree. But again that is not what happened to these individuals, even after a court order declaring they must be granted access to their attorneys.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I have no Right of return that is automatic.

          Bullshit.

          You absolutely do have such a right.

          It is absolute and immutable.

          The fact that government forces would deny the free exercise of your rights as a sovereign citizen of humanity by dint of the threat of government fiat and the threat of coercive violence changes nothing.

          You are a free man. And you are free to go where you will.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            It does no good to apply your standards to the rules based on other standards.

            So if I say I do not have such a right under the current standard you cannot say false because you don’t believe in that rule of law.

            You can argue the law is flawed under the current standard, or you can argue we need to change the standards. But it is useless to claim the rule is false because of a standard which is not in use.

            So your Bullshit is trumped with a bigger WRONGO!

            If you think you are a free man and can go where you want, why don’t you try walking into Canada this weekend. Somewhere along the border where there is no “checkpoint”. Get back to us on how that goes for you.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              It does no good to apply your standards to the rules based on other standards.

              I cannot help that your standards are whimsical and irrational – that you bend and pervert your “standards” in the interest of giving yourself a modicum of respite from your crippling fear.

              So if I say I do not have such a right under the current standard you cannot say false because you don’t believe in that rule of law.

              I recognize that there is a “real world” out there and that ‘they’ impose upon us all.

              I get that – I do – but it does not mean I need to support or excuse that system.

              Wrong is wrong and I will defy that which is wrong, nor give the slightest quarter to a demented demand that I impose on innocent men because of the chance that one of them might intend to do me harm. That way madness lies.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              If you think you are a free man and can go where you want, why don’t you try walking into Canada this weekend.

              Just because others would punish you for exercising your rights does not mean that you have them.

              By that logic, let’s examine your right to ownership of property. You are walking along one day and I aim my cannon at your head and demand your wallet. You say “but it’s mine – I have a right to own property.” I say, your right is void because of the threat of my violence. So you hand it over (wise decision). And then we shake hands and agree that, apparently, you don’t have any right to own your wallet.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                DPM

                I have a right to my property because I made it. I have a “natural” right to keep what I need relative to existing according to my nature. Thus the evolution of the right to property relative to the goods produced. And my freedom to keep it is eliminated when you take it from me. What is the power of a right when you can override it with your cannon? Or my right becomes moot when you pull the trigger on your cannon.

                As for that land I sit on, the “right” to own it is derived from humans inventing a system of defining boundaries and agreeing to honor those boundaries. There was no natural right for humans to “own” land beyond that which they occupied and used to “further their personal existence according to their nature”.

                Hence the same humans make exceptions to those rules, which allow them to take it from me under certain conditions.

              • You’re sounding very…. statist, Mr. Citizen. 🙂

              • Gentlemen…..please. It is reality. Deal with it.

              • Gentlemen…..please. It is reality. Deal with it.

  42. gmanfortruth says:
    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Yesterday while traveling to Raleigh, I was listening to the former vice presidential candidate prattle on about Trump’s EO on the TEMPORARY hold on entry of persons from such and such countries……He talked about the statue of liberty and the worst human catastrophy since WWII. But then he went on and said it’s unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment which is about discriminating…..pardon me but since when does our constitution hold for those citizens of other countries. Their entry is at our discretion….he also talked about how he and sen McCain have worked on a more stringent vetting process……All throughout this past campaign the issue was being discussed and even the Obama administration finally admitted it DID not and there was NO way they could properly vet immigrants and refugees from these areas.

      Politics is not a gentlemen’s sport with rules and honor…..it is a bare knuckled brawl with zero rules and if there were can be changed mid stream to suit whatever political whim currently the rage.

      Sort of like our journalists running around and when confronted demand their rights of freedom of the press……since when do they have those rights in places like China, or Iran…..unless it suits those governments to allow a particular story to be published.

    • Ask the east Germans.

      • The microwave in my office says it was produced in West Germany.

        Also, do you really want to use the Berlin wall as your template for American “border security”? Forgetting that the purpose of the wall was to keep Berliners in, not out, should we really be modeling Soviet methods?

        It’s like when Carl Higbie (Trump surrogate) suggested Trump could use Japanese internment as legal precedent for Trump’s proposed Muslim registry.

        If you have to resort to citing the worst examples of governance in human history as precedent / justification, you’re probably doing something wrong.

        • Just pointing out walls work. You probably knew that.

          FDR and Earl Warren cooked up the rationale for the internment. Meanwhile, back on the West Coast war profiteers scarfed up the property of the Nisei. All nice, neat, legal and democratic. Sort of like what the SS did to the Jews and their property in Germany.

          Bye, the bye, the East Coast Nisei were never interned, just had to register and occasionally report. Guess they did not have valuable enough property.

          • Just pointing out walls work. You probably knew that.

            The Berlin wall surrounded one city.

            The Berlin wall was 91 miles – of which only 66 miles were actual concrete 11′ wall. Adjusted for inflation, it cost $200mm. The Trump Wall would have to run 1,900+ miles and cost – conservatively – $15B. I’d also point out that significant stretches of the Trump Wall run through private property – something that never really concerned the Soviets.

            And it came with the authority to basically shoot on sight.

            I think we both know that it was far from completely effective. If you make it exceptionally dangerous to cross the border, the only people who are going to find a way to cross are the *ahem* highly motivated *ahem* people who are probably the very people you’re most worried about – as such, we can expect that the Berlin Trump Wall will stop 99% of the people just coming to work the fields and live a quiet life while basically doing nothing to stem drugs or your oh-so-feared t’rrists.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              The people who come here to work the field can do so legally. And many if not most do so. The problem is the number who do not return as they promised, when combined with those that sneak in.

              The meme that we will not have agricultural workers is nothing but crappola.

              A wall will obviously reduce the flow of ILLEGAL Aliens. The wall does not have to be a physical structure the entire length. I think even Trump supporters never believed we would build an actual structure the entire length of the border.

              But let’s assume your cost is correct. What is the cost to US society of having another million or more people per year being added to our “support systems”?? These people, even if made legal cannot support themselves on those systems, let along start to cover those already on them.

              So the argument made by some of the Dem party that they will create a net benefit is laughable. Maybe if we “reformed” the support systems but not as they are today.

              The whole system is a mangled mess. Almost every issue is linked to one or more issues and they all form the proverbial Gordian Knot we are struggling under.

              • Yep. Check out the establishment Rinos who oppose the immigration EO. Why? Because… donors>Chamber of Commerce> Wall Street> cheap labor. Trump is a Main Street man. Pass the popcorn.

              • Ummmmm……would anybody care to ask someone who knows what the “real wall” is going to be? I know someone who has seen the building plans, helped plan the surveillance, and had a say in patrolling techniques. this same person knows exactly where things are going to be located and what the new policies are going to be.,……and it is not classified. All you have to do is ask and say please and thank you.

                DPM….all you have to do is ARRRRGGGGHHH.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Colonel, please post to new article comments section, pretty please 🙂

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Question of the Day:

    As Americans, we have the Right to peacefully protest. It is an individual Right that we all have at our disposal.

    If a person is being paid to protest, does the individual Right to protest apply? Or is the Right of the person paying the protester apply?

  44. gmanfortruth says:
  45. So, we have this ICE guy and the lady from the DOJ who oppose the ban and had to be fired rather than quietly resign. Didja ever wonder if the Green card brou-ha-ha has been brought on by folks trying to deliberately sabotage the Administration? Just asking.

    • Evidence please….

      We have reached a very scary point if we can just make wild claims, absent any evidence (see: the lowly agents and employees denied access to attorneys in spite of a court order to create chaos and discredit Trump; Trump would have won the popular vote if it wasn’t for 3-5M illegal votes) and that is sufficient for people to believe and act as if it were true.

      • Pointing out that it is feasible. Done some infiltrating and disruption in my youth and it is a snap.

        DOJ lady could have just resigned with a press conference but instead, all on her own, forced them to fire her. That in turn, deliberately or otherwise allowed certain folks to compare her to Nixon firing Cox which I did see last night.

        Just because you are naive does not mean that everybody is. Sort of like believing all those protestors the other day were spontaneous. Round the world spontaneity no less!

        • So find evidence and make your case. I’m tired of the wild accusations that start to spread like wildfire and all of a sudden are simply believed to be true, evidence be damned.

          • Just speculation. Feel free to speculate as much as you want. Smoking guns are hard to find. ,matter of fact, even if you do, they will deny they are smoking. HANDS UP DON’T SHOOT! remember that little ditty? Saw that on Inauguration plus 1.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, where is a link about the court order violation? Or did I miss it?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Why do we need evidence for an opinion on something that may be simply possible.

        Not sure where you think some of this stuff becomes a wildfire. It certainly doesn’t spread from SUFA.

        By the way, you and Mathius commented on the false narratives about the Obama vs. Green Card suspension being spread on the conservative or right wing sites. I went looking yesterday at the “conservative” sites and found no such stories.

        Of course I didn’t go to info wars or those kinds of places. But I did find supposedly credible left leaning sites spreading the lie that Trump just banned Muslims from coming to America. Now I am not saying that the green card bs wasn’t out there. It had to start somewhere.

        I am just not sure the claim was as wide spread as you indicated.

        Besides, what are you guys doing spending time on the crazy sites instead of SUFA? 🙂

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Why do we need evidence for an opinion on something that may be simply possible.

          Because your idea of something that is possible carries with it no special power of forceable coercion.

          I think it’s possible that you are actually a shape shifting lizard person. As such, I demand that the government institute an invasive screening procedure amongst all residents of your state. You know, because I believe it.

          By the way, you and Mathius commented on the false narratives about the Obama vs. Green Card suspension being spread on the conservative or right wing sites.

          Mathius is an idiot. Ignore him.

          I am just not sure the claim was as wide spread as you indicated.

          It may surprise you to learn that the the right leaning info-tainment sources act as a megaphone for the most extreme and eye-catching of the left leaning news. As such, if an idiot on the left says something stupid, many right leaning sources pick up on it and make it sound like it’s mainstream on the left. Whereas the left will largely ignore it because, well, it’s one idiot.

          Similarly, the left acts, generally, the same way.

          Thus, when a right leaning voice calls it a Muslim ban or admits that he believes that’s the intent or what have you, the left leaning media will pick up on that and sensationalize it. Eventually, it will appear (to the left) as if it is a mainstream view (on the right).

          Click-bait, eye-catching headlines, confirmation bias, et cetera.

          The right loves to see the left as a single monolith – just one big block of 2-dimensional characters who march in lock-step and all believe the same thing. So, when some idiot on the left spouts off, the right will imagine that all of the left thinks that way.

          The same can be said of the left. It is human nature. Us-vs-them tribalism.

          We are all victims of it at times.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            I agree completely with your assessment of the megaphone and how it is currently working.

            The only part missed is that I don’t believe the crazy things are always the idea of a single idiot. I think there are groups of idiots who have figured out how to jerk the strings.

          • ” I think it’s possible that you are actually a shape shifting lizard person. ”

            He’s not?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Change Trump to Kasich and the results would be the same.

      • What results would be the same?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The current actions of the Democrats in DC.

          • I doubt that very much, but I’m willing to accept the trade if you are.

            • LOL

              And absolutely agreed.

              • For some reason, I read Kasich as Kucinich the first time and thought that Gman must be hitting the sauce a bit early in the day if he thinks Kucinish and Trump would be interchangeable.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Speaking of Kusinich, he was on TV an hour or so ago commenting on Obama speaking up against the immigration issue (in support of the refugees). Kusinich wisely stated that maybe Obama shouldn’t be speaking up about an issue that he had a huge hand in causing, which the Liberal media has not held him to task on.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The theory has proof, no thanks on the trade 🙂

              • The theory has no proof. At best, it might have some evidence to support it.

                But if it were so certain, you would agree to trading. I mean, after all, it the “results would be the same,” who cares, right?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Boycott the inaugural? Sound familiar? It happened to Bush too.

              • All depends whether you believe in populism or not. Going back to my misspent youth, I found as a member of the libertarian branch of YAF I had a lot in common with the SDS folk. It came down to HOW DO WE GET THERE? They believed in bombs, I did not.

  46. Has it occurred to anyone here that us living in self-isolating xenophobic nationalism is exactly what the t’rrists want?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Do you suggest we just let them come on in and do their thing?

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Yes.

        Unless you can show that a man is a danger to you, you have no grounds to impose on him because he might be.

        Besides, you lose sight of perspective. If you believe imposing on innocent men, women, and children is correct because, maybe, possibly, some percentage of them might commit acts of violence, then you should be comfortable extending that rational indefinitely. Vastly more Americans are killed by drunk drivers than terrorists. Therefore, because some percentage of drivers might possibly commit a crime and hurt someone, we should require everyone to pass a breathalyzer test before starting the car.

        And, you know, now that I’m thinking about it, some gun owners commit crimes with their guns. So we should confiscate all guns so that the small percentage who might, maybe, possibly, commit acts of violence cannot do so.

        Because, if protecting people from a small minority means stripping rights and freedoms from otherwise innocent individuals, where does that madness stop?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Drunk drivers are already being required to take breath tests before driving. Come on Pirate, keep up with the new tech.

          Don’t need to remove guns, just do background checks on gun owners and register the guns………. oh damn!!

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            No, no.

            Everyone is capable of drunk driving. Not just people who are a proven risk. Therefore, we should impose on the freedoms of everyone. Right? Right?

            A known terrorist violent criminal is like a convicted drunk driver. You have already established that they represent a danger to yourself and others. As such, you are justified in imposing upon his freedom to protect yourself*. However, if you are not a known violent criminal or drunk driver, then no one has the right to impose upon you.

            You see, you impose a positive test for one group and a negative test for the other, and that’s ridiculous. You say, for Americans, you are innocent until proven guilty. But for non Americans, you are guilty until proven innocent. And that is not freedom. That is a double-standard. That is, as our illustrious and long lost friend Black Flag was apt to say, Freedom for me, but not for thee.

            *terms and conditions apply.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              DPM

              Once the tech. is readily available I bet it becomes a standard “requirement” on EVERY Automobile It will be pushed by the Mad Mothers and the Congress will not have the strength to say no.

              You are misapplying your argument to Aliens. There is no presumption of guilt. You are not stopped an questioned because you are assumed to be guilty. You are stopped to review who you say you are and your reasons for coming here. Same as you would do for someone who showed up at your door.

              People are not turned away due to presumed guilt but perceived risk. Just as you would turn away the Jehovah Witness who poses a risk to your sanity on the day you wanted some peace an quiet.

              And yes, those citizens of a Nation State have the Right to impose upon you when you come to visit their country. We do not live in an Anarchist world because it is not in man’s nature. And if it is not in man’s nature then your theory of unrestricted movement is invalid as well.

              Now it may come to pass that mankind gets over his love of boundaries and DECIDES to choose free movement as an expanded “privilege”. But that privilege will come from decisions made, not as a right born from our existence. That right was lost when more than one family unit developed on the planet.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                You are stopped to review who you say you are and your reasons for coming here.

                They are free and innocent (until prove otherwise) human beings with an absolute and autonomous right of movement. You do not get to decide where they go, nor review their identity, nor demand to know their reasons.

                You get this privilege no more so than they get it of you, which is to say, not at all.

                Same as you would do for someone who showed up at your door.

                That’s the mistake you – repeatedly – make.

                It’s not YOUR door. If they come to, literally, your door, you may demand what you will. But they seem the right the freedom to exercise their right of free movement. To live as freemen (and women).

                You seem to imagine that you own things you do not. You own your land. You own your goods. You own yourself. That is it.

                You do not know the land where they would roam without harming you. You do not own the roads they would travel to find meaningful work. You do not own the businesses which would hire them. You do not own the homes they would buy with the fruits of their labor.

                You own yourself and your property. You don’t own this “country” just because some piece of paper says that lines on a map have power overriding the freedoms of those without papers granting them “citizenship.”

                People are not turned away due to presumed guilt but perceived risk

                Again, you mistake. You have no right to impose because of “perceived risk.”

                What kind of hogwash is that?

                You get to impose because of KNOWN RISK.

                That is altogether a much higher standard.

                I can’t shoot you because I think you might be a threat. I can shoot you because I know you are a threat to me. Yet you say you can block them because they might be a “perceived” threat. Nonsense.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                And yes, those citizens of a Nation State have the Right to impose upon you when you come to visit their country.

                I recognize no such right.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                We do not live in an Anarchist world because it is not in man’s nature. And if it is not in man’s nature then your theory of unrestricted movement is invalid as well.

                I would say that your recognition of my rights has no bearing on what my rights are.

                If the rights of others are subject to your whims, then your rights are subject to the whims of others. It cuts both ways.

                Mathius might suggest that you have a right to a border checkpoint – where everyone is logged entering or exiting, but where only KNOWN THREATS can be prevented access. But, again, he’s an idiot, so what does he know?

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                free movement as an expanded “privilege”.

                It is not a “privilege.” It is a fundamental human right.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                But that privilege will come from decisions made, not as a right born from our existence.

                Nonsense. The “privilege” exists and is – as stated, a fundamental human right. That the government imposes, via threat of violence, to restrict the exercise of that right changes nothing.

                That right was lost when more than one family unit developed on the planet.

                Nonsense. Rights are neither created nor destroyed.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              DPM

              I know you do not recognize any of these human constructs or constraints.

              That is why your world ONLY exists in your mind. Why you are a fictional character that lives in Mathius’ basement when not sailing in the ether surrounding the Gulf of Mexico and the Republic of Texas.

              The ONLY natural right you have is to exist according to your nature. Everything beyond that has been constructed by mankind in search of a better way to live and to further existence. But each of these “ideas” are limited by the Nature of Mankind.

              Now try to explain what it is about Human Nature that dictates these “rights” you claim exist.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Let us not impose on those who would kill us then, that pretty much sums up the Democratic Party position.

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Let us not impose on the innocent who mean us no harm because some tiny portion of them might possibly maybe secretly be violent criminals.

            Because we are so weak and cowardly that we will commit any act of repression and cruelty so long as it spares us the slightest bit from our shattered lives of crippling fear of The Other who seeks to do us harm.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Point of order. I don’t see anyone proposing we live in an self isolated xenophobic country.

      I do not see establishing a better vetting process for people traveling here who come from areas where Islam radicals and militants are being recruited and trained as anything but prudent.

      And yes, that is exactly what an Anarchist society would do. If threatened by a Statist group nearby they would certainly establish Militia check points to question those coming to visit or live. I Guarantee It!!!

    • A wee bit late for xenophobia. You are engaging in hyperbole.

      Besides I am not afraid of Xena, the warrior Princess.

  47. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Trump just issued an Executive Order: America has always been at war with Eastasia.

  48. gmanfortruth says:

    @Buck

    I meant with respect to citizens and green card holders….

    Travel at your own peril. I want to profile, so if your asking me if a person of Middle eastern decent travels to a country that is known for radicalizing Muslim’s and then returns should be scrutinized, then the answer is yes. But profiling is somehow bad, so if we can’t profile then NO. Just let them come in a kill people as they have been doing the last 8 years.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I want to profile

      Well I don’t.

      I don’t want to impose a burden on people whose only crime is travelling to places you don’t like while having brown skin.

      Just let them come in a kill people as they have been doing the last 8 years.

      That is (one of the many) price for freedom.

      You claim to worship at the shrine of freedom. But what you mean is Freedom for me, but not for thee.

      Are you so blinded by your fear that you cannot see that you are imposing on innocent men, women, and children who have done you no harm, who intend you no harm, because some tiny subset might possibly maybe intend to commit an act of violence?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        ………for having brown skin?

        Flagged for personal foul.

        Do you realize we have also “profiled” WHITE people from Russia, Germany and the Baltic States at various times. Heck, we still do.

        When the rest of the world embraces the same concepts of Freedom and Liberty as we do then I will become more concerned about “freedom for thee”.

        And FEAR has nothing to do with it. REASON is the governing factor. And REASON dictates prudence when prudence makes sense. And when there is an increasing number of people who wish to do harm here or disrupt our way of life, then prudence is dictated.

        If you want to discuss better ways to exercise such prudence then fine. But to deny it based on an Anarchist view of the world will get us nowhere but having more Radicals elected to high office.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t fear terrorism, I don’t live in an urban high target area and I am able to defend myself should one show up shooting. You, my young friend, would simply sacrifice yourself and your family to their violence.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          Point of order. He would not sacrifice himself. He would become a victim. And then his family would scream at the politicians for “not doing enough to prevent this crime”.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            If a person is killed by a known threat, he/she is not a victim. He/she is simply stupid for not eliminating the threat. Think an Old West gunfight. You know the other guy is going to draw and shoot you, there are several options and we will give them names. The Democratic method….do nothing, smile, sing and get shot dead. The G-man method, shoot first and kill the other guy before he can kill you and the devout religious method, run like hell and pray (which may simply end with a bullet in the back).

            The only victim is the one that runs from the fight.

  49. Thoughts? Comments??

    • gmanfortruth says:

      What should we expect from NYT. Useless rag and probably wouldn’t even make good toilet paper 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I did not attack Buck at all. I simply stated a fact about a media outlet whose views are far Left and admit as much.

          • The 5-yard penalty was ad hominem against the Times (and the author), not Mr. Buck.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Maybe you should have thrown a different Fallacy flag instead of ad-hominem.

              The fallacy of discounting the argument due to the source.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m protesting the Liberal media by NOT going to their websites. Namely, I refuse to go to HuffPo, NYT, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and a few others.

              However, just for fun, I do go to The National Memo just to see what kind of stupid shit Liberals are being fed (and that site is full of shit). Having been going there on and off for some time, the comments section is amazingly empty compared to pre-election. There used to be hundreds of comments under articles, now, lucky to see 20 under one of ten articles. Sadly, there are people that actually believe the shit that’s being written there.

      • Ah yes, the old – FAKE NEWS!!!!!

        Note that I did link to an editorial…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I never claimed it was any kind of news, I just claimed it wasn’t worth reading. 🙂

          Where is this story about not following the court orders about access to lawyers that was not followed?

          • Excerpt from an article on Slate (stop discounting articles simply because of source), written by Lithwick (who has been an absolutely excellent reporter on legal issues over the years):

            At about 9 p.m. Saturday night, Leonie Brinkema, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, issued a temporary restraining order that expressly provided the U.S. government must “permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport.” Despite that order, throughout the evening it was reported that attorneys still hadn’t been let into the areas in which the detainees were being held by CBP.

            From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-feds-violated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf

            Google is your friend, sir!

          • But it doesn’t matter what I link to since you will automatically discount the source….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              OK, I read it. If they didn’t follow the law then they should be dealt with accordingly. Then again, maybe the boss used selective enforcement and Dulles was selected to ignore the court order.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      Bannon is not running the show UNLESS he and Trump are totally on the same page.

      Trump’s ego would not allow him to let Bannon run the show.

      I also think there is much hyperbole on what it is that Bannon actually believes. He is labeled an Alt-right wingnut because he wrote an editorial explaining who they are and why they do what they do. And that is not really a white supremacist or even a white nationalist movement.

      Although it appears that these two “groups” are now trying to tie their wagon to the Alt-right because the Alt-right has the guts to say things the white nationalists like said. But would be ridiculed or shun if they did say them.

      What are your thoughts on my observation that what is called the “right wing” is openly chastised and shunned but those spouting communist and fascist slogans from the left are not. We cannot openly discuss the positive role of “white people” in growing this country without getting hammered in the media, but it is OK to revel in the idea that the US will soon be a “minority white” country.

      Frankly I find what is happening very bizarre and disconcerting. Which is why I think the real story of the past couple of months is not Trump winning or his polices. I think it is the reaction and how that reaction has erupted globally. This is not a spontaneous uprising fueled by people sitting around and talking to friends on social media. The media is being used, but the triggers are not coming from you and I, or people like us.

      • The concern is a political advisor’s appointment to these committees and the downgrading of other military and intelligence advisors. I figured you would likewise be a bit critical (or at least questionable) of such a move.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          I understand the intelligence and military advisers were quickly restored to the Sec. Council. I am concerned about why they were missed or dropped in the first place. So you figured correctly.

          I have no issue with a presidential adviser attending these meetings, if they have clearance. Having POTUS’s buddy there assures that POTUS is getting an accurate story from the Council members or chair.

          And yes, I have seen cases where that was not happening. As the third wheel I had to embarrass three federal agencies in front of a U.S. Senator, once upon a time. When together they had one story. When meeting separately they had a another, or should I say three stories.

          For the record, I have real concerns about this Bannon character. I find it hard to believe he is sitting next to POTUS. But then I still have a hard time believing Trump is POTUS.

          • “For the record, I have real concerns about this Bannon character. I find it hard to believe he is sitting next to POTUS. But then I still have a hard time believing Trump is POTUS” — you and me both!!

            I do have some concern about a political advisor being granted status as a permanent member of these committees, as opposed to simply being in attendance at some of the meetings to be POTUS’ ears.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Are you going to provide evidence of the refusal to legal council directed by the court orders?

              • Look above. I posted two articles. You will dismiss both out of hand, so not sure why I bothered.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I read it and replied above. In all truthfulness, if any government employee denied the Rights of a citizen, then there should be some punishment. If these people were following orders, then the person giving the orders should be held to account. But as you said above, it’s a complicated issue and I doubt that we have all the pertinent facts.

                The HuffPo article also had a MSNBC video on the subject. MSNBC has a history of kneejerk reactions to situations that are often proven wrong. MSNBC is off the cliff Left leaning, so I take anything they report with a grain of salt….err….the whole salt shaker 🙂

    • Didn’t read that yet, but I came across this piece some time ago, about and by Bannon that explains his worldview. Give it a second to get rolling. It’s an interview by the Human Dignity Institute during a conference at the Vatican. It’s pretty long so grab a seat and a coffee. https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.hmKqBOlWW#.kpKGzEQDD

    • Ya mean like Valarie Jarrett?

    • Intersting editorial……..

      First: I discount it because it is the NYT,,,,,just as I do the Dallas Morning News ( owned by the Times )….not that said….on to the editorial.

      I discount it because of the “Ban”….I really would like someone to prove there is a BAN on Muslims. Ban, meaning none now or in the future.

      On further……I see him the same as Valerie Jarrett. Very dangerous. Everyone knows that VJ ran the whihte house and the POTUS…….I do not see him as doing anything different than any person in power..trying to consolidate their power.**** Personally, I do not trust Bannon at all. I trust him as far as I trust the NYT, HUFFPO, or Daily Kos….etc. ( I do not trust the ultra right wing reports as well because none…..NONE……see the world in reality.) I simply do not trust Bannon.

      Damn,,,,,got off topic…..(sips clandestine DR Pepper despite dr orders)…..

      Comments you ask for……The jury on President Trump is still out with me…..I like some of the things he is doing…I tolerate some of the things….and I question a couple. However, I do not know of any prudent businessman that listens to only one source, much less put his faith in just one. I have no problems with having as many people as he wants on the security council. I would have no problem with you or DPM or even MAthius being on the security council. (well, maybe Mathius, he is, after all, a Wall Street Junkie) ……but onward. Where I would have the problem, is if his Security Council is just a show piece and he does not listen to all concerned. I do not think Trump would do that……BUT……………………..jury is still out. I am watching very closely and keeping close tabs on the Texas issues….I pick up a lot from that.

      ******power consolidation is a normal thing. But even Trump is not going to let someone gain power that he cannot control.

  50. gmanfortruth says:

    I have heard from 3 different Government people that the Trump immigration EO was vetted by the DoJ and was declared to be legally compliant. If this is true, then why did the acted AG do what she did….politics?

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    QUESTION

    Does anyone know how the exchange of currency happens for foreigners working in the US?

    When a programmer from India, or a laborer from Mexico, gets paid in US dollars, are those dollars converted in the US before being sent home, or are they converted after being sent home.

    I have read that US dollars are sent home in Mexico and thus they make their way into the Mexican Govt. currency exchange. To be used to buy things in dollar denominations.

    If this is true of India and other nations then we are exporting our dollars to other nations via work visas, along with all the inflation we have attached to them. As well as the threat of default if we clean up our fiscal house.

    • Generally speaking, if you live somewhere like Mexico or India, I would think it makes more sense to hold dollars where possible.

      In the case of Mexico, where the exchange rate is at all time lows (or highs, depending on your perspective), holding dollars and converting as-needed is basically getting free interest on your money.

      That said, it poses what we in the biz call FX-risk – that is, the currency can move against you and devalue your store of wealth.

      Since, in Mexico at least, almost everything outside of tourist towns accepts exclusively Pesos, you’d want to hold Pesos in order to, you know, buy things.

      So, were I a thinking immigrant sending money home, I would wire dollars. I would instruct my loved ones to hold onto dollars in their bank (or mattress) and convert only as needed.

      • So, were I a thinking immigrant sending money home, I would wire dollars. I would instruct my loved ones to hold onto dollars in their bank (or mattress) and convert only as needed.

        Ok, the Colonel has to admit that Mathius is correct in Mexico. We send only dollars. We pull the dollars when we need cash and transfer it a Mexican Bank….the dollar goes a long way down there right now.

        Day laborers, usually convert their dollars at the border. They get hosed on either side. What we like to do is pay our help in pesos. We can convert 1 for 1 as a business whereas the peons can only convert .80 cents on the dollar. For example, a Mexican local can go to a local bank with one dollar USD and get 18 pesos…..even though the exchange rate is 21.8 pesos. Their own people steal from them. So…..we can get 21.8 pesos for our USD as a business….and we pay our help 21.8 pesos.

        There are ‘Cambianos” on every street corner in Mexico….you can exchange anything up to a certain amount. But…….like check cashing companies in the US….they get a hunk of it.

        • Colonel, you’re closer to Mexico than I am these days… given the run on the ccy, are they seeing any real inflation yet?

          • No sir…….but it depends on where……in San Miguel Allende, the inflation is running about 4%…but the effect is exacerbated by the fall of the peso and the concurrent rise in petrol is affecting the actual rate……we estimate that the real rate is about 8%. Mexico measures its inflation rate very much like the US… based on the consumer price index (CPI). Like anywhere, we may get more pesos per USD but the common man has no USD and job wages have not kept up. As a visitor, you are ok…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Now the next logical question in the chain of custody.

          WHERE do all the dollars go, once the workers convert them to the native currency?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          that is what my friends did. They wired money home in dollars. The family back home never went near the ”official” banks. They used entirely what the “Colonel” called Cambrianos. Yes they took a cut, but was far less than what the official State exchange and banks charged which then “the profit/gouge” obviously flowed to the patron in the hacienda. More money actually flowed into the general economy via the “underground” than through the official routes. THis process had to be winked at by the State, because if they clamped down the next action would be them swinging from a lamp post. The people will be very ingenious to bypass controls that limit whether they survive or not. The underground economy in the USSR was massive…they brought goods to the people that the government in their top to bottom planning could not react to nor provide for.

          The more we here try to control things here as an excuse to protect against terrorism and money usage the “PEOPLE” with their masses will be one step or more ahead of the single bureaucrat in DC. Why is there this huge push and experiments to get rid of cash and move more and more to electronic banking……every transaction within the bank is captured and also after with the systems set up with the government surveilence….even the thieves are better……no big bank jobs with masks and guns…..just get computer savy and you will make millions and the odds of getting caught are miniscule when you operate out of Dubai or Lagos.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      In all of my travels I have had to exchange currency in the country I was going to. So, my best answer is that US dollars are converted in the country they are sent.

      • You can – absolutely – convert to foreign ccy domestically. We do this every year in anticipation of my annual pilgrimage to Mexico.

        Because the money-changers there are going to take a big bite out of you, we always FX a couple thousand dollars before we leave with our bank (requires a call-ahead – this is not a walk-in affair).

        Even if you don’t want to go that route, every international airport has a money-changing booth for incoming foreign ccy to be converted to USD, but they’re perfectly happy to FX it the other way and give you Pesos or anything else.

        I’ve also seen them in low-income high-immigrant neighborhoods.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Cool. The last time I went out of country, you were probably still in diapers. Things change I reckon 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I know you can exchange money on both locations. I was just wondering if anyone knew how the majority of money was handled by foreigners working here in the USA.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Ignore please. My computer initially showed your comment in response to my question. Now it shows in response to Gman.

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “You’re sounding very…. statist, Mr. Citizen. 🙂”

    By the standard set of DPM, Elisheba and Black Flag, I admit to my guilt.

    By the standard of you and everyone else at SUFA, maybe except gman, I am a flaming radical Libertarian lunatic.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You have been amending your statist label as of late. Time will tell 😀

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Not at all. I am STILL a radical right wing Liberal.

        It was my kin who tried to establish a country based on the principles of individual freedom, liberty and justice. This included BOUNDARIES and control over immigration. They had the luxury of inhabiting a land with lots and lots of space and resources. All that was needed to absorb more immigrants was to displace or eliminate the existing inhabitants.

        It also included Govt. As I have stated before, their mistake was not in first establishing a core set of principles, morals and/or ethics on which the new Govt. could stand. Thus it has been more easily eroded than it should have been.

        I see border security and immigration as part of the Govt.s responsibility to defend the nation and carry out policies for the good of all Americans. Immigration laws should thus affect us all equally. In these times that means applying some type of quota to make sure our systems are not overwhelmed.

        Now, if we could remove some of those systems, like welfare, we could probably handle more immigrants. But that is tied to our neighbor’s policies. We cannot allow more immigrants to come here if they are not free to return when things don’t work out.

        Because once a large segment of the population is hurting those in power will give them free cookies. Either to win their votes or keep from being hung in the town square.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m in agreement on the role of government when it comes to immigration and border security. I have no problem with immigrants who come here and join the team, so to speak. Sadly, life don’t allow for open borders because people want to kill us because of our way of life and/or religions. The Left can’t seem to grasp that.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            I hate to be so cynical but if the left wasn’t getting votes out of open borders they would be screaming to shut it down. Like when the labor unions that made things were so strong. Instead of the service employees union.

  53. gmanfortruth says:

    New article is posted 🙂

%d bloggers like this: