The Knee Jerk Media

kneeOne of the things that engaging with everyone here is that I have learned alot about the media and how they tend to handle things.  When NBC altered a 911 call made by George Zimmerman in an attempt to make him out to be a racist, it changed how I see and feel about the media, especially the Left leaning media.  When the entire media went batshit crazy over the Zimmerman issue, only to later find out the whole thing was based on a LIE, we should have all learned that the media will act in a knee jerk manner on issues without getting all the facts.   This seems to be true today concerning the medias handling of the immigration issue.  The good thing is that WE tend to get the facts straight at some point in time!  With that said, let’s continue!



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Bringing forward for comment:

    d13thecolonel says:
    January 31, 2017 at 4:34 pm (Edit)

    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… 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… 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… will soon be a fact of life. Do I like it? Not particularly…but given today’s world… is probably going to get wor

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Thought for the Day:

    If Trump found the cure for Cancer, Liberal’s would protest…….and get paid! BWAHAHAHA!

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    Getting a big kick out of watching politicians and political pundits stepping on their prior arguments and protestations now that roles are reversed.

    And as I think Gman said yesterday, they don’t hesitate, blink or show any signs of embarrassment over turning inside out. HYPOCRITE thy name is Congress.

    One other note. All of Trump’s supposed problems with rolling out his policies are due to one thing. He is NOT A POLITICIAN and the guys advising him are NOT POLITICIANS. This was never more evident than last night listening to Karl Rove explain how it should have been done and Trump would have look great. The only difference was fluff, appearance, optics and political opportunism. Nothing of substance.

    Just making it look better so the “opposition” couldn’t make him look bad.

    It is a sad testament to where our political system has gotten. But it is also real. If Trump does not learn to play the game he may implement his policies, and maybe even help the country, but he will lose in the end. Because half of America is hooked on optics and not substance.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The rollout of Trump’s immigration Executive Order, as i see it, was carried out exactly as as he campaigned and promised. He will not tell the enemy our plans. This seems to have played out that way, although I believe the Liberal’s seriously overreacted and over played their hand. The so called “chaos” was mostly caused BY THEM. Having what turned out to be a small percentage of travelers inconvenienced as a result isn’t chaos, it’s actually amazing, considering the roll out of Obamacare was a national clusterfuck, despite the considerable amount of prep time.

      The end game winner will be Trump on this issue. He will come out the clear winner as the facts unfold.

      • In one sense, Trump absolutely tells our enemies our plans. As one article I came across noted, the EO specifically leaves open the door to be applied to other countries in the future. Knowing this, wouldn’t this give a ‘heads up’ to terrorists from other countries (for instance, Saudi Arabia) to make plans to get in to the US while they can?

        It was an interesting point raised that I hadn’t thought of. Your thoughts?

        Oh, and not to ignore, to not notify our enemies does not mean one needs to fail to discuss implementation with agencies…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The implementation with other agencies has already been clarified and proven, by even our own D13. The Liberal media are against this and will play their idiotic game as usual, but they have no credibility now, so…so what? They are not relevant anymore. But on to your point about the wording of the EO.

          EO specifically leaves open the door to be applied to other countries in the future. Knowing this, wouldn’t this give a ‘heads up’ to terrorists from other countries (for instance, Saudi Arabia) to make plans to get in to the US while they can?

          OK, let’s close the border to all of the Muslim countries then…..except that isn’t really necessary. At this point in time, Muslim terrorists could be legal citizens of France or Great Britain. What the media idiots are missing are WHY are these countries being chosen, while leaving some 46 other Muslim nations off the list, including the 6 largest? That answer is ignored by the Liberal media because it makes them foolish. 5 of the 6 do not have effective functional central governments and the 6th is a Theocracy that is well known as a huge terror sponsor (Iran). I bet none of the articles you read mentioned that, did they?

          • Ok, so what is the reason for these 7 countries then? Why is Saudi Arabia (see, 9/11) not included?

            And no offense to the good Colonel, but I need something more than his say so on the implementation issue.

            • An eye witness first person account from an officer and a gentleman is not good enough?

              • Again – I greatly respect the Colonel and we have a history of reaching compromise on many issues. But no, his account is not sufficient without anything further. I have read nothing to corroborate his account in either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ media, both of which have criticized Trump on (at the very least) implementation.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I hope the word of the DHS will suffice, todays press conference

              • Funny since I don’t recall you ever taking the Obama admin at its word for anything.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I didn’t. I’m not sold on this one either, but what other source would you accept? I can post links to Russia Today, Pravda, most British and few other sites, what would be good for you?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Ok, so what is the reason for these 7 countries then?

              I gave a reason, no functional governments. However, I must refer to the Obama administration, as they picked all of this a couple years ago.

              • True, the Obama admin had highlighted these countries but for a slightly different purpose dealing with the visa waiver program. Why didn’t the Trump admin expand the countries a bit to cover at least those actually involved in past terrorism? Just curious here.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Great question. My best guess is that we have better intelligence in countries where the problems have been noted that are not on the current list. I fully believe that Saudi should be on the list along with a few others, but I’m not privy to the criteria.

            • No offense taken, Buck. Can only report what we have gone through and are currently going through this very moment….I know what is happening in my llittle sphere.

              • So Iunderstood and I do listen to what you write and give it a certain amount of credence I don’t give to most people. But on this I do need a bit more in the form of corroboration.

                I know you take no offense and still await your eventual trip to NYC for a real steak. I’ll go see myself out now…

        • Yes. it actually does, Buck. Only those agencies with a need to know would be in the loop.

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    When thinking about all the reasons to book a travel agent, abortion doesn’t necessarily come to mind, but that’s just exactly what Natalie St. Claire does: “help women navigate the roads (and the rules)” to terminate their children, according to Yahoo News.

    St. Claire’s newfound job came as a result of pro-life initiatives in Texas, with “more than half of the 40-plus abortion clinics” closing due to passage of House Bill 2 last June.

    “More than 40% of Texas women lived in a county without a provider as of 2014,” reports Yahoo. “A quarter of those women surveyed lived more than two hours — 139 miles — from the nearest provider.”

    Since traveling those distances severely increase the cost of an abortion, St. Claire and her nonprofit Fund Texas Choice saw a sharp increase in women seeking her skills as an “abortion travel agent.”

    Why am I having a hard time believing this story?

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump’s SCOTUS nominee is both strategic and will set well with those who voted for Trump. Good choice as far as I have read and heard.

    • I still believe that the GOP set an absolutely horrendous precedent with the Garland nomination.

      That being said, Gorsuch is clearly qualified for SCOTUS and, while I disagree with much of his judicial philosophy and his conservatism, he should be confirmed. I’ve always believed the Lresident should be given broad latitude in his nominations.

      Of course, this shouldn’t be an issue as Garland should have been confirmed…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I still believe that the GOP set an absolutely horrendous precedent with the Garland nomination.

        This isn’t unprecedented at all, historically speaking. At the same time Democrats had already threatened the same action when Bush was President, I’m guessing none of the article s you have read mentioned that… well.. 😉

        • Oh please G. The action by the GOP was completely unprecedented, regardless of a single comment by one Dem that never came to pass.

          It set a horrible precedent that will result in you strongly denouncing the Dems for their actions down the road. Yet you will not see the hypocrisy. SIGH

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Negative Sir. It’s happened numerous times in our nation where a SCOTUS was nominated in the final year of a Presidential term and no action taken:

            I would fully expect the Dems to act in the same manner, and have no doubt they would have under Bush, don’t you? One thing that I do understand is giving back as one gets. After 8 years of Obama, I’m expecting a whole lot of that, and maybe even worse. Just because I may like it doesn’t mean I’ll think it’s the right thing to do.

            • So you’re ok with going back to 1881 (the last time there was ‘no action’)as precedent? Even absent knowing any facts surrounding that event?

            • Hey did some quick Googling – in 1881, because Matthews was nominated so close to the end of term, no action was taken. But the incoming President renominated him and he was confirmed.

              • By ‘so close’ I mean after the new President was elected, just prior to the inauguration. A bit different don’t you think?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Quite correct. Let’s look at the numbers Since Nelson was confirmed in 1845. Excluding Matthews, who was confirmed after the re-election, 12 nominees have been put forth, no action was taken on 5, 3 were withdrawn, 3 confirmed and 1 declined. While I’m sure that there are good solid political reasons for all of this, it is somewhat rare that a last year appointment happens and is confirmed historically speaking. My premise is that none of this is “unprecedented”, but quite a historical event in the rare times it occurs. That’s all I was trying to say. Not a big deal, considering that it has only happened once in our lifetime, but that doesn’t make it unprecedented, just rare. Excluding Matthews, only 24 nominations have occurred in the last year of a Presidency. A rare event in our history.

              • G – you need to look into the facts of each case and the ultimate outcome. As I noted, despite the rare occurrence (though 24 times is not exactly rare), the last time this happened was well over 100 years ago and with very different circumstances. I maintain the GOP set a very bad precedent here and one which you will be denouncing the DEMs over in the future.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                By ‘so close’ I mean after the new President was elected, just prior to the inauguration. A bit different don’t you think? Yes, Matthews is an exception, I do agree. Looking at the overall numbers, excluding Matthews, Only 6 of 24 nominations were confirmed in our history. 4 of the 6 were confirmed when the majority was same party as President. That means that in our history, of all nominees put forth in the last year of a Presidency (excluding Matthews), 24, only 4 were confirmed with the majority of Senate was same Party as the President. The odds were never in your favor my friend .

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, there have only been 3 in the last 100 years. None were confirmed. But, I fully expect the Dems to do the very same thing, should they ever get elected to a point they can.

              • G, do some research. How many times has a President nominated for SCOTUS in early months of his last year (prior to the election), and absolutely no action has been taken. I believe that prior to Garland, it happened only once before in the early 1800s. And I don’t pretend to know the facts or circumstances surrounding that one other.

                Garland deserved to have been at the very least questioned and voted on if not confirmed.

      • Yes, the GOP set a precedent, of sorts….and it will inevitably bite them in the ass just as invoking the nuclear option is now going to bite the Dems in the butt….all pretense of statesmanship has been thrown out the window. There are no statesmen left and that is unfortunate.

        • All too true.

          • It is called the “Biden Rule” for a reason.


            Why do you insist on “it is different”. With you and Matt, it seems it is always different if Obama does it (7 countries) (bombing) (invasion) destabilization) provocation) or for that matter Clinton or the democrats in general. There is always a way to weasel out the D position. That is NOT being honest.

            We have Schumer stating we should have harsh vetting on tape. We have the AG lady on tape saying the AG’s job is to support the President yet somehow these are different. Gimmie a break.You may be fooling yourself but I see the double standard as dishonest.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              We have Schumer stating we should have harsh vetting on tape. We have the AG lady on tape saying the AG’s job is to support the President yet somehow these are different.

              They are not different at all. I and others have said many times that there is little difference between the Rs and the Ds. I see it like the WWE, all bullshit to play the people and hold their particular belts (positions). They are disingenuous, liars and frauds, and that is exactly why Trump won the Presidency. Had the Dem’s had a non-establishment candidate, they likely would have won. But they had a corrupt establishment puppet.

  6. Ooooh, new topic – Gorsuch!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m curious to see if those Democrat Senators who voted for him in 06 will reverse course this time around. With that said, the Liberal attack machine is churning…..and something negative is already posted on some Liberal site.

      • It’s funny to watch you criticize the ‘liberal attack machine’ but ignore the role of the GOP in completely disrupting the process.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          They didn’t disrupt the process, they played politics, just like the Dems would have done, and you know this. Please do not pretend to be naive, you are far smarter than that.

          • I sincerely doubt the Dems would have refused to move forward in the same manner. Call me naive, but I do sincerely doubt it, and also was extremely surprised to see the GOP do just that.

            • Yes the Dems would have held hearings, stalled, and finally voted down the nominee. Same difference but with a lot of wasted time.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              What is good about videos is they are forever and it’s caught on tape…..they most certainly would have. I believe one of them was our recent VP and our current Senate minority elephant tear person.

              • A video of one Sebator making some statement does not mean much. As you know Senators on both sides of the aisle are very quick to spout off nonsense.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                So true. But I’ll just agree with you and the Colonel and call it a night, there are no Statesmen anymore.

          • Is not playing politics a disruption? Washington has been reduced to tit for tat……Garland would not have made it…..I do not know why they didnt do a simple up and down vote….they owned the vote anyway. Garland is a moderate who is probably where he needs to stay.

            However, I do like Gorsuch. He leans conservative but he also follows law without legislating from the bench. I do not think he will have any problem being confirmed. I do not think that he follows any party line at all. From what I have read, both dems and repubs like him and have characterized him as fair and considerate and shows a willingness to listen to both sides.

            What say you Buck?

            Oh, I have not forgotten to run down the source of the briefing….I have not seen the lad yet.

            • And I say this from a judge that sits on the 10th circuit and lives in Denver…….LOL.

            • ” I do not think that he follows any party line at all. From what I have read, both dems and repubs like him and have characterized him as fair and considerate and shows a willingness to listen to both sides.”

              Wait – are we talking about Garland here? Because this is how most described Garland before he was nominated.

              I may disagree with Gorsuch and he certainly wouldn’t be my choice, but as I said before, he deserves to be confirmed based on everything I know about him. But the same can be said about Garland. Politics at its worst.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You wonder why the R’s didn’t give Garland an up or down vote?

              Because McConnell can’t control his party. He has two to four Senators who go rogue every time a critical vote comes along. Like the Affordable Care Act.

              I am betting he didn’t think he could assure a down vote so he stalled and ran out the clock.

              But since you are one to play the game to win, what did he really lost by the move? The Dems will never give in and have historically outplayed the R’s at this game. They invented “Borking”. They will assassinate the character of anyone to get what they want and then claim the R’s started it.

              So will his action really set off a war? Or are the Dems just going to use it as an excuse and would do the same anyway. Based on my experience I say the latter.

              Now I think they should have voted. But I think I know why they did not. And that was inability to control their own party members. Hell, I’d bet Hatch himself would have voted yes for Garland.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Buck,

    The 3 in the last 100 years were 2 withdrawn and 1 no action. Hoping not to get too confusing. It is rather telling how our lifespan has changed over these last 100 or so years, as compared to the past.

  8. The Wall in Mexico….

    First of all, Let’s clear one thing up…..Texas has 1,254 miles of border, of which only 100 miles is actually fenced. The physical plans call for only 158 miles to be actually fenced. The fences are not designed to keep anyone out, they are designed to redirect traffic flow. The fences only reside in the large cities of Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, and El Paso. There are only plans for 58 additional miles of fencing to be built. All in and around the cities. That equates to only 158 miles along a 1,254 mile Texas border. Trump has never intended a physical fence. Fences do not keep people out and everyone, including Trump, and every second grader in the world knows this. They are intended to redirect traffic.
    In Texas alone, of the 1,254 miles of border, 1,096 miles is privately owned and that includes the Big Bend National Park…..which is run by Texas. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has already put the Trump administration on notice that there will be no Federal Government takeover of private land. The land owners have also said they will not allow fencing along the border on their private land. The land owners will, along with the Texas National Guard and the DPS and the Texas Rangers will patrol private land. In addition, Greg Abbott has said that under the agreement with the United States when Texas became a State, the US border is the center of the Rio Bravo. The United States border does NOT extend into Texas and Abbott intends to enforce this. Governor Greg Abbott has already said….do not bring any Nationalist ideas into Texas.
    This means that the fence along Texas is virtual and has always intended to be virtual and everyone knows it. Our border is now patrolled completely by the Border Patrol, which is relegated to the cities and have no authority over privately owned land. The State of Texas patrols the Rio with old fashioned gun boats manned by the Texas Department of Public Safety and financed by Texas. The river is also covered by drones 24/7. The Texas forts trail (look it up) has been activated. It is a series of old Texas Forts back in the 1800’s that were located in specific spots along raiding trails from marauders and Indians. They are now manned with National Guard and helicopters and mechanized infantry to respond to the various border areas.
    In addition, GSR units are deployed with ground surveillance radar. Listening posts are situated on private land. In the Big Bend Park, it is constantly patrolled by armed guardsmen and all campers are warned to be armed. Furthermore, the sky is also patrolled by the Texas Department of Public Safety in small aircraft. As I previously reported, every single rancher…..EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has been provided satellite communications equipment and is in constant contact with the National Guard. Each Department is tied into the communications and no separate frequencies are used. And now, since Trump issued the new orders, the US Border Patrol is tied to the same communications…unlike California and Arizona. Cameras and motion activated sound systems are all along the border.
    I hope this clears up a lot of things. I find it very surprising that the media does not report this to throw it in Trump’s face.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I find it very surprising that the media does not report this to throw it in Trump’s face.

      Because they would have to call off all the fake protests they have planned. 🙂

    • Colonel, I been reading about this Roosevelt Easement, which claims a 60 ft. stretch at the border for purposes of building a fence. Whatsupwiththat?

      Moreover the Roosevelt Easement allows the federal government access to 60 of the border with Mexico. This is from a GAO report: “The land where this fencing was built has been publicly owned since 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt reserved a 60-foot strip along the international boundary with Mexico for the United States to maintain the area free from obstructions as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico. In effect, the Roosevelt easement provided the federal government with a 60-foot border right-of-way on which it could build the fence.”
      The federal government has the power to construct a fence along the border to protect the United States. In fact, in 2008 DHS Secretary Chertoff issued a waiver “to bypass environmental reviews to speed construction of fencing along the Mexican border.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Roosevelt did so with a presidential Proclamation, which has zero power of law unless it is passed by Congress, which this hasn’t been. If needed, I’m sure that the Feds could use Eminent Domain for National Security reasons. I don’t think it will go there, as a virtual wall may be even better and less expensive, as well as far more technologically advanced. Upgrade what’s in place, give the needed support and move on to the next State.

      • Anita……there are some flood control issues but I will address your question later this afternoon……I do have some work to do but talk to ya later today. The Roosevelt issue is a non issue.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Leftists Attack ‘White Male’ Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    Over 1,000 police officers in central Germany foil ‘Islamist network’ in massive anti-terror raid

    With all of the stuff that Muslim migrants/refugees have been reportedly done in many European countries, I can’t help but wonder if the Liberal Left are just not getting any news. Because if they had read about the rapes, violent crimes, and terrorist attacks, they certainly wouldn’t STILL think that extreme vetting is a bad idea…..would they?

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    This subject has me wondering why it’s not being given the media coverage as Chernobyl did, and Fukushima is far, far worse. I guess because it’s not the big bad Russians, it isn’t worth the fear mongering.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    The Dem’s have chosen to use the word Mainstream when talking about Gorsuch. That will backfire and further erode their chances in 2018. Mainstream has been rejected, Main Street is what people want. And what the hell is wrong with Nancy Pelosi, she’s a whackball and should be in a psych ward, not on Capital Hill.

    Mnuchin and Price approved by Committee. Hatch waived the rules because Dem’s didn’t show up again. Can’t say I blame him either. I

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mainstream is just fine. They don’t have a clue where it is though. They try to define it by their standards.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mnuchin and Price approved by Committee. Hatch waived the rules because Dem’s didn’t show up again.

      Liberal’s are going to go batshit crazy over this. I find it rather funny. I guess the Democrats should act like they have a job and show up. Don’t show up to work, lose.

      • They didn’t lose-they can’t stop his confirmation-next best thing- create a conflict they can scream and rant about. Funny how they are always just using the rules but Repubs. are destroying democracy.using the rules that are available to them.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh how funny. When you live by identity politics eventually your identities will clash. Then what? Who do you side with? Now we know who is more important to the Dems.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    WOW, Chicago gang leaders want to lower the body count and have reached out. Claiming they respect Trump and never respected Obama. This is great news. Link or video will come later, this is on live as I type this.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    This will give everyone an idea of what Trump is up against in the trade arena. That is the complexity of it all. Not just chickens, but chickens washed in bleach and GMO’s in the corn.

    P.S. And the Brits wonder why their cost of living is so high. Place more restrictions on the food source and you get less food. Less food or higher production costs = higher prices.

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the star of a CNN town hall on Tuesday night, signaled her opposition to President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, calling the nomination “a very hostile appointment.”

    “Elections have ramifications,” Pelosi told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

    “And here is a living, breathing example of it — the president and his first appointment to the court, and hopefully his only appointment to the court, has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America versus class action suits, on securities fraud, he’s come down against employees’ rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine and the rest.

    “If you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy.”

    Pelosi is such a complete liar, how can people believe anything that comes out of her mouth.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh boy. The Dems have pissed off one of the last remaining Republicans who believed in protocol and precedent. Hatch is on the war path.


    Did not have the time to read all this but it looks interesting.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    At a CNN townhall Tuesday night, Nancy Pelosi was asked by a sobbing mother who lost her son to an illegal immigrant, who she said brutally tortured him before death, which one of her grandchildren she would give up to make room for an illegal.

    “If you need to go home tonight and line up your babies as you say, and your grandbabies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they’re expendable for another foreign person to have an a nicer life? Which one would you look to say, you, my child, are expendable for someone else to come over here and not follow the law and have a nicer life?” Laura Wilkerson, who said her son was “slaughtered” by an illegal immigrant, asked Pelosi.

    The answers should put her IN JAIL as an accomplice to murder.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I watched about 60 seconds of that last night. She stuttered, stammered, finally spit her tongue out and then promptly stepped on it.

      It was so painful I turned it off before a second question could be asked.

      Oh, she was trying to explain why Dems are the party of the working class, they just forgot to tell everyone and of course, those lying Republicans have people brainwashed.

      I cannot imagine, unless she got better, that this stunt did anything to help her or her Party.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I couldn’t agree more. I just can’t help but think that some people, namely politicians, will be getting arrested for harboring fugitives. It’s not a stretch to think that we will always have some illegals in country, but when politicians harbor and protect them, in violation of Federal law, there must be legal repercussions. Let’s see what happens.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump going to Dover AFB to honor returning Navy SEAL who was killed in Yemen. The man has more class in his pinky than any………

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Ya’ll need to watch this video. It will take awhile for the ad to play before you get the story. But it is worth the wait.

    I hope the rest of the States try to imitate Reid’s playbook. Only a few have the real ingredients required and most of them are already in the Dem. pocket.

    Note the use of the term viscous and the reference to “opposition research”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I hope that makes them feel better about themselves. Let’s just see how things go in Nevada for a couple years.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Look out Hillary, look out!

  23. Remeber Warren Buffet? The man that said Trump would ruin the US economically……well, it seems he has bought $12 B…that is a B as in BILLION of common stock through Berkshires. It is the greatest buy of common stcok Berkshire’s has ever done.

    Buffet said trump is unlikely to reach his four percent goal but I am on board because if he reaches just 2% I am well positioned.

    This from the man that hates trump but has jumped on board the money train that he feels Trump will produce. He went on to say that Trump creates optimism and I would be stupid to ignore it.

    The hits keep on coming.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    I think the National Security Council should be abolished. It is redundant and there is no longer a need for the statutory members.

    If POTUS wants to form a committee of his cabinet and advisers to address certain issues that should be his/her prerogative.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Key Republican committee chairs dealing with the ACA made statements today that “we are probably going to fix Obamacare instead of repealing it.”

    There you go. Pretty soon you will know for sure WHICH Republicans were lying to you about repealing the ACA.

  26. Anita…the Roosevelt Easement was an attempt at Border control years ago. THere are some flood prone areas within the city limits where an easement was taken to erect fencing outside the flood zones…..around Brownsville and Laredo. It does not exist today and is not recognized.

    Even when Bush tried to gain control of border lands through emminent domain….he got nowhere. Land owners refuse. It is readily recognizable that in TEXAS ONLY….private land owners own to the rivers edge.

  27. It’s snowing flakes in Berkeley.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If I had a kid in the middle of that their tuition would be gone tomorrow AM and they would be on the bus home by Noon.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Who needs the circus with these clowns providing the entertainment.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good point by Trump (in a Tweet). Don’t like free speech, no Federal funds. CUT THEM OFF!

      • It would be nice to see Matt and Buck step up to the plate here and condemn the actions of these Brownshirts unequivocally. Left has always had a problem with that. We have to bend over backwards when some loony has a KKK sign yet the other side is engaging in “reasoned Constitutionally protected protest.”

        • I agree, the leaders of the Dems Pelosi, Schumer, etc. should be stepping up to the microphones and telling these flakes to knock it off in no uncertain terms. But I am sure the uproar will be as loud as the peaceful Muslims were on 9/12.

          Is this our Kristallnacht?

    • 🙂 It’s the same blacked out, black flag carrying bunch from Disrupt J20.

      We get a bonus. I figured the campaign would be entertaining, I didn’t realize it was going to be 4 years of fun.

  28. I never paid much attention to this DJ20….but what needs to be done now… blast some of them. They are nothing but criminals…..but what do you expect from Berkley, It is clear that these are paid protestors……

    They tried this in Austin yesterday and found out real quick how we handle this. Their protest in Austin is about the governors approach to sanctuary cities in Texas…….Gov Abbott followed thorugh on his promise…pulled State funds from………………….Austin.

  29. Now, here is my question….I hope that I get answers from both sides of the spectrum… what happened in Berkley….is what is happening with the pepper spray as seen on TV…acceptable civil discourse or is it criminal.

    • I think what’s Most Criminal is the authorities just allowing it to happen. What the hell happened to law and order!

    • Try Nazi tactics in the ’20’s and ’30’s try Bolshevik tactics in the teens. Were they “acceptable” civil discourse?

      I think it is pretty clear that you cross a line. That used to be the standard in the US until the 1960′;s that we so fondly remember. When the Chicago Police finally decided to restore order in 1968 at the convention, The universal condemnation they received showed just how far off the cliff the country had gone. It is still that way.

      I think that Rudy put it well a couple of months back. You can protest on the sidewalks but not on our streets. Or, as one of my favorite local cops put it to me back in the 1970’s, “Your rights end where mine begin”. So, don’t block my street, don’t lay a finger on me, don’t throw anything at me and don’t touch anything that is not yours. Actually, pretty simple rules for a “civilized” society. Which we no longer are.

      Had an interesting discussion with a fellow thinker last weekend in DC of all places. He seems to think that even if Trump succeeds, he will ultimately fail, like Reagan. I threw in my opinion that Reagan’s biggest mistake was having Bush I succeed him. The ultimate insider, compromiser. Had he taken jack Kemp for term 2 then let Kemp succeed him, there woudl probably have been no Clinton. Time will tell if Pence has the grit to be a follow on but to really effect change, to return us to civilized society we must govern for a minimum of a generation.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Criminal, I’m surprised you even asked. This is the action of Communist’s, not Anarchist’s. If these little Commies go unpunished, it will continue and get worse, until bullets fly.

      I fully accept peaceful protests. I do not accept censorship by violence, which is all that happened last night. I guess being gay don’t matter to the Commies, unless they gay’s tow the Liberal line.

  30. Great speech by Tillerson at the State Dept.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Berkeley, 1969: Reagan explains why the protesters got out of hand to the reporters: “All of it began the first time some of you who know better and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they had the right to chose the the laws they would obey, as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Deja vu’ all over again.

    Same accusations, same complaints, same rhetoric.

    From 1984 until today we have had 16 years with a Democrat in the White House and Many years with either a Dem controlled congress or a split congress. Yet the rhetoric remains the same.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, have to say it. Watched Fox News last night trying to pump up the “rioting” at Berkeley.

    People calmly standing around taking pictures and preoccupied with their cell phones. Wife and I were laughing. Thought was “these people don’t know how to riot. They need to watch some film of the 60’s”.

    The actual rioting was long over and Fox was trying to tell us we were watching a riot when we were watching people stand around. Probably those leftists who were attacked by their fellow leftists an hour earlier.

    The sad part was they had Tucker Carlson carry this water. After he had just completed another really good show. Poor Tucker, the network cost him credibility last night.

  35. Wooo Hooo….Secretary Kelly adopts the TExas way at the border. Texas showed him how a green card and immigration status can be completed in 2 weeks instead of 2 years…..We showed him how to do it…and he liked it. Someone actually listened.

    • Adapt, improvise, overcome…..the military virtues.

      • Texas has been doing green cards in two weeks……and has tried, in vain, to get the government on board. Finally, someone listened and is putting the resources in Texas to accomplish the problem.

        This is great. I posted on here some time ago, how Texas was doing it. Everyone laughed.

        Not any longer.

        • And, I might add, this is NOT a Texas green card it is an immigration green card. It is actually easy.

          • JAC….it is really easy. These are strictly temporary cards granted by an immigration judge….it must be based upon refugee status. But, you must have a sponsor. That sponsor can be in a variety of ways. (1) A family sponsor who is here legally and/or a US citizen. (Proof required). Under this sponsorship, a refugee or relative will be granted a temporary green card under the sponsor for one year. Within that year, the formal application process for permanent residency can be started. The sponsor is responsible for the temporary resident and the sponsor name and address becomes the legal address ( sponsored person does not have to live there ). If, within that first year, the individual does complete the paper work, his temporary card is revoked. The sponsor can receive a fine up to $5,000 and sponsorship privileges revoked. If the paper work is submitted within that first year and the vetting is in progress, a sponsored person can receive a one year re-issue. He/she may continue to work and stay in the US. During this period of time, he/she is not eligible for any state sponsored programs of welfare or medicare or medicaid.

            (2) Employer sponsorship….same rules apply.

            It cannot be made any easier than that. Temporary green card is issued within 10 working days.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              A “Green Card” is a special visa for Resident Aliens who intent to become Citizens. They have a certain time to get citizenship or they have to leave.

              Why would we issue Green Cards to refugees? Why issue a new form of Green Card instead of a new class of Visa.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Furthermore, what the hell happens to the poor people who have been waiting years to get their Green Card? Waiting for their day on the Lottery.

              What the hell. Just show up on the southern border and you get one, as long as you know somebody in the USA??

              And you are going to prosecute a Business if the person they sponsor skips town? Like that will stand up in Federal Court. “Well Mr. AG, what crime did Joe’s Deli commit? You see sir Joe over there turned his back and Jose’ bolted. So what crime did Joe commit again? He turned his back your honor. CASE DISMISSED”.

              • JAC….quit that. You know that it is not that easy. NOthing has changed here except we have an immigration judge on the border….and let me change my terminiology. I use the term “refugee’ to refer to every single person that wants to enter the US. I use the term “refugee” to pertain to illegals, war torn countries, persecution….they are all the same to me……

                I did not think that I had to go into so much detail. I thought it was well understood.

                You must have a sponsor….and that sponsor must be family. ( take work permits out of this for now )…..if you show up at the border or the court here with an expired “green card” you do not get special treatment. You do not go to the front of the line…you get vetted ALL OVER AGAIN…..if there is an uncle that wants to get into the United States…he may already be on a list waiting, either for the lottery ( which is a different set of circumstances ) or just in line for a card. The Texas/New Mexico border does NOT…..repeat does NOT pertain to a Syrian, for example, that wants to enter through Mexico. You must be from Mexico or Central America. The problem we have with the human trafficking is not from “over seas” although there have been some……the majority are work seeking people or (what MExico likes to do) is empty their prisons and they routinely dump criminals on the border…..routinely. YOu can almost set your watch by the prison buses.

                You cannot just show up and say…”there is my dad”…… It still takes two weeks. And there is a way to check things out quickly to prove it. ( There are still some issues that can slip through the cracks…not perfect yet ). Once a sponsor can prove legitimacy, then that sponsor becomes liable for the actions and the reliability of their charge. What is wrong with that? Nothing, as far as I am concerned. For example, a person that has a sponsor violates a law….let’s say a DWI. Not only does the person sponsored lose whatever temporary issue they had, but the sponsor becomes financially responsible, pays the fines, the liability and whatever costs there are. Taking it further, before you say it is illegal…it operates on the same principle as a guarantor of a bank note or mortgage. If you, JAC, are a guarantor and the personyou co sign with or guarantee skips town….you get tapped. Same thing. And before you ask, if it is a criminal charge, the sponsor does not go to jail….but he is financially repsonsible and he gets yanked off the sponsor list if a family member gets pinched.

                NOw, let us move on to the work permit. If you remember, I laid out a program that Texas has instituted for temporary work permits ( allow me once again to change the terminiology..we routinely use the term “green card” to be all inclusive )…..for example, we may ask to see your “green card” and you whip out a temporary work permit ….we look at it and say….ok, you are cool. So, let me be puuurrrrfectly clear…..there are a variety of temporary permits that are issued….for example, a truck driver under NAFTA does not have to have a “green card” to drive into the USA….he does however, have to have a temporary work permit that is dated and he does have to be sponsored. Let me explain how it works for us. At one time, we imported Tequila in 6500 gallon tanker trucks from Mexico to various liquor distributors in the US. As a trucking entity, we had to take full responsibility for the Mexican Truck in the United States. Prior to taking that responsibility, we go to the Mexican trucking company, obtain specific liability agreements and insurance policies that they pay for on both sides of the border ( ie: Mexican Insurance and US Insurance) The driver was Mexican but the tank trailer belonged to us. So the onus was upon us to take repsonsibility for that Mexican driver. We had to make sure he was properly licensed to drive in Mexico, we had to ensure that he had the permits required for temporary entrance and that he did not stray from the assigned route and time it took to get there. That is a pretty awesome responsibility…so we vetted the MExican Trucking company…..not the United States, not immigration, not DPS……..we, as a company took repsonsiblity. I can go into detail on how we made sure but the room on here will not allow it.

                If the MExican driver violated a law ( speeding, run red light, etc ) we, as a company, were notified and had to show up in traffic court…..they coud not be mailed in. So, there are some pretty good checks and balances.

                JAC, there is no fool proof way…but we have managed to register all temporary workers in our fields down here ( known as the valley )…our potato pickers, avocado pickers, carrot pickers…..are accounted for and do not disappear into the sunset. ( Now before you get all wadded up….are there some that fall trhough the cracks? ) Yes, there are but you know who pays the price? The farmer. And no, before you ask, there are no chains, no locked homes, no whips,,,,,no armed horseback riders circling the workers….no machine guns….the secret is…they are paid more than minimum wage, unlike California. And most of the farmers and ranchers get the same people back year after year…all temporary until they can get a permanent residency.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The word “common sense” and “Washington DC” should never be used in a sentence. It has never really happened in my lifetime.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Why would we want to make issuing Green Cards easier??

          I can see reducing the waiting period for getting them once people are on the list but expediting issuance just for the sake of speeding it up?

          • I can see reducing the waiting period for getting them once people are on the list..

            Precisely….it is all about aiting time and getting them to work. Rememberm in the Valley here, we produce just as much as California…as a matter of fact, we are getting closer to taking over th wine sales….Vineyards popping up everywhere.

  36. Is there anyone besides me who was surprised to find out that Obama agreed to take a thousand illegal Muslim refugees caught by the Aussies?

    Most folks do not know the Australians are not welcoming to illegals. They ship them to an island where they are held until they can be sent back. In some cases they cannot be returned. These are the folks Barack wanted. Go figure, twice rejected!

    Now as much as I am a fan of Down Under, I gotta say, they have a whole lot of space and a damn small population to fill it. If they are so “concerned” about humanity, they should keep ’em. Matter of fact with climate similarities, seems like a great place to move Syria to.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Not me. Trump should deny them, period. They can send them to Saudi, WHO SHOULD be taking Muslim refugees, but are not. Enough of this nonsense. The country also needs to be reminded that these refugees are the RESULT of the Obama administration, including HRC.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      College town, 20 or so miles away……WISHING that I could get wind of something there. It is very unlikely though, these kids around here are pretty good, not much trouble. Kinda proud of that 🙂

  37. Everybody is going nuts over the Yemen thing. Just found out it was an Osprey. That piece of crap foisted on the Marines and AF by Pentagon brass lining up their next post service job, has been a disastrous pilot killer from day 1.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Has it occurred to anyone that people are abusing the REFUGEE status in order to emigrate to the USA and get special status. Using it to jump to the front of the line, leaving people behind who have been waiting years.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, well. A different take on the phone call to Australia. Maybe now we know what happened which in turn leads to WHO leaked it to the press.

  40. I tried to find a video of a Dem condemning the Berkeley riots. All I could find was one House Dem that actually praised the “protest”. Maybe someone else can find something. Are the reporters actually asking them to condemn it? If not, then it is just more of the double standard.

    • The latest “take” is that the rioters were not students but outside agitators. Since the cops stood still and apparently arrested one (1) person, under orders I guess from Janet Napolitano, we will NEVER know, will we?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        THis has been the MO since the Primaries. Paid agitators engaging in violence (that qualifies as terrorism under current Federal Law) isn’t uncommon. Most likely by the same Soros funded organizations that have been doing it for a long time. The problem is that Democrats need those campaign dollars, so they make some lame excuse to let the violence occur. While I could care less if they burn these Liberal colleges down, there are still victims. These victims should SUE the shit out of these politicians for not protecting them, or at least attempting to pretend to protect them.

        These are all planned events, occurring at planned events. With a little effort and cooperation, these losers could be led to slaughter. While I don’t mean death, I do mean a thorough ass whooping. Use their tactics against them.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    I wonder how many men would have just cracked this witch in the jaw?

    @Mathius, I wouldn’t pick on Liberal’s if they weren’t constantly providing reasons. Feel free to counter with these same acts from Conservatives……….if you can find one.

    • I will take the mantle……..prove to me they are liberals.

      • Are you assuming that it is a liberal because of the actions? If that is the case, I know plenty of conservatives that are not pro life.

        I have changed my mind slightly…..on the abortion issue. I have adopted the viability**** issue and can compromise on the term of when viablility occurs….. but I am a pro choice person and it is up to the woman to decide prior to viability.

        ANd before you go there, it cause some discussion in the Colonel’s Humble Abode because my significant other is in the opposite camp. She is a conception believer and that is ok……It did not keep us from getting married, it does not keep us from loving each other…..we have a variety of issues where we are on opposite sides of the camp.

        I think that I have proven my self to be a conservative….

        ****** I will not get into an argument or discussion on here about the mnoral issues of abortion or the lack thereof……with one exception. It should not and does not need to be part of any health program.******

        ***** Not going to argue about this one either.

  42. JAC…you mentioned the lottery…here is what is required.

    Form G-325, Biographic Information, if you are between 14 and 79 years of age
    Two passport-style photos
    Copy of birth certificate
    Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record
    Copy of passport page with nonimmigrant visa (if applicable)
    Copy of passport page with admission (entry) or parole stamp (if applicable)
    Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record
    Certified copies of court records (if the individual has been arrested)
    Copy of the principal applicant’s selection letter for the diversity visa lottery from DOS
    Copy of the receipt from DOS for the diversity visa lottery processing fee
    Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (if applicable)
    Applicable fees

    There are also several ineligible countries because they have already sent over 50,000…..

    • Just A Citizen says:


      You seemed to have missed the thrust of my question. That is the equity or fairness of issuing Green Cards, actual Green Cards, with a two week wait when everyone else has to wait years. What you seem to be describing is a system for those on the southern border that differs from the rest of the world.

      I am talking actual Green Cards. That is people requesting legal Alien Permanent Resident status and want to pursue citizenship.

      Are you suggesting that the US adopt this method for issuing Permanent Resident Green Cards?

      Which goes to my other question, which is why would we want to issue MORE? This goes to the total population of ACTUAL IMMIGRANTS we can take in each year without disrupting our systems.

      By the way, the biggest problem we have up here with migrants skipping out are tree planters sponsored by companies that hire them. They show up and after a day or two you see them on their cell phones. Then another day or two and they don’t come back from lunch or go off to take a leak in the woods and don’t come back. Friends or relatives pick them up somewhere along the road and they are in the wind. This leakage can be upwards of 1/4 the work force in a season. Sometimes more if groups got past the vetting with the intent to break their visa.

      My question about legality of holding sponsors accountable goes to the Constitutional issues. Not whether I think it a good idea. I could see the Contract being upheld as binding to a point. Something like signing Temporary Guardianship over to a second party.

      • Nope…….We seem to have no problem in vetting with sponsors……now, with reference to your problem up there……this is a decision that your state has to make. You must hold your sponsors accountable and then follow it up. Down here, we do that ( for the most part…we have the ocassional departure from the rules due to “favors” ). Texas is known, or is getting known, for its forfeiture of the right to do business ( State Charter ) in Texas for hiring and employing illegal immigrants….even from Pluto. We do not care what you pay them…as long as you have the proper paperwork and they have their identification on them when the STATE…not the INS….the STATE comes in and checks. We do not care if you pay in cash or by check…that is up to the IRS. There is no state income tax for individuals or corporations so whatever you do for payroll is between you and the IRS. What we will do is revoke your charter to do business in Texas.

        The secret, JAC, is to follow through and penalize the companies that do not abide by your state charter. Now, it might be easier down here beause of the proximity to the border, but the employers actually go to the border, recruit their immigrants, walk them through the process…register them with whatever agency requires it….and off they go. Like right now, the farmers and ranchers are hiring this very moment. Wages are negotiated and bidding is taking place. Most agricultural workers down here are making better than minimum wage because of the fact that the State of TExas will show up one day and check your workers and they better be documented or your fields will rot in the sun. No longer are the days of going to the Home Depots or LOWES and finding groups of illegals just standing around looking for work. We tightened that as well.

        WHat we showed Secretery Kelly was how easy it was to administer a program within two weeks, in our part of the country, if you want to do it and properly investigate…..Mexico and Central America… cannot be a worker here if you hail from Europe or anywhere else. Do not try to cross into TExas in the worker program….you will be denied and picked up. It is not fair, agreed. It is discriminatory….agreed. But it is what we do for our neighbors.

        NOw, to take it further…you see no more children just showing up….we do not take them in. The word is out….do not do it here…and we do not have the influx any longer. MAny church groups were taking this kids in and being paid directly from the Obama Administration. Texas revoked the Church Charter….game over. It may be tough….but we call it tough love. We plugged the hole of children showing up, getting in, and then the parents showing up to take care of their children. Some call it callous…..ok so be it. But, when you have a law….it should be followed. Period.

        Now, I am also not suggesting that you just let everyone in. There is a quota, and that quota is well defined, and some countries have reached that quota. I am suggesting that the vetting process does not have to take two years. We do it very quickly and the results are fantastic. BUT BUT BUT…….we do not do it for anyone other than Mexico and identified countries in Central and South America. And they all do not look alike……it is very easy to tell a Colombian from a Venezuelan….You can tell almost right away a Bolivian from a Costa Rican or Nicuarguan…..ethnics is easy to tell down here. Very easy. Even the dialects of Spanish are different. But my point is…….it is easy to do if you do it and enforce your rules afterwards…..and we have found that if you hold people and companies responsible….it works wonders.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Is it safe to say you are simply implementing the Federal laws regarding work permits/visas but Texas is conducting the reviews because you codified the federal rules into state law?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Is it safe to assume that your One Year visitor permit is issued under the Federal Waiver of Visa requirements w/Mexico? I did not check but I assume Mexico is among those countries where the Visa requirement has been waived. Like Canada.

      • We do not issue Visas here…..we tackled the problem of the illegals just streaming across looking for work….but… still fill out a “tourista” card…and you list where you are going, just as you do going into MExico ( I am sure you remember filling out temporary tourist Visas on the plane before landing )….And I just now see your concern and our miscommunication….I am refering to temporary status and work permits down here…..not permanent Green Card applications…….as I said….allow me to change my terminology from “green card” being all encompassing….we have a tendency to say green card when we mean work visas and sponsorships.

        But I will say this….if someone turns up with an expired document….they are immediately turned over to INS..who resides in the same places, WE do have an immigration judge on site everyday though that can render certain decisions.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Do you need a Visa to visit Mexico or a passport enough?

          Does a Mexican need a Visa to visit the USA or is a passport enough?

          I know there are other documents you can use instead of a passport if only a passport is required.

          Do you know what the requirements are for people from other Central American and South American countries regarding Passport only or Passport w/Visa.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Forgot. No, I never filled out a visitor card, whether on a plane or boat. No such thing is needed to travel to and from Canada. A declaration card is required when travelling by boat and I think plane but it does not include destinations or places I plan to visit. Only that I am certifying I am in compliance with a list of rules printed on the card.

          I have never flown to Canada. Traveled only by auto or boat. My travels to other places has always required a Visa.

          And yes, I have not traveled to Mexico. Not since about 1968.

  43. Anyone else notice the democrats are working real hard to change the word obstructionist when applied to them to “The Resistance” .

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes I have. They are masters at confusing the language and playing word games. But lets call them what they are: Trotskyites

      Trot·sky·ism (trŏt′skē-ĭz′əm)
      The political and economic theories of Communism advocated by Leon Trotsky and his followers, usually including the principle of worldwide revolution.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Who is a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident)?

    A Green Card holder (permanent resident) is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a “Green Card.” You can become a permanent resident several different ways. Most individuals are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United States. Other individuals may become permanent residents through refugee or asylee status or other humanitarian programs. In some cases, you may be eligible to file for yourself.

    • Correcto mundo……..under the permanent green card….no objections.

    • A Green Card is 100% bullshit, based on the fictitious idea that humans have a right to violate/forcefully regulate other humans’ right to free travel and association. It is yet another example of state violence.

      Borders are illegal, as are green cards. In the real world, people go places as they want or need to, and trade without interference with whomever they choose.

      In the real world, when you try to boss someone around with a gun, they can rightfully kill you regardless of your clothes or associations or any magic words or ceremonies. To argue otherwise is to argue that I have a right to build a wall around your yard and kill you and/or your family should you try to leave. …IF I say magic words and have ceremonies to give me the superpower called ‘authority’.

  45. New Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

    1. Build the wall
    2. Deport a minimum of 90% criminal illegal aliens
    3. At the conclusion of 1 and 2, give all illegals 90-180 days to come forward and declare
    themselves, be fingerprinted and documented.
    4. Shut the registration door after the 90-180 days. Anyone caught subsequent to that
    even if they have been here 40 years is immediately deported.
    5. Vet everybody who came forward. Lying on the application is grounds for deportation
    even if not discovered for years.
    6. Issue them a permanent resident card
    7. Resident card is valid with reasonable renewals unless the holder commits felony.
    8. Green card holding felons deported immediately upon release from custody.
    9. No citizenship, no voting rights ever.

    It is actually so damn simple even Nancy Pelosi could maybe, possibly understand.

    • Whoever came up with that BS is a Nazi.

      • Well, I’d advise you not to call me that to my face because I will plant my hob nailed boot where the sun don’t shine.

      • We at least attempt on this site to be civil-perhaps YOU should try a little harder.

        • Oh, I almost forgot-I believe you stated it quite clearly once that it was you’re intention to be an a##.

          • I was joking, …sort of.

            I have no reservations about being blunt to a group of criminals who organize to violate myself and others though. Nice doesn’t seem to work. Sometimes it takes being an asshole to make a point.

        • People are NEVER allowed to call me a Nazi, not ever, not nohow. That is the one thing I will never tolerate.

          • You do know I was talking to Elisheba?

          • If you were here, I would gladly call you a Nazi to your face because you are being a Nazi, advocating the same BS as Nazis and every other statist border-tard. I know because I used to say the same Nazi BS too, right here at SUFA, as a matter of fact.

            Stop being a Nazi. Stop trying to use your state-fairy-godfather to control everything. Let people live as they choose. Until they are your problem, they aren’t.

        • He is being a statist, advocating the same BS as Nazis. I called him out on it. It is what it is. But I am not the one being uncivil. talking about planting boots in HIS ass. Nor am I the one talking about violating people’s rights because of whatever geography nonsense.

          And as far as being uncivil goes, maybe you should take a look at yourself, supporting Nazis and statism, which would make you a terrorist and criminal by definition. Talk about being uncivil.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        There is nobody that posts here that qualifies as a NAZI, nobody. I don’t even see Buck and Mathius as all that much more than slightly Left Wing, but they aren’t nearly that far Left (cliff hanging NAZI’s, that is).

        • SUFA is full of Nazis. You don’t like to think of it like that, but the reality is that you are mostly statists, fully engaged in some level of politics, which makes you criminals and terrorist, BY DEFINITION.

          There is no principle difference between Nazis and other types of statists. The values differ, but it is still just groups of people organizing to violate others according to their opinions and funny clothes, ceremonies magic words and such.

          Organized systematic violence is organized systematic violence.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            We are all engaging in the natural world of tribalism, which is part of that pesky human nature you can’t seem to grasp. If you think that coming here and acting out similar to a infantile Liberal snowflake because you disagree, I can tell you that you will convince nobody of anything acting that way. It is childish and unproductive.

            • Are you really THAT thick headed, G?

              You mistake terrorism and/or organized crime as natural tribalism.

              I have no problem with you organizing to enslave and violate yourselves. You can whore your children and grandchildren out to bankers and war mongers all you like, give them a life based on the whims of people who believe in ‘authority’, …fine with me. That is your life and your business.

              My problem is that your criminal gang claims me as it’s bitch. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t care.

              Get your government out of my life, Nazi.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Interesting. You want to convince others through typical Liberal tactics to think as YOU think and we are the NAZI’s? You can’t see past your own self delusions. Your a walking contradiction….far, far from any real Anarchist I’ve encountered.

              • Stop with the ad hominem BS.

                It is VERY simple. I will explain it AGAIN for you, gman.

                Statism is criminal and terrorism.

                It is a bunch of people organizing to decide people to have ceremonies and say magic words and use special seals and stamps and all kinds of religious paraphernalia to claim legitimacy, write things on paper to claim reality is this or that, or what everyone is supposed to be and do, how to live, etc.. …then hire an army of people in funny clothes with weapons to make everyone do what the paper says, and/or to give them their property, or be caged/murdered.

                Essentially, it is people organizing to boss other people around by force. That is all it is. Nothing else. It simply a big gang, a terrorist organization, BY DEFINITION(using fear and violence for political goals).

                Statists don’t have a right to be statists.

                That gang that people organize, well, it is in my home land where I was born, where I have a right to live freely. But instead of simply exercising my inalienable right to defense and killing statists, I try to be civil and point their evil out to them. I suppose it is my way of feeling like I am trying to do the right thing.

                I really originally came back for sake of stalker nonsense. It is about isolating and tracking information as per reason and context, etc.. and maybe to address them where I know they are paying attention. But while I am here, I may as well entertain myself with Nazis.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Let ME explain it to YOU!

                You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. I fully understand your position on government, and I like it to a point. But that is not our world in which we live and it probably never will be, short of a 90% culling of the human species. Until that happens, you just pissing into a hard wind.

              • Then how do we start culling?

    • #4 I would never agree with deporting someone who has been here 40 years, and I don’t think most people would.

      • Which is what makes immigration reform hard. But it’s our fault for letting this issue simmer for years and years and years, so politicians can have a nice issue to fight over.

      • Frankly, I’m tired of having to re-visit the issue therefore you make it clear, very clear that if you do not come out, become legalized, you have NO status to stay. What are you hiding?, Six weeks, six months, six years, sixty years makes no difference either we have laws and rules or we do not. Don’t you get tired of the left always finding the one pathetic “exception” to trot out. Any day now I expect to see stories about some guy who committed some atrocious felony who was released and has supposedly been a model non-citizen for the past twenty five years raising three Rhodes scholars while working tirelessly to cure cancer as he distributes food that he prepares himself to homeless Trans people.

        • Yep, I’m tired— but still wouldn’t agree to deporting people who have been here that long. We should of deported them a long time ago-we didn’t.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I don’t mind a few exceptions, done in the privacy of an office without fanfare, but Stephen is correct, we can’t allow the Left to have any more “special snowflakes”.

            However, those who are here and are non-criminal and just being like any other working stiff should be given an opportunity to remain. No voting power, limited and temporary government assistance, if any. That’s a whole subject by itself.

            • Yes! Yes! Yes!

              They talk about a fine as a penalty. Hell no. The penalty is to forfeit what the people who waited on line want more than anything else.

              And, there is the side issue that has been raised, the unfairness to those who waited.Well, no citizenship ever ought to settle that. I have a friend, been here over forty years from Germany with five grown children. Loves this country dearly but would forfeit Social Security benefits he earned in Germany as a young man if he became an American Citizen. He is not happy about that but he accepts it.

      • VH…..I would have to disagree…if you give them a chance to come out of the shoadows and they choose not to………their problem.

  46. Birth right citizenship needs to end. If neither parent is a green card holder or citizen, then the kid is a foreigner. Paternity to be defined by DNA. Those foreigners born here should be given a birth certificate that is clearly marked non-citizen.

  47. Unfortunately, My friend Elisheba……..the reality is…………………….the real world is already here and it is what it is……now we survive….we try to change if we can. But change is going to have to come peaceably and amicably. Evveryone is entitled to their opinion. Who is right and who is wrong…..the world will dictate.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    I do not accept the premise that the US needs to allow thousands of migrant workers across the border each year. We have enough able bodied people over 18 to do the work and even more if you count those from about 14 to 18. All of whom can pick veggies and fruit, or change irrigation pipes, or plant trees.

    Now I await someone to prove me wrong.

    • I will argue that the US has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, that it’s authority is based on fiction and mythological religious nonsense, and therefore has no place deciding where anyone goes, what they do, or how they live and work, etc etc etc, or anything at all. It is simply bullshit, ALL of it.

      It is simply not up to the US and it’s imaginary lines BS. It is up to the people doing business, the people who choose to travel or relocate.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Well then I suggest you start traveling south. Just keep going. Ignore those guys with gun and Mexican flags on their uniforms. Just keep on truckin. I suggest you don’t stop until you get to Venezuela.

        Get back to us later with how it worked out for ya.

        • Can you make a principled argument demonstrating the legitimacy of government?

          No, because there is no argument that can be made. It’s illegitimate, criminal, terrorism by definition, and as principle function demonstrates.

          If I stick a gun to your head and demand half of your money, then tell you it is to deliver ice cream and pizza and install better hand-rails on all stairwells on your property, is it not wrong?

          Is it okay because you’re getting something for it?

          If I have a petition signed with 100, 1000, or 10K signatures of people who agree they would like to see a program to deliver ice cream and pizza, does it make it right or acceptable then?

          What if I built a special church and had a ceremony, used special stamps and seals, said magic words and wore special robes, used magic wands and smoke and such? …would it make it okay then?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            adjective: legitimate
            1. conforming to the law or to rules. “his claims to legitimate authority”
            synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional;
            More antonyms: illegal
            2. able to be defended with logic or justification.
            “a legitimate excuse for being late”
            synonyms: valid, sound, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, just, fair, bona fide
            “legitimate grounds for doubt”
            antonyms: illegal
            3. (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
            synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, authorized, sanctioned, acknowledged, recognized “the legitimate heir”
            antonyms: false, fraudulent
            4. (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right.
            “the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king”
            synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, authorized, sanctioned, acknowledged, recognized
            “the legitimate heir”
            antonyms: false, fraudulent
            5. constituting or relating to serious drama as distinct from musical comedy, revue, etc.
            “the legitimate theater”

            verb: legitimate; 3rd person present: legitimates; past tense: legitimated; past participle: legitimated; gerund or present participle: legitimating
            make legitimate; justify or make lawful.
            “the regime was not legitimated by popular support”

            It appears to me that our Govt. is legitimate by means of the definition itself. The people authorized it, support it and pay for it. Some have even died to defend it. Hence it is legitimate. This is especially true for a Govt. which provides means for the people to change, eliminate or replace it. Which our Govt. does. Making it also comply with rational or logical defense.

            • What is government based on, JAC? What part of the process in forming or executing a government gives it legitimacy? Legitimacy according to what?

              What is government? It’s forced opinions, that’s it, …that and a big stack of BS on paper, magic words, ceremonies, guns, etc,….

              You can argue whatever you like, but at the end of the day, it is still just forced opinions.

              And if you can argue it is legitimate, if I concede to your way of doing things, it means I have a right to force my opinion on you, right? It means I can go to church and all that, then hire someone to hunt and cage you for not being who I told you to be, right?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Govt gains legitimacy by consent of the people governed.

                Words are placed on paper to express the views of those people who consented to forming the govt. In our case it was a delegation of authority given to the Fed. Govt. Just as the people of the territories did when they formed State Govts.

                You know all this. You simply reject it and in order to reject it you devise a theory of rights that exist in ether. Of course, since they are not written down somebody has to figure out what they are and if they are valid. Damn, that is usually the group of people who are affected by those rights. Which in turn is associated with Govt.

                There is a legitimate question regarding rights. When expressed they always refer to restrictions or demands relative to some type of Govt. So do they really exist beyond Govt. without Govt. do we need such rights? Do they even exist? Are they not in fact our way of simply constraining Govt. with respect to what we view as our freedoms, rights or liberty?

                And of course, in order to use them to constrain said Govt., you have to have said Govt. and those constraints are approved by a majority of those same people, who approved of the Govt. itself.

              • “Govt gains legitimacy by consent of the people governed.”

                So because people agree, it is legitimate?

              • …and what about those who do not consent to be governed?

                By order of reason, if consent is what gives it legitimacy(I agree), then not consenting to government means it is not legitimate.

                That means government has no say over anyone who does not vote or otherwise support/demand the state.

                Because it claims jurisdiction as per geography instead of membership, it is criminal against all who do not consent, but who do live in it’s claimed territory.

    • The only trouble is….getting them to work. There are plenty of people to work but what I have witnessed first hand is they do not want to work. Your answer would probably be….well, pay better wages to get them to work. Most are paid $8.50 per hour… meals and hospitalization. No one wants to work for that except migrants who work for $35-50 per day in Mexico with no meals. How do you want to address this?

      I have an idea that will not fly……make prisoners work. Make welfare recipients work…..or do you want the price of food to sky rocket.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Eliminate welfare and unemployment for able bodied people. Or reduce benefits per the prevailing wage for such work.

        I think those that use migrants and those that use them for political gain have created dis incentives for people to take these jobs.

        Hell, while in high school I thinned fruit and pruned trees along side the migrant workers. When not in the orchards we were bucking hay and changing irrigation. Work, work, work. Then at night we played baseball and chased the girls up and down main.

        Now I see a few teen bagging groceries and raking leaves for city parks. Waiting on tables and doing dishes maybe. Most are just running around all summer hanging out.

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Something just dawned on me.

    There is a Jewish State.

    There are Islamic States, and of course one that doesn’t have a state but claims the name.

    The United States is a secular State. But it is a Christian Nation.

  50. Elisheba……culling is act of violence, is it not?

    • No. It is an act of defense if it is exclusive to statists, as statism is systematic violence, criminal, terrorism.

      In other words; if it is a voter, representative, judge, pig or ‘authority figure’, or someone who willingly actively gives time/material/financial, etc support to government, they qualify as members of a terrorist organization, and are therefore terrorists.

      The right to defense applies to terrorist criminals who claim you and/or your property as subject to their violence.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Of course it’s violence. Thats the only way for it to occur. “The Ends justify the Means”. Gee, where have we heard that before?

      Elisheba, your talking just like a typical Left Winger. Shame on you. You don’t want a peaceful society, you want YOUR IDEAL of a society, and will use force to get it and KEEP it.
      You are an Anarchist trapped in a Communist mindset. They are contradictory to one another.

      • Not really. You should understand the difference between force and violence, as well as offense and defense.

        Violence is to violate, to abuse or mistreat, and can come in many forms that do not include force, such as theft.

        Force is the actual physical power to make something happen, and can happen without abusing anyone.

        Offense is violence, the initiation of an abusive act[s]. Defense is the response to said abusive act in protection/prevention/restitution,etc. against it.

        Humans have a right to defense, not offense.

        Statism/government is a systematic organized form of violence against all who are claimed as it’s jurisdiction. Statism is offensive, violent. Using force in defense of it is not offense and not violence, but rightful.

        That means anyone who doesn’t vote or otherwise support government and agree to the terms and condition of government, does not have to obey or tolerate it’s violence, and is rightful in whatever means necessary to defend against it. That means using force against government supporters/statists to neutralize it is rightful.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Please feel free to begin your personal crusade to overthrow government. Where will you start, small towns, counties, States or just go right for the Fed’s? Or maybe it would be wiser to go to a much smaller weaker country, yes? Since every country has a government of some sorts, it’s going to be hard to find one where the loving, peaceful, self righteous anarchist’s can exist in peace, but you can go for it it you want. Just a warning, you won’t get to far.

          • I just want to be left alone to live like a human being. I can’t do that as long as assholes vote for governments and people are stalking me. SUFA is a good place to address Nazis/statists/communists/fascists,…and entertain myself.

            Nice and reasonable doesn’t seem to work on retards though. If I had a means of destroying governments, it would be done already. I’m working on the stalkers though.

            Your position is that killing statists/criminals/terrorists in defense is violence. It is not, which I explained.

      • No, he is not a left winger……and he is not a progressive……he is an anarchist that has no allegiance to anything but himself. He belongs with the hooded, black clad paid anarchists that are trying to suppress free speech. Actually, Elisheba, entertains me with his position and diatribe.

        To Elisheba, I am a statist military murderer that works for the state that, in his opinion….. is a pariah. I am a Colonel in the United States Military and proud of my accomplishments…..I did so voluntariy and not as a draftee. I volunteered for the military during Vietnam and decided to stay in the military afterwards. I have been to Kuwait, Bosnia, and Afghanistan all in military roles both as an active duty and reserve officer beginning my career as an E-1…..making $90 per month. I was not sent to Kuwait, I volunteered. I was not sent to Bosnia, I volunteered, I was not sent to Afghanistan, I volunteered. So that, in his book, makes me even worse. A mercenary.

        In between reserve military assignments, I learned the family business. I have run corporations..not the big ones mind you but the smaller family owned corporations. The most employees that I have been in charge of was 350. We are involved in trucking, ranching, and oil and gas. I paid my taxes, according to the law and the rules and regulations. I may not have liked it but I do it…….we are a nation of laws, or supposed to be. I utilized the tax code to my advantage, whenever possible, to avoid whatever taxes that I could legally. I utilize my right, and it is a right and privilege, to vote and try to change the things that I do not like. I try to work within the system that we have as much as possible….to change it and I do not violate the law. Some call that cowardice and some call it prudent. But that still makes me a pariah and a part of the problem…according the the anarchists.

        You and I disagree, Gman, on a variety of things. I disagree with Mathius and Buck and even JAC on some things. Anita and I disagree on some things….Hell, I even argue with myself. But what a great place to be….a place where we can disagree and talk and try to change things or convince others….even our government…… and not end up in chains or prison…..or placed against the wall and shot. I have been around this world to a greater extent than most. I have seen Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Central and South America. I have been to Australia. I wager that I have seen the realities of the world to a greater extent than most…..and most certainly Elisheba. I can tell by his answers.

        So, in his mind, if I am a Nazi. I accept it. If I am a statist, I accept it. If I am a communist, I accept it. If I am a fascist, I accept it. I know who I am and I know what I am and that is all that matters. He may think whatever he wants and he may state whatever he wants and take his lumps……..he can do all of that……. courtesy of the United States Armed Forces. Do not let him bother you.

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    Zooming around many web sites this afternoon and watching the reactions to the travel moratorium along with the various court rulings.

    This has become absolutely bizarre. One judge demands a list of those who were turned away. What the hell does that have to do with anything? A Visa does not guarantee entry to the US. It is clearly stated on the papers when you pick up your Visa and is on the Immigration website.

    Others keep using the number of people with visas revoked as some kind of evidence of legal issue. It has nothing to do with anything.

    Now we have a Federal Judge in Seattle Unilaterally overriding the discretion of the Commander in Chief to carry out powers vested in him by Congress regarding stopping people from coming to the USA. Who the hell does this judge think he is?

    This is why I think Dems are going to drag out the Gorush nomination. They want that 4/4 tie at SCOTUS so they can get the Circuit Appeals of their choice on issues like this.

    The Seattle judge’s decision will go to the 9th Circuit. Then to SCOTUS which will TIE, which makes the 9th Circuit the law of the land.

    • Isn’t it amazing how idiotic people can be, thinking their lives should be decided by the whims of some asshole in a robe or presiturd who thinks they’re god.

  52. Robert Reich says……

    Now of course, us old military types know that the Berkley rioters were actually Russian Spetznatz, dropped in by parachute on the orders of Putin himself through a backchannel request of Trump. CNN has footage of a Cyrillic laundry mark on the skivvies of one “protestor” when his belt broke.

  53. gmanfortruth says:

    There is a new thread posted.

%d bloggers like this: