How Do We Fix Education?

eduWith all the political theater about confirming Betsy DaVos as Secretary of Education (an agency I think should be terminated), lets discuss what should be done to fix an ailing education system.  Here’s some food for thought:

Under the current U.S. education system, the quality of students’ schooling is largely determined by their parents’ income. This is because wealthy parents can afford to send their children to private schools and live in neighborhoods with the best public schools. Such options narrow as income declines, and the children of poor families—who are often racial minorities living in predominately Democrat run neighborhoods and cities—typically end up in the nation’s worst schools.

Contrary to popular perception, funding is not the primary cause of differences between schools. Since the early 1970s, school districts with large portions of minority students have spent about the same amount per student as districts with fewer minorities. This is shown by studies conducted by the left-leaning Urban Institute, the U.S. Department of Education, Ph.D. economist Derek Neal, and the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Moreover, contrary to the notion that certain minorities are intellectually inferior, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that with competent schooling, people of all races can excel. For example, in 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:

  • a mostly Hispanic population.
  • one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
  • 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
  • lower spending per student than the New York City average.
  • the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
  • the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.

I’ll add more as the discussion moves forward  🙂



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Let’s talk education!!!!!! 😎

    • I’ll fire the opening (inflamatory) salvo!

      The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be a liberal.

      The destruction of the education system will result in a less educated populace.

      Ergo, if the education system is weakened, the populace will be more likely to be conservative.

      It follows that the powers that be within the Republican Party are aware of this correlation and causality. It further follows that they, therefore, have an incentive to impair public education for their own benefit.

      Thus DeVos.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good start!

        The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be a liberal.

        Citation please, hopefully from a better source than those who did last presidential polls 🙂

        Who is claiming that the system will be weakened? OHHH….The Liberal Left is, of course, because that’s what they do when a republican is in charge.
        Seriously, lets try and get past the partisan BS. I can probably wipe out most points by the Liberals against DeVos.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Which begs the question, if you buy them books and they just eat the covers are they more educated?

      • That’s it just them damned red-necks a votin for Trump!

        You intellectual arrogance is showing through.

  2. For starters, teach children to actually think, to use critical independent reasoning skills, …not just remember stuff and obedience training.

    That would do wonders, regardless of how you organize it.

    • American education in a nutshell:

      Children: How do I balance a checkbook?
      Teacher: The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.

      Children: How do I file taxes?
      Teacher: James K. Polk was the 11th President of the United States.

      Children: How do I build credit and apply for a mortgage?
      Teacher: SOHCAHTOA

      Children: How can we critically discern fact from fiction?
      Teacher: What is in a name? It is neither hand nor foot.

      Children: I memorized your useless list of facts and regurgitated them on command for your test.
      Teacher: But you did not use a #2 pencil, so you get no credit.

      Children: I got every answer correct on this math quiz.
      Teacher: But you did not show your work, so you get no credit.

      Children: I showed my work this time.
      Teacher: But you did not do it the exact why I would have, so you get half-credit.

      Children: I would like to learn the fundamentals of a marketable job skill.
      Teacher: Cumulus, Nimbus, and Stratus are three types of clouds.

      Children: I’m interested in computers. Can I study programming?
      Teacher: Mary Queen of Scots became ruler of Scotland in 1542.

      • I hated school because it was mostly repetitive, boring, and disciplinarian.

        There were some good teachers who taught good classes where I really did learn. But the educational system doesn’t really promote learning and reasoning as much as it acts like a baby-sitter service for the working class tax slaves.

        • At an early age, I found I could do math in my head in a way that wasn’t always clear just how it worked. My brain just sort of… knew the answer. I could follow the steps it took, but it wasn’t necessarily what was taught. There were these weird shortcuts and gimmicks (some of which they now teach students!), which I explained to my teachers.. but they wouldn’t let me use them. (WHY?!?!?!)

          So, I’d take tests and I knew the answer (it it was right) and I’d write it down and get a zero because I didn’t show my work.

          At one point, I got so annoyed that I taught myself how to do math in other base systems and in roman numerals. I converted the numbers, did the math (showing the work), arrived at the answer, and converted back. My teachers were so pissed off, but I got my 100’s.

          I figured, if I can get 100% doing that in the same time that other kids were getting lower scores and not jumping through extra hoops, I’d demonstrate my mastery of the subject and they’d leave me in peace or give me something more challenging.

          Instead, I got sent to the principle.


          Yea, I learned something: I learned that the education system is more about learning conformity than it is about learning to think.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You miss the reason why. It was because that is how we thought human brains developed. Teach this way because the brain works like this. Of course such theories are “averages” of the population. And when you build a factory you design it to crank out the largest number which is the average.

            The difference between when you went to school and I did is that teachers in my day recognized the “smarter” kids and would try to challenge them or suggest they move up a grade. The slower kids got some help in class and unlike many today, from mom and/or dad at home. In my case my mother spent weeks with me agonizing over math with fractions.

            Point being, somewhere along the line it seems we started trying to deal with only the averages and only the priorities set by some intellectual somewhere in a castle on high. That is how we lost the shop and automotive classed in high school, to be replaced by more math, science and some engineering. Guess what happened to those kids who would have taken shop or auto classes?

            Which brings me to the solution.

            Train teachers to teach kids subject matter and how to problem solve. Give teachers the skills and then hold them accountable. But here is the key. LET THEM TEACH. Stop trying to develop standards and tests to shove down their throats. Let them design the tests and class work to meet a broader goal.

            If “proficient in Algebra” is the goal then let the teacher figure out how to get er’ done. And those that do get rewarded in some way.

  3. Just A Citizen says:
    • I’ll read that when time permits, but – at a glance – it appears he’s conflating intelligence and education which are, decidedly, not the same thing.

      .. I mean, liberals are smarter, too, but that’s not what we’re talking about here..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      From another report, we find slightly different distribution at the “college” level but it still shows a majority of non High School people identify as “liberal”.

      But I found this piece within the report especially interesting:

      “In 1994, the share of those with graduate education who held consistently liberal views was 7 percent (compared to today’s 31 percent). The share with mostly or consistently liberal views was 31 percent (compared to today’s 54 percent).”

      I wonder if this change is related to the increase in humanity post graduate degrees as opposed to math, science and engineering. Or if the change in these fields toward computer tech. accounts for the change in political orientation. I suspect it is the influence of the changes in the education system itself. Much of which occurred in the 70’s and 80’s.

  4. And make learning fun, something they want to engage and absorb. Promote creativity and thinking outside the box, asymmetry, new ways of looking at things or approaching problems.

    What if the Wright brothers had stuck to bicycles?

    What if Einstein believed them when they said he had a learning disability?

    • What if Einstein believed them when they said he had a learning disability?

      …. Einstein did have a learning disability. He is often claimed to have been dyslexic. Whether that is true or not is subject to debate. What is not subject to debate, however, is that he didn’t start talking until late enough that his parents felt the need to consult a doctor. There is also a reasonable claim that he may have been (slightly) on the autistic spectrum.

      With that said, he was brilliant and able to overcome whatever impediments were in his way.

      What if the Wright brothers had stuck to bicycles?

      Someone else would have done it. There were plenty of others hot on their heels.

      And make learning fun, something they want to engage and absorb. Promote creativity and thinking outside the box, asymmetry, new ways of looking at things or approaching problems.

      Children are BRILLIANT at creativity. They are so exceptionally great that it’s staggering. It’s not until we beat it out of them that they lose that spark. Imagine what a world full of adults with adult intellect and childlike creativity could accomplish.

      A fun experiment: ask a kindergartner or first grader for all the possible uses they can come up with for a paperclip. Write them down and then compare that list to an adult. Kids are amazing. They’ll say cliping papers together, of course, but they’ll also suggest picking locks and poking their sister, and melting it down for scrap and using it for artwork. They’ll ask if it can be a 50 ft tall paper clip and can be used for constructing a building. They’ll say a tie clip, they’ll say back scratcher. They’ll ask if it can be made out of cheese. They’ll suggest using it as a fishing lure. Or a hair-clip. They’ll ask if they can clip millions together and make a bridge out of them. Adults never think like this. We’re punished for it.

      “Education” beat it out of us when we were most impressionable.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Come on man, it is not beat out of us and we are not always punished for it.

        Much of the difference between what children come up with and adults is called Experience. I KNOW paper clips cannot be made from cheese, but I also KNOW that if done properly I can make a bridge out of them. I know I cannot use them to build an elevator to the moon but I can still use them as a tie clip. Also cuff links and to stand in for a missing button……… 🙂

        • I got a job offer once where I used paperclips in lieu of cuff links at the interview. They said is suggested good problem solving skills.

          And why the hell can’t you make it out of cheese? Who made you the emperor of paperclips?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Because cheese, even very old dry cheese is to pliable.

            Now, maybe a Twinkie left in the Sun to dry might work. Twinkies will outlast the cockroaches.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting piece, relating the educated liberal vs conservative and how that relates to Political Party power.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    I want to take a minute to point out how using quotes can be a Logical Fallacy when taken out their context. I came across the following comment by a reader trying to support the hypothesis that conservatives are not as smart as liberals:

    “John Stuart Mill was aware of this in the mid 19th century:

    “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” –JS Mill

    Doubt he was the first to notice, for that matter.”

    The fallacy of using this quote is the context of the historic period in which JS MIll lived. During his time “conservatives” would have been those supporting the power of the Church of England and the Monarchy. Today conservatives are those defending the original meaning of a Constitution which was based in part on the ideas Mill was arguing for. A democratic form of Govt.

    This would be like using the original classifications of left and right from the French parliament to describe left and right today. For those who don’t remember, the “right” of that day were also called “reactionaries” because they were reacting against more liberty and wanted the Monarchy to be retained.

    • Is that kind of like how today’s Republican Party insists it’s the “Party of Lincoln” even though today’s Republican Party is nothing like the 1860’s version?

      By the way, the other Logical Fallacy here is an appeal to authority. Mill “was aware” is not a cause for confirmation of an opinion. Mill didn’t know anything special and, unless he conducted a scientific study, he’s just some random guy with an opinion based on anecdotal evidence and bias.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Well done, I didn’t even consider that one.

        I am not so sure the Republican party of today is all that different from Lincoln’s party. Although there is a stronger Libertarian bent to some of it.

        I would say it is more like when the R’s claim the Democratic Party is the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. True, it was. But obviously no longer is.

        Of course the context in which that claim is made must also be considered. It is a lousy retort used to defend against claims of racism by Republicans as a cohort. Kind of like denying your ugliness by telling the other guy “yeah? Well so is your sister”.

        • Kind of like denying your ugliness by telling the other guy “yeah? Well so is your sister”.

          Winston Churchill: I may be drunk, miss. But you’re ugly. And in the morning, I’ll be sober.

  7. I do not think that I will participate in this one…..I went to private school, my brother went to private school, my sister ( that is another story )…however, My dad went to public school, my mom went to private school, my grandmother went to private schools, my kids went to private school, and my grand kids go to private schools. In my family, there are 9 masters, 4 regular college grads, and 1 PHD…..none are products of public schools. The only thing that I can say about public schools is that we did not go because from the beginning, my grandpa always said that public schools are bastions of liberal philosophies and it is almost impossible to advance according to your ability. So I cannot discuss, with any reality, life in public schools.
    It is a local situation, IMO, and to be supported by local school boards and PTA groups. I do not, under any circumstance, support Common Core and find it to be romper room teaching designed to dumb down. My spousal unit is a retired public school teacher…and she says thank god. The regulations are stifling and the unions suck.

    I will read along but this is beyond my pay grade.

    • For what it’s worth, I went to private school my whole life (from preschool straight through grad school). I’ve never set foot on a public school except to cast my ballot.

      My personal experiences are all anecdotes of my private education.

      Aside: I was once suspended for a week for buying a chicken sandwich.

  8. Re; Liberals vs Conservatives intellect and education.

    They are all dumb statists, regardless of their education or IQ.

    I barely made it through 12 years of public school. My grades fluctuated a bit and were usually average or below. On two occasions, on the annual national assessment test, I scored of the highest percent in the nation and was referred to advanced programs, but never attended.

    I failed my first two freshman years and dropped out as soon as I was old enough to do so legally. I later went to a different program that allowed me to basically do whatever I wanted, in which case I did 4 years of high school in 2 years of part-time attendance and graduated.

    Later, I went for an engineering degree, took a college entrance assessment exam and was taken aside for my unusually high score, was pointed to special programs. I had stalker problems there and left that institution shortly thereafter, never to return. But I kicked ass on their test for the math problems not many figure out.

    I have taken tests to demonstrate that I am at least gifted, a genius on a good day, and what is known as an INTJ (nicknamed scientist or mastermind)

    In other words, I am only nominally ‘educated’ and more intelligent than most, and neither a Liberal or Conservative of any brand of statism.

    I am an Anarchist (hyper-socially liberal, hyper-politically conservative). We are the most intelligent, And I say that even a lay man can see how stupid it is to enslave yourselves to bullshit on paper and magic words, whore your progeny to bankers to pay for murdering people and destroying civilizations who are not your enemy.

    It’s about common sense, neither intellect or education.

    • and what is known as an INTJ (nicknamed scientist or mastermind)

      INTJ here, too!

      Though, I have also tested ISTP (about neutral between N/S, and deep into the I).

      I’ll tell you the secret about Myers Briggs: It’s total bullshit.

      I have taken tests to demonstrate that I am at least gifted, a genius on a good day

      I, too, have taken tests to demonstrate / quantify / assess my intelligence.

      It may surprise you to know that I, too, score rather well.. you know despite the fact that I am a just a “dumb statist.”

      We are the most intelligent,


      Conclusion not supported by facts in evidence.

      It’s about common sense, neither intellect or education.

      A) Common sense ain’t so common.

      B) You’ve reached a judgement and concluded that it’s common sense and reject everyone else’s opinion on what is “common sense” – that a government is central to the idea of an ordered and civil society that provides for the general welfare.


      You remind me of a devout Christian who KNOWS that your faith is right. “Why,” I ask. “Because I feel it, I just know it. It is common sense that my faith is the true one.”

      I turn to a devout Muslim and get the exact same answer, word for word. To a devout Jew, and again, the same answer.

      Without proof, you KNOW that you are right and they are wrong. While, without proof, they know that they are right and you are wrong. Yet you cannot see the fallacy here because you are blinded by your radicalism. You are blinded by your faith.

      • “I’ll tell you the secret about Myers Briggs: It’s total bullshit.”

        That stuff is spot-on accurate in terms of mapping your thought process. Go to the INTJ forums and take note of just how efficient the communication is for sake of everyone thinking alike and doing things like wording their sentences in similar fashion.

        Thought process reflects in the writing style.

        “I, too, have taken tests to demonstrate / quantify / assess my intelligence. It may surprise you to know that I, too, score rather well.. you know despite the fact that I am a just a “dumb statist.””

        I, honestly, figured you as a genius. But that doesn’t negate you being a dumb statist. I was once a dumb statists too, remember?

        “OBJECTION!!! Conclusion not supported by facts in evidence.”

        Obvious reality. Our position makes sense and is consistent. Yours isn’t. We are smart enough to see the real world.

        “A) Common sense ain’t so common. ”


        “B) You’ve reached a judgement and concluded that it’s common sense and reject everyone else’s opinion on what is “common sense” – that a government is central to the idea of an ordered and civil society that provides for the general welfare.”

        An orderly civil society is not default system of theft, coercion, kidnapping, murder and destruction. That is not civility. It is adversarialism and violence.

        I think my judgement is sound. That’s just plain ol’ fuking stupid to work towards civility with systematic violence.

        “You remind me of a devout Christian…”


  9. LCD in 4th grade math, THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Anyone remember?

    So, why is it that districts containing oodles of poor kids where more money is spent per pupil do poorer than districts full of wealthier (not necessarily rich) people? Ask yourselves that question. And Colonel, I want you in this not for your advanced degrees but because you used to be a grunt, you hung out with grunts many of whom had very little education and you held the coveted rank of E-4. As a matter of fact, I think that any former enlisted person has a lot to contribute to this conversation. Just a hunch.

    • Not only was I a grunt….I also dug latrines ( before they farmed the work out to civilians, worked Hell’s Kitchen ( Fort Benning ) before it was a TV show..even ran the “clipper”…did cigarette butt patrol, waxed many a barracks floor, and shined boots until the leather fell off (black boots..not old enough for the brown shoe days). Was finally glad that I made e-5 where I became a bona fide sgt in charge of the butt patrols. And, you will remember this I am sure….was in boot camp when drill sergeants could handle problems with hands on….meaning you could get your butt kicked for a thread on your uniform, butt stroked for dropping your weapon ( Butt stroked meaning with a rifle butt and not todays “dont ask dont tell folks )….

      Went to jump school as an E-4…..and thought that jump wings would get me out of the “chores”…thought I could make “straight legs” do the job. That did not work…was still on butt patrol with jump wings. Did more pushups that Carter had pills in the factory ( Colonel points if someone knows what I mean )…..

      So, on education… can I help?

      • Oh,, you did ask a quesion….well sir, the only input I have about public schools is that I have not found a connection between poor districts and rich districts ( in Texas, anyway ). Money does not make a better education in public schools. When I became somewhat politically involved, I have learned from listening and talking to parents and teachers and learning from my sig other what it was like in public schools. I can say this, from her perspective, when the liberal element got more in control and took the corporal punishment out of the schools…they lost control. She reported many times that the parents compained about homework and school activities. She complained many times how the classes would be dumbed down for non english speaking students.

        Texas tried the “Robin Hood” approach on school funding thinking that taking from the richer districts to give to the poorer districts, thereby making them financially equal, did not work at all and we do not do that anymore. The grades did not go up.Teachers are paid the same all over the state so it was not unequal pay. We, Texas, learned the hard way that throwing money at schools was not the way to go. The grades are no worse in poor districts as affluent districts.

        What my significant other also says…the liberal philosophy took the incentive out of learning. There was no punishment for not learning. You still got to play football, go to the prom, etc. Study halls ( after school additional studying ) were eliminated. Pupils can talk back to teachers without penalty… private schools, I would get my butt blistered with a paddle if I talked back or talked out of order. When you took all the discipline away….no one studdied nor cared and neither did the parents. The straw that broke the camels back was passing students even if they failed because it would “degrade them” to be held back. It would be insensitive.

        So, that is about all I know about it except politically from what I hear in legislative session.

        • D13, I think your assessment is good. I went public schools but it was like you in the ’50s and early ’60s. It was also a rural farming community. Discipline was by and large good so only the threat of corporal punishment was required. The district did not have a lot of money but managed to teach the fundamentals decently. 50% per cent of my high school class enrolled in college.

          Now I disagree with Mathius that education breeds liberals. My experience in college was mostly non-partisan. Few profs or instructors discussed politics and when they did there was no degradation to opposing views. I think that today’s youth are overpowered by the bias of the instructors thus if they come out liberal it is because it was force fed.

          One of the education issues here in CA is mandates (just like healthcare) from the legislature. Teachers must emphasize contributions from blacks, Hispanics, gays etc. Add to that the feel good don’t hurt Johnny’s ego and you have a prescription for failure.

          I know the math curriculum taught today is fouled up. It would confuse even the bright students. I often thought about retiring and becoming a math or physics teacher as a sideline. But I am afraid I would not tolerate the nonsense that goes on in the schools today. I would expect discipline, hard work and proficiency. Not something many of the schools today are use to.

          I would like to see the Feds out of the education field. States and localities can run the schools.

        • Thank you, we ask the teachers to be substitute parents and then take the authority away from them. We disrespect them and lower their status to that of servant and we expect results. We appoint principals with advanced degrees in principaling but little or no classroom experience and are shocked when they do not back up their teachers.

          This however begs the REAL question, the question no one dares ask, the question that is fraught with 1,000 mine fields, the question that immediately gets you tagged with the R label. Where TF are the parents?

          Dollars to doughnuts folks, I bet that you all had someone looking over your shoulder making sure that you did what you had to do. More likely you had someone telling you that the key to life was an education, even if they (like my folks) had little or none. That is what is missing from education. That is the LCD I spoke of before. That co-insides with the slide in education from the 60’s. When a striving intact family was no longer the goal of society in general then the “use” of education went out the window.

          Sorry ladies but the “take your daughter” to work, the stress on STEM for girls to the point where boys are ignored. The authorized, castrating drugs to turn boys into zombies at school have taken their toll. Look at the “useless” males hanging around. All colors, all races, all ethnic groups. They have been told they are not necessary, they are not going to college and there are no jobs for them. They have no future why bother? Man are we in a whole lot of trouble!

          Funny thing about equal opportunity and rights for women. Was thinking about this a few weeks back during the big protest in DC. If in fact men were standing in the way, how did women ever get to where they are today? They want it both ways, the big lie about men and their oppression and the “magic” of them overcoming it by themselves.

          • “Thank you, we ask the teachers to be substitute parents and then take the authority away from them. We disrespect them and lower their status to that of servant and we expect results. We appoint principals with advanced degrees in principaling but little or no classroom experience and are shocked when they do not back up their teachers.

            This however begs the REAL question, the question no one dares ask, the question that is fraught with 1,000 mine fields, the question that immediately gets you tagged with the R label. Where TF are the parents? ”

            There is no substitute for good dedicated loving responsible parents. And the DOE company babysitter service for tax paying mothers has essentially systematically kidnapped your children. Hence the conflicts and reason to scrap it.

            “When a striving intact family was no longer the goal of society in general then the “use” of education went out the window.”

            There is no substitute for a healthy functional nuclear family unit in regard to overall childhood development and eventual success. But walking boots got popular in the 60’s right?

            “Sorry ladies but the “take your daughter” to work, the stress on STEM for girls to the point where boys are ignored. The authorized, castrating drugs to turn boys into zombies at school have taken their toll. Look at the “useless” males hanging around. All colors, all races, all ethnic groups. They have been told they are not necessary, they are not going to college and there are no jobs for them. They have no future why bother? Man are we in a whole lot of trouble!”

            Oh god, don’t get me started on how the combination of law and feminism has wrecked the lives of men everywhere at the expense of the children.

            Unfortunately, the norm for a young male in his prime who intends to marry and have a family, is the prospect of being divorced lonely and broke by the time he is in his 40’s while his ex uses everything he just spent the last two decades working for in the interest of securing his legacy, to replace him and put him under legal/financial control and teach his children what a useless piece of shit he is.

            “Why bother?”, indeed.

            “Funny thing about equal opportunity and rights for women. Was thinking about this a few weeks back during the big protest in DC. If in fact men were standing in the way, how did women ever get to where they are today? They want it both ways, the big lie about men and their oppression and the “magic” of them overcoming it by themselves.”

            I don’t think feminism as an idea is a bad thing. I actually agree with a lot of it, even though I have very traditional family values. Girl power is a good thing when managed and focused properly.

            But that isn’t what’s happening. As you mention, they are lied to, misdirected in a way that leaves them bitter cranky old hags. They are just as unsatisfied as all the men out there. They are being told to hate sperm donors and family, and not to be the empowered wives and mothers they need to be.

            They are told to not stand by their man, but to take him for what he’s worth. They aren’t taught that it is okay to be empowered WITH your man. It’s sickening.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Sessions has been confirmed.

    Can’t wait to see the backtracking by Dems and media now.

    Going to get interesting in a hurry, me thinks.

  11. TO DPM……unlike your former captor……I suggest you graduated from the “School of Hard Knockers”……errr…..I mean the School of Hard Knocks…….eh?

    By the way, just how did you get out of that basement?

    • Home schooling gets a bad rap at times. I think that it is great. But I also think, that if you decide to home school, you should not have to pay the taxes associated with public schools. You are not using do not participate in public school activities…you should not pay. ( But, you must remember that I am a pay as you go advocate ). However, I have seen many home schooled individuals get into any college they wanted. I have no problems with home schooling at all.

    • When I speak of not bothering with fatherhood and family, because they will just be claimed as slaves? …well, that is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

      I know that if I were to start a family, I would, in the interest of sanctuary, move to the middle of nowhere and home-school my children. I would not comply with any paperwork to ask permission or any of that nonsense. I would essentially hide them from government, as my family is none of it’s business.

      In today’s world, that often gets CPS knocking at the door. I know me. I would tell that evil bitch to leave now and never return, in which case she would return with a pig. I would kill him as soon as possible and then shoot her in the back as she’s running, then bury them both and burn their cars elsewhere. …then send my children into permanent hiding while I went on the run, killing pigs until they killed me.

      Why bother if being the best dad I can be means watching it all go to shit anyway? Why is it that I am criminalized for being a human, for being a man in pursuit of happiness?

      This is why I hate statism/statists who demand it.

      • “In today’s world, that often gets CPS knocking at the door. I know me. I would tell that evil bitch to leave now and never return, in which case she would return with a pig. I would kill him as soon as possible and then shoot her in the back as she’s running, then bury them both and burn their cars elsewhere. …then send my children into permanent hiding while I went on the run, killing pigs until they killed me.”

        This type of language and action is inexcusable and does not belong here. It is beyond the pail. I am through trying to discuss anything with you, sir.

        • Fine by me. I hold no shame or reservation about referring to CPS thugs as evil bitches.

          If she has come to meddle in my personal life and violate my family, backed by force, she is indeed nothing but an evil bitch, subject to the right to defense, and will be dealt with accordingly, harshly and without mercy, respect or consideration.

        • Is armed home invasion, kidnapping, and coercive management of parenting choices something to be considered “lady-like” or “respectable”?

        • Colonel,

          There is a natural order to the nuclear family unit that need not be disturbed, tainted or tampered with. It is sacred and valuable, and is of the utmost importance in regard to healthy development for children. It is the core of the cycle of life.

          Outside influence is something to be handled with discretion, mom and dad’s discretion in particular, as it is ultimately their legacy at stake, their responsibility, their right, their say. Ultimately, mom and dad rule their kingdom.

          Your system of government has essentially raped the nuclear family unit with it’s imposed FORCED meddling, (forced entry, if you will indulge the term), ..and has caused a myriad of subsequent psychological and behavioral disorders, and further subsequent social problems. The people made government mom and dad and it neglected and abused them through every facet of control it could exert upon average families everywhere.

          CPS is a manifested epitomized evil of statism. It is nothing but a government kidnapping service. They are a civilian contractor operating on a family court judge’s orders, someone who wears a special robe and says magic special words to give them superpowers to force their opinions onto families. If they contact you, it is for the ultimate purpose of taking control of children. They are either going to ask you nosy questions about your friends neighbors or extended family, or are interested in controlling your children.

          If I am ever so lucky to have a family of my own, that is where I draw the line on absolute zero tolerance for government. NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE WHATSOEVER. ZEE. ROW.

          Now, you may see them as average normal humans, simply a person with good intent, trying to help children and just doing their job. I don’t. I see them as a non-negotiable edict, an instrument of violence upon my children. They are simply whatever that order on their paper work says. And that order says to control my family and I in some capacity. Thus any CPS worker with my name on anything is a threat, nothing more. They may as well be a talking gun.

          (Referring to them as a female dog is giving them undue credit, as if they had value, as if they weren’t a monster.)

          If I am going to be dealing with them in regard to my children, I am going to be thinking strategically, and not by any terms they may expect or consider. The more I think about it, I would not wait for them to come back with the pigs. I would kill her as soon as she exhibited state interest in my family.

  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. gmanfortruth says:
    • G man….one thing that I have been noticing ( I admittedly have missed it until reading something that Mathius has said that I find myself in agreement with****)..We have a tendency to paint with a very broad brush. By this, I mean, when we use the term leftist, just exactly what is that. I am now seeing a pretty huge difference in the term leftist and liberal. And this has just come to light in this last election and the administration past. The Democratic party is made up of conservatives, moderates, liberals, and leftists. The Republican Party is made up of conservatives, moderates, liberals, and ( I do not have a word for extreme right ) so I will call them extreme right.

      In the 50’s and 60’s and even early 70’s, we had what I have termed statesmen/women. There are none left now or the ones that are left are remanded to the corner.

      What does “left” mean and what does “right” mean and who invented the pendulum? I know that I can look up the definitions but I am not so sure those are proper definitions and, again, who comes up with the definitions. For example, I do not see Mathius nor Buck, for that matter, to be leftists at all….I see them being liberal to an extent but I do not see them as hard liberal…meaning, I do not see them as Communist nor Socialists in nature. And being a liberal does not mean that they are even Communists or Socialist followers.

      On the converse, I do not see myself as a hard right and I am certainly not very conservative by definition. I fall on the side of moderate because I do have some social issues that I believe in..I am against most of the application of social issues but do I believe in a certain responsiblity of society on a small amount. I vote Republican because they are closer to what I believe, but being a Republican does not make me racists or homophobic. I certainly am not a religious right…..I am not religious at all.

      So, there is a metamorphosis that is taking place in the Colonel. ( No, I am not leaning Democrat nor even “purple” ).

      In watching theses elections of Trump, et al. and what we have been through in the past, my old age is making me take a harder look and how politics is played today….back in the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s, you had two parties. Now I am not so sure. I think you have a plethora of additional parties within the two parties…and both have been hijacked and both have allowed it.

      Have to go do some work…..( Yes, Sir Mathius, when you get to this age, you will continue to work and I do have it right…the secret is….being able to take off when you want for however long you want)… back.

      • ooops…….

        ***** No, Mathius, do not do the happy dance. I did take to heart something you did say, however.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are confused because our language has been hi-jacked. And that was done deliberately for the purpose of confusing you.

        So because of the obfuscation of our language we are now at a place where we cannot identify and discuss any “group” without somehow offending “individuals” who might associate with that group. Because the individuals may not fit what they think or we think that group entails, completely. We cannot identify those we oppose and this makes it hard to articulate not only who they are but how we must fight them.

        So in my opinion we need to focus on their ideology. After all, that is the problem That is what we must wage war against.

        Now on the other hand, these crazy people Gman keeps putting up as example call themselves Liberals and/or Progressives. So why not call them what they claim to be. Even If I don’t think they are really Liberals, they do.

        I think the broad brush problem is not in the nomenclature as much as the stereotyping of the behaviors as applicable to the entire group. Because Matt and Buck think of themselves as Liberals also but don’t share in much of the idiocy and militancy we see from others in their tribe.

        But maybe we should ask them?

        So Matt and Buck, do you view these crazy types as Liberals and/or Progressives? Or do you have a better label other than “idiots”?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Stumbled upon an interesting quote from a man who led the “Progressive Party” for a spell.

        Quotes by Henry A. Wallace.

        Regarding Fascism
        The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
        “The Danger of American Fascism”, 1944

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Colonel, for the most part I see the political spectrum as a big circle on a wall with a line down the middle, a left half and a right half. The top of the circle is the Centrist, the bottom are the fringe and violent. Both sides are a scale which begins at Centrist and works right or left. I guess a Moderate would be somewhere near the top of the circle, alttle right or alittle left. I would say that most people in the top eighth of each side might even be considered Independent.

        This could be a article all by itself, but this should explain my ideology of the Left/Right political paradigm.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Looking back at Public Education in my youth, I remember being bored much of the time. My best teacher was 10th grade US History, Mr. Kovach (deceased) was a short fat teacher with no neck *due to his weight problems) but everyday, he stand at his podium and make the weeks chapter come to life. He was a great story teller and made it easy to learn and remember our nations history. It was the only class I got straight As in. Other than that, Bs and Cs. World history class was the worst. The teacher, a male, would assign a chapter and tell us to sit quietly and read. He just read his newspaper or graded test’s. These two led to my success as a USAF Combat Arms instructor.

    My other huge memory was the teachers strike at the beginning of 1980 shortly after the Iranian hostages were taken by Iran. The strike lasted well over a month and that was a winter to remember, lots of snow and lots of sledding. Also lots of time in front of the TV on the coldest of days, that’s when the Iranian hostage crisis a huge issue and on “breaking news” interruptions all the time. My mother was always throwing a fit because it would interrupt her soap operas. Those were the days when Mom’s stayed at home and raised the kids still. They were also tough times for people locally, as it was at the earliest stages of what would become the “Rust Belt”

    In a nutshell, 13 years of school, one good teacher, one really bad teacher and a whole lot of teachers who were boring. Throw in a winter labor strike and that’s what “Public Schooling” was for me.

  15. @ Mathius

    Re; Creative brilliance

    In my opinion, and in large part, what makes children so awesome and beautiful is their untainted minds, their fresh thinking that comes up with words like “Goodest”.

    You mentioned entertaining yourself with a child’s mind. I have done this on many occasions. I posit that sitting on the living room floor with a small child and a pile of Legos for an hour is far more entertaining than watching a bunch of fat sweaty men roll around on fake grass on television.

    (I’m not sure about women’s tennis though)

    They are blank canvasses waiting to be filled, and the whole idea of an immaculate healthy development into adulthood is something quite valued to me. They are precious, and that refreshing newness of their perspective is something to be nurtured and guided into magnificence.

    I think part of what makes a good educator is understanding and appreciating that unmolested perspective. It rather disgusts me to see people “beating it out of them” by whatever means, stifling their greatness and potential, killing their confidence and individuality, sense of innovation and progress.

    Everything we are, everything we do or have, is ultimately going to end up in their hands. Why would we do anything but give and teach them the very best? Hence the utmost importance and prestige of good educators.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Fascism Defined:

    “Fascism is a political ideology that developed after World War I in Italy and Germany. Fascism is characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. Let’s break this definition down into its component parts to get a better handle on fascism.

    Fascism involves a high degree of nationalism, which is a strong feeling of patriotism to your state and its people. In fact, the nationalism of fascism is so strong that it often involves feelings of national and racial superiority over others. The darkest example of this is the Jewish Holocaust brought about by Nazi fascism during World War II.

    Fascist governments employ an extreme form of authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments have power concentrated in one small group of people or even one person. Citizens often are not permitted to form opposition parties, and free elections are often not held. Propaganda and secret policy are tools of state. Authoritarian leaders usually are not subject to the rule of law – the laws don’t apply to them. Perhaps no historical figure depicted 20th century authoritarianism better than Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy from 1925-1943, who was known as ‘Il Duce’ – ‘The Leader.’

    Fascism is also characterized by militarism, where military institutions and military force have a heavy influence in society. Militarism can be characterized by four factors. First, it involves the participation of military officers in the civilian government. Second, the state focuses on a foreign policy predicated on a strong military and projection of power. Third, military values and norms are persuasive within the society’s culture. Finally, there is a focus on war preparation in cultural, political and economic institutions.

    Corporatism is also a part of the fascist state. Corporatism occurs when a government brings certain privileged business, labor and social groups into the government to directly participate in the formulation and implementation of policy. Note that this is different from communism, as the state does not own the industries or control the labor. In fact, corporatism often promotes capitalism but directs it towards state objectives. It’s also different than American-style pluralism, where interest groups try to influence government through lobbying. Instead, the interest groups participate directly in the policy-making process.

    Hostility to democracy, liberalism and Marxism is also present. Fascism was hostile to democracy because it saw it as creating anarchy. Fascism rejected liberalism for being too focused on individualism and materialism. While fascism places an emphasis of the collective good over the individual, like Marxism, it differs in important respects. Fascism accepted capitalism focused on service of state goals. Unlike the international focus of communism, fascism defines its community as an ethnically-based nation with a destiny. For example, Mussolini envisioned rebuilding the Roman Empire with him as the next Caesar.”

    I got this from It is a pretty good summary. Note the difference in how American Fascism functions on the political/economic side. This is in essence the definition which I have used here many times. Which I got from a Dictionary dated around 1920. A definition which I also found in the Portland Public Library three years ago, in an encyclopedia from the late 1920’s.

    I think there is a problem with classifying Fascism with powerful central leaders and militarization is the period in which the movement developed. Almost all leaders in Europe emulated the monarchs, which meant there was a lot of people wearing uniforms. Also, the military and dictatorial aspects did not start from the beginning. They developed as any political power would, in order to preserve itself.

    No matter who gets the stick of power, including those spouting Liberal Democratic principles, they will consolidate power in order to keep the stick.

    • If I remember, one of the great points of “1984” was the dumbing down of the populace. Our hero asked the why question too often and stood out like a sore thumb.

      Talking about indoctrination in the schools at all levels, you have a problem when you are told that there is no alternative but to thinking the RIGHT way all the time and talking to those who agree with you and never ever considering any other way because you have been told it is the WRONG way.

      Just been thinking, perhaps we SHOULD be listening to the non-college educated. Most will agree the bulk of the serious indoctrination occurs at the college level. So those who have avoided the college “experience” are less likely to have been brainwashed. I guess you can also take out folks who have done the part time, night college route or vets. The vets I knew back in the day were interested in punching the college “ticket” and getting on with their lives, not contemplating their navel and being told what they were seeing.

      Just caught Trump telling folks to check out Sen Blumenthal’s (D. Conn.) claims of Viet-nam service before they decide to believe him! I was always amazed that the guy got elected after his stunt. Shows how little the society actually prizes either truth or actual service. There are certain things one just cannot lie about. Having been in the military during that war and being a fair to middling historian of it, people often assume I was there, especially when I describe actual events. I never once thought of passing myself off as a Viet-nam vet. Guys like the Colonel deserve all the credit we can give them. Trump should be careful though. His record on the era was not exactly pristine though he did come through and pony up the cash needed to build the NY memorial.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Yogishchandra Kamath, Master of Econ 101
    Written Oct 13, 2014

    Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production i.e capital goods (land, machines etc) can only be owned by Government, not by private individuals or groups of individuals.

    Communism refers to a classless society. In commie discourse, the purpose of the state (any state) is to enforce the rule of one class over another. So, there is no need for a state in a classless society…. In other words, communism is an anarchy.

    The difference is that socialism can and has existed, while communism has not and cannot. It is impossible to achieve “communism” outside of a controlled setting of atmost a few hundred highly dedicated people (like the Israeli ‘Kibbutz’) embedded within a much larger, modern, conventional nation-state.

    The terms have, over time, been used to mean various things which they did not originally mean.

    For example, what I have defined as socialism is often called communism …. and a generous welfare state is often called ‘socialist’. Mainstream political parties in the western Europe who do not have any intention of nationalizing anything sometimes use the moniker “socialist” to refer to themselves.

    The correct term for those who believe in a bigger welfare state is “Social democrat” not socialist, but the practise of calling them socialists is so widespread that one has to accept that it has become the de-facto definiton of the word.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    [The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This [“to live for others”], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.”

    Guess what this is called!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Now what political philosophies are supported by Altruism?

        • The Communist model, be it that the order of values prioritizes the collective over the individual. The state comes first, the central arbiter and delegation of allocation, equal share, mediocrity, etc.. etc..

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Wrong. At least not the Communism of Marx.

            • None of them are really altruistic, as all are people demanding force upon others by proxy of government. If the core of altruism is complete selflessness, I posit that forcing your way onto them is completely antithetical thereof. Who is the servant, who is the master?

              There is nothing altruistic of government in that regard.

              I suppose we could argue that a dictatorship is altruistic in that it is all ‘serving’ the dictator, an entire population giving complete allegiance, service, and control to another.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Actually, all the forms of socialism are based on Altruism. So is the Soviet model of Communism.

                I said no to Marx’s Communism because he postulated this type of govt would be the end evolution after socialism. And that there would be no classes and no govt. So at this point everyone is working for their own desires but there is no centralized production with owners. Which is why of course, it is impossible to exist.

              • I am not sure what you mean by “centralized production with owners”.

                I look at them as all the same. There is no real difference. All are simply using different methods to control by force. All those definitions of different forms of government are a mix and match combination/blend of different methods to control economics and human action/behavior as per different sets of values.

                Ultimately, they are all just different forms of the same system. Ultimately they are all simply force, violence.

                From my perspective, we are discussing the intricate differences between turd sandwiches, as if the particular breed of wheat used to make the bread has any overall influence on taste. And vinaigrette dip or mustard doesn’t help either. Even horseradish doesn’t work.

                It’s going to either eventually result in Libertarianism, slavery, or destruction.

                If people wise up, we’ll have Libertarianism. If not, it will be slavery or destruction by default. If government succeeds, it will be slavery. If not, it will be because it destroys everything. I am guessing slavery, ultimately because people are stupid.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                No corporations or “businesses” owned by anyone other than the producer as an entity.

                If a group of people worked together to make stuff then that is not ownership, per Marx.

                A system of absolute cooperation with NO FORCE used to create production. NO Govt. to enforce any rules.

                This was Marx’s Communism. Sound familiar?

              • He was an INTJ too.

                I think Marx was essentially rationalizing another means of management, ultimately recognizing reality and trying to name it something. He was seeing one possible eventual peaceful result beyond government and calling it communism.

                Communism at it’s principle core is centralized management of resources, and doesn’t necessarily mean forced government communism. In this regard, communist systems are simply a natural form of human organization where everyone pitches in and assigns management. This can be things like donating to a community church for whatever social programs they may have, or donating to a freeway fund, etc.

                Communist systems play a role in every society as it ultimately forms by popular demand, hence commu-community-commune-communism. As long as they are voluntary, as long as those systems operate on free market principles, they work.

                I posit this is Marx’s solution; a rationalized free market communism, dubbed Marxism.

                If you are trying to confuse it with Anarchism, I submit that communism is simply one possible system within an Anarchy.

                If it is completely voluntary, then it is Anarchy, whatever it may be, as Anarchy is ultimately premised in the reality of self ownership. But Anarchy can be other than communism. Communism can only be communism, free or forced. If it is free, then it is conducive to Anarchy.

                But communism is not Anarchy.

              • What is civilization? What is a society? What is social order and organization? What is it REALLY?

                At it’s core, it is an input/output equation driven by mutual benefit. It is the eventual systematic result of satisfying mutual need/want through cooperation. We humans are social creatures with an instinct to understand the efficiency of cooperation. That is the core of what is a society or civilization.

                If that result allows everyone a choice, allows all to be the ultimate authority of their individual vessel, it is Anarchy.

                Why is Anarchy correct, the answer? Because it is based on the reality of self ownership. Hence “No Rulers” The reality is that humans are individuals, with independent existence and thought. We are not the Borg, we are not an ant colony. We are individuals. It is inalienable to us to choose. We choose to cooperate as needed. That is what we are.

                Try not to decide, to not think, to not choose. Too bad; Inalienable independent free will, reality. You have a mind of your own. The only way to negate it is to die.

                Anything based on a false faulty or incomplete premise will result in something false faulty or incomplete. The more that is built upon that incorrect premise, the more it deviates, the more extreme the result.

                If it is not premised on reality, it is eventually going to fail, as it will have deviated to the degree whereby the level of conflict no longer allows it to function.

                THIS is why Libertarianism/Anarchy is the answer. It is based on what is real, what is human nature, what is the essence of civilization.

                Government, in whatever form, is government because it is forced, denies self ownership, is premised on a false reality where humans are something else subject to the will of the state. The greater it becomes, the more the false premise is built upon, the more extreme the result, the more it denies humanity, the more it conflicts with reality.

                The natural order of the universe always gets it’s way. Why not work WITH reality rather than against it?

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been slow-walking the confirmation of Donald Trump’s cabinet. Yet in 2013 the same Sen. Schumer justified Harry Reid’s elimination of the filibuster for presidential appointments (except the Supreme Court) by saying, ”Just about everyone in America, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, believe that once you elect a president he deserves his choices to run the executive branch.”

    Video imbedded.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.[1][2]

    Classical liberalism was first called that in the early 19th century, but was built on ideas of the previous century. It was a response to urbanization, and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Thomas Jefferson, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]

  21. gmanfortruth says:
  22. Just A Citizen says:

    The Establishment 2, Trump 0

    9th Circuit upholds the TRO on Trump’s Executive Order suspending travel to the US.

    Confirms States have standing because Universities are a “branch of the State”.

    Confirms Green Card Holders have Due Process Rights.

    Infers that Visa holders and Refugees may have Due Process Rights. Apparently the disclaiming ON THE VISA means nothing to the Court.

    Many of the legal scholars and lawyers were wrong. They predicted the Appeals Court would narrow the case and reject the State’s claim to Standing.

    Maybe the Admin. lawyer shouldn’t have started out with “The courts have no authority to review this decision”. Nothing ticks off judges like that argument. They have been claiming that authority, whether granted or not, since Marburry vs. Madison.

    • Split up the 9th Circuit.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am OK with that but it won’t solve the underlying problem. Although doing it now would allow Trump to pick all the Justices on the new Circuit.

        Congress can solve this but they don’t have the brass. Cut funding, disband the court. The reconstitute it with tighter restrictions and all NEW judges.

    • They are all criminals, disobeying the law that says people have a right to free travel and of association. They do not have a right to manage or enforce a state/national border.

      They are all beyond their authority to rule themselves and take care of their property and families.

    • wrong.,.,,,I am not sure it is 2-0……The 9th circuit was a slam dunk for the left…it was a very narrow ruling and had nothing to do with Trump, per say. Although some so called scholars were saying that it COULD go….only the far right pundits were betting on it. I think Trump is dumb… a fox. I have been looking at the decision very closely and looking at the ramifications of it.

      Let me throw another scenario at you….a business scenario. To get what you want, you make it appear that you throw all your eggs in one basket. You lose…knowing that you were probably going to lose. So he gets a 9th circuit court, whose history of over turned decisions in 2016 were 86%, to do exactly what he wants… rule against him. So what exactly what was the ruling? To keep the 90 day temporary stay in place. That is all….nothing more.

      I see a perfect trap being set by Trump and the left walked into it. The elitists. They piled on !
      So, Trump now gets to focus on National Security and exploit the court ruing against him…”See what I tried to tell everybody?” The deck is stacked against us….I am trying to protect this country and the left will not let me do it.” “I am trying to fulfill my campaign promises and the left is stopping us under the disguise of equality but it is really allowing terrorists a potential avenue over the next 90 days.” He gets to pound that into the sand.

      So, he turns the dogs loose, feeds the red meat to the right wing pundits ( cable news ) and starts lambasting on the notion of protecting our country. In the ,eantime, the business elites flooded out of the woodwork ……the roaches and ants are surrying and think they just won a major victory. They get to stomp around and puff their chests out……and Trump simply goes back to the district court to try the case on its merits and changes the EO to read a little bit differently to include those who have green cards and visas. The left gets its win on the battle……Trump gets his win on the war. His 90 days passes and he orders the homeland security to change the rules and simply start the vetting he wants. He learned well from Obama….just do it with rule changes and they cannot be challenged. Now, everytime he gets a challenge in anything concerning immigration, the stage is set for a National Security argument…..which he will win.

      In the meantime, as the Senate slow walks his nominee, he is doing the exact same thing with rule making until his nominee is approved, which he will be. In this time, the left wing pundits will be crowing like a horny rooster and slapping them selves on the back.

      I wonder……….

      • I agree totally. His immigration plan is still on order, this temp order is exposing what tricks the opposition has up its sleeve. He can work around it by issuing another order if he wants to. But I think he wants it to go to the Supremes where the US Code is on his side. Plus, he inoculated himself against future terror attacks. Now any blood will be on the hands of the left, then Robart, then the 9th Circuit.

        Hillary tries to take her digs…tweeting “3-0″… that was a mistake, people are tweeting back “yeah but you’re 0-2”

        • All those criminal edicts have to be enFORCED. And whatever exacerbation to the issue the state comes up with, however it works out, there are still going to be people crossing the border.

          And then there is this movement of all these people who are sick and tired of being bossed around with guns. I suspect they are not going to simply accept the law, that there will be friction.

          All they really have to do is start killing border patrol agents in large enough numbers. They could simply stalk them and kill them off duty. How do you enforce a border with no enforcers? If those drug cartels were smart, they would dispatch clandestine teams to hunt border patrol agents, kill them as soon as they leave their homes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I do not agree that was a strategy going in. Evidence? He did not select the District nor Circuit court. That was simply selected by the opponents.

        Now, I do think Trump is more likely to find new tactics. To adjust and improvise. He will, in my opinion almost have to withdraw the EO and issue a new one, or amend the existing one.

        I think this happened because he was stuck with the B team doing the homework. Otherwise the EO would have addressed the due process issue for Green Card holders.

        Meanwhile, I expect so see Trump implement the EO, as already modified for green cards, via a new vetting process that is probably already going into affect.

        • “He did not select the District nor Circuit court. That was simply selected by the opponents.”

          Agreed he did not select them but he did not care where it went, in my opinion. He knew that he was going to lose and I think that he is using his ego as a false front. It just seems prudent to me. Being the businessman he is and despite his neophyte political Washington experience, I do not see him allowing himself to be sucked in intentionally. Not saying that he did not….just that I do not see it. One reason for moving so fast is to divide and conquer. To have so many fronts, his opposition cannot defend them all… the meantime, he has exposed his enemies. They all want to jum on the band wagon….but interestingly enough, look at the Senators whose seats come up in a year and half….they are, for the most part….very quiet.

          I agree with your B team analogy but it is the same for new commanders. I had a B team when I took over commands but you still use them to the best of your advantage until you get your command in place or until you get your team trained to your specifications. Now, I also agree with your hidden analogy that he is ripe with spies and he needs to root them out.

          “Meanwhile, I expect so see Trump implement the EO, as already modified for green cards, via a new vetting process that is probably already going into affect.”

          Yes and he gets to now tell the people that all he had in mind was to protect the United States and is being hounded at every turn….I bet his SCOTUS nominee sails through faster now….I really think so.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    High School kids walk out of school to protest the Trump Immigration EO. About a dozen are interviewed. There could not have been a better example of the failure of the public education system, PERIOD.

    • Perfect talking points from kids who would say anything to get out of class.

    • They are breaking free, whatever they are thinking, it is ultimately in rejection of serfdom.

      That’s a good thing.

      • No what you missed was the teachers patting them on the head as good little robots on their way out the door. No doubt under the table extra credit.

        • I missed most of it because it is unimportant. They are protesting something of something that has something to do with the state. That means they are part of the solution. And I am glad to hear that the teachers agree.

          You not understanding the difference suggests that, not only did your teachers fail you, but that you are subsequently part of the problem.

          Know your enemy, like the song says.

          “Yes I know my enemies
          They’re the teachers who taught me to fight me
          Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
          Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
          All of which are American dreams”

          • Here are the full lyrics;

            Yeah, we’re comin’ back then with another bombtrack
            Think ya know what it’s all about
            Hey yo, so check this out
            Know your enemy!
            Come on!

            Born with insight and a raised fist
            A witness to the slit wrist, that’s with
            As we move into ’92
            Still in a room without a view
            Ya got to know
            Ya got to know
            That when I say go, go, go
            Amp up and amplify
            I’m a brother with a furious mind
            Action must be taken
            We don’t need the key
            We’ll break in

            Something must be done
            About vengeance, a badge and a gun
            Cause I’ll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
            I was born to rage against ’em

            Fist in ya face, in the place
            And I’ll drop the style clearly
            Know your enemy…Know your enemy!

            Hey yo, and dick with this uggh!
            Word is born
            Fight the war, fuck the norm
            Now I got no patience
            So sick of complacence
            With the D the E the F the I the A the N the C the E
            Mind of a revolutionary
            So clear the lane
            The finger to the land of the chains1

            Now something must be done
            About vengeance, a badge and a gun
            Cause I’ll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
            I was born to rage against ’em

            Now action must be taken
            We don’t need the key
            We’ll break in

            I’ve got no patience now
            So sick of complacence now
            I’ve got no patience now
            So sick of complacence now
            Sick of sick of sick of sick of you
            Time has come to pay
            Know your enemy!

            Come on!
            Yes I know my enemies
            They’re the teachers who taught me to fight me
            Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
            Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
            All of which are American dreams

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Question for those who think the courts overstepped their authority on Trump’s travel moratorium.

    The arguments are that the Court has not authority over the decision because of the plenary power (absolute power) of POTUS to set such rules, as given to him by Congress.

    So, do you really want any POTUS to have unilateral and unchecked power to make any decision he/she wishes base on “what is in Americas best interest”? That is without having to provide some type of proof that the action is related to the goal. Or that the goal is even properly applied.

    In short, how do you prevent ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS executive action if you do not allow the Court to review such decisions?

    Or are you willing to allow the executive to make ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS decisions because you trust them all to have our best interests in mind, at all times.

    • The power was entrusted to the President by the congress. It is the right and duty of the congress to retract or restrict it or let it stand. Either you have an executive or you don’t. FDR wanted to pack the court. Congress, his congress, told him don’t. That is what is supposed to happen.

      The courts have no standing unless they say that congress has no right to pass laws without their ability to strike them down.. Which I think they have been doing a pretty good job of. This is the most egregious example though.

      Now note that the court DID NOT comment on the law merely that somehow it hurt two state university systems (standing?) and was anti-muslim. Interestingly enough the law stated the president had the right to block a “group” . Muslims are in fact a group but obviously he did not seek to block them.

      One thing I am repeatedly amazed at is the refusal of EVERYONE to see this as a time out, nothing more. That is Orwellian. The misuse or deliberate ignoring of the facts to suit their purpose.

    • I don’t think any branch of government has absolute authority-Constitutionality should always be reviewable(I think that’s the correct word) by the courts-but I do think their ruling overstepped their authority.

      • “…but I do think their ruling overstepped their authority.”

        Of course it did. They have no authority to rule. Their titles and positions are based on fiction. In the real world, people are individuals with free will who determine their own values and behavior, etc.

        Those rulers that you speak of, aren’t really rulers. They’re just people in funny clothes who have religious ceremonies with special stamps and seals and magic words and tapestry and such. They are simply imposing their fantasy role playing games onto everyone

        I think they call it CONstipation States or something to that effect.

        • They have no authority. Funny clothes, fake stamps, evil bitches, no authority, funny clothes, stamps, blah blah blah blah blah blah. Give it a rest, please. Like a little kid seeking attention……….I’m out

          • That lady who calls herself V.H. speaks in terms as if their fantasy game is real. This is an example of a dangerous problem that faces everyone in America and abroad.

            You see, when she makes the mistake of confusing an organized fantasy role game with reality, as if it is legitimate, it supports this confusion and generates more of it, quite similar to the “War of the Worlds” situation in the 1930’s when Orson Wells fooled a bunch of people as if it were a real broadcast.

            Those people in robes are playing their authority game with real guns, and telling everyone what to do, threatening to cage or kill them if they don’t. They have murdered and stolen and destroyed whole civilizations over it. This is a very very serious problem and has effected millions upon millions of lives.

            I am and have also been personally effected, and even used to play the game myself.

            It is very important that we stress to people that authority is simply a fictitious concept, that they can’t really boss everyone around with weapons.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I believe we all understand your position. Sounds great. 80 degrees and sunny today sounds good too, but it’s only 25 and snowing. This is a political blog, not an anarchist blog. We talk about whats going on the the real world, not what fairy land could be, because there wouldn’t be a blog if that were to occur. Since fairly land is as likely to occur is as equal to the flat earthers being right, how about talking about current political events. Your cult like bloviating has pretty much ensured your ideology is dead here. Any positive message you were trying to get across died when you expressed your violent tendencies.

              • Repeating the same disastrous and completely inconsistent failed arguments don’t make it work, Gman.

                But I would love to focus on this violent tendency you speak of. Because I know that I do not advocate violence, and that most of what you probably mistake for violence, is in fact rightful and is either force used in defense or for restitution, a response to violence. A lot of that violence emanates from the state that you people advocate support and espouse.(which is the part you avoid addressing)

                You simply don’t like being called out for the violent monster that you produce with your egos. “My way, by force” is your way. And you don’t like hearing about it any more than I like being subjected to it.

                One could even argue that any offense that you may take at my abrasiveness is actually a response to the offense I take at your celebrating my victimization of your systemic violence.

                ‘Yay statism!’ …but not all the violence and theft death and destruction that comes with it? Should it be “Kind of yay statism!” or “Yay! Some parts of statism”?

                Maybe if you didn’t encroach upon my America with your unites states, I wouldn’t be here bothering you with it. I suppose you could even argue that I am ‘Standing Up For America’ against a bunch of people who cannot figure out how to not violate everyone.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                As Black Flag would say…..Utter Nonsense.

              • Then how appropriate I demand you either argue it or concede, as is representative of the very symbolism of a black flag itself.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Then how appropriate I demand you

                You espouse “no rulers” then you demand “anything” of me completely destroys your whole line of bullshit. You have expose your fallacy. I don’t have to argue anything, you’ve already killed your fairy land cultism.

              • I demand nothing of you by force. I am not using coercion to control you, nor violence against you.

                Who here can say that? …that they aren’t terrorists?

                Even better, who can figure out how to do it without force? How many people know how to mind their own business and leave people like me, who are trying to mind my own business, alone?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I am not using coercion …BULLSHIT

                You came here. If your business is anarchy, then go mind it, we will not bother you, promise 😀

              • “I am not using coercion …BULLSHIT”

                I am not coercing you into anything? Do you not know what coercion is, Gman?

                What threat have I imposed upon you in order to control you?

                “If your business is anarchy, then go mind it, we will not bother you, promise ”

                I’m trying.

                Your rules are a problem. So I come here to confront you with my best intellect, where I know people are listening, and with a bit of zeal I might add.

                But it is difficult to point out in any clear concise terms with those who refuse to be reasonable.

                And this is not only about me, Gman. This is all of us.

              • Now that I am done defending our disagreement, I would like to continue addressing this force that statists impose.

                What is government?

                Where does it get it’s authority?

                As best as I can tell it is a system of violence that claims it’s authority from religious ceremonies and magic words, paper and stamps and such, as well as people’s opinions on what to force everyone to do.

                There is a false notion that religion gives the right to violate or something. But it is so unrealistic that it almost qualifies as a fantasy role playing game, as they premise it on the idea of possessing super powers that enable them to rightfully violate.

                It’s very bizarre.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I never speak for “all of us” because it fails every logic test invented. What I can say is that I was once fairly close to the Anarchist ideology, just not completely. You have managed to come a turn what sounded pretty good into something “cultish” , which you engaged in coercion, via shame tactics, then proved that it isn’t non=violent at all and showed that many who espouse the ideology are just violent ego-maniacs who would use violence to maintain their cult like community. Fairy land sounds better, because you have show that your land is not much different than North Korea.

              • “What I can say is that I was once fairly close to the Anarchist ideology, just not completely”

                How unfortunate that you did not graduate. You are, of course, free to espouse anarchism or any other idealism, and have no obligation to me other than to respect my rights.

                ” You have managed to come a turn what sounded pretty good into something “cultish” , which you engaged in coercion, via shame tactics, then proved that it isn’t non=violent at all and showed that many who espouse the ideology are just violent ego-maniacs who would use violence to maintain their cult like community. Fairy land sounds better, because you have show that your land is not much different than North Korea. ”

                Again you offer a retort of mischaracterizations and false premises. I am not even sure where to start in attempting to sort it out.

                “I never speak for “all of us” because it fails every logic test invented.”

                It’s a ticking time bomb, quite literally as well as figuratively. When/if it ignites, a lot more people are likely to die, a lot more is likely to be wasted and/or destroyed.

                It is about that false premise thing I explained to JAC on this thread. If you haven’t figured out how to reason, how to make peace in spite of all the evil that works to the contrary, there is a very real possibility it will result in a complete shit storm for everyone. EVERYONE.

                When I address things like spending your progeny as currency to finance genocide and destruction, and banker’s opulence, I am serious. Stop doing it. NOW.

                When I address the fundamentals of getting along, the very values and principles of social order, it is not always simply for entertainment. If I am being abrasive or zealous, it is for a reason. Stop forcing your neighbors with a system of violent adversarialism. Now.

                When I shame lack of reason, it is because it is important. Try to do so as best you are able.

                …or not. Dismiss me as fantastic or whatever, deal with ‘god’ or something.

      • VH…no reason to be out….simply do not respond to him any longer…I am not. His objective is to destroy this site.

        • “His objective is to destroy this site.”

          Or not.

          I have been clear and open of my objective. Other than playing along where I know they are paying attention, venting at them because they refuse to be forthright, whoever they are,…

          …I am entertaining myself, and challenging you all beyond your comfort zone, shaking things up, addressing and confronting the violence you impose upon myself and others, and you don’t like it.

          Pardon me if I am not as cordial as you may expect or wish of me, Colonel.

  25. As my son the attorney said this morning, They never even discussed the law. I am in a way overjoyed. Any terrorist strike is now owned by the left and its black robed sages. Barring some catastrophe, there will be very little left of the Democratic Party after the mid-terms. It is amazing, their reason has been so compromised by their hate that they are handing the keys to the kingdom to the right.

    Had they let the order stand and one terrorist attack occurred, they could have gone on and on about how poor a job Trump was doing. They have now taken that one off the table. Neat trick.

    I do not somehow think, I ever want to play poker with Donald Trump.

  26. We have 15 years of history to guide our way on this one JAC. How about we just follow the law, then there’s no need for going where you’re going. It’s way more simple than you’re allowing it to be.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      So are you supporting arbitrary rules by POTUS?

      You say follow the law. Which law allows POTUS to make arbitrary decisions with no connection between the problem and the solution?

      Either you support arbitrary rules or you don’t. Pretty simple.

      If you do not then who is to decide if POTUS has overstepped either a) The Constitution or b) The arbitrary and capricious standard?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It is no different than the ABC agencies power to regulate. Even the agencies decisions come down to one person, and that has been dictated by POTUS on many occasions. All Congressional referrals of power should be eliminated, then Congress might have to actually represent.

      • Immigration is hardly arbitrary. It was the central focus of his campaign with huge support. The US Code is behind him. You’re making this something its not.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          So you think the US Code allows POTUS to make any decision he/she wants for any reason? Even if their stated reason has no connection to anything?

          Are you are saying that Trump has to produce ZERO evidence that his decision is in fact connected to the goal of “in America’s best interest”. Just because he said so while campaigning is enough to justify said decision?

          I am not making this more complicated. This is the crux of what the legal issue will be when the actual case is presented. Because both the District and Circuit court raised the issue. They will both expect it to be answered.

          More importantly, I see a lot of hypocrisy by people who condemned Obama for “arbitrary decisions” that went “beyond his authority” yet now claim Trump’s authority is absolute and no rationale is required.

          I also see a lot of supposed “conservatives” calling for Trump to just ignore the court. Really? The law and order Republicans calling for the POTUS to revolt against the Court. What would they have said if Obama just blew off SCOTUS when they rejected his EO’s?

          • Calm down JAC. You’re putting words in my mouth. I expect whoever POTUS is, to follow the law. Can you point me to where he didn’t follow the law?

            • Congress can rein him in any time they want to.

              I think what’s been happening in Europe is relevant. It has not happened her to that extent, YET! What is teh problem with an admittedly TEMPORARY halt. Note TEMPORARY. Please note it because you and my leftist friends seem to be ignoring that.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                And there lies the part that isn’t making a lot of sense, at least as how the Left is handling things. The names of these seven countries have been out for awhile. While I agree with the concept of much better vetting, Trump played ONE card in a long hand of poker (maybe). Let me elaborate.

                First card out is a Temporary ban of incoming non-citizens from 7 countries. It happened, strategically, on a weekend. Democrats flip out, lawsuits filed. Trump counted on this and counted on Judge shopping. His move was two fold, see the Democrat hand (strategy) and put some bad people on notice. Hoping to get a Liberal Judge’s expected ruling (a stay), it opened the door for a brief window, for any bad people to come here, in a rush. What happens?

                People coming from those countries rose dramatically. The FBI knows who they are. Even if 1 out of a thousand turns out to be arrested for planning a terror attack, Trump will have won. Obviously I’m hoping on being caught, before any deadly attack occurs. This of course changes nothing about any who are already in country. Here’s a question.

                Should a terrorist attack now or wait? Think like them, do you make Trump look smart or cause the chaos? I’m not sold they are concerned about our politics, they are too bat shit crazy about theirs. Thoughts?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes I can. He violated the 4th amendment by including green card holders in his EO. He may have remedied this after the fact but his EO broke the law.

              But that is not the issue. I asked a specific question about whether people are fine with a POTUS just making any decision he/she wants if there is not a constraint on their decision.

              Does the proposed action have to have a direct connection to a problem or can they simply do what ever they want?

              Trump’s EO is a good example. There is nobody that is going to just start flooding into this country from the middle east on airplanes. If they will flood anywhere they will have to cross from Mexico or Canada. The only other option is to have forged passports and visas, along with the papers to back them up. They will have to get through customs with these forged documents.

              All the people who had Visas and those with Refugee status, meaning permission to travel to the US, had been vetted by US agencies. I have read that it takes almost two years to pass the refugee check process.

              So where is the connection between Trump’s decision and the problem of unknown potential terrorists entering the USA from these 7 countries?

              This raises the question I asked you. Not whether he broke a law but whether any president should be able to make any arbitrary decision they want if they can wiggle under the legal barrier.

              • I answered your question. I said I expect any POTUS to follow the law. You said he broke the law by including green card holders. How do you know that? Why did D13’s crew know that green cards were excluded? You mentioned yourself that there may have been either some rogue officials at the airports holding people up purposely, or they were simply misinformed on how to roll out the ban. Who knows what really happened. But legal scholars. legal pundits, legal blogs all seem to come down on Trump’s side as to the Constitutional legality of the ban. Whatever the case is, it looks like the 9th Circuit is looking to backtrack on their decision…so now who looks like the fool?

                Back to arbitrary EOs… NO I’m NOT OK WITH A PRESIDENT MAKING EOs FROM WHOLE CLOTH. That’s not the case here. I’ve pointed to the reason THAT I THINK is relevant….a 15 year war on terrorism, and campaign pledge from a candidate to get a handle on immigration, for the purpose of keeping us safe. Adding, we have a history of “pretending not to know certain things” about certain immigrants who have turned around and burned us. THOSE ARE CONNECTIONS.

                Reading between the lines, you’re trying to assign on me a blind faith because Trump is my guy. Bullshit! I have the longest history on SUFA of a pure fear of this whole terror issue. There is precedent for an immigration ban. It’s not like he came from left field on this one. I’d be with you if Trump put out an EO banning spaghetti on Wednesday. We both know that’s not the case here.

              • JAC, I’m watching right now where Iran has 100s of 1000s hanging out chanting Death to America. Another connection! We’re supposed to let them in….because of what? Paperwork?

          • Trump will not ignore the law…and neither will those uppity people suggesting that he does….I am still betting it is a very calculated move.

  27. gmanfortruth says:
  28. Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.

    At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they’re doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment’s notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they’re brave, they’re well-trained, and dedicated.

    A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, “I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.” Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Powell; the Chiefs here tonight; our commander in the Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf; and the men and women of the Department of Defense. What a magnificent job you all are doing. And thank you very, very much from a grateful people. I wish I could say that their work is done. But we all know it’s not.

    So, if there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the time is now. And let me thank all Americans, especially those here in this Chamber tonight, for your support for our armed forces and for their mission. That support will be even more important in the days to come. So, tonight I want to talk to you about what’s at stake — what we must do together to defend civilized values around the world and maintain our economic strength at home.

    Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected. These goals are not ours alone. They’ve been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.

    As you know, I’ve just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. And I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq’s threat to peace. Let me quote: “We are united in the belief that Iraq’s aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.” Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun.

    We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

    The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests — and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law — and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression — and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.

    Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors — neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.

    Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability. Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this fundamental truth. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we’ve sought to fashion the broadest possible international response to Iraq’s aggression. The level of world cooperation and condemnation of Iraq is unprecedented. Armed forces from countries spanning four continents are there at the request of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to deter and, if need be, to defend against attack. Moslems and non-Moslems, Arabs and non-Arabs, soldiers from many nations stand shoulder to shoulder, resolute against Saddam Hussein’s ambitions.

    We can now point to five United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemn Iraq’s aggression. They call for Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government, and categorically reject Iraq’s cynical and self-serving attempt to annex Kuwait. Finally, the United Nations has demanded the release of all foreign nationals held hostage against their will and in contravention of international law. It is a mockery of human decency to call these people “guests.” They are hostages, and the whole world knows it.

    Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dependable ally, said it all: “We do not bargain over hostages. We will not stoop to the level of using human beings as bargaining chips ever.” Of course, of course, our hearts go out to the hostages and to their families. But our policy cannot change, and it will not change. America and the world will not be blackmailed by this ruthless policy.

    We’re now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. The Security Council has imposed mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq, designed to force Iraq to relinquish the spoils of its illegal conquest. The Security Council has also taken the decisive step of authorizing the use of all means necessary to ensure compliance with these sanctions. Together with our friends and allies, ships of the United States Navy are today patrolling Mideast waters. They’ve already intercepted more than 700 ships to enforce the sanctions. Three regional leaders I spoke with just yesterday told me that these sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. We continue to hope that Iraq’s leaders will recalculate just what their aggression has cost them. They are cut off from world trade, unable to sell their oil. And only a tiny fraction of goods gets through.

    The communique with President Gorbachev made mention of what happens when the embargo is so effective that children of Iraq literally need milk or the sick truly need medicine. Then, under strict international supervision that guarantees the proper destination, then food will be permitted.

    At home, the material cost of our leadership can be steep. That’s why Secretary of State Baker and Treasury Secretary Brady have met with many world leaders to underscore that the burden of this collective effort must be shared. We are prepared to do our share and more to help carry that load; we insist that others do their share as well.

    The response of most of our friends and allies has been good. To help defray costs, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE — the United Arab Emirates — have pledged to provide our deployed troops with all the food and fuel they need. Generous assistance will also be provided to stalwart front-line nations, such as Turkey and Egypt. I am also heartened to report that this international response extends to the neediest victims of this conflict — those refugees. For our part, we’ve contributed $28 million for relief efforts. This is but a portion of what is needed. I commend, in particular, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and several European nations who have joined us in this purely humanitarian effort.

    There’s an energy-related cost to be borne as well. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti output. More than half of what was lost has been made up. And we’re getting superb cooperation. If producers, including the United States, continue steps to expand oil and gas production, we can stabilize prices and guarantee against hardship. Additionally, we and several of our allies always have the option to extract oil from our strategic petroleum reserves if conditions warrant. As I’ve pointed out before, conservation efforts are essential to keep our energy needs as low as possible. And we must then take advantage of our energy sources across the board: coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear. Our failure to do these things has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Finally, let no one even contemplate profiteering from this crisis. We will not have it.

    I cannot predict just how long it will take to convince Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Sanctions will take time to have their full intended effect. We will continue to review all options with our allies, but let it be clear: we will not let this aggression stand.

    Our interest, our involvement in the Gulf is not transitory. It predated Saddam Hussein’s aggression and will survive it. Long after all our troops come home — and we all hope it’s soon, very soon — there will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role then: to deter future aggression. Our role is to help our friends in their own self-defense. And something else: to curb the proliferation of chemical, biological, ballistic missile and, above all, nuclear technologies.

    Let me also make clear that the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Iraq’s dictator and with his aggression. Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. That’s not a threat, that’s not a boast, that’s just the way it’s going to be.

    Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our Armed Forces, our energy dependence, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up to our foes. For America to lead, America must remain strong and vital. Our world leadership and domestic strength are mutual and reinforcing; a woven piece, strongly bound as Old Glory. To revitalize our leadership, our leadership capacity, we must address our budget deficit — not after election day, or next year, but now.

    Higher oil prices slow our growth, and higher defense costs would only make our fiscal deficit problem worse. That deficit was already greater than it should have been — a projected $232 billion for the coming year. It must — it will — be reduced.

    To my friends in Congress, together we must act this very month — before the next fiscal year begins on October 1st — to get America’s economic house in order. The Gulf situation helps us realize we are more economically vulnerable than we ever should be. Americans must never again enter any crisis, economic or military, with an excessive dependence on foreign oil and an excessive burden of Federal debt.

    Most Americans are sick and tired of endless battles in the Congress and between the branches over budget matters. It is high time we pulled together and get the job done right. It’s up to us to straighten this out. This job has four basic parts. First, the Congress should, this month, within a budget agreement, enact growth-oriented tax measures — to help avoid recession in the short term and to increase savings, investment, productivity, and competitiveness for the longer term. These measures include extending incentives for research and experimentation; expanding the use of IRA’s for new homeowners; establishing tax-deferred family savings accounts; creating incentives for the creation of enterprise zones and initiatives to encourage more domestic drilling; and, yes, reducing the tax rate on capital gains.

    And second, the Congress should, this month, enact a prudent multiyear defense program, one that reflects not only the improvement in East-West relations but our broader responsibilities to deal with the continuing risks of outlaw action and regional conflict. Even with our obligations in the Gulf, a sound defense budget can have some reduction in real terms; and we’re prepared to accept that. But to go beyond such levels, where cutting defense would threaten our vital margin of safety, is something I will never accept. The world is still dangerous. And surely, that is now clear. Stability’s not secure. American interests are far reaching. Interdependence has increased. The consequences of regional instability can be global. This is no time to risk America’s capacity to protect her vital interests.

    And third, the Congress should, this month, enact measures to increase domestic energy production and energy conservation in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. These measures should include my proposals to increase incentives for domestic oil and gas exploration, fuel-switching, and to accelerate the development of the Alaskan energy resources without damage to wildlife. As you know, when the oil embargo was imposed in the early 1970’s, the United States imported almost 6 million barrels of oil a day. This year, before the Iraqi invasion, U.S. imports had risen to nearly 8 million barrels per day. And we’d moved in the wrong direction. And now we must act to correct that trend.

    And fourth, the Congress should, this month, enact a 5-year program to reduce the projected debt and deficits by $500 billion — that’s by half a trillion dollars. And if, with the Congress, we can develop a satisfactory program by the end of the month, we can avoid the ax of sequester — deep across-the-board cuts that would threaten our military capacity and risk substantial domestic disruption. I want to be able to tell the American people that we have truly solved the deficit problem. And for me to do that, a budget agreement must meet these tests: It must include the measures I’ve recommended to increase economic growth and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It must be fair. All should contribute, but the burden should not be excessive for any one group of programs or people. It must address the growth of government’s hidden liabilities. It must reform the budget process and, further, it must be real.

    I urge Congress to provide a comprehensive 5-year deficit reduction program to me as a complete legislative package, with measures to assure that it can be fully enforced. America is tired of phony deficit reduction or promise-now, save-later plans. It is time for a program that is credible and real. And finally, to the extent that the deficit reduction program includes new revenue measures, it must avoid any measure that would threaten economic growth or turn us back toward the days of punishing income tax rates. That is one path we should not head down again.

    I have been pleased with recent progress, although it has not always seemed so smooth. But now it’s time to produce. I hope we can work out a responsible plan. But with or without agreement from the budget summit, I ask both Houses of the Congress to allow a straight up-or-down vote on a complete $500-billion deficit reduction package not later than September 28. If the Congress cannot get me a budget, then Americans will have to face a tough, mandated sequester. I’m hopeful, in fact, I’m confident that the Congress will do what it should. And I can assure you that we in the executive branch will do our part.

    In the final analysis, our ability to meet our responsibilities abroad depends upon political will and consensus at home. This is never easy in democracies, for we govern only with the consent of the governed. And although free people in a free society are bound to have their differences, Americans traditionally come together in times of adversity and challenge.

    Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That’s why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great Chamber — Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives — can come together to fulfill our responsibilities here. Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.

  29. “We believe that the AUMF’s authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization,”

    “Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests.”

    “Just as the AUMF authorizes the military detention of a US citizen captured abroad who is part of an armed force within the scope of the AUMF, it also authorizes the use of ‘necessary and appropriate’ lethal force against a US citizen who has joined such an armed force,”

    • I remember discussing the ‘authority’ to execute Americans without trial right here at SUFA years ago. I was the first to suggest that it was a “dangerous precedent” if I remember correctly.

      Since then, I have been taking many opportunities to point it out to you, albeit a little unpalatable at times, the disastrous end results of your vote and support of the state.

      Who was representing Nawar al-Awlaki? What is a great America? Did she consent?

      Hey Anita, do you remember what you said about the torture camps to set me off a while back? ..about it being old news or something to that effect? Guess who was on watch? Do you like Nawar al-Awlaki’s picture better than those others? I don’t know about you, but she doesn’t look very dangerous to me.

      I found an interesting article;

      Here are a few choice excerpts;

      “My granddaughter was staying for a while with her mother, so when the attack came, they were sitting in the house, and a bullet struck her in her neck at 2:30 past midnight. Other children in the same house were killed,”

      “They [the SEALs] entered another house and killed everybody in it, including all the women. They burned the house. There is an assumption there was a woman [in the house] from Saudi Arabia who was with al Qaeda. All we know is that she was a children’s teacher.”

      “Al-Awlaki said the girl and her mother had fled the Yemeni capital, Sa’ana, where he lives, to escape the heavy shelling.”

      Oh, and here is a very good one, …things like execution and constitutionality decided in a memo, premised on belief?;

      The memo concluded, “We do not believe that al-Awlaki’s U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action”

      Here is a quote I think you will find rather interesting, Anita;

      “terrorist groups have begun to circulate photographs of children reputedly killed by U.S. forces. Photos of Nawar al-Awlaki alive and dead are already circulating widely in Arab media.”

  30. @ JAC and Anita…….”Does the proposed action have to have a direct connection to a problem or can they simply do what ever they want?” Very interesting question. I can point to a plethora of Obama actions (EO’s) that did not have a connection to a specific problem. Some got challenged and some did not….that said.

    The answer to your question from D13 is….Any proposed EO should be to a specific problem. I am still trying to figure out the angle and personally still believe that it was a strategy. I say this because, we were thoroughly briefed on the border. I was in the briefings and had to brief my subordinates…..we were thoroughly briefed on the border that Green card holders and those with documented refugee status were not to be touched….and we did not. The only place we did anything and are doing anything today is expired green cards, expired Visas, and any other expired documentation. They are not getting in and they are not getting fast tracked. Simply put back across and they must go to the Mexican and American embassies to get back in line. We are not accepting expired Visas, green cards, work permits…..none of them. And we do not consider expired paper work any longer as being “previously vetted”. Back in line and pay attention to your documents is our answer now. I see nothing wrong with this approach.

    Now, in fairness, our briefings did not pertain to the EO on the 7 countries. They would not get across the border under any circumstance. For example, if you are from Syria and you have a green card… not cross the Texas/Mexico border. You must go through a customs service area which is at major airports. There are no major custom service areas on the border other than airports. That is one door that has been slammed shut and locked. The nice thing that is happening now, and we are ecstatic about it… not fly into Mexico and try to cross the border. You will be stopped. You will be shuffled off to a specific detainment area and your credentials thoroughly checked,,,,and not by INS. You will go through Homeland Security now and I do not know what happens from there.

    • Any proposed EO should be to a specific problem.

      Careful Colonel. I got serious heat back in the day for wanting to address things on a case by case basis. JAC is having a stroke right now because he wants everything to be cut and dried. I think that as long as a solution to a problem is constitutional, and is beneficial to our country, then have at it.

      • Anita……case by case then opens it to a subjective ruling. I prefer a black and white approach. There is no infrastructure in place to handle the amount of case by case. I know we cannot do it down here. On any given day, the lines in my A/O alone can be hundreds….every single day.

        And, this I have witnessed on several occasions…….our good neighbor to the South……MEXICO…….actually empties out its jails and prisons and brings them to the border in prison buses and turns them loose. It is unbelievable and then they claim or try to claim refugee status and lie about being from Mexico…they claim refugee status of Guatemala or Venezuela and there is no way to prove otherwise. It is a struggle.

        That said, the good gets caught with the bad….but you plan for the bad.

        • Case by case meaning in the big picture…immigration, health care, other random problem of the week.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am not having a stroke. It is a simple question.

        So lets take your criteria: ” I think that as long as a solution to a problem is constitutional, and is beneficial to our country, then have at it.”

        Generally speaking I agree. But it is the specifics I am trying to discover with respect to everyone else.

        In my view the Govt. should have to show there A) is a problem and B) the solution fits the problem.

        I do not think this proof has to be a treatise on the subject but at least enough information for We the People to judge its soundness.

        To the Trump EO, many people are now saying he needs “no proof” because he is POTUS and the law allows him to simple “declare it so”. I think that is a very bad precedent.

        I do not buy the argument that EO is wrong headed because nobody from those 7 countries has killed anyone in the US since 9/11. That is a stupid argument. But ZERO reason was given except “we took the list from Obama”. That is not enough for me.

        My question is what do others at SUFA think on the need from some explanation that at least appears rational. Or is a simple arbitrary declaration enough?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          For the purpose of this experiment, let’s say that our military intelligence is accurate a vast majority of the time.

          If the Prez gets a briefing that there is a known threat to the people, he should take action immediately to stop the threat. An explanation may be impossible to give because it would put the inside source in danger. I get the Top Secret part. Not acting in a timely manner may allow for proving a reason in court. This is a general type situation, not necessarily the current one.

          I’ve already commented on the EO issue as a whole, it should be outlawed except for special circumstances. I feel the same about regulations. Congress needs to do their job and earn their pay, something that is questionable at best.

          A comment on the States claiming irreparable harm. The same could be claimed the other way, stopping all immigration, visa’s and green cards.

    • Strategy:

      The HillVerified account
      Trump not planning to appeal travel ban ruling to Supreme Court

      It’s a classic representative example of ‘be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it‘.

      Currently, thanks to the ridiculous political judicial opinion of the 9th Circuit, the entire professional left and Democrat party are on display trying to block President Trump from protecting the American people. As a direct consequence they own any negative outcomes, including any act of terrorism, that might happen in the next several months.

      Behind the scenes, and unrelated to the judicial ruling, President Trump can use his cabinet team to construct immigration and visa review policy that accomplishes the security goal. The Attorney General (Sessions), DHS (Kelly) and State Department (T-Rex) can execute departmental policy objectives under existing legal authority.

      President Trump never really needed the majority parts of the executive order to carry out the security agenda. However, using the XO provided a highly public approach toward showing the American electorate he was fulfilling a campaign security promise. Tightening the visa approval process and executing “extreme vetting” doesn’t require anything except a policy and procedural change.

      If President Trump does nothing, the underlying challenges to the Executive Order continue forward in the courts, while he gets his SCOTUS pick -Gorsuch- on the bench. If he so chooses, the DOJ can eventually bring the case to the Supreme Court, where almost everyone admits the Ninth Circuit and Judge Robarts decision will be overturned and all of the protestation from the left will have been for naught.

      In the interim of the slow case proceeding, ANY instance of violence and terrorism provides President Trump the opportunity to use his bully pulpit -and Twitter- to hang the occurrence, foreign or domestic, like a millstone around the neck of Democrats up for elected office in 2018.

      There is no downside on the domestic security agenda for President Trump; however, the Democrats are fraught with fear that something might just happen. Ultimately, THIS, the politics behind the entire construct, is the reason for the ninth circuit tonight asking for an en banc hearing of their own judicial ruling.

  31. I guess you also now know, we, Texas, has caught and sentenced to 8 years a Hispanic female that registered to vote in five different counties. She got caught with a fake ID. The upside to this……she is willing to plea bargain how it was done and who supplied the criteria and the ID’s….she has even turned over a Blackberry with lots of numbers.

  32. JAC….question for you, sir. THe lady with two children that was caught in Arizona, convicted of felony ID theft, court ordered to leave the country, and she does not and is not forced by INS to leave the country with the INS saying that Under the Obama orders she is safe.

    Now, a new sheriff is in town….he says no quarter. Bottom line is that the woman is a convicted felon, ordered to leave the country by a judge and does not do so. In your humble opinion, do you think that Trump is bound by the past procedures of the Obama administration? OR, does Wyatt Earp Trump enforce the laws on the books.

    Children have no standing in this. Too bad for the kids. SO her choice…get out of the country or go to jail. Either way, her children are still without her. So….in my heartless, cold, cruel self….throw her out or put her in jail. Now….the judge has already passed sentence in this case….he ordered her out so you cannot throw her in jail. But she is caught under the new rules. What say you……..?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The lady was ordered deported in 2013. This can be used as an example of the Obama administration not following a court order. Trump should just Tweet her name, plus “Obama violated court order”. Let the MSM go into convulsions 🙂

      • Therein lies my question…..she checked in regularly ( whatever that means )…..she was told nothing would happen….so you have an administration that OPENLY violated a court order…..does this set a precedent?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I hope not. Trump should follow the law and court orders. The ignored deportation court order could be used against the Democrats and the media as an example of how NOT to run a country 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      She should be deported, which it has been reported she was. You are saying she is refusing to leave. So which is it?

      I also understand that she was still here not because of Obama or that she had been told not to worry. Apparently there is some procedural issues which allowed her to stay for a fixed period as long as she checked in annually. I also saw in a report that was designed to be sympathetic to her that she knew her time was up. That this was her LAST CHECK IN and she would probably be deported.

      It had nothing to do with Trump, or changed attitudes at INS, per the information I read.

      If I have been misled please enlighten me.

      I do have one comment on her behavior and the media/Dems playing her as a victim. She said several times she did all this for the love of her children. She did NOT have children when she came here. She could have returned to Mexico before she had kids. She committed ID THEFT and FRAUD supposedly in the name of her children. She needs to go back to Mexico. Work with the Mexican embassy to get her kids Visas/Papers to facilitate them visiting her there.

      • I dont think you have been misled…..the report that I read (and the AAR’s that I am privvy to)..the is/was and agent that was assigned to her. She had to check in ( reson unk at this time) but she was constantly told. or so the agent says, not to worry. She would not be deported under the Obama administration. Her time supposedly ran out….but she was still thinking that the deportation would not take place……her time was up….out she goes.

        Now, the Democratic party, not to let a crises go to waste, is trying to drum up the sympathy but it does not seem to be resonating with anyone except the far left and the media. Even the Hispanics in Texas are saying….you better take Trump seriously because the free ride days are over. He will follow the law. So, the Hispanics may not like it but I am getting the distinct impression that the illegals are going to take him seriously. From the AAR’s that I have been reading in the last week and the reports coming into our intelligence… are not finding the hordes of illegals around any longer and the lines in the free food areas have shortened significantly. In addition, it is reported that the population in the tent cities that are allowed in Dallas and Houston under the bridges have all but disappeared. Another report that I read is concerning public parks and utilities where there were huge hangouts around the restrooms and things….they are almost vacant now.

        Another briefing that I attended, said that the normal hangouts have only the normal vagrants and homeless but there is no reportable increase anywhere else.

        One additional tidbit….since Abbott cut the funding from Austin because of its sanctuary stance, Houston has apparently done an about face…..the liberal mayor over there has said she intends to cooperate with Governor Abbott. And the mayor of Dallas, who was going to fight has apparently changed his mind. Reason? Abbott followed through….he drew the line and then enforced it. Something is going on…..

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    List of war fighting equipment. Note the 2025 forecast.

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    It begins!!!!!

    The question of the day….How violent will this get?

  35. Anita……you said “Ultimately, THIS, the politics behind the entire construct, is the reason for the ninth circuit tonight asking for an en banc hearing of their own judicial ruling.”

    Very interesting ploy…..trump need not respond to this…The most overturned court in the history…screwed the pooch and I am betting more than one justice sitting on the bench knows this. It looks as if they want to try to right the wrong…..I say let them live in it. There is no provision that anyone has to repsond to their request. Trump did it right ( even though his EO was flawed ) but the ends justified the means in his mind. I still think that he threw bait in the water and flushed out the parasites.

    But that is my opinion.

    • And the parasites included all the elite busness’ that were in the pocket of the Democratic Party. They love the cheap labor and it punches up the bottom line for the 401(k’s). All these stalwarts…..have shown their colors and all the mayors and governors have shown theirs.

      Reminds me of a trick that the Viet Cong used all the time. They would fire blindly into the bush to see if someone would be undisciplined enough to fire back….thereby, giving away their position and strength. Trump fired a shot and got his repsonse…they have been identified now, for the public to see.

      To follow that up….look at what Buffet and Soros have done….trying to tear down everything but understanding the American public…they have suddenly invested billions in the stock market at treble rates within three weeks of Trump taking over than they did in the combined 8 years of Obama. Read between the lines. What do they see?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        They see a dangerous Bubble about to burst.

        Everyone seems to have missed the biggest reason the market jumped late this week.

        Yellen backed off her aggressive stance on raising the rates this year. Everyone was claiming it was Trump’s speech on tax reductions and regulatory reform. Maybe some affect but I am betting it had more to do with believing the Fed would hold rates low.

        • As a somewhat experience player of the market, of course the levelling of Fed Rates is a factor. I am betting on the Trump factor. But I am not a quick hitter market person. I am not a day trader. I do not bet on long shots. With the levelling off of Fed Rates….interest rates on savings accounts and things stagnate…..I bet on the larger companies with dividend yields at 3% or better for the time being. I shy away from growth stocks, although I do have a limited amount.

          One of the other factors that does not need to be overlooked, is his tax plan…..and it matters not if he does not get to 15% on the corporate side. Even if he gets to 20% and eliminates the 3.7% Obamacare tax, the stock market will respond. Just the promise of the tax reduction affects the market.

          One intersting note….I quickly looked over to the California Bond market….they have not been elevated yet….they are barely above junk market status.

    • I stole that piece…just added the word Strategy. You and I are both correct, though. There’s always something more to his actions. He has a pretty good win/loss record so far.

  36. RIP Mike Illitch. Huge loss for SE Mich. Owner of the Tigers, Red Wings, Little Ceasar’s Pizza. Big time cheerleader and donor to Detroit. Bummer.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Observation on Trump.

    I watched his remarks to the Dems and Cabinet yesterday. His halting almost bumbling way of talking was the same as always. Much like his campaign speeches and his discussions with the press or others when on the camera.

    Then I saw a clip of him talking with the Press on the plane to Florida yesterday. He was having a conversation with them, answering questions and offering insights. Like a NORMAL conversation. Standing there with his wife next to him just talking and answering questions without any stumbling or bumbling.

    Then I thought back to his public appearances and how they all seemed pretty much the same. Going back to hotel openings, etc. He always seemed awkward to me, falling back on “its going to be fabulous” type stuff. Even the Apprentice show. Always seemed stiff and put on.

    I am thinking he may just not be comfortable in those, shall we say, constructed environs. Which would explain why people who work with him seem to like the guy and think him smart. They see the guy I saw on the plane yesterday. Not the one in front of TV cameras.

    Even my wife commented on how different he was on the plane and how much more positive she felt watching that discussion than his other public statements.

    Her comment yesterday, “each day it looks more and more like chaos in the White House. Like amateur hour”.

  38. JAC……would you get your spousal unit to expound upon this….”Her comment yesterday, “each day it looks more and more like chaos in the White House. Like amateur hour”.

    I am seeing something different.

    • Let me explain a little…..I am seeing the “chaos” but I do not see it as the true definition of chaos….I see it as shaking things up and people do not know how to handle this approach. It is not going to be a political approach they are used to….

      If I were Trump, I would change my White House briefer…about every 6 months. I think that is a stupid position anyway and is a propaganda tool. A mouth piece that I think is unnecessary and carries no significance to it at all.

      Now, I forgot to answer your question above…”My question is what do others at SUFA think on the need from some explanation that at least appears rational. Or is a simple arbitrary declaration enough?”

      I do not think that the POTUS needs to explain EO’s or his rationale. If an EO is out of line, explaining it is not going to change his mind…it wil be challenged as was several of Obama’s and now Trump. I know everyone thinks that Trump is a bumbling fool and appears that way, but I am not so sure. I am reminded of a Harry Potter movie, the Sorcerer’s Stone….the bumbling professor that turned out to be not so bumbling after all. Jus’ sayin’….I am not jumping on the stupid band wagon yet.

      Reminds me of me on a tactic that I used for a long time. I am proficient in Spanish and my personal secretary was Hipsanic. When dealing with Mexico, I played the role of the Americano stupido….She always went with me to act as an interpreter. I would talk, through her, to my Mexican counterparts. They would talk, through her, to me. I always sat there with a dumb not knowing look on my face as if I did not understand at all. Then, at critical times of negotiation, she would excuse herself to the bathroom and leave the room. In the meantime, my Mexican counterparts, thinking that I did not know Spanish at all, would talk among themselves confident that I did not know what they were saying. Many times they would talk over negotiating strategy while I was sitting there “not paying” attention. She would come back in the room and they would continue as though nothing had happened. Worked out well. Moral of the story….do not take him at face value.

      • OOOPS……this line. I am not jumping on the stupid band wagon yet….should read “stupid” in quotes.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I do not think Trump stupid, nor does my wife. We think his appears to be a bumbling fool at times. And “appearances” matter when it comes to governing. When the administration looks like it is in chaos to the executive branch the bureaucrats will work even harder to undermine it. Yes this flushes them out, but it also damages the ability to get things done.

          The episodes of “bumbling” or “amateur hour” antics should be getting less, not more. They should be getting their feet under them. I suspect some of the problems are the diversity of staff and Trump’s style. Which I agree is foreign to those who’s living depends on dissecting Washington D.C. for those who pretend they care.

          On the other hand, I do not buy into the idea that he is playing three dimensional chess and others checkers. I think his style is to think through the goals and leave tactics/strategy to his people. He intervenes on the big things and has people to do the rest. This served him well in business. It does not necessarily work in Govt.

          This in fact is why Obama struggled so badly out of the chute. He set goals and expected his staff to unify to get it done. But he staff egos are just as big and get in the way. He may be able to handle the chaos, and may even like it, but it harms his ability to govern. Not because it is wrong but because nobody can handle it.

          If Trump really wants to succeed he has to reach and convince a few million Americans to stick with him against the hurricane of left wing garbage. He also needs to motivate them to vote Republican in two years to expand the Congressional majority.

          Right now I see him solidifying his base but alienating those that picked him because he wasn’t Clinton and the 2 to 5% that was giving him the benefit of the doubt after the election but are becoming disappointed.

          You know as well as I the challenge that lies ahead if he truly want to Make America Great Again. He needs to take control of his Administration, set clear objectives and then follow up daily to make sure his staff are doing their damn jobs.

          This apparent infighting in the intelligence and security group is quite bothersome to me. I expect it is to you as well. If Trump does not exert his WILL upon those egos they will destroy his efforts. He will be forced to replace them but I am not sure his ego will allow him to admit he picked the wrong people. And yes, I have some real concerns in the area of how his ego and arrogance affect his ability to govern effectively.

          • Good Grief!! It’s been 3 weeks. He’s been focused on getting cabinet positions filled and jobs in the door. But its not good enough. You want a tax plan already too, now you want his intel apparatus in sync? You realize until the last 3 weeks the entire intel apparatus was still fighting him, right? Who know what kind of land mines were left behind? He has new leadership all signed on now. They have a monumental task ahead of them just rooting out the bad guys. And they’re deep state bad. But it will happen. He’s (and the others) not just gonna let them run rogue on their watch. You are still so cynical, and unjustly so, considering how much he’s accomplished in the last 18 months. It’s frustrating.

            • I promise you that I already have a response ready for when you trigger me with what I’m expecting you to say. I’m calm at the moment and headed to my safe space (the firepit). I just hope you give me more credit than I think you’re thinking. 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I am talking about the infighting and power struggles going on between his Cabinet members and their staffs. Not the “apparatus”.

              I am, however, very concerned with what appears to be outright ILLEGAL involvement of agency personal (CIA & FBI) in mucking up the Administration. I don’t expect him to get a handle on that for awhile. In fact he can’t until he gets his own staff and Cabinet under control.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      She is responding to the optics of daily operations. Which does look like a cluster at times. Yesterday it was Priebus changing the story on how they were going to handle the EO, about 4 times. First this, then that, then this kind of, then that kind of, then something else.

      She and I, and I expect you, know what a good staff and operation looks like. That is missing so far and it shows quite often.

      The roll out of the EO is a good example. It shows poor staff work. Then the defense showed lack of foresight on the issues. And gross negligence in preparing for the challenge. Then it appeared they had not thought out how to respond to a loss in the 9th circuit, beyond hanging any failures in national security on the court. Which will only work among those who already love the guy.

      Oh, and yesterday also came the President of the United States calling a Democratic Senator Pocahontas in a supposedly bi-partisan meeting designed to get support for Gorsuch’s nomination.

      You seem to be seeing strategy in incompetence or inexperience. I just see the results of inexperience.

      I do grant you one thing. I think the entire EO was a tactic. But not as you claim. It was to show he was keeping a promise by making it all about him doing something. He could have accomplished the same goal without the fanfare of the EO. But that would not have drawn attention to his action. He is solidifying his base by creating the appearance of having done something. Meanwhile the clock is ticking on the biggest “thing” he promised to do. Fix the economy by attacking the trade deals.

      Instead he is promising new changes in Corp. regulations and Taxes in the next couple of weeks.

      Now I have a question for you. Yesterday it was reported that the FBI has a transcript of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador.

      Spousal Unit leader immediately asked me this question: “If Flynn was a private citizen at the time then why does the FBI have a transcript of his conversation with the Russian Ambassador”?

      My response was: “Well they were obviously spying on the Ambassador. The bigger question is why has the FBI admitted as much by publicly saying they have a transcript”.

      Your take on this?

      Also your take on the following?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Priebus…keeping people guessing, perfectly in line with many Trump remarks.

        Chaos, the media is making shit up and people are falling for it again, remember, the voters didn’t vote for a professional politician, maybe it’s time to quit expecting Trump to be one. Media pundit’s……useless people getting paid for useless opinions.

      • JAC……I have only one thing to say about Flynn…..he needs to go. Any violation of the Logan Act is unforgiveable.

        The CIA is an establishment entrenched organization. The top rung is going to fight everything that any Administration would do to change things. One thing that Flag has said that I am beginning to agree with….when you have someone that is going to change things…it will create a great amount of disharmony…..

        But, Flynn has to go…especially if he did this while Obama was still seated.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I agree Flynn needs to go. Even if he did not violate the Logan Act, he told the VP he DID NOT discuss the sanctions. Now he is equivocating like a politician.

          This is where Mr. Trump needs to suck it up and send him packing. However, given some of the other lies coming out of FBI and CIA I am willing to let it cook for awhile. But Trump will have to either provide proof of exoneration or fire him.

      • You want to call that incredible lying fraud Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas well, that’s just fine with me.

        What has been missing from the equation way to long is the use of words like, Fraud, Liar, Communis. Now the other side has uased them and worse against us but we have been too “cizilized” to climb down into the gutter.

        Maybe it is my NY City upbringing but down and dirty is the only way to go whne you run against scum.

        The D party no longer contains the likes of Hubert Humphrey or Adali Stevenson. Joe Lieberman was probably the last Democrat “gentleman”.

  39. “In my view the Govt. should have to show there A) is a problem and B) the solution fits the problem. I do not think this proof has to be a treatise on the subject but at least enough information for We the People to judge its soundness. To the Trump EO, many people are now saying he needs “no proof” because he is POTUS and the law allows him to simple “declare it so”. I think that is a very bad precedent. I do not buy the argument that EO is wrong headed because nobody from those 7 countries has killed anyone in the US since 9/11. That is a stupid argument. But ZERO reason was given except “we took the list from Obama”. That is not enough for me. My question is what do others at SUFA think on the need from some explanation that at least appears rational. Or is a simple arbitrary declaration enough?”

    It doesn’t matter. First of all, he has no authority to do anything other than manage his personal responsibilities. Aside from things like family and property, etc, his authority is in his opinion on real estate and marketing and such. He has no right to be a presiturd, as a presiturd is a criminal, terrorist.

    Secondly, his immigration stance is a diplomatic disaster. He is fortifying a bad position, however representative of the demands of scared Christian Conservative White America, and being wholly rejected by a lot of people all over the world..

    He should reverse his stance, relax the border and start reaching out to Mexico and the Muslim world and everyone, start backing out of foreign entanglements and reduce the military budget and keep a strong force on reserve.

    He should be focusing on promoting trade and domestic issues, gutting the system with an overall goal of complete abolition of the whole of government.

    Start by ending the fed and basing the dollar on something tangible and/or time credits.

    Continue to abolish regulations on everything, especially commerce, manufacturing, farming, technology, communications and whatever happens to be in demand.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    I am talking about the infighting and power struggles going on between his Cabinet members and their staffs.

    Where is all of this “Infighting” etc being reported? These confirmations are so new, It’s hard to imagine any sort of “staff” being in place for those who have been confirmed. If anything, it’s the Liberal/Progressives already in place that are causing the problems. That’s when Trump signs a piece of paper with their names on it and the words “Your Fired”.

    There will be a new article posted soon to continue the conversations. Go get’em Anita 😉 😀

%d bloggers like this: