The Swamp Remains

washington-dc-drain-the-swamp-in-november-political-poster-1283779817To begin, I think Trump is doing the best he can with the circumstances given.  The corruption in DC is so deep, it may take a full 8 years or more to clean it up, if it can be cleaned up.  I’m not confident at all that Congress can be fixed, not with the two party duopoly that exists in politics.  With that said, I don’t expect much from the recent healthcare bill and I doubt it gets past the Senate.  The Democrats will eat this and the repercussions will further erode their political power.



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Please continue the discussions 🙂

  2. Mathius says:

    Mathius would like to propose a new law: Any official who adds language to any bill which would explicitly exempt themselves from said bill (or any aspect thereof) shall be immediately punched in the face by the Sergeant at Arms.

    All in favor, say ‘Aye.’

  3. This was one of the things I got into with a masterful post two days ago that was “eaten” like a Littoral Combat Ship engine by the “system”.

    It will take 20 to 25 years to “change” things back to a recognizable state for a sane individual. I had forgotten. Got my hopes us so high, too high in fact, after the election I forgot my own predictions of last summer.

    The old man was fond of saying if it took X years to screw it up it would take X years to unscrew it!

    So let us all fall back on “Rome wasn’t built in a day”. Just have o keep your eye on the ball that’s all.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Here is your post that got sent to Spam. I had released it yesterday but it posted way to far up the chain.

      Ruminating last night over the doom and gloom across the board from conservative pundits. From Hannity through Coulter to Lou Dobbs it was all about Trump’s failures (sellouts) in the first hundred days.

      Then the Newtster came on. Always love the Newtster, says a lot with few words and does not tolerate fools lightly. Did not say much except that it was a start.

      Gotta say, that that got me thinking. I’m as disappointed as anyone that we could not turn everything around in 100 days. Then I remembered that before he was elected I’d tell people it would take 20 years to correct all the errors of the past three generations.

      Think on it, for fifty plus years, every single elected democrat out there, from dog catcher to President has been pushing along this Juggernaut to the point where the country of 1963 would never recognize the country of 2017. The bulk of republicans, the Romney’s, Bush’s, Rockefeller’s, Scranton’s, Ford’s, McCain’s and Graham’s have been fellow travelers at best only pushing slightly less hard.

      The conservatives, the Goldwater’s, Buckley’s Reagan’s and now Trump have had a tough row to hoe with few allies, none in the media or academia and damn few in the legislature. For Trump to take on this behemoth is akin to Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. It sure as hell is going to take more than 100 days.

      I thank the media for bringing up the President’s Jackson comments because as I think back to “The Age of Jackson”, I remember that he too saw the country heading away from where he and Jefferson thought it should go. Yes, I guess if he had succeeded or had been around later, 1860-65 might have very well worked our differently. People who disagree should re-visit Clay, Calhoon and Webster if they can remember who they were.

      • Mathius says:


        You sure you want to include Reagan in here?

        I seem to recall him raising taxes eleven times…

      • Mathius says:

        For Trump to take on this behemoth is akin to Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. It sure as hell is going to take more than 100 days.

        Then what do you make of his repeated promises to do so? Was it naivete? Was he lying?

        And why did you – someone who should have known better – buy into it?

        • What did I just say about 20 years?

          • Mathius says:

            Yes.. but you were saying you’re let down, which implies you bought into it despite knowing better. So the question is why.

            And, the other question is why did Trump make those impossible promises? What he naive or lying?

            • I was being overly enthusiastic and letting that rule me for a short time. Fortunately the Newtster brought me down to earth as he is wont to do. Funny thing about that. There are very few people who can almost instantaneously make me change my thought process. Newt is one, Bill Buckley was another and Stephen Ambrose was the third.

        • Was it naivete? Yes it was exactly that……He is a business man…as I am (+ the patience of a Colonel….not). We are used to results and not used to end fighting and temper tantrums and the gravity and enormous Grand Canyon of corruption. We are used to having employess that want the business to succeed….we are not used to politicians that do not put country first….we are not used to politicians and thought process’ of me me me…….

          He has learned. It will not happen again.

          • Mathius says:

            Tell me what happens when you’re running a business and you’re so naive that you think you can accomplish a miracle in 100 days which will (probably) take at least 20 years. You then go out and tell the board and advertise on TV, promising to deliver. You ignore all the voices saying it’s impossible and just plow ahead making promises.

            Tell me, what happens to your company’s stock price on day #101?

            In light of the fact that half of your staff/shareholders were loudly screaming beforehand that it’s not possible, but you ignored them, is the board likely to forgive you when you say you were naive and have since learned better?

      • Mathius says:

        I thank the media for bringing up the President’s Jackson comments because as I think back to “The Age of Jackson”, I remember that he too saw the country heading away from where he and Jefferson thought it should go. Yes, I guess if he had succeeded or had been around later, 1860-65 might have very well worked our differently. People who disagree should re-visit Clay, Calhoon and Webster if they can remember who they were.

        There’s no real sense speculating. You might as well ask what George Washington would have done after 9/11. (presumably he would have asked what an airplane is)

        It was a different time, a different world. I think the civil war was all but inevitable, regardless of who was in power. Sure, the extent, the battle lines, the outcome could all be up for debate, but the core issues were not going to be resolved peacefully.

        • Excellent argument. States Rights and Slavery were big hurdles to overcome. But, we will never know anymore than what would have happened if the US stayed out of WW 1,. Joined the League of Nations, elected “little mac” in 1864 nor what would have happened in a post civil war south with Lincoln not assassinated nor a Post WW 2 Europe with FDR alive? Interesting to think about it though. Hell, what if D-Day failed and Hitler had been woken and released the Panzers? How about Rommel not on vacation?

  4. I’ll just leave this right here for Matt. 😛 😎

    re: National Day of Prayer. Comment stolen from KBR at CTH

    The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War between the founding US Colonies and Britain. All before that were labor pains. This was the actual birth of the United States.

    The preamble states “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”…

    And the document ends “in the year of our Lord.”

    What more proof does anyone need that the USA was founded as a Christian nation!

    “Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.”

    • Mathius says:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

      Separately, in the Barbary Treaty (known sometimes as the Treaty of Tripoli – where it was signed), Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

      The preamble states “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”…

      That trinity, of course, being the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. 😛

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Do you consider that amendment to be sacred? That is absolute it its prohibition.

        • Mathius says:


          Nearly so.

          I make allowance for a few exceptions:
          Speech: clear and present danger, slander, misrepresentation, false advertising, etc.
          Press: same as the above, but libel instead of slander
          Assembly: permits, noise limitations
          Religion: religious practices that would be harmful to others (incl minors) (eg human sacrifice would not be protected) (notably, polygamy is fine), or which present a public health / safety hazard (eg, slaughtering your own food in public), which present a clear and present danger (certain cult behaviors), or foisting religious theory under the guise of science upon students (eg teaching creationism or abstinence-only in public school). Pretty much everything the Church of Scientology does, and any sort of brainwashing. Anything discriminatory (eg, the Mormons didn’t allow hiring black people until 1979) (and this would include being discriminatory against gay people).

          Notably, though I don’t like it, I do think the churches should be free to use political speech.
          I do not think churches should be tax exempt.

          Probably a few more in there, but that’s off the top of my head. The only amendments which I consider to be absolute are the 3rd and 21st.

          • Should any Not-for-profit be tax exempt, schools and hospitals included?

            • Mathius says:

              Good question.

              My gut says no, but that seems inconsistent and the reasons I’m coming up with just feels like justifications, not reason.

              So, I’ll have to yes – tax ’em all.

      • Interpreting this your way has part 2 cancelling part 1.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Then of course there is the follow on part about Freedom of Speech.

        Besides, I am always worried when someone like LBJ “discovers” that the Constitution prohibited churches from getting involved. Makes it MORE interesting when the punishment to the churches is the elimination of tax exemption for tax laws that did not exist at the founding.

        Almost looks like Woodrow Wilson the “good ‘ole boy” was in collusion with LBJ the other “good ‘ole boy”. Then again, be it 1916 or 1954 they were both avowed racist segregationists and the churches were the few that stood against them.

        • Mathius says:

          Almost looks like Woodrow Wilson the “good ‘ole boy” was in collusion with LBJ the other “good ‘ole boy”. Then again, be it 1916 or 1954 they were both avowed racist segregationists and the churches were the few that stood against them.

          That’s an interesting narrative and, if I didn’t have a ton of work to do, I’d want to dig into it a little big.

          But, I guess, since you were there during Wilson’s administration, I’ll have to take your word for it.

          • Remember “Birth of Nation” was previewed at the White House. Josephius Daniels resegregated the US Navy under Wilson.

            I was fascinated last week watching Darryl Zanuk’s bio-pic “Wilson” (1944) There was a scene where Wilson as governor attended a B’way show with his wife, One of the “acts” was a white guy in blackface, walking across the stage dressed like Teddy Roosevelt in safari gear, spectacles on, rifle in hand, chanting “bully, bully”. An obvious knock on TR inviting Booker T. to the White House for lunch. “Jus lub dem demorcrats”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Interesting point of view I found in an article about religious freedom and penalties for harming children via faith healing.

        “Freedom of religion has come into conflict with the duty of society to protect children.”

        This statement was used to justify imposing penalties on those whose children die or are injured do to religious opposition to standard medical care.

        I file it under those things which are FALSE reasons to justify laws against people

        Society is a vague concept to describe a group of people based on several subjective, some objective, criteria. In our case it is the National Boundary that is most often used. Regardless, a group of millions of people cannot be compelled to have a “duty” to anyone.

        The real issue here is the conflict between the adults right to practice their religion and the human standard of “guardianship” responsibilities towards minor children.

        It is this notion of what constitutes “guardianship” that has evolved over time. There was a time in human history where there would have been no intervention in a child’s welfare because it wasn’t anybody’s business if the neighbor beat his kids. The guy was just using his methods of caring for the child, which includes “educating” them about real life penalties.

        As the cultural norms have changed, due to changes in understanding, we have changed the meaning of “guardianship”. Violence is now viewed as criminal because the act of violence in turn violates “guardianship”.

        Now with that being said, this is not really how most people or lawmakers think about this. They are more likely to believe, as many people commenting on the above article stated, “religious freedoms cannot override any laws”. Why not? Because Govt. law is the governing body of rules. It supersedes religious laws or practices.

        Then there are those who say, “Govt. law governs except where such laws unduly interfere or are designed against a particular religion alone”.

        Of course both of these approaches carry with them the subjective determinations of what is interference, let alone undo interference.

        Note here: The US ban on polygamy was upheld because it did not single out Mormons. The law applied to everyone. Yet the Mormons were the ONLY people practicing polygamy when the law was written.

        So if this were the standard Congress could pass a law prohibiting prayer in any public place more than once a day. This law would apply to everyone equally. Yet it is obvious it would have a greater impact on Muslims.

        • Mathius says:

          1. Denying (accepted / standard) medical care to a minor under your care due to religious objections is tantamount to reckless child endangerment. If a child dies from a curable illness because you don’t “believe” in medicine, you might as well have killed him yourself. I don’t care if “God” made you do it. You have a duty of care in this society and that standard includes providing necessary medical care.

          For that matter, I’m not convinced that circumcisions should be permitted – but certainly not the way the Orthodox Jews do them (don’t ask – seriously, don’t ask).

          2. The ban on polygamy is – absolutely – a violation of the 1st Amendment. I don’t care what the courts say, it was absolutely designed to curtail a religious practice by the Mormons and in no way offers a “public interest” to trump that right. I’d love to see this re-tried. Seems to be that it’s little different in practical terms than the ban on gay marriage –
          that is, if one is allowed, both should be, no? (side note: who in the hell wants more than one wife?!) (side side note: is there a ban on polyandry?)

          3. A ban on public prayer more than 1x / day would – absolutely – be a violation of the 1st Amendment as well. It doesn’t even matter who it’s targeting the question is: is it curtailing anyone’s freedom of religion and, if so, is there an overriding societal need which justifies the intrusion? (that’s a very high bar in my mind)

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your “overriding societal need” is poppy cock. I know SCOTUS has used this but it is still poppy cock.

            As for #3, lets make it a complete ban on prayer in “public places”. How is this imposing upon freedom of religion when you can still pray and practice in private places. Such as your church and at home.

            Allowing prayer in public is in effect supporting a religion, or group of religions. Given the hard core view on State sanction of religious activities it seems a complete ban on public displays of religious behavior should be made “illegal”.

            The targeting question does matter because that was the legal principle being used to justify the legality of the polygamy ban. Prior to Congress acting on this the question was dealt with via the State issuance of a marriage license. You could not get a license if you were married to another person. It did not matter if you had another husband or wife. Man or woman, if you have another spouse located anywhere you could not get a license. And no license then nobody approved by the State would conduct the ceremony.

            • Mathius says:

              Your “overriding societal need” is poppy cock.

              I know it’s wishy-washy, but you have to make allowances for things, otherwise you wind up with purist mindset that leads to insanity. If we allowed that for the Second Amendment, you would be allowed to buy rocket launchers – I would finally own my a Warthog.

              My religion (I worship Baal, by the way) requires human sacrifice. If we are purists about the 1st Amendment, then I cannot be arrested when I commit murder. Right?

              As for #3, lets make it a complete ban on prayer in “public places”.

              Because that’s stupid.

              If you want to pray in public, and you aren’t hurting me, you should be free to do so.

              Allowing prayer in public is in effect supporting a religion, or group of religions.

              Specifically, it’s people support a religion or group of religions – which is just fine.

              It’s the government, which is not allowed to support a religion or group of religions.

              Let’s try to make this crystal clear: So long as you aren’t harming anyone*, individual people are free to whatever they want for their religion. The government, on the other hand, may only act to ensure the freedom of religion and the safety and well-being of society when doing so is absolutely necessary.

              *or creating a credible threat to the safety and well-being of others or creating undue havoc (for example, Baal requires that, when I pray to him, as I must twice every day, I do so by installing his alter and obelisk in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour )

              The targeting question does matter because that was the legal principle being used to justify the legality of the polygamy ban.

              That may be. It doesn’t make it any less wrong.

              If it doesn’t hurt other people and doesn’t trigger some kind of overwhelming society need (such as not letting me tie you to Baal’s alter or advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government), then the government has to butt out.

              Prior to Congress acting on this the question was dealt with via the State issuance of a marriage license. You could not get a license if you were married to another person. It did not matter if you had another husband or wife. Man or woman, if you have another spouse located anywhere you could not get a license. And no license then nobody approved by the State would conduct the ceremony.

              A) that’s an end-run around the issue and it is rightfully called on being so. The upshot is exactly the same – that a religious activity – THAT HURTS NO ONE – is de facto prohibited by law.

              B) the state has no business being involved in marriages, period. Full stop.

              If the state wishes to do so, it could make a civil union category wholly divorced from the notion of romantic / religious marriage. Then, they could give that category the tax favorability and other legal benefits and obligations. So long as they do not discriminate in terms of who may (or how many) so join.

              If your church doesn’t want to marry gay people, fine. If my church is cool with marrying 3 gay guys, two women, and a leprechaun (or that elf-guy), then my church should be able to and Uncle Sam can go sod off.

  5. gmanfortruth says:
    • Mathius says:

      I posted this here the other day (different link, but same topic). I agreed then, as I do now, that of course, the state can’t keep fines from innocent people and make them jump through hoops to get it back.

      I argued then, as I do now, that my only critique of this ruling is that it does not go far enough. Exoneration should automatically result in the immediate refund of your money plus interest. Further, if you can prove damages (for instance, you couldn’t pay off your credit card because the state was holding your money), the state should also have to make you whole for that as well.

      As a matter of practicality, I have no objection to being given a short 1-page form to fill out to file the request – the government is, after all, a bureaucracy, but the litmus test must be that it is the absolutely minimal burden that can reasonably be placed on the exonerated individual (I’m thinking SSN, name, phone, address where you want the check mailed, and maybe court case # – that’s it – in a pre-addressed, prepaid envelope).

      I forgot who dissented, but this was, generally, his point – though he didn’t go as far as I do above either.


      I would also, by the way, take this a step further. If you spent time in jail, for instance, you should be made whole for lost wages and for lost earning potential and for any other harm you have suffered including, but not limited to, psychological harm.


      At the end of the day, a false conviction falls under the header of “shit happens,” but that still means the state made a mistake, not the innocent person. As such, it is the sole and complete and absolute responsibility of the offending party (the state) to make such reparations as may be necessary to make the victim (the falsely accused) whole.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        For the most part I agree. The SCOTUS can’t make new laws, which is what your asking for, in cases like these.

        Now, when the State gets it wrong, they should pay dearly. Even beyond what you desire. But we both know the State will never get that law passed.

        • Mathius says:

          The SCOTUS can’t make new laws, which is what your asking for, in cases like these.

          Laws, no. But it can (A) void laws and (B) create legal frameworks with which the states must comply.

          It is a perfectly reasonable argument that the “opportunity cost” of time I incorrectly spent in jail has a monetary value and, having taken it from me incorrectly, they have denied my rights. This is little different than eminent domain: if the state is going to take something from me, it has to pay me fairly.

          The beauty is that the states would never pass this to screw themselves, but the courts don’t give a shit. That’s not their problem. A sufficiently… ::sigh::.. conservative court could do something like this in a heartbeat.

          Now, when the State gets it wrong, they should pay dearly. Even beyond what you desire

          What you’re suggesting seems to be some kind of punitive damage. That is, to punish the state for their actions.

          I feel like a lot of this depends on how unjust the conviction was. That is, if it’s a rape conviction and he’s on camera entering the house and the woman positively ID’s him and he has a prior history.. but DNA evidence later clears him.. I just have a hard time accepting that the state should be culpable for more than his actual damages. But in any case where there was a state error (eg procedural error, processing error, etc), where the state, having been more careful or conscientious, would have been less likely to convict.. in that case, yes, the victim should basically win the lottery.


          I’ll even go one step further. Any time you spend in custody, at trial, or otherwise having to defend yourself, as well as your legal bills, should all be compensated upon either exoneration OR acquittal.

          If I get a speeding ticket, then I show up and fight it, and I win, the state should pay me for my sacrificed vacation day.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      This ruling may not be what some hope it is. It appears the court said the requirement to “prove” innocence to get back the money was the issue. They did not address the issue of whether the defendants has a vested interest in the money or whether any such “right” was violated.

      Thomas was the dissent. His reasoning is near the end of this summary. It is an interesting take on the Constitutional issues. It appears his stance is affected by the opinion the original forfeiture as the result of a legal proceeding. Vested title to the money was given up upon the first conviction and the money paid to the State.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A little more background on the two cases that were combined for the appeal.

      “In Nelson’s case, an Arapahoe County jury in 2006 convicted her — she was known as Shannon Gonser at the time — on several sexual assault charges involving her four then-minor children and was sentenced to 20 years to life. She was ordered to pay more than $7,800 in restitution to pay for her children’s counseling and more than $8,000 in court costs and fees. She had only paid $700 at the time of her appeals.

      Nelson’s brother, Roy, 43, and his wife, Lacie, 37, were later charged with related crimes in the sex assaults. Roy Nelson pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 10-year probation term; Lacie Nelson was convicted by a jury and was given a prison sentence of 32 years to life.

      But Shannon Nelson’s conviction was overturned in 2009 on a technicality and she was given a new trial in which she was later acquitted. The children are all adults now, and Nelson has since remarried.

      In Madden’s case, he was convicted in 2005 in La Plata County of attempting to patronize a prostituted child and attempted sexual assault, and was assessed fees and costs of more than $4,400, of which he had paid $2,000 at the time of his appeals. Both of his convictions were overturned in separate appeals, one in part because Madden’s lawyer wrongly allowed testimony about his prior sexual behavior to be introduced at his trial. Prosecutors chose not to retry him because Madden had already served prison time.

      • Mathius says:

        Sounds like those are some pretty terrible people.

        Doesn’t change the fact that, if the state doesn’t have a conviction against them, then the state doesn’t have a right to take their money / time.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          My point was not they were bad people. But that in one case the person was actually acquitted in a second trial.

          But in the other the prosecutors decided not to re-try the case.

          The implication is that this discretion may be influenced in the future by the size of any monetary forfeiture held by the State.

          Another interesting comment made in the article where I found that information was that Colorado did not have a process for recovering money, and the new process of requiring a new civil suit was not considered a problem because there are so few cases either overturned or where acquittal occurs upon a new trial. Which kind of explains why the State created the Civil suit criteria to get back money.

          Don’t get confused. I am not supporting the State’s view or their law. Just trying to get in the heads of those who have tried to justify this. It reveals how we get so many bad laws and court rulings.

          As I carp about so often, picking the wrong foundation often results in a weak building. One that can fail completely when tested by the wind.

  6. Just A Citizen says:
  7. Mathius says:

    Can anyone explain to me the justification for why congressmen get health insurance for life?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      There is no justification, only rationalizations. This equally applies to “retirement” payments.

      Since we are on the subject, why is POTUS justified in getting Retirement and Medical Coverage for life?

      • Mathius says:

        Same question. I see no answer other than “because we felt like giving ourselves some free goodies.”

        They should all get the same retirement benefits that your average postman gets after working the same period of time.

    • Union benefit!

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    You will have to let the Ad run then you can shut down the audio. Sorry. But otherwise this contains a good summary of where the Republicans in the Senate are coming from on health care act.

    The one I am not sure about is Rand Paul’s comment. I understand the criticism but am not sure what that means in terms of an answer. Because putting everyone on Medicaid or Medicare would eliminate the “subsidy” to the insurance companies. So I don’t know if that is what he is alluding to in his comment.

  9. gmanfortruth says:
    • Mathius says:

      FYI, you can delete anything in a URL that comes after the question-mark.

    • Mathius says:

      And if he wants to be an elf, let him be an elf. Who is he hurting?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        He has injured me. No self respecting Elf has ears like that. Elves all know that, and they are of my kin. He has insulted my family blood lines and thus insulted me with his mocking view of what elves should look like.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        And here is my proof:

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Not sure what your comment means. What is “defending mental illness” mean?

      • Mathius says:

        I assume he’s referring to “defending” transgendered people, but I’ll let him speak for himself.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I consider trans (pick your term) as being mentally ill. Hence, the high rate of suicide for Transgender. People who pretend to be black when they are white are either mentally ill of con artists, which can be a form of mental illness.

        As far as this elf guy. What if he is doing this to attract little girls or boys? Talk about a scheme for a pedophile. Then he can claim it’s his Elf religion that allows him to rape children (that’s a joke).

        • Mathius says:

          I consider trans (pick your term) as being mentally ill.

          Where did you get your medical degree?

          Hence, the high rate of suicide for Transgender.

          Are you certain it’s high because of the “mental illness” and not because society are assholes to them? I imagine you’d find that living in a society where half the country vilifies you and calls you mentally ill takes its toll on your, er, mental health.

          Perhaps you’d like to commission a study to see if the rate is higher in conservative areas versus, say, San Francisco?

          By the way, being male carries a statistical likelihood of committing suicide that is 4x that of being female. So, by your logic, being male is a mental illness.

          I have some thoughts on all this, but I’ll have to get into them another time.

          A question for you: Do you consider gay people to be mentally ill?

          As far as this elf guy. What if he is doing this to attract little girls or boys?

          I have seen nothing to suggest this is the case. You have offered nothing to support this case. This is pure unfounded speculation.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Per the National Alliance of Mental Illness, Gman’s view appears to be valid.

            “A mental illness is a condition that affects a person’s thinking, feeling or mood. Such conditions may affect someone’s ability to relate to others and function each day. Each person will have different experiences, even people with the same diagnosis.

            Recovery, including meaningful roles in social life, school and work, is possible, especially when you start treatment early and play a strong role in your own recovery process.

            A mental health condition isn’t the result of one event. Research suggests multiple, linking causes. Genetics, environment and lifestyle influence whether someone develops a mental health condition. A stressful job or home life makes some people more susceptible, as do traumatic life events like being the victim of a crime. Biochemical processes and circuits and basic brain structure may play a role, too.”

            Your arguments are seriously flawed by the way. Man vs. Woman is a biological fact of sex. That one sex has a higher suicide rate than the other cannot mean that sex is the cause. If could mean that sex is correlated to other factors which lead to suicide.

            The suicide rate among transgender and homosexuals is likewise an indicator of potential correlation.

            However, sex is not a matter of mental function. Acting on transgender or homosexual feelings are a matter of mental function. Whether you claim it is genetic or not, one must have brain function to decide you are A and then to act according the A’s expected behavior.

            I find the definition of “mental illness” to be to broad. A key question not resolved in the definition is “what constitutes” an illness. In other words, “how do we identify illness”?

            It is fairly obvious that we identify illness as a condition of behaviors as compared to what we consider the normal range of behaviors. Another way would be to consider the affect on ability to function. But that again brings some judgment as to what is normal function.

            For example, “normal” function as a human would lead you to conclude that heterosexual behavior is normal. Since humans could not reproduce otherwise. Thus homosexual behavior is not “normal” in the big scheme of things. If not then what is the cause if not a malfunction in the mental condition of certain humans?

            Another question is “Are all suicides due to mental illness”? How about all suicides not due to efforts to avoid painful and prolonged death?

            It appears to me that many things could be labeled mental illness when looking at rational explanations of nature and use of logic. On the other hand, I could see where virtually nothing qualifies because the criteria used are so subjective.

            Perhaps the definition should be limited to those whose mental capacity does not allow them to provide themselves with shelter, water or food. If you cannot sustain you own life then obviously your mental state is an illness that will kill you.

            It is also interesting we use the term “illness” when this term carries with it the expectation that the “illness” can be treated. As in most other types of “illness”. But in the mental world, is the illness actually treated or are the symptoms dealt with to allow some kind of functional ability (food, water, shelter).

            • Why can we just not go back to recognizing that some for various bio-chemical reasons are born that way and others are made through circumstance. Seems easy enough to me. I know it suits neither extreme but it is closer to the truth.

              I keep explaining (these days unsuccessfully) that which used to be common knowledge a few millennia (it seems) ago. That a boy or girl who has image problems or personality problems is fodder for conversion. Why don’t girls like me? An overweight short kid with pimples could easily fall into a carefully laid trap. As we know from predatory priests, Rabbis, Scout Leaders and Teachers it does work. Now, if the kid can eventually walk away or not depends on their own development of self.

              Really does not take rocket science to figure it, just an open mind to the wonderful world of diversity in human behavior.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m pretty sure most people do, in fact, accept those who are different, for all the various reasons. There are many mental disorders, as you know, affecting people, many of which are well known and the donations pour in.

                The Trans movement is by far more political in nature than all of the other ailments that could be included above. The source matters. These Trans folks would be dead in Saudi Arabia, yet…….I hope you see my point. The movement is political and for votes. Democrats could care less about them once in office. At least Republicans don’t pretend.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius, et al.

            Some light reading that gets to my arguments above about mental illness. Do not try this when drousy. Best consumed with caffeinated beverages.


  10. I am thinking with Trump’s worship of Jackson it will not be more than six months till Trump challenges Schumer to a duel to settle things. It is unfortunate that Schumer will lose because coming from NY City, unless an orange plug is inserted in the gun he won’t know what end the bullet comes out!

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    HuffPo posted a story criticizing certain media for using drinks and big hats to tell stories about Cinco de Mayo. HuffPo says this is not proper way to recognize “A major Mexican holiday”.

    From story on “Truth about Cinco de Mayo”:

    Cinco de Mayo is a big deal in Puebla, where the famous battle took place but it really isn’t as important as most people think.

    September 16, Independence Day, is a much more important holiday in Mexico. For some reason, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated more in the United States of America, by Mexicans and Americans alike, than it is in Mexico. One theory for why it is more popular in the USA is that at one time, it was celebrated in all of Mexico and by Mexicans living in former Mexican territories such as Texas and California.

    It was ignored in Mexico after a while but still celebrated north of the border, which never got out of the habit of remembering the famous battle.”

    Note: The battle at Puebla is celebrated because a very large French army force was defeated by a much smaller Mexican force. Mexicans won the battle, but lost the war. The French regrouped and went on to take Mexico City.

    • Mathius says:

      Can confirm: Mexicans don’t give a shit about Cinco de Mayo.

      But as someone who enjoys the occasional margarita, well.. that’s a different story.

      • Can confirm the confirmation……even in Texas, there is relatively no celebration of Cinco de Mayo….very little.

        Confirming the confirmation of the confirmation…………………….in the Rancho de Colonel in San Miguel….there is no celebration in Mexico…they smply do not give a crap about it.

        We all look forward to Dia de Muertos.

        • Mathius says:

          Dia de Los Muertos is on par with a nationwide Mardi Gras. I’ve never really seen it celebrated north of the border, though – not even in LA.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Question for the Democrats and other leftists.

    If Trumpcare was a total disaster and died a premature death last month, as described in all your ridicule, then how could it be Trumpcare that passed the house and is now threatening to kill millions of people?

    Short version: If Trumpcare DIED then why do you call the AHCA Trumpcare?

    • Mathius says:

      I don’t know what its dying has to do with anything. It’s not dead as long as they’re actively trying to pass it in some form or another.

      It suffered a setback. Many (myself included) assumed that it was temporarily dead and that Trump would give it another shot in a year or so. I did not anticipate trying again so soon, but I suppose I should have given how aggressively opposed to the ACA many in the Republican base are.

      That said, if they can act coherently (big if), I expect they’ll be able to ram it through the Senate one way or another (recall, of course, that the ACA was rammed through the Senate over adamant Republican opposition). So, we can assume that it will pass sooner or later in one form or another.

      Calling it TrumpCare, in my opinion, stems from a few things:
      1. Calling that gives it a more “humanized” face which makes it easier to rally against. That is, for example, it’s tough(er) to get worked up over “House Bill HB201.A rev 3 (2017)” than TrumpCare. Even AHCA is still a little ethereal – if you want to rile up your base, you give it a name, something to sink your teeth into – and something memorable. You don’t want them scratching their heads in the next election wondering what AHCA was again. The more people can connect with it, but the better tool it will make in future campaigns and/or fund raising.
      2. Tying it to Trump makes it more likely to fail. Trump is deeply unpopular amongst broad swaths of the country. Making it Trump’s triggers the us-verse-them nature of people to make them instinctively distrust it. People who have no idea what’s in the bill, but who distrust Trump will instinctively dislike this bill. They may even call their senators and give them an uninformed earful.
      3. The Republicans did it to the Democrats with ObamaCare, and the Democrats just aren’t being that clever. Republicans are massively superior marketers (read:
      propagandists), so it’s no surprise that the Democrats would copy their tactics. A bunch of hipsters got paid to sit around in beanbag chairs sipping mochachinos and batting around some focus grouped terms and this is what they came up with. (I would have gone with Trumped Up Healthcare :p).
      4. Tying it to Trump makes its (almost certain) negative consequences easier to tie to Trump himself. For example, in the scheme of things, the website launch issue was really not that big of an issue, but Obama got pummeled for it. Did people think Obama was one of the guys out there coding the site? No, but it bore his name, so he got a beating for it. Unless this law is perfect (fat chance), there are going to be problems. And every single problem and shortfall is going to be blown up as “TRUMPCARE CAUSES.. X” whereas the headline “AHCA CAUSES… X” gets neither the visceral result, nor does it necessarily impact Trump as a directly since he can distance himself more if it doesn’t bear his name.
      5. We kind of sense that it just bothers Trump. We like that, however petty.

      • # 3 is nuts. Otherwise there never would have been an Obama. He managed to defeat two candidates whose resumes make him look like the piker he actually is. Why? Charming smile? Partially! That does go a long way. But Bush (both) did with the “architect” that clown Rove, the impossible. Lost two unloseable elections (actually three counting Romney) to amateurs, talented in their own way but amateurs nonetheless. Gerald R. Ford did the exact same thing with the Peanut farmer and while I won’t denigrate the historical volatility of the Mid-east that clown threw gas on a campfire and turned it into an inferno.

        Republicans are not capable of orchestrating their way into the position of dog-catcher. C’mon, who of the 17 others would have beaten Hillary? Lindsay Graham, Rubio? Bush III?

        • Mathius says:

          Otherwise there never would have been an Obama. He managed to defeat two candidates whose resumes make him look like the piker he actually is.

          I don’t know if you remember late 2008, but the economy had just fallen off a cliff. On Bush’s watch. Specifically, on the Republican’s watch. Banks were collapsing left and right and people were losing their life savings.. of course they’re going to vote for the “other guy.” The “other guy,” in this scenario could actually have been three koalas stacked on top of each other and wearing a trench coat and they still would have won.

          Then, geniuses that they are, the Republicans ran an investment banker at a time when sentiment against Wall Street greed and corruption was at its peak. And he had the charisma of toothpaste. To top it off, he had basically created ObamaCare, which his party had spent the last few years railing again. AND he was Mormon, which is kind of a big thing to a voter base that considers it a cult and not “real” Christianity. So he got slaughtered, too. Shocker, that.

          C’mon, who of the 17 others would have beaten Hillary? Lindsay Graham, Rubio? Bush III?

          Well, with Putin and Comey’s help, they all probably would have…

          Personally, I might have considered voting for Jeb! or Kasich. Probably not, but I’m pretty far to the left. I think if I would have been tempted, then the entire undecided center would have swung into their camps.

          The only reason she won the popular vote was because people hated Trump more than they hated her. She was so negative (the Red Shirt propaganda machine and Select Email Benghazi Clinton Foundation Committee had done a marvelous job over the previous few years)… she was so negative that she would have been demolished by any sane Republican. Demolished.

          Instead, you ran a guy with tiny hands and a gerbil on his head and wound up with a squeaker (that he somehow claims was a monumental win). You could have run Janet Reno, and you’d still probably have won. Hell, you could have run GW Bush for a third term and he’d have won.

          • Remember the swift move of firing the thoroughly discredited Rumsfeld two weeks AFTER the election.

            If I had been running the Romney Campaign, I would have campaigned against two democrats. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those F—–s owned the collapse. But NO republican seems smart enough to do that!

          • You, sir, are not far left.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Obama did not beat Romney in 2008.

  13. I was wondering when the left was going to start hollering “racist”. I did not catch the name of the black lady was on the MSNBC show….but whe was uncontrollable yelling that the ONLY reason that Obamacare was being repealed was that white America wanted to erase any semblance of a black President. She went on to say that anyone that opted out because of cost and that employers that cut back their workforce are equally racists. Any person, white or black that does not want to increase taxes and pay for this is also racists. She went on to say that any black owner of a business that cuts back or opts out is not black enough.

  14. I was very upset with the GOP for singing ” Na Na Na Na, hey hey, goodbye”…I was thinking that it was very imbecile, immature, and childish.

    Then, today, 5/6/17, I find out that it was really the Democrats singing this pertaining to the 2018 elections…IS this true?

  15. It has been a terrible week. Two family members had to go to the ER. They are both find but it brought up the issue of high medical cost. Took my daughter to the doctor for really bad abdominal pain, the doctor needed a CTscan to determine what was wrong . But she could not get one without going to the ER because it was late, 3.00 o’clock on friday, and they are closed on the weekend. So instead of it costing hundreds it is going to cost thousands. So why can’t these Imaging businesses be open on the weekend or at night? Second issue, the doctor did blood and urine tests at the office- about an hour earlier -the ER wouldn’t accept them-so we paid for new ones.

    • So, out of curiosity, what is your solution and how do you address it? Therein, lies a dilemma and one that the house and senate face. Is it a government job to regulate the costs and operating hours? Is the Insurance company responsible for the high cost of ER? Is the hospital yu went to private or county?

      Do not get me wrong. I do not like it either but I still do not want government in the health care business. I am in that now…and still chose to go to a private hospital and bear the cost and the government still cut the payment on medicare by 40%.

      I do not kjnow about where you live, but here, private hospitals will negotiate costs.

      • I don’t want the government telling businesses when to be open, either. Just noticing a problem. Sometime ago Minor Medical Clinics opened-the market saw a need and they filled it, so talk about stuff like this and maybe…….

  16. Just A Citizen says:


    Yep, you get this kind of thinking from a public official because the Republicans have a better propaganda machine.

    Our children think Socialism is a better way than the Capitalism that built this country, but the right has a better marketing program than the left.

    The right’s propaganda is so effective in fact that the vast majority of University professors are right wing conservatives or outright Anarcho-capitalists. Not to mention the obvious right wing leanings of the American Media reporters and journalists.

    • VH, ask for an itemized bill. Go through it line by line and then delete payment for any tests you did not authorize or were done over you objections. If there are gross over charges for some items, take a deduction. Insurance companies nearly always get a discounted bill. Document and explain each deduction or refusal to pay in a letter.

      A few years ago, my wife had an session with a speech therapists. She met with the therapist for 1 hour, took no tests requiring sophisticated equipment. The only equipment was a room, desk and chair along with the therapists time. Now a therapist is not a physician so should not claim a physicians compensation. The bill was $750. There had been no discussion ahead of time as to the costs. I objected strongly to the pricing stating that it far exceed my billing rate as Ph. D. physicist. Included with the letter was a check for $350 which is what I valued the service at and told them the bill was paid in full. Never heard from them again.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    There is no reason for Home Care givers to need a Union. This is pure DEMOCRAT theft.

    • Here is one of my anecdotal things that Charlie always bitches about.

      When Local 1199, the Hospital Workers Union made a bid decades ago to unionize NY”s Presbyterian Hospital, they failed in a vote twice. The third time they succeeded. Why? Well, I had two aunts working there at the time and both had been called, at home, by persons unknown suggesting that they NOT come to work the day of the next vote.

      That hospital was famous for the way it treated its staff without a union.

    • This scam has been going on for some time. There is a similar scam for daycare providers.
      I guess I missed the gravy train because I have been caring for my wife for the last 13 years. I do have a care person here while I work, all paid out of my own pocket. The only break I get is a tax deduction. Still not drawing SS and I got the Colonel beat by a year.

  18. I do not understand the hoopla over the health care bill out of the House. It appears that no one or hardly anyone knows how these procedures work, especially the general public. The House bill now goes to Senate…the Senate rewrites, adds, subtracts and then sends it to conference…it then gets tweaked again. Crap, this is politics 101.

    Unlike the media, this is not a Republican bill. Not yet. It is NOT Trump care…..Not Yet. It only becomes Trump care when he signs a new bill to make it so.

    If the House and Senate do not get together and there is no bill, it simply stays Obamacare and a Democratic problem. As I have said before, I hope this happens. This country needs a wake up call and here is where it can start. Let the premiums double and even triple. The long term establishment ( Dems and Reubs ) will suffer the consequence or they will get out before they do. Why do you think Reid left and why do you think that the worse of Obamacare was put off until 2017. Great Democratic strategy. Makes me think that they studied under……………………….


    • Trump is playing it correctly……he crows and hollers about a victory…..misdirection strategy as he keeps signing EO’s and letting his appointed czars do their thing. Small behind the curtain things are being accomplished. Everyone is focusing on the health care bill. The media is eating it up and the dems are saying everyone is going to die.

      Someone tell me….why not just let Obamacare stay? No changes….then we see what 2018 really looks like.

      • If I were a betting man, I’d bet that they are afraid the pressure to adopt single payer would be impossible for them to resist. So, this is their answer. Anything is their answer.

        Personally, as I have been railing about for 40 years,IT IS TIME TO GROW A PAIR.

        Hey Colonel, I’ve noticed that since I use the line, “Why would you want to adopt a nationwide VA system?” I shut them down pretty quickly. Paul Ryan ought to try that.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Speaking of the VA (including the Choice program), 3 months has past and still no appointment for a colonoscopy. I tried 3 times, struck out. Next year I reckon.

          • The choice program does not work here at all….I have my card, and I am more than 50 miles away..the VA refuses to pay.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              For the most part, the VA around here is very good. All my issues have been dealt with as one would expect. If I ask for something, short of narcotics, I have gotten it. ER visits for a broken foot and some stitches, covered in full.

              I’m not so sure why the Choice program is having such problems. Even before the program, I had some care outside the system, fully covered.

              Now, I did investigate where these folks who do the scheduling work…..The area is a Liberal area who voted heavy for Clinton.. Take that for what it’s worth.

        • You are correct. Here is what should happen and I think it will end all of this quickly. Put everyone on the VA system. Put all Federal Employees on the VA system…..

          this clamor for single payer system would be over before god could get the news.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    On the topic of cool new “practical” things that are more environment friendly.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    My God. We have gone mad!

    Rule #1 of public relations. When you do something wrong ADMIT it up front and immediately.

    Rule #2: Immediately apologize.

    Mr. School Super…………… YOU VIOLATED the first two rules your moron.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Topic: Example of the media’s tone deafness.

    For a few weeks we have been witness to the DRAMA created by the press over the French election. Oh my God, the tension, the suspense the chance a crazy right winger could lead France out of the EU. Even the new scourge of the Russians and Alt-Right trying to “hack the elections”. The Debate that could determine the future of France and the EU.

    Then only a few days before the election, following the debate, we are finally given the factual information that LaPen has been trailing in the polls by almost 30% points….the entire time.

    The bigger question should be, why was this covered in global media at all? The headlines should have read: “In further news, France will hold a national election on May 7th”. Oh, that should also have been the content. Nothing more was news worthy.

    Another topic, but related: Organized efforts of the left.

    Notice how quickly the French parties and outlets linked La Pen to Russian manipulations of the election and attempts by the “Alt-right” to affect the results with “fake news”???

    Wonder what the media will report when it is discovered the “Alt-right” is really a bunch of leftists funded by people like Soros?

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Question to left wingers. Why not use your fund raising prowess to establish a charity that will help poor people pay for medical care??? Just sayin.

    WASHINGTON ― Democratic activists, revamping fundraising to support congressional candidates in the Trump era, said Friday they received a flood of grassroots donations in the 24 hours after House Republicans passed legislation to repeal huge parts of Obamacare.

    The progressive groups Daily Kos, ActBlue and Swing Left said they raised a total of more than $2 million from over 45,000 donors to help defeat Republicans who voted for the GOP legislation on Thursday. ActBlue, the main online fundraising hub for progressive politics and Democratic candidates, processed a total of $4.2 million ― a huge amount this far out from an election.

    P.S. What a waste of good money.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Proud of my Idaho Senator today for speaking the truth to the democratic shills at the town hall meeting. The poor guy is getting lynched on all the left leaning web sites and MSM outlets for speaking the TRUTH.

    For those that missed it, he told an audience member that the idea people die due to lack of access to healthcare is false. That the narrative people will die is a political ploy. Go Labrador.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Listening to Democrats one would think that their whole voting base is going to die……

      • Mathius says:

        They’re not?

        Is the Democratic voting base immortal and I just missed a memo? I’m registered as a Democrat so I can vote in primaries.. do I get to live forever, too, or do I have to actually commit to being a true-blue Democrat? Because I don’t know if that’s worth it…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Nancy Pelosi is already mummified, Warren and many others are zombies, so Ya never know 😀

    • Mathius says:

      For those that missed it, he told an audience member that the idea people die due to lack of access to healthcare is false. That the narrative people will die is a political ploy. Go Labrador.

      I saw this and remember thinking that this is (by an large) correct. I mean, some people die from lack of access to healthcare, but they’re a rounding error.

      He is absolutely right.

      The bigger problem is that getting sick can be a financial death sentence.

      The #1 cause of bankruptcy is medical-related. That’s pretty messed up if you ask me.

      • Of course bankruptcy could be avoided if…your minor son’s employer calls saying your son has fallen and can’t get up and they’ve dispatched EMS for transport to hospital, where after 1 1/2 hr, a set of xrays, a Motrin, and a boot cast later…a bill comes in the amount of just shy of 5 grand. Oh, and 18 months later he still oohs and aaahs with pain occasionally. Did have insurance for him which put my out of pocket at about 750…but that’s all the bill should have been to begin with.

        • It goes without saying that this never would have happened if said son didn’t ride the handrail down the stairs and landed wrong…on federal airport property.

        • Mathius says:

          Not everyone can afford insurance.

          And many of the cheap-o plans (pre ObamaCare, anyway) had spending caps, so if you went and got cancer, you were still screwed. Or if you had a pre-existing condition, you wouldn’t be able to buy a plan for yourself afterward.

          A lot of times, the choice is bankruptcy or death.

          Seems pretty shitty to me.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            My neighbor has insurance that’s too expensive to use. Having or not having insurance isn’t a death sentence, life choices are. And Life Choices are the main reason people struggle with this issue.

            • Mathius says:

              If you can’t use it due to cost then what is the point?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Because a farmer should have catastrophic insurance. 15 out of pocket a year, 400 a month. That’s Obama care buddy.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            When I was young we were POOR, even by the standards of the day. Yet somehow we managed health insurance. And despite the usual litany of youthful injuries and illnesses we never went bankrupt. My sister came down with diabetes. And the insurance kept paying the bills until the day she died. Along with what my parents paid of course.

            The point is that the insurance industry had not yet been converted into a forced wish list of services back then. Somehow, between the insurance companies and Doctors, costs were kept under control.

            One large reason insurance is not affordable today is that people want to use it to pay for ALL medical related expenses. The next reason is they have used Govt. to MANDATE all kinds of coverage. It is the variation in State mandates that made “interstate” sale of insurance policies impossible. Even if other restrictions were removed.

      • Mathius says:

        I saw this and remember thinking that this is (by an large) correct. I mean, some people die from lack of access to healthcare, but they’re a rounding error.

        I should clarify…

        People without insurance may forego preventative care such as cancer screenings leading to ultimately higher mortality rates.

        Still, they have access to such screenings – it’s just a question of whether they’re willing to significantly harm themselves financially in order to utilize them.

        Since I am unlikely to go get screened if doing so means I’m not going to make my mortgage payment, I will probably not get screened, and may, therefore, miss the early stage of some disease that could have been better treated.

        So, yes, in that sense, he is wrong.

        And it is a fair question whether access at such costs is truly “access.” For instance, I have “access” to live in a mansion and drive a Bugatti… for a day or two before the bank comes knocking.. so do I really have that access?

        But the question, again, really isn’t one of access so much as the cost of using that access.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I laugh loudly at this “cancer screening” nonsense. I’m 52 (almost) and have never had such a thing. I worked in a hospital, no such “cancer screening” unit in the joint. One gets screened for cancer when one has a medical issue pointing to that, for the most part.

          What exactly is this Cancer screening that folks talk about? A colonoscopy isn’t even recommended till age 50, unless there is a problem beforehand.

          Preventive healthcare is little more than expensive testing that is relatively useless, except for Big Pharma, who make a fortune selling people pills they really don’t need. There are natural remedies for most everything that comes up in a blood screen.

          • Generally it is for the ladies also for all sun worshipers who should see a dermatologist and have those black spots checked out.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Many doctors state that the ladies don’t need all those annual tests. Every 5 years would do just fine. As far as the sun worshipers, tough, that’s a life choice, let them pay for it.

              • Mathius says:

                Self inflicted damage is self inflicted.

                I see no difference between getting a deep tan and smoking a pack of reds.

                If you made a choice that has a foreseeable medical consequence, that’s your choice and your consequence.

                Either way: not my problem.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          During the ACA debate several Doctors came forward with hard data showing the “preventative care” benefits to be hugely overstated.

          And an annual check up, including “female tests” should not be covered by insurance anyway. If these were so helpful in reducing long term costs, don’t you think the insurance companies would have paid for them already?

        • Jennie says:

          If you can’t afford the screenings, then you sure as heck can’t afford Obamacare insurance premiums.

  24. Texas Governor Greg Abbott interviewed this morning about the Texas Law on immigration. He was asked if the SCOTUS rules against Texas saying that they cannot enforce federal immigration law, what will Texas do. His answer was direct and to the point. ” I will do what is right for Texas and do exactly the same thing we did when SCOTUS ruled against our voter ID law. We will do it anyway.” When asked the question about whether a Federal Court says that Texas cannot withhold funds from sanctuary cities, his answer was also direct, ” We have already done it and will continue to do it.”

    Then he was asked about arresting law enforcement officers that do not follow the Texas law on immigrtaion….he said, ” we will put them in jail.”

    So, I guess we are in official rebellion.

    • Mathius says:

      You are aware that Texas is a state, right?

      Not a country?

      In fact, other than a (very) brief stint as an independent country, you’ve been owned by – if memory serves – five separate nations at one time or another.

      You don’t get to rebel. You get to follow the law, just like everyone else. If you have a problem with that, we can send in a bunch of Yankees to remind you. It didn’t work out to well for the other Southerns, either, but, hey, maybe second time’s the charm?

      Don’t like the laws? Change the law. You don’t get to ignore them.

      ….. But if you ask me very nicely, I might just give you my blessing to go on your way. You can even build a wall on your norther border if you want.

      • Actually, if you do a little history checking, you will see that Texas NEVER lost a battle during the rebellion. Fought one to a draw but sent the yankees packing on the other three. However, that said, we do not see ourselves as a State and we oblige the rest of the 49. We have voted to change the laws but unfortunately, in Washington DC, that is not a feasible issue. So, we will do what is right for Texas. We elected state representatives that think the same way… it locally.

        There has been no negative issues from the Feds on our ignoring the voter ID law….and there will not be. There is no enforcement and the SCOTUS cannot order military intervention to enforce those laws. Obama did not do it nor will Trump.

        So, let me ask you this…..if you were POTUS, would you actually send in the troops to enforce a SCOTUS decision on a State issue?

        There have been 6 flags over Texas……5 of them foreign flags ( US flag included as a “furriner” ) We kicked Spain’s ass….the French, and Mexico. We supported the South only to the point of wanting our own Republic after the rebellion, and then we had our own Republic. Texas, for some ungodly reason, became a state, however, retaining rights and privileges not granted other states.

        SO, that said, the Colonel’s Republic of Texas, hereby, requests the blessings of the Mathius Junta, to become its own republic once again. They do so ask, nicely. ( Under the proviso that the Junta understands we shall do it anyway ).

        • Until I read Fehrenbach’s book I had not known of the unique and peculiar circumstances that brought Texas into the union. There were conditions imposed on the deal by the Sovereign Republic of Texas which are different than for any other state. Perhaps you should ‘splain that to Matt.

          • Mathius says:

            I read a pair of lovely books by the late great James A. Michener called “Mexico” and “Texas.”

            1,000+ pages apiece, covering centuries of history. I cannot recommend them highly enough. (if you’re in the mood to read such novels, I would also recommend Hawaii and Chesapeake as well.

            I am well aware of the relevant history.

        • Mathius says:

          So, let me ask you this…..if you were POTUS, would you actually send in the troops to enforce a SCOTUS decision on a State issue?

          No, I’d kick you out of the union.

          Then I’d build a wall on your norther border and make you pay for it.

          So, let me ask you this…..if you were POTUS, would you actually send in the troops to enforce a SCOTUS decision on a State issue?

          Depends on the issue. The problem is the slippery slope, right? If President Mathius allows you to ignore the legal heirarchy, then what stops everyone from ignoring everything they don’t like?

          Can Colorado dam up the Colorado River and demand tribute from California? Can Mississippi go back to allowing slavery (you know they want to)? Can Alabama give up the facade of actually caring about education? Can Michigan annex parts of Canada?

          The law works like this: Constitution > Federal > State > Local > “when you live under my roof, you’ll obey my rules”

          Texas signed on for that. Like it or not, that’s the contract.

          The only question for President Mathius is whether your offense is so egregious and so flagrant that it’s liable to set a precedent I can’t tolerate for the other states.

          For example, we let states legalize Marijuana in blatant violation of federal law. Now, it doesn’t matter that the federal law is stupid, that’s not a choice that’s left to the states. The states have to follow federal law.

          Similarly, sanctuary cities work better for immigrant heavy areas if they weren’t sanctuaries. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s against the law.

          You don’t get to break the law because you disagree with it.

          So would I send in troops? No, probably not. I might just order the ceizure of your state’s funds (electronically) and redistribute them on your behalf to the cities in question. If push comes to shove, I might arrest your governor for insurrection. But send in the troops… at a place as trigger happy as Texas…? Probably not.

          In short:

          SO, that said, the Colonel’s Republic of Texas, hereby, requests the blessings of the Mathius Junta, to become its own republic once again. They do so ask, nicely.

          Petition granted.

          ::loudly stamps paper with official looking seal::

          Have a nice day!

          Would you care to take Oklahoma with you?

          ( Under the proviso that the Junta understands we shall do it anyway ).

          Oooh, so close.. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to try again.

          ::rips up petition::

          • But, the past administration has already set the precedent of violating Federal Law by not enforcing Federal Law……..are you saying that because it is the FEDS….that there is a double standard?

            • Mathius says:

              Quite the contrary.

              I’m saying that the states shouldn’t be able to legalize marijuana if it’s illegal at the federal level.. or, rather, they shouldn’t be able to opt out of enforcing federal laws to that effect. It’s not like they have to have their own laws making it extra illegal, but they can’t pick and choose what federal laws to obey. I happen to believe that legalizing marijuana is the right thing to do from a moral and practical standpoint, but I don’t get to ignore the hierarchy just because it’s convenient to do so.

              To that same end – though I typed it a little unclearly above – I believe that sanctuary cities are better set up to handle areas with large immigrant populations. I believe it works better and is, generally, more humane as well. With that said, I do not agree that they should be allowed to do so. The states should go in and arrest the police commissioner (or the relevant party) for dereliction of duty (or whatever equivalent charge) and replace him. There is a hierarchy and I don’t get to ignore it when it’s convenient to do so.

              To that same end, Texas does not get to deny funding to sanctuary cities because the courts have ruled that they may not do so. Texas does not get to ignore the hierarchy either. If Texas will not obey, the federal government should act to enforce the rulings by seizing the funds and redistributing them as appropriate – it might also be justified in arresting the governor or some other high ranking official for failure to follow court orders.

              So what should happen? Texas should continue to fund the cities and they should send in the state troopers to take over the local police and enforce the law. If necessary, they should arrest the local city council or commissioner. And if the next guy in line does not enforce the laws, he should be arrested and replaced. Repeat until you find someone in the chain of command who will obey the law.

              States do not get to rebel against the federal government, nor ignore duly rendered judgments by the courts. Similarly, cities do not get to rebel against their states

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, Why would the Fed’s have any power at all to tell Texas how to disperse their money? It seems that there is no authority written within the Constitution stating that the Feds can dictate to States how they spend State money. I think your Court ruling is just wishful thinking and far from Federal authority.

              • Mathius says:

                I’m not a judge. I only know what the courts say – and it is their job to interpret the laws.

                If they have found that Texas cannot do something, Texas cannot do something. If Texas doesn’t like it, they can appeal. If SCOTUS weighs in, that’s the law of the land. If Texas doesn’t like that, they can try to get more friendly judges on the court and change the law that way.

                Such is life.

                There’s a process. You don’t win them all, and they don’t all make sense to any sane individual. (maybe to Buck?)

                But it’s not up to you or me to pick and choose. Nor is it up to the states to do so. Nor is it up to the cities.

                It’s up to the courts because that is how America is set up. It has THREE branches of government for a reason.

  25. gmanfortruth says:
    • Mathius says:

      Sorry, can’t help you. People are nuts.

      ::takes another sip of sugar-loaded Red Bull::

      (27g / 8.4 oz can.. wow..)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I don’t know if you both read the whole thing but this is more than likely what is going on:

      “The white privilege tax may be a distraction for Murray, who’s facing accusations from four men that he paid for sex and sexually abused them in the 1980s when they were teen boys. A high profile lawsuit from one of the men filed last month claims that Murray “raped and molested him” over several years, beginning in 1986 when the man was a 15-year-old high-school dropout. Murray has denied the accusations.”

      This is in our news every week and it is getting worse. Others have come forward. I remind you here that the Mayor of Portland had an underage boy lover, before he was elected, and it never cost him his job. The left wingers came to his defense in droves. And no criminal charges were ever brought by the City, County or State.

      So I will be shocked if much comes of the Seattle Mayor’s problems. Unless the State AG decides to file charges. But I am not sure why he would, given the Dems control on the State Govt. I am not sure having a pedophile in office is damaging to their base votes.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Connections (one of our family’s favorite shows by the way)

    We cry a river over those who are poor and we give them welfare. This cohort is the most likely to suffer from behavioral choices, like drugs, drinking and smoking. But we do not want to impose upon their “dignity” so we place no restrictions on their welfare.

    We cry a river of the poor not being able to afford health care or health insurance, or both. So we turn the entire industry upside down to accomodate their need. Why are their costs so high? Because they suffer from the leading causes of major illness and injury. Namely drugs, drinking and smoking. The other high cost cohort being old people of course.

    We subsidize their lifestyle which leads to health risks which leads to high costs which lead to us adding more financial support which leads to further subsidizing their lifestyle.


  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Health care, or more accurately health insurance is NOT the issue. I repeat, this is not the TRUE ISSUE at hand.

    The issue is whether the last nail is to be driven into the American coffin or if by some miracle, the patient will be saved.

    Nationalized health care, or insurance, is a symptom. It is not the disease. That is why getting sucked into debates about actuarial tables, costs, affordability and pre-existing conditions is conceding the war. Fighting stupid battles that do not matter and probably cannot be won. Because it requires logic and reason trumping the appeal to emotion.

    The WAR is Socialism/Collectivism/Tryranny vs. Liberty. We are engaged in a tug of war where in most of our fellow Americans have forgotten who we are and seem to crave to become Europe. Where our children have been taught to think in globalist terms, a world without any borders, one where there is ONE governance. And guess which form of governance that is, given how few have ever known the kind of Liberty we enjoyed here.

    If you want to be free, you have to live free. This means being willing to suffer the travails of daily life as a human being. It means never demanding from others that which you have not earned. This includes charity, which is to be given freely and not forced under duress to the giver. It demands that you not use Govt. force to take the property of others, or place such demands on future generations, for your personal benefit or gain.

  28. Just A Citizen says:


    My response to one of your counter points the other day.

    “Allowing prayer in public is in effect supporting a religion, or group of religions.

    Specifically, it’s people support a religion or group of religions – which is just fine.

    It’s the government, which is not allowed to support a religion or group of religions.”

    You seemed to have missed the point of my sarcastic proposal. It is the Govt. that has declared “public places” to be under its jurisdiction. If a “public place” is under Govt. control then allowing prayer or displays of religion in “public places” is defacto sanctification by said Govt. .

    This is the path down which “overriding societal needs” will lead you.

    By the way. There is no rational reason to prohibit you from owning a warthog if you want one and can afford it. Same goes for cannons, battleships, etc. Purity in interpretation of RIGHTS is the ONLY VALID interpretation.

    As for your use of murder vs. religion, you forget the hierarchy of moral principles over political. “Thou shalt not kill” except as needed for “self defense” underlies the political Rights, such as Freedom of Religion. That so many don’t seem to grasp this is testament to what is lacking in our education system.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Busted or Not Busted???

    Note: Doing PSA’s (public service announcements) for free is not illegal nor unethical. However, getting free political ads done is both both unethical and illegal, to my understanding of the rules.

    Of course, there is a fine and very foggy line between PSA and political advertisements. Just as with postage and franking privileges to communicate with constituents.

  30. Some thoughts……” So, I was walking through Chicago and I saw there was a Muslim Book Store, so, being curious, I walked in. As I was wandering around, a clerk stopped me with a puzzled look on his face and asked if he could help me. I asked if he had a copy of Donald Trump’s book on his immigration policy regarding Muslims and illegal Mexicans….. The clerk fumed and said..” GET OUT…GET OUT AND STAY OUT”…to which I said..” Yes, that is the one…do you have it in paperback?”

  31. I do not understand the American protesters supporting the protesters in Venezuela……who are protesting against everything the protesters in America a protesting for………………

    • Jennie says:

      I read an article about Venezuela the other day. It was full of heartbreaking photos of children starving to death. There was so much outrage over the photos of the child victims of the chemical attack, that we dropped bombs in response. It seems to me that what Maduro is doing to his people is just as terrible as Assad, maybe worse. Where is the outrage?

      • To re- quote an old quote attributed to Jane Fonda when asked about the re-education camps in Viet-nam and the Cambodian genocide…….”Sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelette”.

        As I asked the other day when I saw the photos of the red flags on May 1st. How is it that people can still support an ideology that has 10 X the body count of the fascists?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The issues in Venezuela have been going on for a couple years now. This is the end results of Socialism. There are two ways it can go., Further Left (Dictatorship) or Right-Right Center (Freedom/with some social services). It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

  32. I am curious…….you have a sub,,,,,,a SUB committee that is investigating Flynn and his ties to Russia. You have a POTUS that hates Trump and says that he personally told him about Flynn. You have a fired assistant, Sally Yates, acting attorney general, who hates Trump, saying that she personally told Trump advisers about Flynn. You have former Director of National Security, James Clapper, that says he personally warned about Flynn.

    There is one thing conspicuously missing, at least right now it is. Where is the documentation of the meeings, recordings, etc. Why are these, IF THEY EXIST, not entered into the record? I, for one, would be incensed and really pissed if the current administration were given direct proof and it was disregarded. I would be arguing against Trump this very minute.

    Prove it and I will believe it. This he said, she said, is bullshit.

    • Flynn lies to the VP…….you fire him. End of sentence. If Flynn was compromised in any way, you fire him. He is fired. He is gone. Where does the problem lay?

      • The problem is that they haven’t figured out how to get rid of Trump cause like the meme said…its a big club and he ain’t in it.

        • I get that but it is so childish. It is beginning to remind me of the scenes that I see in England during their parliament meetings….I thought we were better than this. One thing that made America unique….we were independent. We did not care what the world thought….and now…we are reducing ourselves to juvenile status…and wanting to be like the rest of the world…to fit in. That is NOT WHO WE ARE. I do not want to be like Europe or Chiina or Russia…. Complacency is the motherhood of destruction…….(Colonel’s words…I think).


          Perhaps Mathius is correct…..kick Texas out, build the wall……I will pay for it.

          • Mathius says:

            Perhaps Mathius is correct…..kick Texas out, build the wall……I will pay for it.

            Take Oklahoma with you so you have a nice straight border up top. If you want ’em, you can have Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama, too. Just let me know.

            Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

            Oh, and take your pro rata share of the national debt with you, but leave the nukes.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Most of this happened before Trump became President, if there was a crime committed, why no action by previous administration? If he didn’t lie, would he still be in office? Seem’s like a witch hunt to make Trump look bad.

      Best line from hearing….To Yates….Who made you a SCOTUS Judge?

  33. I smell something fishy with the thug from the flash pool party in Florida who (sketchy part here) body slammed the 68 yr old woman then picked her up, dogs in tow, and threw her into the pool. He has suddenly turned himself in.

    The way the video played out, with all the kids laughing their asses off while splitting the scene, it just doesn’t follow for the kid to turn himself in. The cool part, tho, is that the sleuths from /pol/ plastered his picture and identity on Reddit…then he decides to turn himself in. Something just doesn’t sound right to me. Who’s behind it? Will it be labeled a hate crime, or a simple misdemeanor since he’s a minor?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Maybe his parents made him turn himself in. Who knows, but in the end, the young man should spend time in jail at the very least. But in all reality, the old lady should have just kept walking her dogs, not the smartest move.

      • ::::loud buzz::: Wrong answer…cannot blame the victim. I’ve read that she was a part of the board of directors for the housing community, called the cops several times about the large crowd and noise…cops were slow to respond so she took action hoping to calm the crowd. Didn’t go well.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          As a rule, loud music/noise has never killed anyone at a pool party. It’s a nuisance and the lady would have been wiser to simply wait for the cops. With that said, she made an unwise decision. That doesn’t mean it’s her fault for what occurred.

  34. Mathius…..are you saying that a Federal Judge can order a state to use state funds?

    • Mathius says:

      I am saying that a federal judge can order anything a federal judge wants to order.

      If he is out of line, then he will be overruled by SCOTUS.

      If SCOTUS agrees, then you’re fucked.

      Because that’s the way the system is set up.

      Still don’t like it? Pass an amendment.

      (or agree to my terms re your share of the national debt, and be on your way)

      • Cant agree here…….that would be tantamount to a Federal judge telling New York…ummm, send some of your state money to Texas…they need it more than you do. That is the position of Texas…..we can with our own money what we want to do and no Federal anything has any jurisdiction to say otherwise.

        For example, the voter ID rule. If Texas wants to institute a voter ID rule for state voting, no Federal judge should have jurisdiction. Voting is controlled by the state, not the Feds. But I am a state’s rights advocate and admit it. ( I believe that I am consistent with this )

        • However, you are confusing me with something….please correct me if I am wrong..but are you not an advocate of “selective enforcement?” That a law enforcement officer can decide what and when to prosecute or what laws they wish to adhere to and what laws they selectively decide not to adhere to?

          • I am not talking about jay walking or running a red light, either. But, if a Federal Immigration Law is on the books, do you agree that a POTUS can selectively decide which laws to follow and which ones not to follow?

            • But, if a Federal Immigration Law is on the books, do you agree that a POTUS can selectively decide which laws to follow and which ones not to follow?

              Correct. If the law is on the books, it must be followed.

              I will allow that there is a limited amount of capacity to enforce our comedically absurd number of laws. As such, it is reasonable for the President to set priorities – for example, deferring action on low priority deportations while prioritizing deporting criminals.

              But it is not ok for him to simply – not – enforce a standing law.

              Put another way, if the law says “all illegal immigrants must go,” the President can set the policy for how to go about that by starting with the “bad guys with calves the size of cantaloupes” and ending with the “dreamers,” but he cannot stop before the “Dreamers.”

              Nor can he institute a policy deliberately designed to have such an effect.


              I think you’d agree that, insofar as we have limited capacity to deport people, we should start with criminals and get around to the honor students when capacity permits, right? That’s fine.

              But you can’t set it up so we never get around to the honor students just because he like them – that’s not up to the President. If he wants to keep them here, he needs to change the law. Congress makes the laws, not the President.

          • That a law enforcement officer can decide what and when to prosecute or what laws they wish to adhere to and what laws they selectively decide not to adhere to?


            It has some.. unfortunate.. side effects, but no.

            I don’t think it hurts for street-level cops to have some discretion / let you off with a warning, But that’s about it. The department shouldn’t have policies in place (official or unofficial) which contravene city laws, nor cities have policies contravening counties, not counties contravening states, nor states contravening the feds. And the whole mess should be sorted out by the courts.

            Pot should be illegal until the federal law can be changed (and it should be changed).

            Sanctuary cities should have to enforce ICE policy until the policy is changed (and it should be changed).

            Texas should fund the cities unless the higher court rules they don’t have to (I have no opinion).

            And if anyone institutes a policy otherwise, they should be removed from office and, if applicable, charged with obstruction of justice or defying a court order.

  35. According to the Brookings Institute and Moody’s, Clinton won counties worth 64% of the nation’s GDP. Trump won 36%.

    Put another way: the makers in this country voted for Clinton.

    • WHat a crock………..what a crock…….you and I both know that is hooey……

      • How so?

        • It is the “Clinton won the popular vote” issue. Let us identify “makers”. let’s take Wall Street out of the equation and change the “makers” to mom and pop business and individual business people who are the makers then re-run the calculations.

          • For example….a corporate headquarters located in Los Angeles or New York city is where reported income is. Let’s take Cargill, for example, and redistribute the accounting to where the income originates and then look at the counties.

          • Wall Street is only a piece, and if you take it out, Clinton still “wins” handily.

            But any way you slice and dice is, massively more of the GDP of the country comes from Clinton Country than TrumpLand.

            • Mathius, for someone who is usually logical this is a pathetic argument. The urban centers not only have the concentration of money as D13 points out but also a concentration of urban poor who vote for the gravy train to continue thus you have both money and high voter counts in one area. I can live w/o the Wall Street banker. You try living w/o the farmer and rancher.

            • On your salient point of the use of the term GDP….I will stipultate, that, the way that you would be correct. Which is to say that 64% of the wealth comes from 10% of the population.

              • Boy, I need a Dr Pepper…..let me try this again…..::ahem..clearing throat…taking sip of Dr Pepper:::Ok…nationwide, Clinton won 487 counties….Trump won 2654 ( Using fact check that you like )….That is 15.5 % of the counties. So you are saying that 64% of the wealth lies in 15% of the counties.

                “The difference in population size among counties can be dramatic — for example, Census data show that Kings County, New York, which is in Brooklyn (and which Clinton won), has a population of 2.6 million people, while Petroleum County, Montana (which Trump won) has 475 people. So, even though Trump won more counties, Clinton is leading in the national popular vote by nearly 2.7 million votes, according to the latest tally from David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as of Dec. 9.”

                Now throw in a population center of Los Angeles with its ports and such…and you have the same result.

                Jus’ sayin’………………………….but, I will stipulate your position because figures do not lie…liars can figure, however. But in this case, given the very narrow parameters of what a maker is…….I so stipulate and concede. ( which is a milestone of sorts, that a full blood Texan would stipulate or concede anything to a California transplanted New York Yankee ).

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I think we should give in to leftist demands on taxing the rich. But lets use “county” as the criteria.

                Since so much more of the wealth can be pin pointed to certain counties we should tax those “counties”, that is people living in them, at a much higher “progressive rate”.

                Then watch what happens. 😉

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The people who feed you won this election. The makers of widgets are NOTHING without us hillbillies 😀 😀 😀

    • Just A Citizen says:


      OK. Now would you please send that to the DNC. I can’t wait to see them and all their media outlets start harping on the idea that the “makers” voted for Clinton and the “takers” voted for Trump.

  36. Socialist liberals: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome

    Insane people: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

  37. Boom! This is how you do it!

    “Any law we pass that applies to our constituents must apply equally to Members of Congress as well. Anything short of that is hypocrisy. Congress must abide by the laws it passes and should be treated no differently than other hardworking Americans. My measure eliminates double standards by preventing Members of Congress from exempting themselves from American Health Care Act.”
    -Rep. McSally (R-AZ)

    (Disclaimer: Congress is still a shit-pile.. just slightly less of one today than it was yesterday.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not to McSally: This has already been done.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I am reminded of the Utah legislature passing a law declaring that the Great Salt Lake shall not rise above a certain elevation. That year the snowpack was like this year. The Lake did not comply.


    Wow, democrats believe they can make a duly elected President null and void.

      • Mathius says:

        She did what a few of the federal courts did that overruled it. She looked outside the language and detail of the actual order itself to Trump’s campaign statements in 2016 to deem it unconstitutional, which is only something a liberal hack would do.


        As I said, it’s quite common to consider intent when examining the legality of an order.

        You’ll note that the courts sided with her. So it’s probably the case that she was right about the legal framework and that the Office of Legal Council was considering the order too narrowly.

    • Mathius says:

      It’s quite common for the courts to consider “legislative intent.”

      It’s why a gerrymander can be legal if done for partisan reasons but illegal if done for racial reasons – even if it is the exact same act.

      Trump has, and his surrogates have, repeatedly and explicitly called this a Muslim ban. Not (just) a ban on travel from risky countries, but a ban on Muslims. And that’s illegal.

      For him to go in after the fact and say “no, no, it’s really about the countries” is preposterous. We know his intent because he campaigned on it. His surrogates blabbed about it on Fox repeatedly. So when they play that back int eh courtroom, it’s hard to see the ban as anything other than religious-tested no matter what he says.

      Whereas, if anyone else had proposed the same ban, it might have passed muster because it wasn’t (at least not so demonstrably) motivated by a religious test. The President gets a lot of latitude in such matters, but it does have its limits.

      So, yes, had Clinton proposed a similar ban – and had she couched it in terms of risky counties / extremism / etc (pretty much anything other than explicitly being a ban on Muslims), it probably would have been upheld. However, had Clinton called it a Muslim ban, she, too, would have been blocked.


      Put another way, Trump can’t get his way because he shot himself in the foot. Another President might have been able to pass this because they wouldn’t have shot themselves in the foot.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You repeat the left’s typical double standard and conflicted arguments.

        When it comes to the Constitution the intent does not matter, it is how the court interprets it. When it comes to Trump’s order it is based on his campaign statements. When Clinton issues the same order it is legal because the actual “affect of the law” takes precedent.

        Either the law is the law and rulings are based on the language or they are nothing but wind.

        And Trump did not campaign on banning Muslims. He suggested a “temporary ban on Muslims traveling to this country until we get it figured out”. That is completely within the POTUS’s authority.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          P.S. Yates admitted she used the campaign rhetoric to make her determination. That Sir is far above her pay grade. She should have been smacked down after her response to Cruz on that matter.

          Remember, she did not just have an opinion, she ordered DOJ stafff to NOT COMPLY with a lawful order after it had been reviewed by White House Counsel. Sorry Sir, but she made a calculated political play. In the end I expect the appeals courts or SCOTUS to uphold the current travel EO’s, and maybe even issue statements supporting the first one and admonishing certain judges for their rulings. But that has nothing to do with what the Deputy AG did or should have done.

          Her proper response should have been to resign if she could not follow the order. Not to put all her subordinates in the untenable position of standing with her.

          • Mathius says:

            Sorry Sir, but she made a calculated political play. In the end I expect the appeals courts or SCOTUS to uphold the current travel EO’s, and maybe even issue statements supporting the first one and admonishing certain judges for their rulings.

            I’ll take that action.

          • Mathius says:

            Remember, she did not just have an opinion, she ordered DOJ stafff to NOT COMPLY with a lawful order after it had been reviewed by White House Counsel.


            She was Deputy AG.

            Since when did WH council get to make the determination regarding the legality of laws on behalf of Department of Justice? If the DOJ had to take the WH Council’s word as gospel for everything, why even make them a separate department? Why not just make them directly subordinate to the President?

            The AG is a member of the Cabinet, and serves at the pleasure of the President, but he does not work for the President. By extension, neither does the AG. The DOJ is an independent department and can make up its own damned mind.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              It is not DOJ’s job to decide if laws are legal. That is not the department that does that type of evaluation. That is the Office of General Counsel. And they had ruled the orders Constitutional.

              So you earlier argued that everyone should follow the law, now you argue that the AG can use whatever criteria they want to decide if the law is legal.

              I guess we don’t need SCOTUS anymore do we.

              • Mathius says:

                The OGC is an office within the DOJ. Yates was the #2 within the DOJ. I don’t see why you think the OGC should have overruled her.

                To be fair, I do not know enough about the internal bureaucracy to actually have an answer for you here. Maybe you can illuminate me on how all these parts fit together?

                I’m pretty sure it’s completely within the purview of the DOJ to defend, or not defend any law / EO / policy it so chooses, and if it the White House doesn’t like it. they can go suck an egg.

                Yates said that although the office concluded the order was lawful, the office’s focus was “narrow” and ignored contextual factors that she said undermined the legality of the order.

                Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying… the OGC said it was Constitutional, but was considering the question too narrowly and ignoring context which, as I’ve point out elsewhere, is very important.

                And, it seems, the courts have agreed with Yates and myself, not you. So isn’t that confirmation that she was right? I mean, if she was wrong, the courts would have ruled against her and said her context was irrelevant, not agreed and blocked the ban, no?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Is your team leading at the end of the first quarter proof that your team is better, right or that it will win by the end of the game?

              You claiming Yates was vindicated by a few left leaning judges is silly at best. And it does not address the underlying issue regarding Yates. She had an Office of General Counsel ruling in her hands. She is free to disagree with it, but “interpreting” rules within the law by reaching outside the law itself is beyond her job. But she is still free to do so. But then she ordered all staff to comply with her view.

              By the way, prior discussion on this by legal folks indicated that this “state intent” rule you are applying is rarely if ever used when dealing with POTUS orders. Because the courts have readily recognized the difference between political rhetoric during campaigns and governing once elected. Which begs the question why Yates applied this rule before the District judges had a chance to state it as their reason.

              She should have resigned or recuse herself. But by issuing the order she gave her subordinates no real choice but to do as she said. On an issue that was obviously loaded with political dynamite.

              • Mathius says:

                Is your team leading at the end of the first quarter proof that your team is better, right or that it will win by the end of the game?

                It’s more like.. I won the first game.

                Then I won the second game.

                Then I won the third game.

                Then I won the fourth game.

                Now you’re way behind with an outside shot of making the payoffs for a come-from-behind longshot victory.

                Hey, it could happen.

                You claiming Yates was vindicated by a few left leaning judges is silly at best.

                We’ll see what SCOTUS says, but here’s a question for you: if the ban was supposed to be temporary, and we’re not past that time, why are we still litigating this?

                She had an Office of General Counsel ruling in her hands. She is free to disagree with it, but “interpreting” rules within the law by reaching outside the law itself is beyond her job.

                Do you have something to support this assertion? It looks to me like she was the #2 at the DOJ and would, therefore, have been superior to those who offered their opinions to the contrary. It seems to me like it would be her job (or her boss’ job) to determine what the DOJ does and does not want to defend. Why does she have to take their opinion as gospel rather than advisory? Are you aware of a DOJ rule which binds her to their recommendation?

                But she is still free to do so. But then she ordered all staff to comply with her view.

                Because they work for her.

                Do you not know how hierarchy works?

                Lower downs feed data up the food chain. The higher ups make decisions. Higher ups feed their rulings back down the food chain. Lower downs comply. Higher ups allow the lower downs to continue to be employed.

                At least, that’s how it’s worked to one degree or another everywhere I’ve ever been. Do you work at some sort of company where the minions make the decisions and the board of directors obeys?

                By the way, prior discussion on this by legal folks indicated that this “state intent” rule you are applying is rarely if ever used when dealing with POTUS orders.

                A) I’d love to see that discussion with legal folk. I am not a lawyer. As I have said, I learned through osmosis and one or two law courses. I’m obviously far more educated in legal matters than the average bear, but I am by no means an actual expert. So if I’m wrong, I’d like to learn more.

                B) is “rarely if ever” the same as “never”?

                Because the courts have readily recognized the difference between political rhetoric during campaigns and governing once elected.

                I actually agree with this point!

                And, especially in the case of Trump where he lied his happy ass off, it seems unreasonable to take anything that has ever come out of his mouth at face value.

                So let me turn this around on you: If not to ban Muslims (or toss out some red meat to his base by the appearance of banning Muslims), what was the purpose of this ban? Had it been implemented, what would he have hoped for it to achieve?

                Which begs the question why Yates applied this rule before the District judges had a chance to state it as their reason.

                I don’t know that she applied this rule. I just assumed it as the logical reasoning given my understanding of such matters. Do you know this was her thought process? (I haven’t watched her testimony).

                In any event, her job is to make a likely determination as to whether an action is legal and then support or not. She determined it was not – by whatever logic she used – legal, and opted to not defend it.

                If the President decided to round up and execute all Muslims, and the OGC determined it was Constitutional, but she determined it was not, she would have been correct to refuse to defend the EO, no?

                She should have resigned or recuse herself.


                Why does she have to abdicate her superior authority in the face of a subordinate office’s disagreement?

                Again, what kind of office do you work at? If I disagree with my boss, and he feels strongly enough, he gets his way – every damn time. Similarly, if my staff disagrees with me, and I feel strongly enough, I get my way. Every. Damn. Time. I don’t “recuse myself” or resign when an employee has a differing opinion. And when my boss issues a final edict, it is the word of God from on high so far as everyone inside the company is concerned. Why? Because that’s how command structures work.

                But by issuing the order she gave her subordinates no real choice but to do as she said.

                Again, that’s why there’s a hierarchy. She’s the boss. They’re not. They don’t get a “real choice.” They get to do what the boss tells them to do or they get the hose.

                On an issue that was obviously loaded with political dynamite.

                So? It’s the DOJ. Politically loaded subjects are a daily occurrence. All the more important that they have a command structure. Imagine if every office just did whatever the hell it felt like all the time.

        • Mathius says:

          That is completely within the POTUS’s authority.

          Apparently not.

          When it comes to Trump’s order it is based on his campaign statements. When Clinton issues the same order it is legal because the actual “affect of the law” takes precedent.


          When trump issues the order, it has to be considered in light of his previous statements which cast it as a religious targetting.

          When Clinton issues the order, it has to be considered in light of her previous statements which do NOT cast it as a religious targetting.

          Ergo his is illegal.
          And hers is not.

          It is not because hers is judged by the affect of the law and his by intent. Both are judged by BOTH intent and affect. Clinton had a better chance on the question of intent because she hadn’t spent the last several months vilifying Muslims and calling for a “temporary” ban on them.

          He suggested a “temporary ban on Muslims traveling to this country until we get it figured out”.

          I don’t see why this is so hard for you.

          You do not get to pass a law discriminating against one particular religion.

          Congress shall make no law…

          By extension, POTUS shall make no such order.

          A ban on travel from a suspect country is a-ok. A ban on Muslims is not. Period. Full stop.

          Trump cannot hide behind some false pretense that he’s targetting the terror-prone countries after touring the country and touting how he was going to institute a “temporary ban on Muslims traveling to this country.” Got that? It’s a ban… ON MUSLIMS. So now he’s going to go to court and pretend that banning Muslims is an incidental side affect of his ban on these countries? That’s preposterous. It was the goal.


          Try to think of it this way: Both Trump and Clinton tweet out a blatant and damaging lie about you.

          You sue them for libel.

          In the course of discovery, you find an email from Trump where he discusses the matter at hand and readily acknowledges that it’s not the true. You find no such email from Clinton (probably because she deleted it).

          So now you’re in court. They’ve done the same exact thing. Said, word for word, the same untruth.

          But Trump is going to lose the case and Clinton isn’t. Why? Because he has evidence of prior intent – you can demonstrate that he knew he was not telling the truth, thus you can show bad intent, thus his action is illegal. Whereas you have no such evidence against Mrs. Clinton, ergo, you cannot show she acted illegally, ergo, she gets away with it.

          You follow? It’s actually a great analogy.

          The only reason Trump can’t get away with it is because he opened his mouth and shot himself in the foot. By showing his intent he transformed a (probably) lawful order into an illegal one.

          • Congress shall make no law…….

            Congress didn’t have anything to do with it and it wasn’t a law.

            • Mathius says:

              Ok, we’re going to get a bit into the weeds here… But interesting weeds, I promise!


              There’s something called Justice Jackson’s Test.

              Basically, it’s the gold standard for evaluating whether the President can act a certain way.

              Because the 1st Amendment does, you are correct, explicitly say “CONGRESS” shall make no law, we cannot directly port that over the the PRESIDENT not being able to make such laws… though, of course, he can’t make laws anyway.

              But EO’s are kindof like mini laws.

              So let’s look at Jackson’s Test:

              1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

              2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

              3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter….

              So #1: Since Congress can make no such law, they obvious cannot have granted him such explicit power, ergo he cannot act under #1. Under #1, he would have broad latitude to act.

              #2: This would be more like a tug-of-war scenario where the President and Congress both claim a power. In a case like this, the failure of congress to act may be an abdication, similarly, the courts will consider standing precedent, or the general situation rather than letter of the law. Since Congress is not granted this power, this test does not apply. So he cannot act under #2. Under #2, he would have moderate amounts of latitude to act.

              #3: This is where it gets interesting. See, since congress is expressly forbidden to discriminate against a religion, we must take that to mean the inverse: that is, that it is Congresses express will that there be no such law. To that end, the President is now acting in direct opposition to the will of Congress. Therefore, according to Jackson’s Test, his power is at it’s “lowest ebb” and he can only rely on express Constitutional power minus any Constitutional powers of Congress.

              So he can act under #3, but the problem is that he is now limited to his express powers and constrained appropriating any powers that belong to Congress. In other words: He’s on a very, very short leash.


              With all that in mind, the courts took a look at his order and determined that he does not have the necessary powers considering the short leash he was on. Consequently, they blocked his order – as they are expressly permitted to do as a co-equal branch of government.

              • I think you’re reaching here. Run that by the Office of General Council and you would get the buzzer.

              • Mathius says:

                I grew up in a family with a lot of lawyers (occupational hazard of being Jewish, I suppose). My family tree is full of them… my father, brother, father in law, at least a half-dozen cousins… it’s hard not to get a lite version of a law degree by osmosis.

                I will defer to any actual lawyers who care to opine (Buck, are you alive?).

              • D13:::::warming up weed eater:::::::

          • Just A Citizen says:

            It is a LOUSY analogy.

            The issues and questions surrounding “libel” or any other crime involving judgment or intent is entirely different than the arena of applying EO’s, Regulations and Laws.

            Notice how your own arguments using gerrymandering, or more recently ID laws, are in violation of how the left applies what ever standard it wants. The courts overturned those not based on “intent” but the speculation about supposed discrimination. In other words, what would the actual result of the law be, not what the intent of the legislators was.

            Your honor, we did not intend to discriminate against Blacks and the law applies to everyone. Sorry Texas, we have a study from a University that says your law will in its effect be discriminatory. Your “intent” is irrelevant.


            Your honor, the law does not discriminate as it is written. Sorry Texas, it doesn’t matter what the effect of the law is, your “intention” was to discriminate because you made statements to that affect long before this rule was passed.

      • So basically, you are telling me that the President is now not ?allowed to do something completely legal because he thought about doing something some people deem illegal. And this seems logical to you?

        • Mathius says:

          Well when you put it like that….

          The best analogy I can give is the one I gave above re libel. The exact same action, “tweeting a damaging untruth about you,” can be legal or illegal depending on one thing: intent.

          If the President knows beforehand that his tweet is false, it’s a lie, and therefore libel, and therefore illegal.

          If he does not know beforehand (or you can’t prove that he knew), it is still false, but he believed it, therefore it is NOT libel, and therefore legal.


          To translate that into the matter at hand:

          A ban on Muslims is illegal because it is a discrimination against a religious group. Period, full stop.

          No court is going to let you impose special laws to discriminate against one particular religious group – not even a Texas court.

          But a ban on certain predominately Muslim countries..? Yup, that’s legal. The President has wide latitude to put in place bans like that.

          The rub is that the later will effectively do the former. So, even if they’re not perfect matches, they’re close enough for government work. And that’s fine – it’s still legal.

          But if you can show, compellingly, that the later is a deliberate ruse to accomplish the former through otherwise legal means, it magically transforms into being illegal… because of the intent to discriminate against a religious group.

          Same thing as before. A legal action + illegal intent = illegal action.

          So his campaign promises and his speeches and his surrogates going around promising to ban Muslims.. then he “incidentally” bans them in an otherwise inexplicable order? Gimme a break. The courts saw right through it.


          Another analogy:

          Suppose a legislator pass a law that says “a 10% surcharge will apply to individuals named after well-known 5th century figures.” Well, yes, I suppose that’s technically legal, if a little thin, but hey, maybe it’ll pass muster because it could just as readily apply to any Christian named after Saint… whoever.

          But then it comes to light the legislator wanted to impose a special tax on Muslims. He gave speeches on it. He promised a Muslim tax. His allies promised a Muslim tax. And, in the midst of all this, he proposed the above law. Well, obviously, that’s going to be illegal, right? I mean, it’s obvious that his intent is to tax people named Muhammad, right? So now it’s a religious text and that is illegal.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            That is all that matters. The rest is just pure BS.

            A ban on Muslims would have had to say “MUSLIMS” or it would have had to include everyone from every country containing Muslims, but not other countries of concern.

            • Mathius says:


              That’s right. Because the courts blocked it.

              A ban on Muslims would have had to say “MUSLIMS” or it would have had to include everyone from every country containing Muslims, but not other countries of concern.

              A ban on Muslims doesn’t have to be a ban on all Muslims. Nor does it have to be a ban on only Muslims. It just has to be substantively targetted at them, and motivated by race.

              It seems, again, that the courts have agreed with me.

              A ban on Muslims would have had to say “MUSLIMS” or it would have had to include everyone from every country containing Muslims, but not other countries of concern.

              So you could, say, institute any law restricting people for protected classes.. just as long as you don’t mention them by name? I propose a 10% tax on anyone named Muhammad. That’s ok, right? I mean, it doesn’t mention Muslims. And it doesn’t target all Muslims. And there are probably a few non-Muslims out there named Muhammad. So, by your standards, this is ok?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The courts did not block a ban on Muslims. Because there was no such thing.

                And YES, by definition a law that targets “Muslims” would have to include all of them.

                Your argument against a ban for those in the region violates another basic tenant. That our laws are not a “suicide pact”. You and your left wing Judge friends are claiming that the POTUS has no authority to act against even a country we are in conflict with if said country is dominated by a single race of people.

                Oh, and before I forget. Muslim is not a race. Many Muslims are Caucasians, some are from the Negro race and others from the Asian race.

                A handful of judges have agreed with you and all of them are left wing judges. “The Courts” is a huge overstatement by you at this point.

                As for your tax example, it is absurd. But then I know of no prohibition on Congress to target certain people with a special tax rate. They already do it by income and since those rich people are primarily “white men” that makes the Progressive tax unconstitutional because it discriminates against “rich, white, men”. Two of these classes are prohibited from being discriminated against, that being race and sex.


    It’s not segregation, its…

    “black excellence” and “black brilliance” and

    It’s about fellowship and building a community. This is a chance to reaffirm for each other that we enter the work world with a network of supporters standing with us. We are all partners,”

    aka black privilege

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ah yes, a Masters in “Public Policy”. The next Barack Obama in the making. Even his failed logic applies. Indicating they must teach this stupidity at the Ivy League schools. Lets deconstruct:

      “Harvard’s institutional foundation is in direct conflict with the needs of black students. There is a legacy of slavery, epistemic racism and colonization at Harvard, which was an institution founded to train rising imperialist leaders. This is a history that we are reclaiming.”

      OK. The University was founded on principles in conflict with your needs. The University has a legacy of slavery, racism and colonization. So why is it you wanted to attend this elite University? Why would you attend and institution so insidious? Could it be you didn’t know all this until you got there and attended your social science and political studies classes?

      As for that training of “imperialist leaders”, do you have a problem with the “imperial leaders” of Africa that ruled the continent before the Europeans upset the power structure? Or those of South America or Central America before the Spanish arrived?

      Now for the Grand Finale’. “This is the history that we are reclaiming”. So you are reclaiming the history of racism, slavery colonization and training of imperialist leaders. Congratulations. While the rest of us have been trying to create a new future you seem hell bent on reclaiming the past. The very past you say you oppose.

      • Mathius says:

        I can’t help you. Just let them be special snowflakes. Does it hurt you?

        They’ll get out into the real world and they’ll adjust or they won’t. Darwin will take care of the rest.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I was not commenting on their event. I was pointing out the stupidity in the guys argument.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          P.S. Yes it will hurt me. In the long run. Hell it already is hurting me.

          Where do you think “Public Policy” majors wind up working?????? Hint, they wind up making laws and rules that HURT ME.

          This is how we got a POTUS who did not believe in the founding principle of “negative rights”. Which meant he did not support the Constitution, and this is how he governed. Attempting to chip away at its foundation.

          So yes, people like this do pose a threat. To not only me but to the country I love. Which is not the country they want to create.

        • They do have a bad track record but they are not the people they used to be. Lotsa negative comments from US troops who served with them in Afghanistan.

          • Mathius says:

            They do have a bad track record

            That’s right!

            They do have a bad track record but they are not the people they used to be.

            Hate to break it to you, buddy, but we’re all just a few lean years away from being German circa ’39. Give us a little worse unemployment and some kind of crop blight that produces food shortages… you’ll see just how fast this veneer of civility wears off and we start doing the American Goose Step.

            It’s not that they aren’t who they used to be. They still are. And we are, too. It’s just that things aren’t bad enough, and the right (wrong) leader hasn’t shown up to take us down that particular dark path. Human nature doesn’t really change. Give the same stimulus to any group of people anywhere at any time in human history and you’re going to get comparable results. The “who”s and “how”s change.. but the fundamentals are consistent. America came close with the Japanese internment, but our turn is still out there. Not if- but when.

            Lotsa negative comments from US troops who served with them in Afghanistan.

            Like what? Genuine curiosity here.

            • To quote one young Lt. “They don’t like to go outside the wire”. Another, “They are all overweight and drink too damn much beer”. Last one, “Where are those lean hungry SS troopers I expected?”

              I kid you not. I’ve read these on various military blogs.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I disagree vehemently. We are NOTHING like we used to be.

              We are soft, we have become attached and dependent upon the Govt. teat. In the 1930’s 25% of the population was unemployed and before FDR used it to ram his Socialism down out throat. people would stand in line for hours to get a bowl of soup and slice of bread. All provided by charity.

              People took odd jobs doing all kind of literally “crappy” work. Just for shelter and/or food.

              Today they would riot and DEMAND somebody take care of them.

              Back then most American still knew how to grow their own food if they could. Not today.

              Sorry Sir, we are not the same. We are not even a shadow of our former self. Except of course for all us “hillbillies”. Rednecks will rule the world if it goes to shit. Otherwise, you will find us in the movies at at the exhibit on Route 66. I’m not tellin which State.

      • (2nd attempt because I went to… Spam spam spam spam spammity SPAMM!)

    • Mathius says:

      As a healthy, heterosexual, white, male, non-Muslim, who is young(ish), tall, thin, relatively intelligent, comes form decent money, married into decent money, from a major city, well educated, and devastatingly handsome, I find that the world is easier for me than it probably is for others.

      I do resent that there are things other people are allowed to take pride in yet which, if I were to try to take pride in, would somehow render me a racist/bigot.

      It’s strange.

      Black Pride? OK.
      Gay Pride? OK
      Women’s Pride? OK
      Fat acceptance? Sure, what the hell
      and so on. Sure! Go for it!

      But try marching for White Pride, see where that gets you.

      Black Entertainment Television? Sure.
      White Entertainment Television? Nooooooooo

      Dating sites for Puerto Ricans? Sure!
      Dating site for Caucasians? Nooooooooooooooo

      It’s strange.

      But then again, I have had the benefit of a slight tailwind my whole life. Not huge. But definitely real. Door open easier for me than they do for others. When I get pulled over, I am multiples more likely to get a warning. When I apply for a loan, I am more likely to be approved. When I send in a resume, the whiteness of my name makes a callback more likely (even controlling for the otherwise exact same resume). Teachers are more likely to grade me higher for the same reports. Cabs are more likely to stop for me. I’m more likely to get promoted. And so on. Not huge. But there is, absolutely, a wind at my back.

      My life is good and I am in a good place in a good country at a good time for someone like me.

      If other people want to have special whatever for their special butterfly demographic, whatever. They can have it. It doesn’t hurt me.

      I forgot what comedian pointed it out: Black people have black history month. You know why we don’t have white appreciation month? Because every month is white appreciation month.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Memory Test

    The left is celebrating the new “Jimmy Kimmel Test”, largely thanks to an idiot Republican Congressman from Louisiana.

    What is the Kimmel test? That every child in America be covered by health insurance.

    Now here is the memory test.

    Can anyone remember how many children in the USA did not have “access” to health insurance before the Affordable Care Act was passed?

    • Mathius says:


      Conflating “covered by health insurance” with “access to health insurance.”

      ((No other opinions offered at this time.))

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Objection noted and correction made:

        Conflating covered by health insurance with access to health care.

        The other was a true statement but not what I usually point out to those confusing the two.

        For example, you could have access to insurance but decide to not be covered. Thus have access but no coverage. And this is what happened pre ACA for many of these “poor children” who were trotted out as a reason to “reform our health care system”.

  41. @ MAthius, re: your question about German Troops.

    Observations from D13 ( actual observations from eyes on and I have no citation other than a pair of silver eagles on my collar….that, and being from Texas, of course ). I worked with a detachment of them in Bosnia and Kuwait.

    1) Nice guys and could drink beer with the best.
    2) Nice guys and they like to eat American MRE’s ( Do not ask me why )
    3) Nice guys but they could not shoot a weapon and did not know how to field strip their own weapons and clean them. This pertains to their personal weapons…rifles, pistols, and such.
    4) Nice guys but they were never trained in urban combat and warfare.
    5) Nice guys but they do not know how to operate their own equipment very well. ( Always throwing “tracks” because of not paying attention to terrain ).
    6) Nice guys but they do not have transportation vehicles to get them to combat. Totally relied upon foreig assets for rides.
    7) Nice guys but were totally out of shape and could not run from here to there without puking up the beer from the night before.
    8) Nice guys but were not trained in unit support tactics….meaning they did not know how to do covering fire or over watch position.
    9) Nice guys but did not know how to set up land mines or even throw a grenade.

    But, they could sure drink beer.

    No American unit wanted to work with them….totally unreliable in combat.

    • Mathius says:

      To what does your pair of silver eagles attribute this condition?

      • Well, the eagle on the left shoulder and the one on the right shoulder both agree that it is a lack of training and a lack of funding….combined with a severe lack of leadership training. Another example is when I taught logistics and training at War College. They were historically the lowest grades. I found that the reason was comprehension, mainly. Unknown as to why.

        • One thing that did stand out. In Australia as well as the US…..all officers are required to have formal education..meaning a college degree. This was not a requirement among the German officers.

        • Now a college degree does not a good officer make….but it seems that higher educated did result in comprehension….a big picture, so to speak.

          • But they were nice guys and could drink beer….and that dark nasty stuff.

            • ….and that dark nasty stuff.


            • Would you say it was because we did all the heavy lifting in Europe before ’91 or is this new “ain’t gonna make war no more” stuff?

              I gave a couple of quotes from young Lt’s above. The one that made the coffee run out (correction explode) of my nose was the young Lt. who expected “Some of those lean , hungry SS men” he had read about.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Two things, one of which you guessed. In my opinion.

                The other is the fear of having another army like the one they had in 1930. When you are afraid to present such a military force then you don’t do what is needed to make it ready. Add to this that WE covered them, because we and the other allies wanted it that way, at Poof.

                Also lets not forget that the German Army was only the “west” until the late 1980’s. Any east Germans joining the ranks would have been used to the top down military culture of the Soviets. And of course suffer from the Communist malaise.

  42. James Comey, you’re fired!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Rightfully so! 😀

      • I actually wonder if the guy has early onset dementia? The left will make this another Nixonian “Saturday night massacre”.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I watched about 5 minutes of CNN these evening. I can say that this is in full swing.

          They have lost all pretension of objectivity. If I could have I would have reached through the screen and strangled all of them. Even the R’ token, just to make sure I got the rest.

          Sometimes flock shooting results in collateral damage. But that is acceptable under their rules of engagement so I will not lose any sleep over it. Sacrifice the few for the good of the many.

    • Seth Abramson‏Verified account

      Anyone who works in the Trump White House who has an OUNCE of moral fiber will resign TONIGHT. Please RETWEET to help get this message out.

      I’m helping to get the message out 😎 and I triple dog dare them to walk out. Drain the swamp.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Told ya he wasn’t long for the world.

      Something has been very off with the guy. Yesterday he gave a blistering testimony and today the FBI was trying to back track and “correct the record” because his statements were absolutely FALSE.

      By the way, the false statements were harmful to Clinton. The correct record is also, but not nearly as dramatic as what Comey testified to in the hearing.

      Now for a special shout out to Mathius and Buck, et al.

      Couldn’t help but notice how the media ignored perhaps the most condemning thing Comey said during his testimony. In a nutshell he said he had to do the July 5th press conference and step into the public eye because the AG had compromised herself by meeting with Clinton. The inference was one of two possibilities. One, that he did not trust her to make an objective decision. Or that he knew that WHEN she decided to not prosecute it would look bad, so he fell on his sword for her and POTUS. This latter view was his actual testimony. He just left out the part about falling on his sword for them and tried to make it look like he did it for the FBI’s reputation.

      In either case, he stated he did not trust the AG to make a decision that would be taken well by the public, that would not look like interference. Now how would he know that the AG would make such a decision and not blow the lid off by indicting Clinton?? How did he know that he needed to act to prevent this from happening???

      This is not by Trump’s personal doing but his election sure has pulled the scab off the festering sore that is Washington D.C..

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    In other news tonight. We learned that there is apparently a GRAND JURY that has been convened to deal with the Flynn investigation.

    This was revealed when news broke of information being sought to a “grand jury subpoena”.

    I find one thing interesting about this. No news about the Grand Jury. But some commenting on various left wing web sites have emphatically declared such a thing exists. For about two weeks now. They are emphatic that in fact there are TWO Grand Juries which have been convened. One looking into Flynn and one into the Trump/Russia connection.

    If you pay close attention, the rats will often disclose what is happening. They just can’t help but make themselves look connected. Someone always spills the beans. It also shows how the internet is being manipulated by the “State” mechanism. There are many people acting like experts who are not what they appear to be.

    I think we have been safe from this because we never became as big as the major sites. If we did I think we would find the same thing happening here.

    And yes Mathius, I am jealous. I spend far to much time here and I want to get paid. How do I get one of these lucrative “TROLL” jobs? Maybe one for each side at double the pay.

%d bloggers like this: