Who Are The Truth Tellers?

truthIt’s been well known for some time that the MSM is seriously biased, mostly to the Left, with FOX holding a Right Wing view.  Alternative media is under attack by the Liberal run tech giants, as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been banned by most Social Media and many other sites are being shadow banned on Fakebook and Twitter.  Sadly, what is being most affected is Conservative views on Social media, while sites for Antifa and clowns like Louis Farrakan are still running strong.  The local news, after covering the killings and robberies (Pittsburgh) are just repeating the MSM talking points.  Journalism is dead.  With that said, who are todays truth tellers?  The answer is……who is being censored the most?




  1. Have a great day!

  2. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security reported that they had arrested an illegal alien on several counts of rape, after a girl he claimed was his daughter and brought with him to enter the United States was revealed to not be related in any way.
    Instead, it appears that the girl was essentially being used as a sex slave. It’s a disturbing case that confirms what ICE — which reports to DHS — has been saying for months.

    Will CNN report on this?

    • Nope…..neither will Fox. This happened all the time when I was involved at the border. We saw it a lot…..You could tell the kidnapped girls very easy….it was in their eyes and their body language……and here is the rub…………………even if the girl claimed she was kidnapped or raped…..if it did not occur on US soil……………………there was nothing we could do about it. We could separate her from her captor but we had to let them go. She would eventually be kidnapped again on the Mexico side….and put into slavery……..

      And we do business with Mexico when they allowe this to happen. It makes me sick. We are tired of Mexico and are trying to sell our ranch….so far….no takers. I feel like a hypocrite to have a ranch there and do business there when the country engages in human trafficking….it makes me equally sick for there to be this type of market in the US…most of the market is in Chicago, New York City, and Atlanta. There are smaller markets in my own state in Houston and Dallas and scattered all across the US.

      • Fox reported on it this morning. Ill be looking to see if the nets report it, although i doubt it. Its easy to see who is suppressing the truth.

  3. An old Hawaiian sage said the only way to placate the volcano god Pele was the human sacrifice of a big leader born in Hawaii. Obama immediately announced he was born in Kenya and had the birth certificate to prove it.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Being thrown into an active caldera is actually far, far, far worse than you might imagine.

      Know that lava and magma are, by their nature, molten rock.

      Rock is denser than human beings.

      Thus you do not sink.

      No, not even a little bit.

      Technically, you float, but it’s more like being on top of an pan on an oven.

      Anything which touched the “floor” would burn immediately, but you would not die.

      Your shoes would become soft and sticky, then melt soon after, and then your feet would burn. You’d lose the ability to stand and then you’d fall. Your hands, which you used to break your fall, would feel like you just touched a hot stove. Whatever touched the ground/lava would receive immediate massive burns. Many such burns would be significant enough to singe the nerve endings, cutting off the pain, but not all.

      The fumes would be intense and sulfuric. Sulfur burns the lungs, but wouldn’t cause immediate death either. For added insult to injury, note that sulfur is the primary source of stench from flatulence.

      Your clothing having long since burned off, covering your entire body in varying degrees of burns, you would collapse to the ground. THEN you would pass out.

      Your body isn’t particularly flammable, but it IS made of mostly water. And water, when it heats up, expands.

      Your cells would rupture as the water expanded into steam and you would… split. Your viscera would literally erupt from your body, landing on the lava, where they would cook, burn, and then dissolve. The impression would be more of an outgassing than anything else. Like a watermelon in a microwave. Thereupon, at last, the remnants of your body would essentially melt and be converted into slag atop the lava flow.

      Your bones, made of calcium, with a melting point around 1,500 F would be the last indication of your existence, but the volcano is 2,000 F, and they, too, would char and melt, mixing with the rest of the less dense slag that was once you.

      Worse, still, this would not appease Pele, because Pele only likes sacrifices of sentient canines.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    I do not think that claiming those who are censored the most must therefore be the truth tellers is a rational argument. Alex Jones is not a truth teller for crying out loud. But like all hyperbolic talking heads who figured out how to monetize fear, he finds an acorn every now and then.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      You are right about everything you just said except that Jones finds an Acorn every now and then.. I think he IS an acorn.

    • It’s important to understand how Jones came to be banned. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy stuff, although for years he was calling out Globalist’s before anyone considered their existence, this is about his support for Trump and calling out the MSM for their lies and bias. CNN lobbied hard for this ban, calling for it for weeks if not months. This is where truth comes into play, because the conspiracy stuff has been long ignored, whereas as he became a voice politically, he was attacked much like every other conservative who had an opinion the MSM didn’t like.

      Jones began as an entertainer and has crept for years into mainstream news. While he may be a kook, censorship is also happening to others, including politicians. But back to the point, if Jones wasn’t telling the truth about CNN, they wouldn’t have bothered with him.

      Now, who are the truth tellers?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The truth tellers today are buried within the new internet journalism crowd. It is hard to tell which are telling the truth and which are just megaphones for some “ism”, but that is where you will find them.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          If I were an enormously powerful organization interested in preserving my secrets at any cost, I would do so not by hiding my secrets better (yes, yes, that, too) but by creating so much noise that my secrets become needles in the haystack.

          I would bolster thousands of madmen to rant and rave about everything that I might conceivably have to hide. To the outsider, the one sane voice in the madness would be indistinguishable. The whole would become simply unreliable mush, and my secrets would be same.

          By the same logic, I never understood the record labels suing Napster or private users. You can’t win that way. What they should have done is upload thousands of corrupt and terrible copies of their songs literally just avalanches of garbage to the point where no user could ever hope to find the lone “good” copy. I could have done this for a few hundred thousand dollars. Sure, it’s out there. But it’s safely hidden.

          Hmmm… gee… aren’t there an awful lot of crackpots with large microphones these days………………..

          • Just A Citizen says:


            YES. There are far more than there should be. We have short circuited the natural selection process.

            • I’m Henry the 8th I am…..Henry the 8th I am, Iam……………………………..sung over and over into a megaphone…….more destructive than “It’s a Small World After All”.

    • Beverly Luetkemeyer says:


  5. Just A Citizen says:


    When you can give it some thought, I am wondering what your views are on “natural” rights.

    I ask because this goes to issues such as immigration. The Founders claimed unalienable rights bestowed by our creator. Nice flowery language of the day. But do these really exist.

    Or are Rights, along with all other mechanisms of civilized governance simply the creation of those who devise them? Thus making “rights” only applicable to those who understand them and abide by them.

    Note: This was Rand’s argument when she said that the moral principles and political rights of Americans did not apply to the Native Americans during the period of the Indian Wars and European conquest. They could not have “Rights” that they had no ability to conceptualize, let alone that they themselves violated these supposed rights all the time.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I am free to do what I will with mine own up to the point at which I impair the ability of a comparable free exercise by others.

      To be clear. This does not mean that I am free of CONSEQUENCE for my action, only that I have free right to such action.

      For example, I may be free to spout off conspiratorial nonsense about chemicals in the water turning the frogs gay. And I have a 100% ABSOLUTE inviolable RIGHT to say such things.

      But I have no right to command that others listen. Or that they host me on their privately owned platforms. Or that they take me seriously. Or that they continue patronizing me once I have justly earned the ire of society.

      To a similar end, I may own property and do whatever I want with it.. right up until the point at which I am harming the ability of others to use their property.

      For example, I may open a strip club in my house and my neighbor can’t do a thing about it.
      BUT I have no right to be free of consequences of that choice either.

      He can drum me out of society. Shame me. Lead a boycott. Pickett. Yell, scream, complain. He can get my boss to fire me.

      What he can’t do is use the government to (via implicit threat of force) step in and override my rights and limit what I can and cannot do.

      On the other hand, I cannot pollute in my factory because doing so would cause harm to your land and your body, which are your property. Thus, I would be violating your rights to do so.

      This is natural law. I am free. But if I am free, you are free, too. And, to that end, per the conversation regarding Ellis Island, as you have no right to tell me where I can and cannot go (excluding on land you, personally own and control), so, too, do you have no right to tell anyone else.

      The right of defense regards the violation of your rights and the protection of your sovereignty. To that end, you can shoot a trespasser on your land because he is attempting to override your rights (to control your land (read: property)) and, in so doing, is violating your rights. You do NOT have the right to tell him he cannot enter “your” country or compete for “your” jobs because neither of these things belong to you. Thus, you do not have a right to “defend” them.

      Does this make sense?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        From your perspective, yes. Now ask Mathius what he thinks.

        Because it is obvious that the World of humans does not agree with this concept. Otherwise the restrictions on migration and acceptance into a “society” would not have existed for thousands of years. Even the Native Americans held “territory” which the protected from invasion by other tribes.

        So how could such a “natural right” exist if humans have been impeding this right for since before Christ was a corporal?

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          From your perspective, yes

          “My perspective” is the simple truth.

          That’s like saying “from your perspective, yes, the world is round.” No, the world IS round.
          “perspective” has nothing to do with it.

          Now ask Mathius what he thinks.

          Why would I ask that nutcase anything. He’s squirlier than… um… err… a bag of squirrels.

          So how could such a “natural right” exist if humans have been impeding this right for since before Christ was a corporal?

          Animals do not adhere to concepts of rights.

          That rights exist in a moral framework is irrelevant to those who do not know of and understand such things.

          For this reason, many laws (which, of course, I don’t recognize) place a burden of intent upon their enforcement. It’s not enough that you did the wrong thing.. you had to know that it was wrong.

          The idea of natural rights and logically framed morality are relatively recent developments in human culture. Though their roots can be traced by to Hammurabi or the Greeks, the actually mainstream concept of fundamental human rights didn’t even begin to percolate until, maybe, the Magna Carta (though, of course, it was originally intended only to codify rights for the nobility.. but whatever).

          In other words, the failure of humans to RECOGNIZE and act according to natural moral law does not invalidate such law. It only means that, until very recently, we were oblivious of such laws. The contrary would be something like saying “how can electricity exist when, for millennia, humans did nothing with electricity?” Well, no, of course, they COULD HAVE used electricity… if they’d known how. Ignorance does not negate existence of fundamental forces.

          Of course, also, we, being humans (read: pieces of shit), did often know that a thing was wrong and either deny such truths with motivated reasoning and logical fallacies or act in defiance of morality because, well, we’re pieces of shit.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your perspective is yours. It is a view based on your ideas and understanding.

            I am the only one who can claim absolute knowledge of the Universal truth.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        “In other words, the failure of humans to RECOGNIZE and act according to natural moral law does not invalidate such law. It only means that, until very recently, we were oblivious of such laws.” YES. Agree on the first point. The second, however, implies that such laws exist absent humans. Which there is no evidence of such.

        Which brings me to your faulty simile. Lightning did not need human cognition to exist. It was our recognition of its properties that allowed us to use its power. But even stone age man could see, smell and sometimes taste the lightning.

        The concept of natural rights and in particular human rights is a product of the human mind. Now this does not necessarily dilute the importance of nor the concept of natural rights. But it still means that the discovery, if you will, of such rights is a unique human experience. At least as far as we know at this point in time.

        If a moral law is in fact a Natural law I would think it has to apply to all things in nature. And since most things in nature, to our knowledge, have not conceptualized such things, we must assume their behavior is in accordance with the Natural Laws.

        Here is where I point out that almost all living creatures in the universe display territorial protection behaviors, in one form or another. Which means the concept of freedom of movement is more a human invention than natural law. It would appear that the biggest difference in humans now and way back when the Colonel was in college, is that humans figured out how to prevent constant battles over turf by drawing lines on a map.

        One other thought. If the natural law is as you state, then man has no right to create a government. In fact government of any known variety is a violation of such laws. Because no government exists which is not predicated on subduing one or more forms of the natural laws and unalienable rights of man.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          The second, however, implies that such laws exist absent humans. Which there is no evidence of such.

          Which brings me to your faulty simile. Lightning did not need human cognition to exist. It was our recognition of its properties that allowed us to use its power. But even stone age man could see, smell and sometimes taste the lightning.

          Perhaps “Math” would be a better metaphor.

          Math cannot be said to “exist” in any tangible form – it is simple the “language” of nature. Absent human cognition, there is no concept of, say, algebra. Yet, algebra is ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY a true and correct thing.

          That we had failed to recognize its existence does not mean that it could be anything other than what it is. No other derivation could have been correct – if the rules were interpreted differently, those rules, themselves, would be wrong. Algebra, itself, however, would remain pure and intact. And true.

          Same with morality. The laws exist. Pure and correct and iron-clad. Because they are the result of pure fundamental truths of reality. They cannot be any other way.

          The concept of natural rights and in particular human rights is a product of the human mind.

          It is the DISCOVERY of a truth thing that would be true whether we discovered it or not.

          Just as algebra would be true thing whether we had or had not discovered it.

          If a moral law is in fact a Natural law I would think it has to apply to all things in nature. And since most things in nature, to our knowledge, have not conceptualized such things, we must assume their behavior is in accordance with the Natural Laws.

          Math is a natural law.

          If I present you with: 5 + X = 9, there is an absolute iron truth to the fact that X = 4. It cannot be otherwise.

          That you don’t KNOW or, even, that you know and don’t CARE, changes nothing.

          It is in the fundamental nature of reality that, given 5 + X = 9, X must equal 4.

          That is natural law.

          That is the fundamental nature of reality.

          Animals don’t know or care what X equals. But that hardly invalidates the truth of the matter.

          Here is where I point out that almost all living creatures in the universe display territorial protection behaviors, in one form or another. Which means the concept of freedom of movement is more a human invention than natural law

          For 99.99% of human history, rape and murder were practiced with shocking regularity.

          That something behaves a certain way does not make it moral. We did not evolve for the purpose of morality. We evolved for the purpose of survival and gene dissemination.

          One has no bearing on the other.

          It would appear that the biggest difference in humans now and way back when the Colonel was in college, is that humans figured out how to prevent constant battles over turf by drawing lines on a map.

          That a thing is EFFECTIVE does not make it right.

          It would be even more effective at preventing “constant battles” to nuke the planet into oblivion. Presto! No more battles.

          But that doesn’t make it right.

          You are surrendering rights in exchange for protection .

          “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Franklin

          But, worse, you are surrendering not only your own freedoms, but the freedoms of others.

          You deny them the ability to travel freely, to see favorable situations for themselves and their families. To act without impairment of your rights.

          You purchase your own security – both physical and economic – by paying with rights you do not own.

          By reducto ad absurdem, you should simply kill all the foreigners. Then you will be fully secure from them. I mean, if you grant yourself the authority to violate their rights, why not go all the way?

          One other thought. If the natural law is as you state, then man has no right to create a government.

          Close. Man has no right to bind anyone involuntarily to a government to which they do not willingly and freely subscribe.

          If you want to set up a government and give it authority within your private property and the private property of others in your community and you all agree to be so bound and you want to pay taxes to it and give it enforcement powers and charge it with your mutual defense, that’s cool with me.

          But if I happen to live in the geographic area you feel your government should control, and I don’t subscribe to your notion of what the rules ought to be, you have no right to foist them upon me.

          In fact government of any known variety is a violation of such laws.

          I’d counter that an HOA is a “legitimate” “government.”

          Though, of course, they’re stupid and populated exclusively by tin pot dictators and wannabe fascists, the agencies are given the power to levy taxes, enforce their authority, provide for the common welfare, etc.

          The difference is that, at some point, you signed a contract. You, personally, willingly, and without a gun to your head, signed over certain rights as a condition of purchasing a home within a neighborhood so controlled.

          Having freely and knowingly submitted, the government is legitimate and morally sound.

          Mind reading……
          JAC: So if the US government just asked people to sign up in exchange for, say, a $1,000 check at the age of 18, and everyone accepted, then the US government would be completely legitimate?

          Yes… insofar as it’s authority over its own people and territory. My rights are mine and I am free to assign them however and whyever I wish. It would still be immoral when, say, it drops bombs on other countries or performs any action in violation of the rights of private non-US-citizens provided such action does not EXPLICITLY and directly fall under the header of legitimate self defense whose right is very real and may be delegated by individuals to a governmental authority. And, if I am the lone holdout amongst the 320mm people in the geographic united states who refused to sign, then tough shit for the government – they still have zero authority over me.

          Because no government exists which is not predicated on subduing one or more forms of the natural laws and unalienable rights of man.

          No government which is generally recognized as a “government” exists without such impairments, no. As such, ALL such governments are morally illegitimate.

          HOWEVER, again, some “governments” do exist which are not. These might school associations, HOA’s, self-regulating industry associations, unions, etc.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            That something behaves a certain way does not make it moral. We did not evolve for the purpose of morality. We evolved for the purpose of survival and gene dissemination.

            One has no bearing on the other.

            I DISAGREE with the conclusion. Morality is absolutely linked to human survival. At least any morality that was discovered by using REASON. Hence “not initiating force” is a rule from the standard you first described. If I have rights, then you have the same rights.

            If I can initiate force against you then you can do the same to me, morally speaking. To enhance our survival we figured out that we cannot go around killing others as it will eventually reduce our own chances of survival. And killing all the others would cause other problems, like not having anyone go trade with for obsidian arrow heads or polar bear rugs.

            I do not think HOA and your other examples comprise government. They do not have a monopoly on initiating the use of force or the legal use of force. The HOA exists within the context of the right to contract.

            A school district becomes a govt. because it can TAX. But in reality it could not do this without the cover of broader Govt from which it gets its authority.

          • DPM,
            Do not confuse a physical law of the universe to be the same as a natural law of human action.

            To use your example, lightening is a consequence of natural laws and as you point out, is independent of the existence of human being, BUT NOT independent on the existence of the universe. The universe comes first, then the laws of the universe are expressed by its existence.

            Same with natural law of humans.

            Rights are a natural law of humans, and a consequence of the existence of humans. No humans, no natural laws of humans.

            But if humans exist, the natural law of humans exist.

            Like the Universe, where the universe comes first, then the natural laws of the universe, humans come first then the natural laws of humans.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Black Flag

              AND………. humans are subject to the natural laws of the universe. Just wanted to eliminate any possible confusion about how we fit in the big picture.

              Good to see you lurking about ol’ chap.

              Hope all is well. Still waiting to sit down and have a cold one with ya.

    • There is but one natural right.

      The right of property.

      All other “rights” that are espoused beyond this single, true, right are a consequence of that single right.

      The “right” to immigrate is a right of property of person. It cannot however overwhelm the right of property of another person.

      Thus you can immigrate to the land of another person only by invitation.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        We disagree on this one. Although I could see how that might fit within the limits of only human rights.

        • All human rights are one human right – right to property.

          The right to your own self is a right of property – you own yourself.
          The right to work is the use of your property – yourself.
          The right to the fruits of your work comes from your effort which comes from – yourself.
          The right to free speech is the consequence of the use of your property – yourself.
          ….every human right (every REAL human right) that maybe espoused essentially finds its roots in the right of property.

          The old adage you can’t yell fire in a theater is a right of property – the owner of the theater where your admittance is predicated on not interfering with the other patron’s enjoyment of the theater. The prohibition on yelling fire is NOT a exception to the right on free speech, since this right does not exist while on someone else’s property. Thus, you have no right to yell fire because the right of the use of property and what you may or may not do is determined by the property owner.

        • “Liberals generally wish to preserve the concept of “rights” for such “human” rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property.

          And yet, on the contrary the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.”

          Excerpt from:

  6. ::Paging SUFA gun-nuts::

    For undisclosed reasons, you have been given the following writing assignment:

    Please “lovingly” describe the best equipment for sniping. If you were, say, an assassin, and you dearly loved your perfect rifle, what would it be, how would you describe it.

    Additionally, given a 500m shot from, say, a second story window, what type of ammunition would you use – could you reliably make the shot with subsonic rounds? What of firing from a cold barrel? What of the noise – how quiet would a silencer really make it – would that impact your accuracy? Could you be heard / located by people next to the target? How bad would the impact be, assuming you aimed center-mass?

    Please turn in your responses by midnight tomorrow or I will be forced to give you an F.


    And, no, I’m not planning on killing anyone… not right now, anyway.

    • I don’t know any gun nuts on SUFA…….perhaps you are referring to those of us whom own sufficient firepower to hold off an army?

      You put a 500 meter range in your question……that is hand gun range for some….

      However, not admitting that I am such a person………I would use a Barrett M82, no silencer, with a Leupold 4.5-14×50 Mark 4 scope. However, I would tweak it slightly for ranges greater than 1500 meters. I would re-adjust the stock slightly for a higher hold on a bi pod, with a double click 3 pound trigger. It pushes about 2800 ft/per sec. and the maximum effective range is about 2,000 yards. That is the maximum EFFECTIVE range…..it will reach further than that.

      The report would not be able to be pin pointed by the people standing next to the target. They would be awed by the amount of blood and entrails before hearing the report. If it was a head shot at….saaaay……1500 yards…..the head would explode in so many pieces, the Star Trek Enterprise transporter could not reassemble it.

      A sniper rifle always fires from a cold barrel. If your zero from a cold barrel is different than a hot barrel……..ask the shooter why he missed. It is not the weapon.

      As to silencer, why use one….it is extra weight. There is no need when firing from 1500 meters.

      Note: This would not be the rifle to use from a hotel window firing to the street below.

      I hope this sufficiently answered your questions. Please send my “A” via courier to LaGuna Madre.

      Oh, I forgot…..a center mass shot would be really messy…at 1550+ meters, the .50 cal round gets a little wobbly…..not much, but a little…..it would be tantamount to shooting a squirrel with a .358 magnum hollow point from 10 feet. Really messy.

      • A- for slightly missing the writing assignment.

        Your target is 500m away and you do not want to be detected. You are firing, say, from that 2nd story hotel window at a mostly-stationary target and you would like for your neighbors and the people downstairs to remain oblivious of your location. Additionally, the *ahem* agents of the US treasury *ahem* next to your target need to emphatically NOT be able to pinpoint you or things go very south very quickly.

        Think more “Dallas book observatory” and less “orbital bombardment.”

        But, please, stick with the goal of “it would be really messy.”

        Also, you missed the “lovingly describe” portion. Assuming you have to leave it behind, you would be very sad to do so.


        And, to repeat, NO, I am not (currently) planning on assassinating anyone. If I were, I’d probably do it by drone.. just sayin’

        • Ahhhh……….ok….hmmmm….500 meter shot……..not wanting to be detected by neighbors and “agents”……this does take the military application out of the picture…..

          Personal weapons…….epsecially “Old Betsy” that I would not want to leave behind.

          I choose……a Weatherby 300 Magnum….shooting a .300 win mag….travels at 2700-3000 fps…..I would use a Nikon 6729 ProStaff 4-12×40 Black Matte for a scope. As far as a silencer is concerned, I would use a Surefire SOCOM 762-RC2….(Please, for future reference, there is no difference between a silencer and a suppressor)…..This particular model will “silence” or “suppress” the muzzle blast to about 65 decibles. The “crack” of the bullet will create an echo chamber but not pinpoint the firing position. The issue that gives most snipers away is the muzzle FLASH,,,,,,……

          So, seeing as how the 300 Weatherby was gifted to me by my late dad….I would be very, very sad to have to leave it behind. ( Muck like if DPM lost his laser guided brass wound canon )……

          The .300 Win Magnum round would leave a small diameter whole at the impact, fall apart on its way through the body, and basically field dress the target on the spot to the point that Humpty Dumpty’s entourage could not put the target back together again.

          Extra credit?

          • A.


            For the A+, complete and/or expand the following as appropriate:

            “To the lay observer, the Weatherby 300 Magnum might have appeared to be a more or less ordinary rifle, but it must assuredly was not. Nor was Mr. The Colonel a lay observer. He duly appreciate what he held in his hands. This was ______(insert fawning over your rifle) ______. It was fitted with (equipment) and (more equipment) which would _____(result of added equipment) ____.

            Quiet, of course, was relative. The suppressor would only dampen the bang of escaping gasses, known as a muzzle blast. The operative word, however, was “dampen” – there was nothing he could do about the second source of noise: the bang of his round breaking the sound barrier. Subsonic rounds existed, and he had considered them, but (insert Colonel’s fact checking) for the range he needed (reminder ~500m), the slower bullet would spend over a second in transit, subject to ____(whatever it’s subject to.. air? pixies?)___ in addition to a drop of more than five meters. Accuracy would be a serious problem. Even worse, the slower velocity would result in a much weaker impact which would be far more survivable (I assume?). So, with the supersonic round, the noise, which would ordinarily be louder than a jet engine would be reduced by approximately 30 decibels to something more in line with a jackhammer. It would likely not be audible (or would it?) from the (target), but the neighbors below would certainly hear it.

            With a gloved hand, he open the window a crack and was met with a light northern breeze. Mr. The Colonel placed the bipod on the long dresser and assumed position behind it. He positioned it so that the end of the muzzle was two full feet inside of the window. This would help hide the muzzle flash (or is there no longer a muzzle flash due to suppressor) and further dampen the sound from the street. The dresser was unfortunately too short for him to lay atop for a prone firing position, too low for a standing position, and too high for kneeling. He settled on a sort of hunched lean which was backbreakingly uncomfortable, but it would suffice. Noting the gentle sway of an American Flag above the (target), he carefully adjusted his sights to compensate. This was his element. Even given the awkward position, even with a cold barrel (you say this matters not?), this shot would not be particularly difficult for a man of his skill. He was aware, however, that he would not get a second chance if the first round failed to find its mark.



            As the (target) paused at the open door for ::redacted::, Mr. The Colonel exhaled slowly. He craved the finality of a head shot, but the brain is a small target and any sudden movement – a sneeze, perhaps – could resulted in a miss. Instead, he aimed for his safest option: center of mass. Gently, gently, he squeezed the trigger. A thunderous crack (appropriate?) erupted in the room and died away just as quickly. The next thing that happened was a high energy impact into the (target’s) chest. The bullet passed through the rib cage (elaborate) and grazed (target’s) heart. An instant later, it impacted his T2 vertebrae with a staggering force.

            The (target) felt as though he had been punched in the chest by a prizefighter, but a moment later he knew this had not been the case. His legs, no longer responding to impulses from his brain, failed to keep his balance and he collapsed. His bladder and bowels released. (Target’s) final thought before losing consciousness was one of pure confusion.”


            If you would like to have further context for this, I believe you have my email address or Mr. The G-Man can provide.

            • I’m not sure why this didn’t show up in the “recent comments” feed, but I’ll just leave this here, so you don’t miss it.

              I blame G-Man. He’s violating my First Amendment rights by censoring me!

              • It showed up on mine. I’m not sure what to make of this story but I hope all is well in the Mathius friends and family tree.

              • Hey, Anita!

                Yes, all is well. Just working on a project. Gotta keep busy, you know?

                This is just a section I can’t really do all by myself, what with my hippy-dippy liberal lack of gun knowledge. Who better to help out than the gun-toting cowboy colonel?

            • Wow……………Red Bull on the march. However, I want my A+………….so…………….details follow….

              • Wow……………Red Bull on the march.

                You have absolutely no idea… this doesn’t even scratch the surface..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Trump and the Commerce Secretary are way out of their element.

      Amounts to directing an agency to do what it would do anyway. Human life takes precedent during suppression. What they should be complaining about were the Judges who allowed the Greenies to sue the Govt. agencies over use of retardant. Causing use to be cancelled in areas where it could get into streams until an EIS was done that made the Judges happy.

      But that happened some time back and has nothing to do with WATER use.

      The only real link to water that I see is with regard to irrigation and watering yards. It might be that some dry areas would have been green buffers before the water rationing was implemented by Brown.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Good grief. Red State has become snowflake haven for weakling “conservatives”.

    The guy running the place has decided that nobody can address their comments to an author by name. Got that??

    Joe writes something and I cannot say, “Dear Joe, I think your argument is weak for the following reasons”.

    No profanity, denigration, name calling. Just use Joe’s name and you get your comment deleted.

    Now I do not comment on that site as this Streiff fellow got in my grill several times before for doing nothing. Just his arbitrary sense of argumentation. I challenged him directly regarding the terms of use and conditions and asked him to name ONE I violated. He didn’t. Just deleted my challenge. So I just stopped trying to converse with anyone on that site. Which pretty much goes for all other sites these days.

    I sense that things have changes since we all started this about 9 years ago. Back then there was a lot of places you could get new information, have discussion, debate, argue, learn, etc. Of course there were the major name calling hard core places, which caused USW to create this site. But now it seems there is little real information provided in most articles. They are just someone spouting opinions about someone else, or Mr. Trump of course.

    I am finding the internet is growing STALE. But then maybe it is just me.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting take on the root of anti-American psychology.


  9. As it appears, some Liberal suffering from TDS offered 500 bucks on social media to anyone who killed an ICE agent.

    The Philadelphia Mayor, who was video taped dancing in celebration because Philly became a sanctuary city, now has blood on his hands after an illegal immigrant, released from jail in Philly murdered a young girl. Good thing I’m not that child’s father.

    Antifa thug video taped bashing a security guard at Portland city hall with a megaphone. What will happen to him when he is identified and caught? Probably nothing.

    Prison reform, long overdue. We have too many people in prison for the wrong things. End the war on drugs and poverty, both are failures.

  10. https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2018/07/31/are-innocent-people-pleading-guilty-a-new-report-says-yes/#5e98c9ed5193

    That’s just crazy. If what you did can be plea bargained down to 5 years, no one should go to jail for 45 years for doing the same thing. I can see there being a difference but not that big of a difference.

    • It’s horrific.

      It’s called the “trial penalty” and it’s just another example of the arbitrary power of the government.

      You’re guilty because you have to plead guilty because trying to defend yourself carries just too huge of a risk. I can plead guilty to something I didn’t do and get 5 years. With good behavior, I’m out in 3. I’m not even 40. That’s bad, but it’s.. survivable. But if I try to defend myself, the risk is that I get convicted and now I’m 70 (!!) when I get out – I’m a lifer. I’ve missed my kids’ entire lives, their high school and college graduations, their weddings, the birth of their kids. Everything. That’s not a risk I can afford.

      Too often, just being charged is basically already a conviction that hasn’t happened yet.

      By making the trial penalty so huge, it forces that choice more starkly. If it were just a couple years, then people might be more inclined to defend themselves. This isn’t an accident, it’s calculated: “how big do I need to make this so that people just shut up and plead guilty?”

      • It certainly isn’t what I would describe as Justice.

        • I’m sorry, VH…you would expect justice from the government?

          • Depends on what definition of expect you use.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Justice: Getting your just deserts……… what you have earned.

              The first error in the commentary on justice is that it is required for the victim. Justice is dispensed to the perpetrator.

              The thief received Justice when he was sent to jail and required to pay back everything he stole.

        • Any chance you’ve read The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe? He goes into this all this in great detail.. it’s, well, he’s an amazing writer.

          • Hard to tell who this was addressed to, on this tablet. But if it was me, no I haven’t, but maybe I should.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Political careers are launched by using this tactic. Abuse of power, plain and simple.

  11. For Mathius…………………….a really tough problem. 500 meters with a subsonic round with a loving weapon….requires serious thought. Ballistics of the bullet must be reconfigured….weight, type of powder to be used…in order to bring the round to 1200 fps or slower……

    So first of all, the shooter must load his own shells and reconfigure point blank at 500 meters. There is no commercial round that will accomplish this feat for a beautiful weapon as a Weatherby 300.

    Taking out calculator**** punching in some numbers*****checking against point blank charts, noticing that the charts do not figure sub sonic as high as 500 meters. The shooter looks lovingly at his 300…casually wipes a speck of dust of the new blued barrel and talks to it, gently telling his weapon that he understands it is a tough request but it is necessary and the sacrifice of possible detachment looms large. A tear slowly forms but is quickly wiped away and he goes back to the charts…….and now has to extrapolate point blank with a 300…..to be over bored to a 308 to handle the higher weight bullet.

    So much to think about as he pulls out the forecasted weather charts to figure wind drift, humidity, and barometric pressure in order to get to point blank…he has one shot and it has to be perfect. The thoughts running through his head of time and distance are now extremely important….accuracy for “the kill” is paramount given the distance of 500 meters…more than 1 second in flight, tumble of the round…..a lot can happen…..change of wind direction, speed, movement of the target……so many variables. He gently picks up the 300 and checks the amount of range correction that is available in his Nikon 6729 ProStaff 4-12×40 Black Matte scope with lens cover. It will do…..cold barrel is no issue and the “silencer/suppressor” works better with sub sonic anyway….

    BAck to the charts and calculator…it is a scientific calculator with all the necessary add ons for calculus conversion. Figuring 225 grain with flat smokless powder…..standard Barometric pressure 29.97…….wind no factor. 9/10 of a second travel time at 300 meters. Extrapolates to 1.15645 seconds to impact at 500….drop rate is an amazing 12.7 inches for point blank. Parabellum bullet will not work, so a streamlined soft lead mold…adding trajectory elements for shape…….still comes out to 1.12436 seconds to impact…..this is better. It can be done.

    Blunt trauma impact would be desirable at that range. Center mass would be the target point….cross hair located just above the chin….round enters the chest cavity and immediately tumbles..not likely to exit the back but would make scrambled eggs of the viscera…target would drop straight down as the subsonic impact would be tantamount to a mule kick at close range. His eyes would stare at the clouds ( if available )…there is relatively no pain due to shock but the brain is still functioning and he can feel life ebbing away as he bleeds to death inside……………….his last fleeting thought would be…..”Well shit, this is not a good day. Who the hell is Mathius?”

    The shooter must get away and hurredly leaves his perch…..pauses at the door and turns and looks at his buddy one last time. It’s almost as if the 300 could talk….”WE DID IT…now leave before it is too late.” The shooter closes the door and quickly exits the building, not looking back……………..

    • not looking back……………..

      Well… errr… about that… seems there’s a molotov waiting to be thrown for cleanup purposes. Sorry Mr. 300, thank you for your service…

  12. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22674251/air-force-bomb-forest-fires/

    Hmmmm, sounds a mite dangerous but interesting. Comes, of course, with the required digs at the U.S. 😠 But the idea is worth talking about.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I agree. Do some testing and find out.

      I am skeptical of the proponents goals but still worth exploring what impacts it would have on the ground. Recognizing that explosives have been used in fireline construction for a couple decades now. They are used to clear brush and debris by pulverizing the vegetation. But they do little good unless there are hand crews or bulldozers there to quickly build a line down to the dirt. Explosives will not do that.

      I would also add that the kinds of fires which have caused this idea to surface would see little change with a 100 yard blast. If the fuel is left, even if lower, the fire will probably spread quickly back into the areas blown up. Because it is the fuel moisture and winds, combined with steepness of terrain, that creates these massive walls of flames running at ten to twenty miles per hour, or more.

      On the other hand, if the explosion did reduce the vegetation height that would reduce flame lengths and thus reduce chance of losing a line. But again, something else has to be there.

      I could see an application of the “bomb” to stop small fires when first starting. Especially during periods of low manpower, like during prolonged fire busts like we have now. We developed a similar technique using retardant on the steep Salmon River breaks decades ago. Concentrated drops directly onto a burning snag would knock every thing down and suck the air out long enough to extinguish the flames. Sometimes the two person crew sent to mop it up wouldn’t find any fire.

      • You mentioned before that using fire retardants was being restricted or limited. Is that still the case?
        I have to say I was excited by the idea that fires could be stopped by the power of sound.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Short of it is that YES, retardant now has restricted use. Unless they have come up with a formula which cannot be construed to harm fish or aquatic life.

          The agencies complete and Environmental Impact Statement every few years which then sets standards for retardant use. Where, when, how much etc. Been awhile since I read one.

          There are also many other restrictions on fire fighting related to endangered or sensitive spcies (animal and plant), historic sites and archaeological sites or national monuments. I once got in trouble for putting a tractor fire line along a short section of the trail used by Lewis and Clark. In a place that very few ever went and which was in the middle of a clear cut are on each side of the ridge. Oh, and nobody had ever identified the Trail location as having any protected status. It was just used by environmentalists as another card to stop forest harvesting.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Question……if the retardant to help put out fires is banned or restricted in its use because it can or will cause harm to fish and other aquatic life……what about the soil erosion entering the water systems choking the heck out of the life over a longer period of time?

            Which is worse?

            • Dale, logic has nothing to to with it.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              To the Greenies you must remember that dirt in the stream from fires is “natural”. Anything else is man caused and therefore harmful.

              Somehow the dirt magically transforms itself into something wonderful or evil, depending on what caused it to move into the stream. Who knew soil had such magical properties.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Isn’t that precisely what Mueller did to Gen Flynn, but with a twist.

                Met legally with a Russian diplomat. Interviewed by the FBI. Some inconsistencies, but not deemed lying. Mueller comes along and decides otherwise. Flynn fights, yet then pleads guilty to lying, after the Mueller team threatens Glenn’s family with ruin unless he pleads guilty.

                Just watched an old movie which was true. The Russian spies in Canada attempting to get the atomic bomb research being done there during and post WWII. The main character was ordered home. He and his family refused. The government reminded him of their families back in Russia would be punished if they didn’t return

  13. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/304422/

    This just seems so incredibly stupid. The homeless are now gonna be helped based on how much they can individually collect. Are the homeless even gonna use them when it’s cash they want? A caseworker decides how the moneys spent?

    And besides that, a cashless society is stupid.

  14. Washington authorities said they will ramp up the capital city’s emergency level when white nationalists and counterprotesters demonstrate Sunday at the same park outside the White House.
    The National Park Service said Wednesday it issued a permit for a rally in Lafayette Park by Unite the Right, the white supremacist network that organized a protest in Charlottesville, Virginia last year that turned deadly.
    But the service said it has also issued a permit at the same park on the same day for counterprotesters, a move that appeared to raise the prospects of a violent clash right in front of the White House.


  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Another story of why “I walked away”. This one included both “parties”.


  16. Just A Citizen says:

    I am thinking that State Attorney Generals should not be an elected position. That all prosecutors working for the Govt. should be barred from running for political office, for say 4 to 6 years after leaving office.

    Perhaps some kind of review board should be established within various LEO jurisdictions to investigate police work to make sure BS did not occur, before it goes to trial.


  17. Just A Citizen says:

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–……………………….

  18. Just A Citizen says:
  19. Infowars Website Traffic Explodes After Silicon Valley Blacklists Alex Jones Empire

    “The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”
    – George Orwell

    • It’s odd that Infowars, once seriously ridiculed, has become an interested news outlet. It’s not uncommon to see stuff they break on the MSM a few days later. While I have always seen Jones as an entertainer, he has done well putting a good staff together.

      Rule number 1 for Liberals, act out and it will backfire. Censorship will fail in the long run.

      Glad to see your still kicking BF 🙂

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, this is for the Colonel.

    I would think that taping conversations in the White House and in the Situation Room is tantamount to treason. Certainly has to violate some serious laws regarding national security.

    Who the heck is advising, or better yet, running this Amarosa lady??

    • Well, sir , it does not pass the treason test (The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.)

      She has, however, violated about 1/2 dozen Security laws and rules….not to mention it is a felony to surrepticiously tape in the Situation Room, the Oval Office, Any room in the Pentagon, in what is called the Dungeon, and War rooms. She has committed a felony but I do not think that anyone has the cajones to prosecute a black lady who was an advisor to the POTUS…..

      NOw…that said……How did she get a tape recorder in there or even a cell phone. Where is the Security in the White House? I would have their heads on a platter……vis a viz John the Baptist Style…….without the Dance of the Seven Veils. In addition, why isn’t there a signed non disclosure agreement for when people are fired or retired?

      She is a whore out for book money and got a 7 figure payment, I understand. And, she accepted a position in the White HOuse inner circle knowing, in her mind by previous admission, that Trump was a racist for using the word “”nigger” several years ago. So, she accepts a White House position from a known racist, in her mind…..which in my mind makes her a whore looking for easy money and will now say anything.

  21. JAC…I have answered you but I guess that I have joined the ranks with Mathius in that I am censored…………………moderation please.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Found it and broke it out of jail. Thanks.

      Your response is as I suspected. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Wonder the Dems are not screaming about the lax security.

  22. https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/12/news-outlets-anti-trump/

    There is a simple solution to the media’s whining….stop lying and being so openly biased. Your opinions are not news and they are really no wanted. If you insist on continuing, then we will continue to call you out, so quit your damn whining, snowflakes.

  23. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Well, many people in Paris, France are upset with the city putting “Eco-friendly” open air urinals in areas that have a problem with people just whipping it out and letting loose. Not only does this behavior cause ungodly smells and puddles of piss being tracked, it creates an environment that tourists would shun and the acid causes undue erosion on the stone of the buildings.

    When I lived in the tourist heavy area if historical Amsterdam, every friday- monday morning portable urinals were placed on like every other corner. They were shaped like an X making available urinals for 4. Your back was open to the street and sidewalks. Due to the long lines in a bar, they closed at 0300 people usually went to the nearest alley or canal. If using the canal, the drunk usually was pissing on the deck of the barge moored below.
    Putting these facilities in high traffic areas made it much nicer. Ladies were discriminated against, but they then had un-limited use if all the facilities in a bar.
    Made it much nicer.

  24. Maybe we can talk about the fact that there isn’t any news worth talking about.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I have been noticing that for the past couple of weeks. Which of course is why the media can run Amarosa stuff repeatedly.

      It is almost like everyone in the world knows our media cycles and August is traditionally a slow month, cause the people are distracted.

      On another note, I read reports last night that the Taliban launched an offensive and took back a bunch of territory. The new Afghan forces have lost hundreds of men in the attacks. No word on Taliban casualties. Questions are not bubbling up about our effectiveness and of course Mr. Trump’s policy. Should he go or should he stay, that kind of thing.

      • Obviously, Omarosa is more important than a war to the left.

        You have to begin to wonder if the Afghan army actually wants to win.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is some news. Re: Those creeps who were holding and training children in the desert, to shoot up people, maybe schools. One boy dead and the others being starved. All kinds of guns, reportedly illegal. And they go to court to set bail and this happens:

    “A state District Court judge ruled Monday that prosecutors in the case against five adults found living on a makeshift compound with 11 malnourished children failed to make the case for keeping the defendants in custody while they await trial.

    Judge Sarah Backus said the state, despite assertions by prosecutors that one of the defendants was training the children to attack various institutions with guns, didn’t prove the group was a danger to the community.

    After hearing nearly four hours of testimony Monday afternoon, Backus set bond for each of the five defendants at $20,000. It’s a “signature bond,” meaning no money is required up front and would be due only if the defendants violate conditions of release.”

    • Dang, did she buy them an airline ticket too! On top of everything else she took their word that they would return to court. First I’ve heard, about the existence of signature bonds.

  26. Clear and concise argument.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      What people like him will never agree with is that Progressives have never really changed all that much. Not the people who are behind the curtain. Those “opinion leaders” created this mystic belief among “liberals” that they were “progressives”. Claiming they needed to change their name because conservatives had branded liberalism as Marxism, or just bad.

      But if “liberal” was really just liberal as in the sense of our Founding principles then there should have been no need to change the title. But they weren’t. The Liberal and Progressive movements were infiltrated by the Marxists and actual Communist agents, or just plain militant socialists. Quite a mix.

  27. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/former-vp-al-gore-omarosa/

    Didn’t know she’d worked in the government before.

  28. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/14/ellison-accuser-refuses-release-video-another-allegation-emerges/

    Have to say if I was a Democrat and these accusations came out right before the election and she claimed to have evidence but wouldn’t show it. I would totally ignore the accusations.

    • He don’t have to worry, the MSM, sans FOX maybe, will ignore it. Think back to Roy Moore and how that was handled versus this so far. This is but another example of how pathetic the Left is.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    This is just to funny. OK, first read the article and try to pick out the biggest fallacy of them all. Then read the advertisement for the web site at the end, the one asking for help.

    Then THINK about the irony of the advertisement located at the end of the article on trolls.


    • Not sure what you think is the biggest fallacy but this irritated the h*’ll out of me : “The vast majority of the tweets appear to be targeting those sympathetic to the white supremacists who marched, and who sparked the blood-letting — or at least those who continued to support President Donald Trump’s assertion that there were “very fine people on both sides.”

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The biggest fallacy was the inference in the title and then the lead paragraphs that these communications fueled the violence in Charlottsville. After about halfway into it they admit most of these comments and posts and other things were done AFTER the rioting.

  30. Just A Citizen says:
  31. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-fired-donald-trump-fbi-219355

    Wow, it is amazing how differently people can look at the same facts.

  32. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/14/ny-times-advice-column-tackles-white-guilt/

    This is just sick. This child has been abused by our friggin educational system.

  33. Very interesting interview just now with the Sweden Prime Minister regarding immigrants. This according to him:

    1) Sweden is a country of 10 million people and has let in 600,000 immigrants from Muslim countries. The largest per capita in the world.
    2) Since the influx of these Muslim immigrants, sex crimes have increased 400+ percent.
    3) Violence and burglaries has increased 200 percent.
    4) They refuse to embrace the culture of Sweden and are trying to install Shairia Law.
    5) This past weeks burning of cars and business’ had nothing to do with any political issue and was an organized army that marched through torching everything.
    6) Social program costs have escalated 200 percent and, according to the Prime Minister, 0ver 80 percent of the immigrants have no job and are living off the free housing, food, and transportation.
    7) Liberal lawmakers in Europe have been pressuring Sweden NOT to take drastic action and keep it quiet.

    So…want to move to Sweden?

    Wait…before you go, perhaps you need to see the new 2018 tax rates:

    Personal income tax rate – 61.85% (proposal on the table to raise it to 70%)
    Corporate tax rate – 22%
    Sales Tax Rate – 25%
    Social Security Tax Rate – 38.42% ( 31.42 for companies 7 for individuals )

    Now, you want to go?

    • Funny isn’t it, now giving people free everything doesn’t make them happy and reasonable. I think D13 , you just debunked the Sweden argument!!!! Where is Mathius, I want to know what he thinks about this.

      • Where is Mathius, I want to know what he thinks about this.

        He thinks he needs a reputable source.

        People keep crediting terrible things to the Scandinavian countries that keep turning out be.. not.. quite.. accurate..


        now giving people free everything doesn’t make them happy and reasonable.

        Anyone who thinks just giving people free stuff is going to make them happy long-term has zero comprehension of human nature.

        • Hmmmm credible source…..well, I went to the same area that you can go to on the tax rates….google it under 2018 Sweden tax rates…..and then, I suppose, you can google the Prime Minister interview….I suppose the same information is there somewhere but I posted it right after I saw the interview…..did not fact check the Prime Ministers accusations….I ddid forget to post the one thing he did say….immigration from specific countries are now being denied entrance. I did research the recent car fires and read those articles where he said it had the precision of a military manuver….none of these were numbers grabbed from the ozone.

          AND, I am only talking about Sweden….not the combined Nordic nor Scandinavian areas…although the main cheese in Denmark has said basically the same thing.

          But, even with all of the instruction that you have given me on here…..I still cannot post a friggin’ picture and I still have not mastered the posting of links. I am old school and not computer literate…also do not want to be….I hire it done.

  34. ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Moderation, please.

  35. Catholics taking a beating after report of sex abuse on children comes out concerning the Pittsburgh Dioceses. Shameful.

    Strzok get’s fired and gets 250K through go fund me. Lying pays if your a Lefty it seems.

    Pelosi told her fellow Crat’s to lie to the constituents to get elected if needed. I thought that was old news, but she just said it. Lying pays if your a Lefty and voters are gullible fools.

    That female who lied about a college degree should never get one vote in an election. Apparently, neither should the other candidate. We need a better class of people running for office. Both sides are not trustworthy. UGH!

  36. Calling JAC…..I am in jail again.

  37. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/liz-warren-accountability-capitalism-act/

    She wants to make all these corporations as screwed up as Congress.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the morning:

    Failed States have dramatic negative impacts no only within the State but to all the neighbors. The geographic extent of this impact depends on how far from home the refugees created by the collapse are able to move.

    We see the impacts in Europe, heads up to the Colonel’s post on Sweden. These same impacts occur here in the USA. Our ILLEGAL ALIEN problem is due to the failure of almost every State in Central and South America, let alone Mexico itself. The common thread among those that have failed is their attempt to create the Socialist Utopia. Unfortunately, the abuse by Crony Capitalists can be shown to have led to the Socialist take over. And in some cases these dictators held power with our help.

    So now the million dollar, well actually it would be the Trillion dollar, question is: What do we do about it?

  39. I am afraid I would be considered Draconian.

  40. https://saraacarter.com/exclusive-steele-anxious-over-comey-testimony-hopes-firewalls-will-hold/

    Slowly but surely, the truth will come out and people will pay dearly.

    • This is interesting, it’s being discussed a lot. And it has nothing to do with the Clinton investigation, so it wasn’t a part of the IG investigation.

  41. Canine Weapon says:

    • This is not real. Please don’t let this be real. I mean, come on, it even has a USMC on the tag.

      • Canine Weapon says:

        I can say that it does not appear to be photoshopped/edited in any way I can detect (other than the added header/banner).

        But, then again, what do I know? I’m a dog.

  42. check moderation

  43. Everything in moderation

  44. Canine Weapon says:

  45. Canine Weapon says:

    I’m training to join the infantry!

  46. Canine Weapon says:

    Actual footage of G-Man bow-hunting:

  47. Canine Weapon says:

    Actual footage of Mathius deer hunting:

  48. https://pjmedia.com/trending/prof-claims-responsible-fatherhood-reinforces-patriarchy/

    And people wonder why so many women don’t identify as feminists anymore.

    • Love the remark….banning guns, now knives, and soon cars…….to preserve a “vibrant democracy.”

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I remember when living in the UK that it was deemed the most Camera covered country. Especially London. The government claim was that they could needed to they could track anyone via video throughout the country. Might be on tape but could be had. The IRA thing was still not settled. They also used the system to just mail you a ticket. The Home Office used to keep all the revenue collected and there was lot of vandalism of the cameras in the shires. In ’01 the home office changed its policy of sharing the booty with the town’s and cameras sprang up like mushrooms after a rain.

        Why can’t sadiq khan and the metropolitan police not catch anyone. They do not want to. It just brings more demands by the people for more State controlled protection and that’s what they want….MORE CONTROL

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Certain politicians prove themselves nit-wits…….once again. Dejavu all over again.


  50. Just A Citizen says:

    In case you don’t think that “pushing” opinion done by Politicians and the Media is effective, check out the numbers on this poll. The reveal is the lack of support, or opposition, by women. This is directly tied to the DNC’s efforts to portray this judge as opposed to a woman’s right to choose, aka. abortion.



    Of further interest is my internet this morning. The pop up advertisements in particular. I am getting one that starts out about how Idaho’s economy is “roaring”. Which it is by the way. But then how this is threatened by Mr. Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs. This means I am being “targeted” for this ad as a resident of Idaho. I expect similar tailored ads are popping up in other States. In short, the sophistication of propaganda is reaching that of the regular advertising business.

    There is a real danger in this. Personalized political or opinion ads can be tailored to your personal bias. Thus hiding the truth by creating a confirmation bias reaction. In other words, a true manipulation and brain washing of people is more real. Broader ads can be challenged by those that disagree because all occurs in a more public forum. Personalized popups on your computer will go unnoticed and unchallenged until it is to late.

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the morning:

    We need to speed up the effort to colonize Mars. It seems to be a reasonable solution to a growing problem here on earth. Spousal Unit Leader and I reached this conclusion together after reading the following story this morning. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a candidate for the mission:


    Another candidate would the the dolt reporter who created the headline and narrative of the story. Getting stung by bees carries far more risk to health than not eating the bees. AND, you can survive 6 days without food. Good thing there is a fair Huckleberry crop this year.

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Continuing the information flow regarding wildfires, I think ya’ll will find this of interest. Note, number of fires dropping but “average” size increasing. Now visualize the linear trend if a moving average of some kind were applied. You would not get the convenient straight line with a constant upward slope. Also note the list or reasons provided.


    Another note: I find it somewhat convenient to ignore everything before 1990 because they think it is unreliable. In 1910 almost 4 million acres burned in just northern Idaho and western Montana. Over 2 million of which wound up being one fire. Major burning occurred again around 1939 and 1960. The Donner Fire in the Sierras was around 1960. It burned from Truckee, California to the hills overlooking Reno, Nevada, and knocked power out to the Reno area for a couple of weeks.

    The study notes a change in trend in the 1980’s. This is when two major things were building. One was increased insect and disease mortality and the other was a push to reduce timber harvest via legal challenges by the Greenies. The forest mortality issue really became evident in the 1990’s as it continued to accelerate. The reason for this increase was increased density of the forests and conversion to shad tolerant species, which are more prone to disease and thus insects. In other words, the exclusion of fire for almost 100 years was causing a conversion of forests from open to closed canopy. From fire resistant to fire susceptible species.

  53. Canine Weapon says:

  54. Canine Weapon says:

  55. May she rest in peace.

  56. Today was the day all the major papers wrote editorials attacking Trump for his enemy of the people comment. I looked but could not find if any paper supported Trump. Does anyone know if there is one?

  57. https://www.newswars.com/ap-launches-media-hoax-claiming-alex-jones-radio-station-shut-down/
    Liberal news is obviously fake news.

    I have been noticing more and more that access to numerous conservative media sites have been slowed to the point that clicking on the link through an email will never get you there. I have also noticed this on some sites themselves. With censorship seemingly growing on Social Media, it is beginning to take on a new look. This is a coordinated attack on conservative views.

    This brings up a few questions. Can access to certain sites be slowed (as it appears to me)?

    If true, what can be done to counter this?

    Is it time to turn the net into a public utility?

    • I have been noticing more and more that access to numerous conservative media sites have been slowed […] This brings up a few questions. Can access to certain sites be slowed (as it appears to me)?


      In fact, this has been done in the past to Netflix. The ISPs felt it was hogging too much bandwidth (probably true) and throttled the site until it paid them a ransom.

      Though that was, of course, an economic matter, there’s nothing that would stop an ISP from applying this same capability to a site it didn’t like for any other reason. For example, Comcast could stop its customers from visiting Verizon.com.

      That’s not to say I necessarily agree with you that it’s happening to Alex Jones. For that to happen, the ISPs would have to want to destroy his website.. and I don’t see the economic case for that. The ISPs aren’t particularly political in that sense.

      If true, what can be done to counter this?

      By you/me? Not a damned thing.

      HOWEVER, this is one of the arguments in favor of net neutrality.

      If you’ll hop in the Way Back Machine with me, you’ll see that I argued almost this exact point. You’ll also note that Net Neutrality was gutted by Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee and former employee of Verizon, and was backed up nearly unanimously by congressional Republicans (overriding nearly unanimous Democratic opposition).

      Not that I believe what you’re describing is happening, but Net Neutrality would have made it utterly impossible.

      Is it time to turn the net into a public utility?


      I believe that it is still probably best served as a private enterprise, but it should be treated as a “common carrier” – that is to say that the ISPs with their monopolies and near-monopolies should not be permitted to discriminate amongst the data they carry. That is, just like FedEx, they shouldn’t be able to wield their power over other businesses and be “toll-takers” or to control the flow of business.

      The Obama administration put these rules in place. Trump et al repealed them 2017 because… “free market”? This is the a natural outcome where the ISP’s get to pick and choose winners.

      • Except for the tech giants, everyone wants the same thing. An open and free internet w/o restrictions. However, putting the heavy hand of government on the internet is not the solution especially using pre-1930’s laws that only apply in a twisted lawyers mind. If Congress wants to regulate the internet, then let them pass explicit legislation to do so.

        The ISP issue is one of bandwidth. If there is excess bandwidth, there is no need to restrict anyone. Only when bandwidth is limit are quotas necessary. The solution is more bandwidth.

        Censorship based on content especially political content is a much bigger issue in my mind. This has nothing to do with the technology but the evils in men’s minds. Go watch iRobot and similar movies (one of the Spiderman movies also covered this). In these cases it was one evil corporation trying to dominate the world. Today we have a consortium of giant corporations suffering from group think that are trying to control the content of the internet to suit their political objectives. This is not acceptable.

      • Okay, as I’ve stated before, I am ignorant when it comes to the internet and how it works. But I do not understand how NN would stop these actions. I keep hearing about algorithms and the sites policies being broken. Can sites not have rules with NN?

        • In a nutshell NN rules stated that the ISPs cannot discriminate between traffic to/from one source or another. It really has nothing to do with “policies” of individual sites.

          That is, a bit travelling from Amazon to me regarding the purchase of a hammock is treated identically as a bit travelling from you to your sister when sharing pictures of cute cats with silly captions.

          As you know, ISPs are the conduit by which our traffic travels. There is, in fact, an enormous back-end to the internet which is so deep and complex I don’t even want to think about beginning to get into it here. But for our purposes, we can say the ISPs have total control of our data transmission.

          If they were so inclined, they could say “I don’t like JAC.” And they could slow down all traffic to JAC.com. His customers would get frustrated and go elsewhere. Now, if it just so happened that Comcast had a competing business to JAC’s… well, no.. isn’t that interesting… They wouldn’t need to be as good when they can just kabash their competitors.. hmmm….

          Alternatively, they could act as toll-takers. Every business on the internet would need to pay tribute to the cabal lest their traffic get slowed. Now ask yourself how G-Man and Co’s small business can take on Amazon when Amazon pays Optimum millions to slow down their competitor. His site, even if it’s better and cheaper will be so slow no one wants to use it. This creates moats around all the big established internet presences and cripples new entrants. That’s terrible for the free market.

          Alternatively, we have G-man’s scenario wherein the ISPs have, for some reason, become political and want to silence Alex Jones. So they slow down traffic to his site until it’s unusable. Jones gets fewer visits, advertising revenue drops, site shuts down. Why should an ISP have the power to unilaterally destroy 3rd party businesses at will?

          And here’s the nefarious thing. You don’t really “see” your ISP in all this. When you visit a slow website, you think “this website is slow,” not “my ISP is sending this to me slowly.” Especially if everything else is fast. So your frustration is naturally targeted at the end website. When they throttled Netflix, it was Netflix itself which got thousands of complains, not Verizon. It was Netflix who lost subscribers, not Verizon.

          So, by and large, the ISP’s can do whatever they want. And they have an exorbitant amount of power they can flex. They’re only playing at the fringes of what they can do – probably because they fear a backlash if they overreach too far too fast. But make no mistake, they will creep and creep and creep.

          But under Net Neutrality, the ISPs can’t do any of this. Sure, they can change for bandwidth usage (which is fair!) but they can’t pick and choose winners or extract ransoms. To them, all data is just data regardless of what it is or where it’s going. No matter how much they hate Alex Jones, his traffic is the same as everyone else’s.

          Yes, it’s government intrusion into private business, but I think it’s a reasonable exercise of power for the general welfare. Especially considering the alternative.

          Like others, I would prefer to see it written as a fresh set of considered rules duly passed by Congress and signed by the President. But I don’t imagine that’s going to happen until the Democrats take over. It’s very clear that the Republics in congress (as opposed to the Republican citizenry) are very hostile to the idea of net neutrality.

          • Is googl e, twitter, and Facebook an ISP?

            • Google is… partially … they have Google Fiber.

              Note that they are struggling to expand which tells you something about how tough this market is to break into. That’s why there’s no viable “free market” to save us from this problem.

              But Google (website), Twitter, and FB are all websites. They are at the mercy of the ISP (internet service providers, eg, Verizon, Comcast, etc). If you want to look at FB, it goes as follows:
              1. VH uses her computer which talks to her router.
              2. Router talks to Verizon (ISP).
              3. Verizon carries packets of data to FB’s server.
              4. FB’s server responds with its own packets to be sent back.
              5. Verizon (ISP) carries packets of data back to VH’s router.
              6. VH’s router sends these to her computer where her browser turns them into the racist ramblings of the people she when to high school with.

              Does this make sense?

              The problem is that, at steps 3 and 5, Verizon (again, the ISP) can slow down or kill the link. It’s as if you wanted to talk to call a business on the phone, but ATT didn’t feel like letting you, so they put a lag on the call. Sure, you could still call, but it’d be really annoying. So, maybe you just wouldn’t. Maybe you’d use their competitor instead – a competitor who is paying ATT money to make this happen. And, hey, since all your other calls are clear, you’ll probably think it’s just that business anyway and not ATT, right? So now no one calls that business, so they go bankrupt or have to pay ransom to ATT to let people start talking to them again.

              • Okay, let’s stop at 4, does NN do anything to stop FB from censoring by content?

              • No.

                FB is a private website, not an ISP. NN has nothing to do with them at all.

                What it WOULD stop is it would stop, say, Verizon form censoring FB if FB posted negative articles about them, or if FB were advertising Comcast.

                So, in other words, it would leave private websites freer from control / censorship by the ISPs.

              • No VH, censorship is about controlling ideas, NN attacks greed. They are completely different issues.

              • Well, what I’,m trying to figure out is whether the problems people are encountering is the fault of ISP’s or private sites like FB and googl e or both.

              • Both and likely others. Web hosting sites can also censor. We know what the problem is, we know who or those that are likely responsible. There are numerous terms to describe them, globalists, deep state, etc. A long look at how Liberal’s are promoting censorship is a cause for concern too.

                Of course, it could just be what todays Liberals have become, anti-American, anti Civil Rights, anti Constitution. There are plenty of examples of all of them.

              • Well, what I’,m trying to figure out is whether the problems people are encountering is the fault of ISP’s or private sites like FB and googl e or both.

                They’re different problems.

                The problem of “fake news” and such is all to do with private sites like FB and Twitter and (to a lesser extent) Google. This has nothing at all to do with Net Neutrality.

                The problem Gman is fantasizing (of his preferred sites being slowed / blocked) is made possible by the repeal of Net Neutrality and would be the responsibility of the ISPs. Though its (probably) only happening in his mind due to his persecution complex, it DOES happen and HAS happened in the real world and will likely only get worse in the years to come. That’s what Net Neutrality is about: taking this power to abuse away from the ISPs.

                Think of it this way: If a business behaves badly, it’s the business’s problem. That’s the website. If a business cannot conduct business because ATT is abusing their power and messing with the phone service, that’s the common carrier’s problem. That’s the ISP in this analogy. Does that make more sense?

              • I’m not convinced it’s different problems, related to our topic, ISP’s can mess with sites like Facebook but Facebook and googl e can mess with everyone who uses their site too.

              • One other question, you said “So, in other words, it would leave private websites freer from control / censorship by the ISPs.” But aren’t ISP’s just private businesses too?

      • Oddly enough, Infowars has been shut down. Prison Planet is still in full operation. My guess is that the sites are run through different carriers.
        Im still a bit lost on the NN thing, as i see it as govt control, not much different than utilities. The free market will eventually beat down those who censor. Social media will be changed in the next couple years, with new sites coming out and people flocking away from Fakebook, Twitter etc.
        The problem of censorship should worry all, it can happen to any group once the precedent has been set.
        Censorship, imho, is about suppressing the truth.

        • Im still a bit lost on the NN thing, as i see it as govt control, not much different than utilities.

          Correct. But that doesn’t make it a bad thing, necessarily.

          SOME government control is necessary. Only lunatic pirates think otherwise.

          The free market will eventually beat down those who censor.

          Uh huh… and I have a bridge to sell you.

          Ask yourself this: how many ISP’s do I have available to choose from?

          Maybe 2 ground based and another 1 satellite? So three?

          What is the barrier to entry to setting up your own end-run around the ISP’s or setting up a new entrant? It’s enormous. Hell, Google is struggling to get into the market and they’re GOOGLE.

          No, if you want internet, you get it through the cabal.

          If there were a thriving marketplace for other others that were even remotely competitively priced and widely available… sure. But there isn’t. So there is no strong “free market” available to use its mighty “free hand” to beat down those who censor.

          FURTHER, you don’t always know who is doing the censoring. Is Infowars being blocked or did their server crash? Is your ISP blocking them or their own ISP? Who is their ISP? Or maybe its their hosting company? Maybe they just forgot to pay their internet bill? Maybe the business just closed?

          Oh, sure, YOU can do the research and maybe figure it out. But you can bet that the “average Joe” won’t. And he won’t bother complaining or even threatening (let along following through) to cancel his account – and even if he does, he’ll just be switching to another member of the cabal, so where does that get him?

          No, the only way out of this particular pickle is through government regulation – and the lightest touch of that is through Net Neutrality rules.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this issue, and it would not have stopped it from happening.

        NN was about FORCING ISP’s to provide equal access to bandwidth for everyone. Where band width was limiting this would have in fact reduced the quality of service by outfits like Netflix.

        And why shouldn’t Netflix pay more to gobble bandwidth? Same goes for any of the other large users of bandwidth.

        Apparently you do not realize that large shippers get different pricing from “common carriers” than us lowly peons. Of course in this case they usually get discounts because among common carriers the issue is dependability of the volume of business. With the internet it is about competing for a limited supply of carrier space.

        We the People never asked for Net Neutrality in the first place. What it really was about was controlling access, just like the Dems tried with Radio. Forcing stations to provide access to left wing content. Even when said content was failing to generate revenue.

        • And why shouldn’t Netflix pay more to gobble bandwidth? Same goes for any of the other large users of bandwidth.

          That’s not the point of NN.

          It makes perfect sense for ISPs to charge consumers of large amounts of data. It’s not just a bandwidth question, but actually the ISPs themselves have to pay for every bit they transmit across the back-end of the internet. Some of the bigger ones own some nodes, but, by-and-large, they’re paying per bit and consumers pay flat.

          To that end, it is perfectly reasonable to charge based on usage. There is nothing in NN which prohibits this.

          What NN prohibits is prioritizing one bit over another. NN means that they have to treat all traffic the same. NN means that the ISPs can’t pick winners and loser or, for example, block Alex Jones.

          Apparently you do not realize that large shippers get different pricing from “common carriers” than us lowly peons.

          Of course they do. It’s economy of scale.

          Of course in this case they usually get discounts because among common carriers the issue is dependability of the volume of business. With the internet it is about competing for a limited supply of carrier space.

          I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

          We the People never asked for Net Neutrality in the first place.

          Sure we did.

          Maybe you didn’t.

          But I sure did.

          And I know a lot of other people who did.

          What it really was about was controlling access,

          What it was really about was stopping the ISPs from taking control of the internet.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Forced access and pricing is exactly what NN was about. It was the content people trying to use Govt. to FORCE the ISP’s to give them access at prices they want.

            NN was not about stopping greed (T-Ray) on the ISP side. It was about protecting it on the content side. And the content people ran an effective propaganda campaign to convince lefty leaning people they would have their favorite stuff turned off.

            • JAC, you contradict yourself when you say it is about access at the price you want. That is greed. There is no physical reason for ISPs to discriminate if there is excess bandwidth. The only reason left is greed. They can hold up anyone for a ransom or to preferentially direct traffic to a preferred vendor. This is wrong but a one page bill could solve the problem. My objection is to bureaucratic regulation based upon laws written for an entirely different era, technology and issue. Once the bureaucrats get involved you have the ever creeping intrusion into the internet which will slow down development. A few thou shalt nots in a bill would solve the problem. It does not need to be complex.

              VH, the censorship that is occurring is coming from the private companies, FB, Twitter etc. It is independent of the NN issue. The whole censorship concept is insidious and corrosive to an open society. Don’t forget that these are the very same companies that have hired lots of H-1B visa programmers who do not necessarily share our free speech values and are willing to do what they are told. These companies are also located in very liberal areas and suffer from group think.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You inferred that the Greed is with the ISP’s. If that is not your intent then I apologize for misreading it.

                The Greed and desire for control was with those who are actually, TODAY, controlling content and what is allowed or not allowed. They wanted the protection for themselves, their own Greed.

                The ISP’s have never done any of the terrible things people keep saying they “could do”. In reality why would they? They need to make money, which means they need to expand bandwidth and service areas. They need the maximum traffic possible at the highest price possible.

                Since they built out the infrastructure why should Facebook or Google or Netflix get to dictate that they have to provide bandwidth to them and prices they want to dictate?

                Frankly I am more concerned with the THEFT of business being done by Amazon than anything the ISPs are doing.

          • Just A Citizen says:
          • Just A Citizen says:


            More truth. Note, the second part of the article is actually the Commissioner’s speech about the issue.

            I urge everyone to take the time to read it.


  58. Just A Citizen says:

    We have discussed before how the Greenies utilize law suits against the Fed Govt. to force changes, that in turn wind up biting us all in the backside. Here is a good example. Note how the NEW critical habitat would include the waters and shoreline along the west coast. Now take into consideration that per the Law, anything that affects this habitat would fall under Federal control. ANYTHING. This would include the water quality of the rivers running into the ocean and shoreline protection, boat traffic, fishing, etc..


    • I just looked it up Chinook salmon is on the endangered list. They are protecting their habitats. Any chance they are the ones who caused the orcas to be endangered.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Listing of Chinook enabled the Greenies via litigation over the Feds to exert control over the entire tributary waters to the Pacific that contained listed Chinook.

        The Salmon populations have been in great flux these past few years. They were rising but then suddenly dropped back down. Same for Steelhead. Objective biologists admit there is much going on in the ocean we don’t understand relative to affecting Salmon and Steelhead. The Chinnok and Steelhead did not die in the ocean. It is believed they shifted north toward British Columbia and Alaska. And for some reason did not return to their spawning grounds.

        It is possible that the shifting of Chinook populations has affected the Orca in Pudget Sound. Especially if this population refused to migrate like the others. But there is little that could be done via Fed regulations to address this problem. It is just an attempt to get control over more aspects of our lives. Note that they mentioned boats as a threat.

        By the way, the Center for Bio Diversity is a radical group of Greenies. Just right of Earth First.

        • This population, so are orcas actually endangered or just this group.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was not aware that they are actually listed. But if so, it is probably just this small population.

            The environmental community has been trying to gain control over all activities affecting the Puget Sound for decades. Don’t get me wrong. There are problems, especially given the metropolitan area on the shoreline.

            The Green groups don’t want to take the time or make the effort to work with all the municipalities and/or State agencies. So they go for ESA listing and Federal Protection. That puts one to two Federal agencies in charge and thus easier to target with litigation.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Found your answer. Two resident populations are supposedly listed, per the EPA website.


            I suggest you click on the map to get a larger version. Note the small area outside Puget Sound where the northern population exists. Per the map, the Southern population is limited to the Sound.

            FYI, in the 90’s the environmental groups started putting pressure on listing individual populations of animals instead of the specie as a whole. The goal was obvious. The specie could not be endangered but the population in XYZ river/stream could be listed. Thus increasing restrictions on uses within small areas that would not occur if the specie was considered on the whole. The theory was that individual populations were genetically distinct. There was some evidence of this in the beginning. But later work showed that this genetic fingerprint could change in a generation or two if migratory patterns were altered.

            Here is the bottom line. Human occupation and uses conflict with almost all, if not all, other species. There is no having your cake and eating it. There is only compromise of one or the other. Protection of Salmon is done at great economic cost today. Including massive hatchery programs and the cost to barge baby salmon around the dams on the Columbia, let alone the costs of habitat protection upstream (like ending logging, which increases fires).

            Of course the Salmon could be restored in a few years if all the hyrdo electric generating dams on the Columbia were removed. Just imagine what that would do to the NW economy.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Probably saturation of information but figured you might as well get as much as possible. Although it is broad brush. The above and the following should give you some insight into the complexity of these specie issues. Also just how little we actually know and how things are all linked. Like the Canadian pipeline going to the west coast.


            • I find it interesting, so saturation isn’t a problem. Having an answer, that’s a problem. I do wonder how often these problems would solve themselves though adaptation if people stayed out of it. Or how much actual damage it would do if some species did die out.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          I thought that Force’s were some of the smartest animals on earth. But I guess some can exhibit human traits and be stubborn about leaving their good.

          That said about 30 years ago fisheries administrators in the UK determined that certain populations of fish were disappearing. Their conclusion was overfishing. A policy went in to buy out boats. OK. The boats were destroyed immediately, no matter that they may be historical boats that used to be sail, converted to engines. Easily converted back to sail and have a nice cruising interior installed. Would have preserved maritime history and removed the boats from fishing. However their research was flawed and the government refused to relent. Researchers found the fish just moved. Do to some reason or another. The fisherman after a short vacation bought modern very efficient boats.

          Just like here. The government intervened due to the foreign ships stripping our fisheries. So they subsidised new modern vessels. Stripping the banks even faster. Now the is draconialy controlled.

          The UN in their wisdom and decision to help the subsistence fisherman in Ceylon now Sri Lanka. The guys were catching for themselves and maybe a little extra. The UN set them up with more modern craft enabling them to catch a boat load. In a few years the area they fished was stripped and the UN declared a crisis and tried to reverse the problem they caused to begin with.

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    Can someone please explain to me how taking away a security clearance from someone who is no longer in Govt. is somehow stifling free speech?

    I think the outcry on this from the “intelligence community” shows just how privileged and out of touch these people have become. The SWAMP is thus revealed by the volume of howling.

    What they are really crying about is that they will not longer be able to monetize their access to privileged information.

    • Can someone please explain to me how taking away a security clearance from someone who is no longer in Govt. is somehow stifling free speech?

      It isn’t. It is a common practice. For example. now that I am no longer doing border work, I have lost my TS/SSIR clearance. I also signed a non disclosure agreement for 5 years as a part of normal procedure.

      What they are really crying about is that they will not longer be able to monetize their access to privileged information. True..but one thing that I do not understand….why are they able to write books? We aren’t. We are prohibited for 5 years.

      Just another instance of how the swamp is dangerous. This woman that is in war with Trump, had book deal in the works when she signed on….knew what she was doing and will et away with it unless she is found guilty of a non disclosure agreement.

  60. Just A Citizen says:
  61. There’s something happening here…what it is ain’t exactly clear….there’s battle lines being drawn……..

    G…PJW is front and center on BitChute theses days.

  62. Brennan is now the official talking head and “Intelligence Consultant” for NBC News and MSNBC.

    And you want to know why he was stripped of his security clearance?

  63. OH my………just when you were getting used to the rules in the UK……..no guns, no knives…no cars in public areas…………………now, no snowball fights and, taking it another step, no touching the snow and no playing in the snow. Children playing in the snow get wet and, therefore, their school clothes are not fit to wear.

    You just cant make this up.

    • And now, to the “snowflake” generation of the US college campus…..

      1)Delaware State University forbids its students from throwing snowballs, a policy that a school official says is due in part to the potential “harm” that snowball fights pose to those on campus.

      Oh, it does not stop there……”Along with banning snowballs, Delaware State University also forbids the “use [and] possession of water guns, super soakers, etc. on University premises or during University activities.”

      And then, “The University of Michigan, the Michigan Review reports, “continue[s] to struggle with its official position on sexuality, snow and freedom of expression” after a hall director reported a “giant snow penis” as … a bias incident.”

      Then the creme de creme…………….”Brown University is working to help its male students “unlearn” and “unpack” their masculinity. A program at the Ivy League institution provides “safe spaces for men to unpack all of the things they have learned about masculinity and what it means to be a man,” according to its website.”

      I wonder….if the required uniform is pink panties and parasols?


      Note: One of the greatest fun things in college was fraternity water balloon fights. I guess those are outlawed now.

      Acorns and slingshots……air rifles and corks….pine cone fights…..I am sure checkers will be banned next because of crowning a King…………………………….

      You would think that looking at how “milk toast” Europe has become, we would have learned a lesson.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The only thing during the winter while in elementary school in Woodstock, N.Y. was a recommendation by the school was to not put rocks in the snowballs. To be safe you learned to not trust your opposing fort and have situational awareness and DUCK. Nobody got hurt. Maybe some scuffs and bruises. Even with all the unsafe playground equipment nobody got hurt, except by their own stupidity.

  64. Beverly Luetkemeyer says:

    There is hate speech on both sides. This is not a problem of ONLY the Democrats. When POTUS bans the media (biased though they may be), it’s dangerous precedent. When he offers to pay legal fees of those who physically harm critics, it’s beyond the pale. Name calling is rampant on both sides and both sides are blind to the failings in their own Party. I’m disgusted with both.

    • You are correct……but the reality of it is……it is what we have right now.

      I have no problem with throwing out disruptive media in press conferences.

      When he offers to pay legal fees of those who physically harm critics, it’s beyond the pale. This I am unaware of but will do some research….if it is as you say, then I am in agreement.

      • Ahh, the only thing that popped up was the incident during the campaign in 2016…old news and water under the bridge….what the person should have done is file charges for assault unless the assault was warranted…(ie. stopping another assault, such as throwing a tomato).

      • Trump did say that at least at one very early rally before the election and possibly before the nomination. He toned it down after that and went the line “don’t hurt’em, get’em out of here” which is equivalent to the old Brooklyn taunt of “Throw the bum out”. You can remember when the Dodgers and Giants were in NY and the speech patterns then used.

        The next question would be are/were these hecklers paid for their services by Soros or Hillary? The Project Veritas tapes showed they were not above this tactic.

  65. Civil War
    How do civil wars happen?
    Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
    The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that.
    But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.
    What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
    That’s a civil war.
    There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
    This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.
    Your very own dictatorship.
    The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.
    Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
    If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.
    But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has discretion to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.
    When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
    The Constitution has something to say about that.
    Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an
    institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
    Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.
    Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
    That’s not a free country.
    It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.
    Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
    — Jason Minzey, Department Head, Education Department, Eastern Michigan University

    • How close he is to being correct.

      • This is but a prelude to the next step. What is the next step? That’s a good question. At some point, maybe not in our lifetime, the real war will occur. The Nation is on a path to a serious problem.

        • Historically, the lead up to the CW took about 35 years. Calhoun was pushing nullification starting around the time Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828. Other South Carolinians were talking secession. Jackson fought the concept throughout his presidency as did Webster and others. The shooting started in the 1850’s with bloody Kansas and the John Brown efforts. So the buildup to actual conflict can take decades.

  66. https://nypost.com/2018/08/18/trump-is-proving-americas-power-through-economic-warfare/

    This sounds strategic to me, maybe people should start looking at Trumps moves as a plan instead of just individual actions.

    • Trump is doing exacty what I thought he should do two years ago. I got raked across the coals by several on here for wanting to use economic power instead of guns…….but most people said….Nooooooooooooooooooooo………

      It is the most powerful non lethal weapon we have….our dollar….China is NOT A PROBLEM…..we can bring them to their knees…….then the argument popped up……if you starve a country, you invite a shooting war……….to that I say bullshit.

%d bloggers like this: