The Orange Balloon Deflates

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Trump could not replace – much less repeal – Obamacare. So, instead, he did what Republicans do best: Bomb foreigners, remotely.

Even the Chimp-esque, Oceania tis’ for thee verbiage is back. Remember “Saddam”? The first-name personalization of the Enemy of Freedom? Now it’s Assad. And, of course, Assad is the leader of a regime. The Assad Regime.

It sounds like an ‘80s hair band.

It is never the Trump Regime. Only regimes being targeted by the regime in Washington are regimes.

The Assad Regime?

God, my teeth ache.

I had hope – small, but some – that Trump understood or at least wanted to change the pattern of a fatwa’ing federal government – and not just with regard to EPA and DOT ululations about “safety” and such.

This business of lobbing bombs at foreigners – an act of war – without a declaration of war – is the most dangerous form of fatwa’ing.

The Constitution says no lobbing of bombs without one and that Congress must pass the declaration legalizing the lobbing of bombs. Of course, the Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper,” as The Chimp quite accurately described it.

We’ve grown accustomed to whomever inhabits the Oval Office lobbing bombs on his mere say-so, exactly like a first-name authoritarian despot. No one seems to notice this – or if they do, they don’t seem to mind it much. Nor wonder – ever – why anyone foreign could possibly hate us for something other than Our Freedoms.


It’s defeating to a thinking brain to contemplate not merely the lawlessness of lobbing bombs at foreigners on the say-so of a single man, who has no constitutional authority to do it, much less any moral right to do it, because the normalization of such lawlessness and moral cretinhood is exactly why we have fatwa-issuing “agencies” such as the EPA and DOT – which also lack any constitutional authority to pass laws and enforce them, yet do.

By changing the name to regulations.

By lobbing bombs at foreigners on his say-so alone and without any constitutional authority to do it, Trump has shown himself to be simpatico with the EPA ayatollahs and undermined any principled basis for objecting to their fatwas.

Which is why the fatwas will continue to ululate from within the Beltway, only with a different emphasis – just as a Sunni Ayatollah will have a different parsing of the Koran (who deserves beheading? Or do we just cane him?) than a Shi’ite Ayatollah.

Principles are lacking generally, these days.

Here’s another that’s down for the count:

The tribunal that sentenced the surviving leadership of the German Reich to hang by the neck until dead did so on the basis of, among other things, the leadership’s conspiring to and then actually launching an aggressive war against countries that had not attacked the Reich first. Lobbing bombs at Poland was decreed to be a war crime. And not merely the Reich lobbing them at Poland, but generally. In principle, aggressive war was decreed unlawful.

So much for that.

The Reichsmarschall wasn’t a hypocrite.

Syria – “Assad” – has not attacked the United States. He may have attacked some people within his country. Who knows?

You know, like the federal government did, as at Waco – if you’ll recall.

And by the way, gas was used there as well – and in that case it is a certain fact that it was the Regime – the American Einsatzgruppen who were sent on its behalf, to do its dirty work – who actually lobbed the gas. It is questionable whether “Assad” actually did gas his people. If he did, it makes little sense given the green light he had to know it would give the Orange One to lob bombs his way and perhaps more to come.

But it smells, regardless.

Not the gas.

The lobbing of the bombs constitutes not only a shitting all over the Constitution’s very sound investing of the power to declare war in a large deliberative body and requiring a majority vote of that body before the lobbing of bombs, so as to assure there is a very good reason for the lobbing and that if not, the people who lobbed will be called to account – but also constitutes a war crime when the bombs are lobbed at foreign countries that haven’t attacked the United States.

Like Iraq, for instance.

And now, this.

Did they hate us for Our Freedom, too?

Of course, no one will hang or even be handed a small fine. The Chimp paints. Trump has got people talking about something other than his failure to rid us of Obamacare. Lobbing bombs is an excellent tonic for a wilting presidency.

It is like Fuuuuhhhhhhttttttball.

Americans, in the main, love the lobbing of bombs just as they love a Hail Mary pass during the Big Game.

So long as the bombs are not lobbed at them.

They enjoy seeing them dropped from planes and fired from ships, the contrails brightening the room in which they are watching it all on TeeVee. Few ever bother asking themselves how they’d feel if a foreign country’s leader, incensed by some noxious action of our regime against its own people, decided to lob a few our way.

Least of all the Orange One.

The teeth begin to ache.

There was, for all of three months, some hope that perhaps this time it’d be different. That – for once – the federal government was headed by someone not perpetually priapic for wars, which are (cheers!) the health of the state, the mortification of liberty and sulfuric acid thrown in the face of human decency.

Many who perhaps did not like Trump voted for him nonetheless because they dreaded the bloody fanged alternative. They knew we’d be lobbing bombs at foreigners in that event. They hoped that maybe Trump would not.

So, they took a chance, rolled the dice – and pulled the lever for the Orange One.

And, as always, got the same result.

America is the land of Charlie Brown, eternally hoping Lucy won’t pull the football away at the last minute. But it’s worse than that, actually. Charlie Brown wants to kick the football and is disappointed when Lucy pulls it away at the last moment. Americans, in the main, seem to like lobbing bombs, or having it done on their behalf – as evidenced by their not objecting to it.

Note that even the Left has quieted down. And the Right is cheering. Yeah, Freedom!

Only Libertarians, the only sane Americans left, are appalled.

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. 




  1. What an amazing bunch of comments. Had not seen this before.

    Some of you have superhuman patience and tolerance when dealing with what can only be described as an insanely arrogant, disrespectful retard.

  2. How do you turn a businessman/con artist into a muderer? Elect him. The psychopathy is inherent to the job. Trump bombed Syria two times to get attaboys from the zio lobby – which is the entire Congress – in hopes he wouldnt get impeached and to look like a big tough guy by killing innocents. And grabbed Syrias oil and bragged about it while enforcing crushing sanctions to try to starve them into submission. This despite ever5ything he said before getting elected. And yes hired nothing but snakes starting with Nikki Haley who put the knife in his back over the fake election. Just like everyone else he hired.

    • Hey Mark3,

      Trump didn’t even need a knife put to his back- He appointed his own kind because they would do the jobs he wanted done. Any of his words to the contrary were just the usual song and dance to play to the audience which he was seeking to appease in the role he was playing on the political stage.

  3. So guys, I guess this would be as good a place to ask this as anywhere:

    As I’ve stated before, I came to Libertarian/anarchistic beliefs mostly on my own, and it’s only been quite recently that I’ve come to know that there are others who share my views, and that they have a name- so forgive me if this questions seems a little basic, but…

    What essentially is the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist?

    From what I’ve seen, I think the label “anarchist” fits me perfectly- but how does a Libertarian differ? The only things I can imagine, would essentially make Libertarians minarchists, which many claim not to be.

    Or…is “Libertarian” just a general heading which can include anarchists and minarchists, etc.? (If the Libertarian Party were any indication, Libertarians would not only be minarchists, but maxarchists! -or monarchists!- That is something i observed long ago, and which had kept me from things Libertarian- as I thought that THAt is what Libertarianism was.)

    • Dear Nunzio,

      “What essentially is the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist?”

      Here is my understanding of the distinction between the two terms. But it may not be shared by everyone.

      I consider “libertarian” a looser term than “anarcho-capitalist”, “free market anarchist”, or “voluntaryist”.

      The term “libertarian” includes advocates of minimal government in addition to advocates of no government. It includes minarchists in addition to anarchists.

      The term “anarchist” on the other hand, excludes “minarchists”. it includes only “anarcho-capitalists”, “free market anarchists”, and “voluntaryists”.

      As a side note, to me the term “anarchist” is applicable only to individualist anarchists, aka “anarcho-capitalists”, “free market anarchists”, and “voluntaryists”.

      It is not applicable to self-styled “anarcho-communists”, because the term “anarcho-communist” is an oxymoron. Anarcho-communists say that they would eliminate government. But they lie, both to others and themselves. Push an anarcho-communist hard enough, and he’ll say he wants some sort of “workers committees” to implement a communist society.

      To wit: Noam Chomsky.

      But Chomsky’s “workers committees” look like governments, walk like governments, and quack like governments. That’s because they are governments. Denying that they are governments, doesn’t make it so.

      Therefore I submit that there is no such thing as “anarcho-communism”, and there are no such people as “anarcho-communists”. There is only communism and communists.

      • Ah, Thank you, Bevin!

        That is pretty much along the lines of what I had been surmising- that “Libertarian” was more of the general heading- just as, conversely “Authoritarian collectivist” is a general heading which could include anything from Communism to “Democracy”.

        And I agree with you completely; “anarcho-communism” is an oxymoron. If communism were practiced on a voluntary basis, it would last all of about 3 seconds, because as soon as anyone stopped receiving a benefit from it, they would cease practicing it. It is only by force that people will continue to pursue that which is contrary to their own interests.

        That reminds me of the part in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, where it describes a manufacturing business which decides to voluntarily practice a communist model of operation…. 🙂 Needless to say, it did not work out very well.

        You did make me realize that I should be careful to call myself a “free-market anarchist”. I figured that “anarchist” alone was sufficient….but I didn’t know that anarcho-communism was a thing – so I guess it is prudent to distinguish myself from that absurdity.

        It’s hilarious how they would have a “worker’s committee”. Right away, it’s always about the workers with these commies; they could care less about the property owners. Communists are advocates of slavery, therefore they always make their appeal to the slaves who have nothing but the ability to perform menial labor.

        It’s like Simon Legree saying “Support my cause, and i will make sure you always have this cabin to live in and gruel to eat!”.

        • Dear Nunzio,

          Apparently there is a debate raging these days between people who call themselves “ancaps” and “ancoms”.

          I truly do not understand why.

          The so-called “ancoms” or “anarcho-communists” obviously don’t have a logical leg to stand on. The debate ought to have ended as quickly as Cassius Clay knocked out Sonny Liston.

          So why is a dabate raging?

          I can only chalk it up to Idiocracy.

          • LOL, Bevin, I would say that you are absolutely correct, because after all, one would have to be an idiot to support communism. I had always assumed that the only connection communists had to any form of anarchy, was to use it as a way to create chaos and disorder, and thus overthrow the existing systems which they were seeking to communize. (Of course, not that true anarchy would achieve that, but I think in the past, “anarchy” was used as a term for a form of terrorism which sought to create chaos by using small scale explosions, etc. Throughout the 20th century, before Islamic-style “terrorism” became the latest boogeyman, it seemed that most bombings were blamed on “anarchists”. I remember one such incident when lived in NYC in my late teens, c. 1978 or ’79 when a small bomb was set off in the Wall St. area. I seem to remember reading of similar incidents going back to the 1920s which also always seemed to be blamed on “anarchists”- thus I grew up equating “anarchy” with something bad- and perhaps those who bandy about the term in the mainstream media intend it that way- to give true and benevolent Ancap anarchy a bad name)

            But that would make more sense- that the communists would advocate the “other form of anarchy” [creating chaos] to destroy other political system, and then impose their own, under which, of course, there could be no “no government” anarchy, because the goal of the communists isn’t to destroy governments so that there should no longer be any governments…but rather, to destroy governments so they can replace them with their brand of government.

            Because, after all, how could they have a system which is based on no private property and the apportionment of resources and redistribution wealth, unless someone in their system has power over such things and to make the decisions as to who gets (or more commonly doesn’t get) what?

            • LOL! I saw this article today, about America’s Deadliest School Massacre- which was a school bombing which occurred in 1927- so I had to read it, just to see if there’d be a mention of “anarchists”.

              While it didn’t mention “anarchists”, it DID have to get the word “anarchy” in there- Speaking of the lone nut who committed the crime after his farm was foreclosed upon: “and that may have been the circumstance that started the clockwork of anarchy and madness in his brain,”.

              They ALWAYS have to get that word in there!!!!


              • If you accept Wikipedia’s explanation via Emmanuel Kant you’ll see from his 4 types of society the republic the US was supposedly based on would be preferable to most others.

                Now, seeing what republic has become, true anarchy, law and freedom without force seems to be our last hope.

                Having said that, you would quickly see that anyone being hurt by someone else would quickly lead to force, just not organized or simply not legitimized by an sanctioned body as such.

                How could people in their right minds not prefer no force to what we now have? It’s the “Gail” mindset…..or rather, lack of who would like it. It’s always the crowd ready to sit on the sidelines and have someone else carry them through life. It’s the entire reason for “marriage” in present society.

            • Hi Nunzio, Bevin, 8 and Tor,

              We an-caps are the late-comers. The socialist/communist strain of anarchist thought predates what we believe to be anarchy. What we call anarcho-capitalism was influenced heavily by individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner and Josiah Warren. However, these people were influenced by Proudhon (and others), who was both a pioneer of anarchist thought and firmly in the “socialist” camp.

              Proudhon is often dismissed by an-caps because they misunderstand what he means by property. He does not mean the legitimate possession of the product of one’s own labor, he means title to land. He believed, mostly correctly, that title to land was an unearned privilege created by the State, and was thus illegitimate. Rothbard agreed with him on this point. He argued that, in the absence of home-steaded title, the “land” legitimately belongs to the peasants working the land.

              As shown by Tor, modern an-coms have a far less nuanced understanding of property than Proudhon. Still, an anarcho-communist community is not inherently contradictory, just very unlikely. At a small enough scale, such a community is possible.

              An-coms believe that property and hierarchy are artificial creations of State power. In the case of property, if we restrict the meaning to land title, they are mostly correct. After all, legitimate title to land that one is not using (mixing labor with) is problematic even on an-cap grounds. Hierarchy is also complex. An-coms incorrectly believe that natural hierarchies would not exist in an anarchist society. However, artificial hierarchies are illegitimate and can only be maintained through State privilege. In this. at least, they are correct.

              Kind Regards,

              • Dear Jeremy,

                Point taken. I have not spent much time on left anarchist history and theory, but I am familiar with their core beliefs.

                That is why I consider anacom theory utter nonsense.

                The fact is one has to own property in order to be free from the collective. Otherwise one is merely mired in democratic “majoritarian tyranny”, under an “anarcho-communist” label.

                The problems with land titles under “archism” can be solved, and must of course.

                But that is a long subject best left for another time.

                • Dear Bevin,

                  Yes, anyone who believes that anarchy and the “eradication of private property” are compatible is deluded. Likewise, the eradication of hierarchy is incompatible with anarchy. Still, many property claims that are accepted by some “libertarians” are illegitimate on anarchist grounds.


                  • Hello Jeremy & Bevin!

                    Ayn Rand said it well:

                    “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.”.


                    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

                    Those statements are equally true of both real and personal property.

                  • Anarcho-capitalism, rooted firmly in objective property rights, provides a stable foundation for social and economic cooperation.

                    Anarcho-communism, having defined private property out of existence, cuts the ground from under anyone attempting to survive as man qua man. it everyone into a Mad Max Thunderdome.

                    In short, I would argue that anarcho-communism, far from being more “compassionate” than anarcho-capitalism, is Social Darwinism at its worst.

                    “Anarcho-capitalism is order, anarcho-communism is chaos”.

                    • Well-said, my dear Bevin [Hetero…. 🙂 ]

                      It’s just like the liberals we see today, who claim to be “compassionate” by using their vote to extort money from the responsible and productive, to be given to the not-so-responsible and shiftless.

                      Where is their compassion for the people whom they are robbing? They only have compassion for one particular group; just as they only oppose slavery when it is imposed by private plantation owners upon blacks, but they are perfectly fine with it when it is imposed by their elected representatives” on everyone else.

                    • Well-said, my dear Bevin [Hetero…. ? ]

                      Dear Nunzio,

                      I’m old enough to be bona fide old school. First wave Baby Boomer.

                      Back when I was growing up, young people were taught that educated people addressed each other as

                      “Dear so and so”

                      They did so purely as a matter of form. It was what educated people with good manners did.

                      The term had nothing to whatsoever with spouses addressing each other as “dear”.

                      Apples and oranges.

                      Today, almost nobody still adheres to traditional notions of good manners.

                      Widespread ignorance combined with utterly irrelevant homophobia, has frightened most people away from using the proper form of address.

                      Idiocracy was a documentary.

                    • Dude!

                      I mean: Dear Bevin, 😉

                      Ah, I know…I know. I too lament the demise of manners and the respect of polite formality.

                      It told me a lot about the quality of your character just seeing youraddressing of everyone with such a greeting.

                      In the midst of a society which has devolved to the point where greetings are often no more than mere grunts or ebonics, it is all too easy to dispense with the niceties which few appreciate anymore.

                      But your example certainly serves to show how important it is to maintian one’s standards even the more so in the midst of a clod-dom.

                      Of course, at this point, my reminders of heteroism are merely for comedic effect. (Hence the emoticon after the reference in the former post).

                    • Morning, Nunzio!

                      Like the good Dr. Lector, I find discourtesy unspeakable. Unfortunately, it abounds. I often go to a local coffee shop to work and also to get out of the house. Often, there will be loud, obnoxious people who for whatever reason feel their conversation is so important everyone must hear it. The worst offenders are the ones who gabble loudly on dey sail fawns in a public place. I have to fight the urge to stuff them in the trunk, take them home and eat their livers with some fava beans and a nice chianti!

                    • Dear Nunzio,

                      I really don’t fault anyone else for not doing what I do. I do it in part out of sheer orneriness.

                      I know that all the “regulars” here are good people, and I would never presume to impose my views on them.

                      But the subject came up, and it seemed appropriate to respond and explain where I was coming from.

                      Let no one feel pressured by me to change anything he does.

                      If libertarianism is about anything, it’s about individual decision making.

                    • ‘Morning Eric & Bevin!

                      You know, it seems that we have a very polite and considerate bunch here. But then, why shouldn’t we? I mean, since Libertarians tend to be concerned with the most basic rights and freedoms of everyone, it naturally follows that would extend courtesy and consideration to others.

                      Oftentimes, you can predict a person’s political and philosophical views just based on their manners and regard for how their actions affect others.

                      Statists tend to be in the middle. They’re the “As long as I enjoy a level of freedom which I feel comfortable with, and the system works for me, screw the next guy!”. So, their conduct is often predicated more on how they want to be perceived by others, than by their concern for others.

                      The nastiest, rudest, shove-it-down-your-throat crowd tend to be the leftists. Whether they be edumacated academians or ghetto-dwelling members of the free-stuff army, they are the “Just giver me mine and to Hell with you!” [Theirs = yours] or the “I’m so superior I will dictate how you live, but of course it’s for your own good”- and such philosophies naturally manifest themselves in their interpersonal communications- be it in public; amongst their own families, or even on internet forums.

                      Fava beans, Eric? Are you sure you’re not Italian? My mother often refers to them; I don’t think I’ve ever actually seem them though. Cook ’em up with some broccoli, olive oil, garlic and red pepper flakes, and they’ll taste even better than if you ate them with sheeple corpses! 🙂

                      Speaking of manners and courtesy…. I’ll be going to town today to run errends and go shopping- which means enduring the 350 lb. monsters with their screaming brats. I swear, one day I’m going to go berserk, and you’ll hear about me on the news. For now, maybe I can just content myself to ripping a few good farts in their presence.

              • Hi Jeremy,

                I strongly disagree with this idea that land ownership is somehow morally dubious. If, of course, the basis of ownership is purchase (not under duress) from the prior owner.

                I own some land; 16 acres.I paid for it with money I earned, by working my ass off. If I do not own this land, who does? My back field isn’t being used for much other than to give me privacy, but if I wished to rent it out to someone who had some cows he wanted to graze, would I be in the wrong to expect to be paid rent? Is another person entitled to graze his cows on my land, just because it’s available and I am not using it for anything (other than to maintain my privacy) at the moment?

                I understand – and agree – that land title bestowed by government fatwa is another thing and morally doubtful. Especially when the government’s prior claim to ownership is extremely dubious.

                PS: I deeply resent taxes on land/real property. I regard them as perhaps the single greatest affront to liberty extant, since they mean you can never truly own anything, free and clear – and so can never be free and clear of the got-damned government.

                • Hi Eric,

                  I do not believe that all land ownership is illegitimate. However, all titles derived from government land grants are illegitimate. When an explorer “claims” land in the name of a State, and the rulers of the State dole out the land to favored nobles, those land grants are immoral. This case is unambiguous.

                  Early anarchists like Proudhon, believed that most land titles were derived in this manner. His much misunderstood phrase, “property is theft” was intended to be both linguistically jarring and factually descriptive. But, he also believed that people could maintain exclusive control over legitimately acquired possessions. That sure sounds like private property to me.

                  More later, Jeremy

                  • If an explorer claims land- whether in his own name or on behalf of someone else- by the very definition of the An-coms, if that land were not being homesteaded/used, and was just millions of acres of open land, it thus belonged to nobody.

                    Granted, the state should not be the one to sell it or give it away, as it no more belongs to them than anyone else, just because they claimed it….but it should be free for the taking to those who would homestead/defend it, and thus it becomes theirs, and can be sold or given in inheritance, etc.

                    The problem is, when others are evicted from the land- like Injuns…..

                    • Hi Nunzio,

                      I hope you understand that I am not arguing against the legitimacy of property rights (in land or otherwise). I am saying, as you have just shown, that the issue is complex, both in theory and practice. In theory, the home-steading principle seems to preclude the original acquisition of land for the purpose of leaving it in it’s natural state. So, if land is un-owned until put into use, it seems that the theory implies that land, when taken out of use, would revert to un-owned status. Please understand that I am not saying this is so, just that the seemingly objective, natural rights theory of legitimate land acquisition is insufficient to resolve all conflicts.

                      Which brings us to practice. To resolve these questions we invoke utilitarian arguments (how far back, who are the heirs, is it fair to the current owner, etc…), which should give us natural rights an-caps at least some pause.

                      Again, I am not arguing that property titles are illegitimate. But, just because many modern An-Socs seem hopelessly deluded and logically incoherent does not mean that we should dismiss the entire history of thought. After all, Rand was right about many things but she was also spectacularly wrong about others.

                      I’ve long believed that if you poke a utilitarian hard enough, he will eventually invoke a natural rights principle. This implies that utilitarianism needs a foundation in natural rights. It seems equally true that we advocates of natural rights also resort to utilitarian arguments when the theory seems insufficient. Utilitarianism, by itself, provides no coherent moral theory. It is necessary to invoke a goal to which utilitarian practices be directed. Without a moral principle the goal of the “greatest good for the greatest number” is no more legitimate than the “most benefits to the most gifted”.

                      I am not asserting answers here, I’m just thinking through complex ideas.

                      Kind Regards,

                    • Hi, Jeremy,

                      Oh, I absolutely do understand that the views you are expositing concerning property rights are not your views, but rather just an explanation of what some believe; and so naturally [pun pending? 🙂 ) I hope that you understand that I am not arguing with you, but just stating my own initial thoughts to the ideas presented.

                      It is a very interesting subject, and I’m glad that you brought it up.

                      I agree with you, that forcing the question can reveal the ultimate foundation of the basis of our ideas, and even force us to confront those ideas- which is always a welcomed pursuit, as it leads to a greater understanding and either a strengthening of some of our ideas, or a rejection of them.

                      Ironically, it was largely the idea of property rights which brought me to libertarianism/anarchy, and yet, what we have been discussing is an aspect of those rights- or rather, the very foundation of them- but an aspect I had not heretofore considered.


                  • Dear Nunzio, Jeremy,

                    You beat me to it!


                    ‘Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

                    The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others’.

                    Without private property rights, an individual human being is like a character in a prison movie who has been tossed bodily into a prison yard with countless other inmates, who must then survive by joining one or another prison gang.

                • Hi Eric,

                  Free market types, libertarians and an-caps, for the most part, accept Lockean home-steading as the basis for legitimate land ownership. Central to this concept is that “virgin” land is un-owned. Socialist anarchists believe that “virgin” land is communally owned and thus private title can never be legitimate. The an-soc understanding is logically incoherent and socially destructive. It is clear that even animals assert claims to property. All humans believe, at some level, in property rights. Denying this, as an-coms do, will lead inevitably to conflict and the emergence of a de-facto propertied class which will become the de-facto ruling class. So, Bevin, Nunzio ad others are correct to believe that an-com theory is, at some level, logically absurd and self-destructive.

                  However, recognizing this does not mean that we can blithely dismiss Proudhon’s critique of property. Mainstream libertarians accept many property claims that are clearly unjust. For instance, Milton Friedman once argued that even if a previous property claim could be shown to be valid, the social utility created by the current owner should trump the previous, legitimate claim.

                  I stated that claims to un-used land are problematic, not always illegitimate. In your case, it seems clear that you are using your land, that you acquired it legitimately and that no one else can make a more valid claim to it. However, what about a private explorer who simply draws an arbitrary boundary around an enormous swath of land and calls it his? How is this legitimate? Is it obvious that Ted Turner’s enormous land holdings are all legitimate? How much labor does one have to mix with the land to generate a legitimate home-stead claim? Does being the first to put up a fence count? Unfortunately, there are no clear answers to many of these questions, and the NAP, alone, cannot answer them.


                • Hi Eric,

                  Here’s another tough one. Can one legitimately acquire large amounts of un-used land specifically to leave in it’s natural state? Most people would not only say yes, but believe such acquisition to be “good”. I can certainly see how this could be good as well. What I cannot see is how such a claim is valid on home-steading grounds.


                  • Hi Jeremy,

                    I think so, sure – again, provided the land is acquired legitimately; that is, bought from its prior owner at a mutually agreed-upon price. If I had the means, I would buy the 200 acres behind me expressly to keep it wooded and untouched. And that would be my right, as the owner – regardless of the fact that someone else might believe a “better use” could be found for the land.

                    The “homestead” thing seems to me to be relevant only as regards land that has no rightful owner (i.e., land that is unclaimed wilderness – of which today virtually none exists in habitable areas) or land that is “owned” by the government – which is of doubtful legitimacy.

                    For example, the great swaths of acreage in Nevada “owned” by Uncle. I have no moral argument with a person who homesteads some of that acreage and by dint of that claims ownership.

                    • Under the “only legit if it’s homesteaded/used” theory, I wonder if they would have a problem with someone who has 600 head of cattle and therefore is homesteading/using 1000 acres?

                      Or what if you didn’t have 6– head of cattle but of course, needed the land first, before you could acquire the cattle, to thus use the land?

                      And who would determine if your claim to that land were legit?

                      It seems, any time they make up artificial rules, it always necessitates the “need” for a government to enforce those rules……

                      That is why there can legitimately be no such thing as anarcho-communists.

                    • Hi Eric,

                      I agree with you and would do the same if I could. However, think of your proviso. The same must be true of the owner before him, etc… According to the home-steading principle, title to land can be acquired in only two ways: mixing labor with un-owned land (transforming it from it’s natural state) and obtaining title through transfer from a previous legitimate owner.

                      So, according to the home-steading principle, no one could ever have gained legitimate title to an area of land for the purpose of leaving it alone.

                      You guys know me well enough to realize that I am a staunch advocate of private property rights. I believe that they are derived from the obvious fact of self-ownership and that they are necessary for human existence.

                      I am not arguing that land titles are illegitimate; just that the issue is a lot more complex than “we” sometimes claim. Most of us here accept the NAP and believe it is derived from natural rights, I do as well. However, this can lead to the belief that all disputes can be resolved on these grounds, they cannot. Utility, fairness and culture will always play a role. For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. But, is this fair? Should this be what happens?


                      An-coms do not believe that nobody owns the land they believe that everybody owns the land, which eliminates the possibility of legitimate private land title. This theory is absurd. No one person can use all of the land, and everyone cannot use a given section of land. If everybody owns something, nobody owns it. This belief precludes even the possibility of non-conflicting resource allocation. It is inherently absurd and clearly incompatible with human nature.

                      However, there is a tendency among free market libertarians to accept any existing property title as legitimate. Per Proudhon, it is not at all clear that the current owners of a landed estate, acquired through a grant from an illegitimate authority, and whose wealth was built largely on the labor of peasants, has a more legitimate claim to that land than those who worked it. I don’t know the correct answer. But, Proudhon believed that property acquired through collusion with the State amounts to theft. Seems pretty similar to what “we” believe.

                      Kind Regards,

                    • Dear Jeremy,

                      You wrote:

                      “For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. But, is this fair? Should this be what happens?”

                      Such a specific instance would indeed make it difficult to ensure justice.

                      However it’s important to note that the fault does not lie with libertarian rights theory. It lies with the governmental authorities that perpetrated the injustice long ago.

                      After all, had libertarian concepts of property rights been honored back when Custer and Sherman were committing genocide and robbing Indian lands, the current problem of land ownership would never have arisen to begin with.

                      I admit that libertarians are saddled with a theoretical albatross as a consequence. But the problem was clearly a creation of statism and statists.

                      Had all European Americans dealt with American Indians the way that William Penn did, by buying the land from them fair and square, the current injustices would never have arisen.

                    • >>“For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. <<

                      That would open a whole other can of worms. How far back would we be obliged to go?

                      I mean, suppose the original owner had farmed/homesteaded the land, but it turned out that he had killed off some Injuns to acquire it? And suppose the Injuns he had killed had in-turn acquired the land by having attacked another tribe?

                      And then even if a legitimate succession of ownership could be established, even in the recent past, that one owner may now have 80 direct descendants.

                      And what of the person who had purchased that land in good faith, and has a house or factory etc. on it?

                      We can't right the wrongs of the past, especially if we were not complicit in having committed those wrongs.

                      We CAN avoid being complicit in the present though- it is for this reason I will not patronize police auctions or tax sales. If the state had no right to steal someone's property, then I am not going to be a partner in crime by purchasing stolen goods from the state, any more so than I would purchase them from a junkie on the street.

                    • Just wanna point out one thing here. White people claimed the NA continent was unclaimed wilderness. However, migrating tribes of people did use those so called unclaimed areas quite heavily. Didn’t stop white people from stealing it. Right? Homestead lies in the ability of the thugs in power to kill the people in possession of the area at the behest of the thieves. Hence the Indian Wars.

                    • Hi NoneYa,

                      Yup, absolutely.

                      But it’s analogous to slavery, another vile thing done to people . . . who lived and died a long time ago. I would agree with anyone who suggested that a person who had been a slave is entitled to be compensated at the expense of the person who enslaved him. But is it right for the great, great grandson of a slave – who was never a slave himself – to demand compensation from the great, great grandson of someone who owned a slave? Or someone who just happens to be white?

                      I don’t see how. It’s true the great, great grandson of the slave may have benefitted somehow from the fact that his great, great grandfather had slaves. But it is hard to prove exactly how and – more relevant – there is no malign intent or action on the part of the great, great grandson. He just happened to be the great, great grandson of someone who did a vile thing. And I don’t believe in what the Germans style sippenhaft. Certainly not inter-generational sippenhaft.

                      Same with regard to the expropriation of land owned by the natives. The people who were abused have been dead for centuries, as also the people who abused them. It is nigh impossible to determine who, exactly, owned what in, say, 1750. My land was probably owned by a tribe at one point. But which tribe? Which specific tribesmen? Are their descendants entitled to recoup the land from me? I didn’t steal it from them. Neither did the people who owned it before me – from whom I bought it. Nor the people they bought it from, and so on – going back several generations at least.

                      I think there has to be a point after which prior claims no longer have force – just as there is a statute of limitations for the prosecution of some crimes. Otherwise, we could – and would have to – go back endlessly, to antiquity, to rectify the claims made by the descendants of people’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents… perhaps all the way to the caveman days!

                    • Very well said, Eric!

                      And although the long-dead victims in the past can never be compensated, their descendants have been compensated in many respects to a greater or lesser degree by having had access to a quality of life and the enjoyment of rights which they would never have had in their native cultures.

                      i.e. the slave’s great great grandson living in an air-conditioned apartment and seeing his 10 kids supported by the efforts of others (essentially a reverse slavery); or the having a nice suburban home and driving a Mercedes; or being an NBA playa 🙂 and making millions, is probably preferable to living in a mud hut in Africa as some of his relatives are still doing.

                      Of course, that doesn’t excuse what was done in the past, but it does illustrate that their descendants have reaped benefits and opportunities from their ancestor’s condition, and still are, many generations later.

                      Those of us whose ancestors were not enslaved, or whose land was not usurped, really have nothing more, and in-fact are just as enslaved today by the government which did those things- so if nothing else, the term “equality” comes to mind.

                  • Dear Jeremy,

                    “Can one legitimately acquire large amounts of un-used land specifically to leave in it’s natural state?”

                    If I’m not mistaken, that is what the Nature Conservancy does. It uses land purchases to protect the environment.

                    As you noted, it’s not exactly “homesteading”, but nevertheless strikes me as morally defensible.

                    This is why I said the issue is a big one!

                    • Dear Bevin,

                      Trust me, I’m not arguing in favor of anarcho-socialism/communism. I’m merely responding to the observations about the debate on property rights that you and Nunzio made. Now, if the debate is merely about whether property rights can or should exist, I completely agree with you. Those who claim that all property rights are invalid are deluded, dishonest or both. After all, if I steal the ’68’ VW van used by Sunshine at the anarcho-hippie commune, I know that Sunshine will believe that I have violated her rights.

                      But, titles to property, especially in land, are complex in the world we inhabit. Most an-caps accept the Lockean home-steading principle as the basis for legitimately owned land. However, this basis is insufficient to solve all disputes. A coherent and generally accepted view of property rights is essential to any possible peaceful community. An-coms have no coherent theory of property rights. As Eric correctly pointed out, they believe that, absent the State, humans would simply “share” the wealth. This is an absurd and dangerous idea.


                    • Dear Jeremy,

                      I hear you. Not to worry. I believe I know where you stand.

                      I wasn’t arguing with you. I was merely shoring up the case for property rights, for the record.

                • Nunzio, I wouldn’t hardly call this group a very polite or considerate group when it comes to those who don’t belong to your Mutual Admiration Society. In fact, you asked me yourself why did I hang around when I was being ostracized?????

                  • Gail,

                    You are put off by the fact that we will not accept your authoritarian collectivism as legitimate and that we call you out for being an advocate of authoritarian collectivism. You expect us to do as you do and evade, equivocate and pretend that you are not an advocate of authoritarian collectivism and – more – that it ought not to be identified as the basis of everything you advocate.

                    I’m not going to oblige.

                    The problem, Gail, is that the truth hurts.

                    Authoritarian collectivism is despicable. It is system that enslaves and degrades all who are caught up in it. I want nothing to do with controlling the lives of other people and accept that I no more have the right to do so than they have to control my life. I want not a cent from anyone else that isn’t given me freely, as a result of mutually agreeable free exchange. I would never initiate violence against any person, though I will defend myself and my property against those who do initiate violence.

                    Can you give me a specific moral reason for denying the absolute rightness of any of the above?

                    Can you justify its opposite, authoritarian collectivism?

                    No, of course not.

                    The fact remains, Gail, that you are fundamentally the same as the “liberals” you dislike so much – because you both embrace (wait for it) authoritarian collectivism. Which you style “old glory” and “the Constitution” and other such evasive non sequiturs.

                    My pointing this out is disagreeable to you; you seem to think it smacks of bad manners. But I am not concerned with your feelings. I am concerned with facts.

                    And the fact is, you are an authoritarian collectivist – as much as you’d like to evade and equivocate.

                    I may be insolently inflexible about my moral code, but it is a coherent moral code. You may accuse me of being impractical, a dreamer – that a society built on a non-coercive basis is impossible. But you cannot accuse me of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. The wonderful thing about Libertarian morality is that it is clear, comprehensible and not self-contradictory. Your authoritarian collectivism, on the other hand, is subjective and arbitrary. The Rightness or Wrongness of a thing in your system is based on such things as your feelings and opinions; on whether it comports with your “values.” Or whether it has been sanctioned by a majority, or via the vote.

                    I have tried – Lord, how I have tried! – to get you to see that your system embraces the very things you purport to loathe and, at the same time, utterly undermines any principle basis for defending the things you purport to love.

                    Whatever you may say about me, my moral system is crystal clear and applies to any particular thing with absolute precision.

                    It ought to bother you that you cannot say the same about yours… .

                    • That’s the problem, Eric – you have no facts, you have illusions. I too would like to live in your world, but it wouldn’t, couldn’t, nor won’t happen. There will always be someone or group that will move in to do the very thing that we all hate. I just feel what we have is better than what we might get. Clover

                      My set of “facts” tell me that it is better (not best, nor ideal, just better), to control what we have. Because if we could get rid of the government, we will create a vacuum and nature hates a vacuum. Clover
                      I am the one who stands up against them, you supported me in your columns, but they are usually safe articles. How many on this site have tried to controlled authoritarian collectivism. Playing ‘Patty-cake with each other doesn’t count.
                      Gail, resident Clover

                    • So where you are at Gail is that we need a government because someone might impose a government.

                      But that doesn’t explain the belief system around the state you have espoused. The flag waving and the rest.

                      If we have to live with a state then it should be stripped of religious and cult status. It should be seen as what it is, the monopoly on legal violence. That it is force. And that when someone uses the government to achieve X he using force. That government is a weapon.

                      If we really need this thing, then lets make sure everyone knows what it really is.

                  • Dear Gail,

                    If it’s affirmation of your cherished beliefs that you want, why in god’s name would you come looking for it here?

                    Your authoritarian conservative views, like other peoples’ authoritarian liberal views, are far more conventional, hence far more “mainstream” than the emphatically non-mainstream views held and expressed by people here.

                    The people who frequent this site are hardcore anarchist libertarians, who reject outright any political system based on the initiation of state violence against the sovereign individual.

                    There is simply no way that anyone here is ever going to affirm either your authoritarian conservative system of government, or the SJWs’ authoritarian liberal system of government.

                    You must have known that before commenting here. A quick glance at the comments section should have made that crystal clear.

                    Were you really surprised that no one here was willing to affirm your authoritarian conservative views? You’ll forgive me if I find that hard to believe.

                    • Dear Mr. Bevin; what surprises me is that no one, save Eric and myself, use our real names.
                      I came here because Eric is my friend, and he invited me. Now are you surprised?

                      Being polite to someone with opposite views (?) doesn’t mean that you are expected to agree or affirm those, it means that you ego is mature enough to accept those that are different than your own.

                      If you are reading my posts, you will remember I said, “if we agree on everything, one of us isn’t needed.” My ego is big enough to allow you to advocate your beliefs and your disagreement towards mine.
                      I’d like to ask you and your cohorts, other than bitching, what have you done to change the situation to be more to your liking?
                      Love the Clover!

                    • Dear Gail,

                      I don’t know if you noticed, but you just confirmed that you already knew what views people here held before arrival.

                      So why the shock?

                      Re: “… other than bitching, what have you done to change the situation to be more to your liking?”

                      How do you know what I have or haven’t done???

                      What makes you so sure I haven’t done a lot to change the situation more to my liking???

                      I have been active in gun rights organizations such as Gun Owners of America for decades.

                      I have been active in anti-tax organizations for the same amount of time.

                      I was active in organizations dedicated to the defeat of zoning regulation in Texas.

                      But actually my proudest contributions have been something you dismiss as “bitching”.

                      You really shouldn’t wear your anti-intellectualism on your sleeve so prominently, as if it were a badge of honor.

                      Ideas have consequences. Change the ideas in circulation, change what is considered PC, change what is considered the Conventional Wisdom, and you will “change the situation to be more to your liking”.

                      But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations…

                      This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
                      — John Adams, in a letter to H. Niles

                      Did you really not know that?

                    • Gail, this “What have you done to change the system” routine is getting old.

                      If we truly did anything to change the system, you would be the first in line to label us as criminals, because merely changing the system is no different than “changing” the communist or Nazi systrem.

                      The system needs to be eliminated, as the system is about tyranny/authoritarianism.

                      Merely working within the system/using the system to change the system is pointless, as it does not eliminate the tyranny/authoritarianism any more so than working within Stalin’s system eliminates communism.

                      You spend a lot of time and effort to change one little aspect of one law. That did not change the system, it just modified one little law. We still have arbitrary speed limits, and millions of people are still abused for merely exceeding some number on a sign- and in-fact, that is more true now than ever.

                      100 million people could each take on one cause for the next 1000 years, and it still would not effectively eliminate the injustice, abuse and illegitimacy of the system- it would just change the details.

                      And even if we could magically eliminate the system today, it would just be instantly replicated, because ultimately that system is a product of the hearts and minds of people- you know, the kind who possess human nature, which you think that that system is going to restrain/change (And hence, the real problem, these authoritarian systems are in reality religions…)- and the only way to truly hamstring/eliminate any such system, is through a change in the hearts and minds of people- and the only way to effect that is through the bringing to light of what the true nature of our problems are, and what the real solutions are- just as is done in Christian evangelism- the message may be a little different (although they do overlap in many regards) but the method is similar.

                      What did our Lord and Savior and the Apostles and the martyrs do to effect the chnages that we have all benefitted from? Did they petition Rome or organize armies or seek to reform the English monarchy? No….they made converts, who did what was right in their own lives, and thus stopped serving the forces of evil; and who in turn made converts of others who did the same. THAT is what we are doing.

                      YOU, on the other hand, have told us that you defend the system, be it right or wrong- even at the cost of your life or your childrens lives. WE refuse to serve the purposes of evil. If people would only do that, that alone would be sufficient to destroy the forces of injustice and tyranny- as tyrants can not exist, unless others are willing to take up arms in their service, be they “right or wrong” (And they’re always wrong! -People don’t need to be forced and commanded and conscripted to do what is right…)

                    • Gail, your efforts to change parts of this situation we live is admirable.

                      My question then is for a “love it or leave it” and “my country, right or wrong” sort isn’t this a waste of time or at the very least, a contradiction of love it or leave it and my country, right or wrong?

                  • Gail, are you purposely taking my words out of context???

                    My question to you about not understanding why you’d want to communicate with those who ostracized you, was in response to your mentioning that you primarily use Facebook as means of staying in-touch with your RELATIVES who treat you as an outcast/have ostracized you.

                    As for the bunch here, I think all have been pretty nice to you. I mean, you are the one who came here to a libertarian website, advocating values and beliefs which we are not in agreement with- so naturally, you can expect some heated debate- just as if you were a member of a Christian forum, and someone came in to your group defending their belief in evolution or Satanism.

                    While some here may be more cordial [Bevin, Jeremy, etc.] than I [Admittedly, I’m a thick-skinned hardened ex-NYer] I think we have all shown you respect by taking the time to actually explain our positions in detail, andwhy we may disagree with yours- as opposed to just dismissing you, or ignoring you, or just fluffing you off.

                    I think just our level of involvement with you says a lot. And it’s not that we’re being self-sacrificing our anything, but I think I speak for at least a few others when I say that even though we may disagree, we have none-tthe-less enjoyed your participation.

                    And from what you say, although your relatives are probably closer to your views than we are, notice that we don’t ostracize you. Even though we may never agree, we at least have the decency to continue a dialog.

          • bevin, you don’t understand why and I don’t understand why either. It’s like mixing apples and oranges and debating cherry pie, a total non sequitur. There are people these days who can verily argue with no thought of using fact or logic.

            Much like Gail saying she’s Mormon and evidently not knowing the Mormons were targeted by the US federal govt. and they responded with their own targeting of the troops used. I forget the exact date but the fighting went on for well over a year. The Mormons used guerilla techniques and were pretty effective before peace was finally reached.

            That’s(Mormons)a pretty tight-knit group to do a turnabout and embrace their enemy. Like everything else Mormon, you’d think it would never be a subject forgotten nor attitudes changed to a great degree. Maybe I just missed something there.

            • Dear 8,

              “you’d think it would never be a subject forgotten nor attitudes changed to a great degree. Maybe I just missed something there.”

              You would think so. Just as you would think that people would realize that there is no difference between a group of people committing extortion and an individual committing extortion.

              Just because the group calls itself “The Government”, labels its extortion “taxation”, doesn’t make it any different than an individual doing the same thing while admitting that it is a criminal act.

              You would think that anyone who is not insane would have no trouble connecting the dots. Yet lo and behold, most people can’t.

              • bevin, maybe my thinking Mormons were exempt from “govt. schooling” is wrong. That would explain no knowledge of recent history.

                We have this radical bunch of academia for the most part, backing the “we don’t know shit” group that wants to rewrite history and remove statues and other symbols of the Confederacy and another(La Razza)who wants to do away with heroes of the Tx. revolution. Against state law it’s already been done to schools in San Antonio. Mexicans now think they own San Antonio yet they own very little of the infrastructure except restaurants.

                UT couldn’t bend over fast enough last year to remove statues to a place where students wouldn’t have their little tiny feelings “hurt”. Gee, what if I enrolled in a course there and had to walk by the “great” liar? Being white, I could take my feelings and shove them.

                Conquer and divide, and it’s worked great. Academia has no excuse for what it’s doing except becoming a professor has had intellect and knowledge displaced by “feelings”.

                • Dear 8,

                  UT couldn’t bend over fast enough last year to remove statues to a place where students wouldn’t have their little tiny feelings “hurt”.

                  For me, the takeaway from all this SJW snowflake insanity merely confirms Etienne de La Boetie’s key insight regarding political power.

                  … the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords?

                  It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude,” for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn.

                  In other words, we can only be enslaved, if we actually believe we have a moral obligation to be slaves.

                  If we cease believing that we have a moral obligation to be slaves, slavery simply vanishes in a puff of smoke.

                  NB: I’m referring to society-wide slavery, not the enslavement of a minority by a majority of course.

            • 8, ya gotta realize that these days, history is being rewritten, and organized groups are being subverted. Protestants are now returning to things Catholic, forgetting the 1000 years of persecution, torture and killing of their ancestors by that “church”; the sons of Japanese internment camp victims now happily spend their lives serving our military; and Moro…errr…Mormons happily serve Uncle in exchange for 501c3 status….(They don’t seem to even care about polygamy anymore).

              Sooner or later, it seems that every organized group goes mainstream. Between government infiltrators…Jesuit infiltrators, and the fact that there is lots of money to be made by making things easy and palatable for the masses, so as to attract more members… go from polygamy, muskets and beards….to Donny and Marie Osmond in white dress shirts…..

              • Donnie and Marie, now that takes me back. I didn’t watch tv back then anyway and that type of thing was just one reason why. I would have watched them if I could have slipped them some acid 15 minutes before showtime. Now that might have been amusing. Marie and a handful of Ludes could have been interesting too…….sure you can get into that position babe……see……It’s a bad man’s world, it’s a bad man’s world, it’s a bad man’s world……

            • No, we haven’t forgotten. I sent out a post last week about this very topic. It was a law that you could shot a Mormon on sight, that was only rescinded a few years ago.

              Also, it may come as a surprise to you that the very word, “Mormon” is derogatory. The name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to LDS. However, we are a very accepting group of people, believing we are all the children of our Heavenly Father, so we harbor no ill will. Most people accept us now, save a few Evangelical church who still insist on calling us a Cult.

              • All religions are cults, Gail!

                It’s just that some are more socially accepted cults than others.

                Very much as a head thief of a gang of thieves becomes a king and “his majesty” over a period of time…

                • It’s funny- when you read pretty much any definition of “cult”, they always include the word “small”, because ALL of the major formally organized groups, from the Catholics on down, also fit all the other requirements of being a cult- Only their size saves them from official cult-hood 🙂 -so again, we see the oft-repeated “It’s legit as long as a lot of people agree to it” mentality…

                  Such thinking seems to permeate all levels of our society. It’s as if we have made zero progress since the Dark Ages.

                  “We’re not a cult because there are millions of us! But you’re a cult, because there are only a handful of you, even though you follow the exact same hierarchal model as we do!” 😀

                  • I just wish people had a sense of humor – or at least, perspective!

                    As a wag observed, every religious person is already at least a semi-atheist, since he does not believe in the other religions’ gods! 🙂

                    • If only everyone didn’t take everything so seriously- or at least didn’t care so much about what others thought of them and theirs, 90% of the problems we have today would not exist.

                      That’s one of the reasons I like to be “politically-incorrect”- it’ll show ya straight away who is a whiney little snowflake who takes every little thing oh so seriously, vs. who is just a regular person.

                    • No shitski Nunzio, everybody wearing their feelings on their cuffs. Last year a guy my age looked at me and said “Cool shades man…..retro” Only cause I bought em in 88 when everybody said they were cutting edge Marchon titanium alloy guaranteed to not break or warp…..ever.

                      What goes around comes around I guess. I’m a real slave to fashion.

                    • Now THAT (Idiots wearing ripped jeans) is the epitome of the slave class!

                      When I see people who have stooped so low, and who nlatantly advertise the fact, I think “There is a sub-human who is incapable of thought; the type of person who is responsible for the world being the way it is. There is someone for whom I would not even flinch if they were scooped up and cast into a FEMA camp”.

                      What’s even worse, is when you see parents dressing their little kids up in such uniforms of distaste and offensiveness.

                      The only upside to such a thing, is that such people openly advertise their stupidity and slavishness, so that one need not waste any time on them, and can avoid them like lepers.

                      I remember near the end of my dating career in my early 30’s, I had a date with this 19 year old chick; I go to her house to pick her up, and guess what she’s wearing? Nearly new jeans with a big hole in each knee…..

                      That was the end of that!

                    • Nunzio, I figured holey jeans were easier to remove or at least those who wore them were easier to persuade.

                      I’d like to walk that holey jean crowd through the pasture in west Tx. People don’t realize how many grassburrs are thrown up by their shoes till they have a hole in their pants. I’ve had to stop and remove them from my legs when I had on shorts, one reason I rarely worked in shorts. Squat down and they have your calves and thighs stuck together.

                    • eric, growing up in west Tx. the hypocrisy of Church of Christers looking down their nose at Babdis having a piano in church was fairly hilarious when those Babdis shook their kids head to keep them from seeing people doing one of the worst things ever……dancing.

                      To this day, in the next county over(Jones), the county seat has a law that prohibits dancin. No dancin in Anson is a common term here bouts. I always wondered what Anson Jones would make of it. His home was on Washington on the Brazos and where he died. He hated Sam Houston that tells me he was a deluded politician along with his non-support by Texans who saw him as a traitor trying to broker a deal with France and Britain to leave Tx. as part of Mexico. Who knows why a bunch of hardcore Babdis took over a west Tx. county but they did.

                    • Nunzio, I have to give credit to Ed on this one and he said. Why don’t Babdix fuck standing up? Cause they’re afraid God might think they were dancin.

                    • ROTFL, 8Man!!!!! 😀

                      Reminds me of that one:

                      What the difference between Jews, Protestants and Baptists?

                      Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Son Of God.
                      Protestants don’t recognize the pope as the head of the church.
                      And Baptists don’t recognize each other in the adult video store.

                  • Correct, Nunzio. The reason we will remain at zero is because “Nature hates a vacuum.” Idiom Definitions for ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’ This idiom is used to express the idea that empty or unfilled spaces are unnatural as they go against the laws of nature and physics.

                    You see, it isn’t so much that I disagree with some, maybe even a good portion, of what the rest of you believe in. It is just I don’t believe the utopia you wish to achieve will ever happen – if it did, it would only be a short while, until it went back to the way it was, and maybe worse (read ‘Lord of the Flies.” or Watch ‘Naked and Afraid,’ ‘Survivor.’). There will always be a controlling group, and all the people will say ‘Amen!’ I see this in my church, groups that I belong to, the health club, even on this site. This is why I say Control the government we have, keep it as small as possible.

                    • Hi Gail,

                      Just to clarify: I don’t believe that a Libertarian world would somehow bring about a utopia- I just think that it is the only political ideology which is fair and moral, and which leaves men free to live according to their consciences, so that those of us whose actions would tend to create a blessed environment are not artificially hindered.

                      But I do agree with you: It’s never going to happen. In-fact, throughout the course of human history, we see nothing but a steady progression of just the opposite. With each passing year, the size and scope of government grows more and more, so that now there is virtually not a place on earth where one can be free.

                      But look what the early settlers/Founders of this country did, against all odds, by having identified, believing in, and practicing many of these very principles. They made it possible for a brief period, after men in Europe had been dominated and reduced to serfs and peasants who were persecuted for living their consciences and worshiping their God, to be largely free for a time. And thus being free, we had a large segment of the population who practiced many Christian ideals under that freedom- the material benefits of which we are still reaping to this day, long after those ideals have stopped being practiced and/or were out-lawed.

                      Freedom can be used by the good and the evil alike- it is not a guarantee that only good will result or that there will be no evil- but it does guarantee that the good will be able to do good and not be forced to tolerate evil in anything over which they have control. And we see just the opposite where there is little or no freedom. It seems, the more tyrannical a place is (whether it be a country, or a US state like CA, NY or MA) the more evil seems to proliferate- both that which is practiced by the state, and that which is done by the citizens- while the ability to do good is restrained.

                • Agreed, Eric. LOL However, the meaning of a word becomes a collective agreement. For example, I refuse to allow the beautiful word, “gay” become corrupted, but my feelings hasn’t stopped society from collectively changing the meaning of it. There are other words, but this one is my main irritate.

  4. Oh to be a proud Mormon. Proud of the time the US military massacred them in Nauvoo. Killed more in Missouri. Chased them to Utah and gave them a choice to be like all the other christians or die.

    Reformed mormons into Latter Day Saints. Good times. Less than 50000 real Mormons left now. Submit or die.

    Scotland. Bravehearts. Beaten down and killed. Now their brits with funny accents. Totally obliterated tribe of “pussies”.

    Where was I going with this?

    • Haha…. Reminds me of this Japanese guy I knew who was retired from our Navy!!!! I guess he hated his own people…. He was a real flag-waver…”support the veterans!”…”support the military”….”Join the military”…[puke]

      I normally just go about my business and don’t even bother engaging people like that, as it is always pointless- but one day I couldn’t take it anymore, and gave him what for. I said “It makes ME sick when I think of what we did to your people; internment camps, and gruesome deaths of how many civilians for no reason in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. And I am ashamed to even be a citizen of a country that would do such things; how could YOU, being a direct descendant of the victims of those actions now work for the enemy?”

      I forget his reply, but it was stupid, of course.

  5. Nunzio, Eric, Bevin, etc…

    Gail wrote: “Actually, I am both unwilling and I cannot understand your point.
    I can agree that the powers have to be kept in check, but I truly and fully believe that without a central government chaos would ensue”.

    She has stated explicitly that she is unwilling to consider challenges to her worldview. She has never once directly responded to comments about the logical contradictions in her beliefs. She will never accept that “anarchy” would not result in chaos. In other words, she is a “normal” person. We’re the freaks. Of course, that doesn’t make us wrong.

    My life has been improved dramatically due, in large part, to the efforts of Gail. She is neither ready nor willing to seriously consider our ideas. So what? I’m still extremely grateful for the anti-clover crusade she spearheaded. So, thank you, Gail. You achieved something concrete in this world, which is more than can be said for our anarchist babbling, or your authoritarian babbling.

    Kind Regards,

    • Dear Jeremy,

      You wrote: “You achieved something concrete in this world, which is more than can be said for our anarchist babbling, or your authoritarian babbling.”

      I’m surprised that you would make such a statement, unless of course you were being facetious.


      Because what people dismiss as “babbling” preceding a paradigm shift, is the dissemination of core concepts that lead to the transformation of mass consciousness.

      “Ideas”, as the saying goes “have consequences”.

      Usually however, the consequences are long delayed. For the longest time it will appear as if anyone attempting to disseminate these core concepts is merely shouting in the wind.

      • Dear Bevin,
        I remain committed to the dissemination of ideas as the best hope for the humanity. I also enjoy discussion, which is valuable in it’s own right. As to my comment, I was not being facetious. Gail has achieved something concrete and I think we should recognize that. Of course, that is not to say that propagating ideas is not important or that doing so does not lead to concrete and positive achievements. Ultimately, ideas rule the world.

        By “babbling”, I meant specifically the dialogue between “us” and Gail. She will not accept what we have to say and we have merely hardened her heart against us. It is because I consider the ideas so important that I sometimes despair at the difficulty in getting them across.

        Does that make sense?

        With enormous respect,

        • Dear Jeremy,

          I’m glad you clarified what you meant by “babbling”.

          Yes it does make sense.

          I do lament the fact that “we have merely hardened her heart against us”. It’s a crying shame.

          That of course is why when I debate a person, I prefer to make my point in a factual and logical manner at first, and only resort to incendiary rhetoric if the other party resorts to ad hominem attacks.

          Even then, I often regret letting emotions get the better of me.

          With equal and reciprocal respect,

        • Jeremy writes: By “babbling”, I meant specifically the dialogue between “us” and Gail. She will not accept what we have to say and we have merely hardened her heart against us. It is because I consider the ideas so important that I sometimes despair at the difficulty in getting them across.Clover

          No, I’ve not hardened my heart. In the perfect world, your plan would be great. I’m saying it won’t work, it isn’t practical, and we would all die due to our own stupidity. Very few people would be educated, because we would have to educate ourselves and our off springs. I lean towards the natural; homeschooling, home childbirth, raw milk, etc. but I’ve witnessed the downside to natural living too, and the downside is greater than the upside.

          I maintain that the best is controlled government. It is up to us to control the beast. Run for office, attend town meeting, take issues up with your representative. You say that you believe in the US Constitution, but that is controlled government.

          • Speak for yourself, Gail.

            I’m not stupid and am perfectly capable of taking care of myself – without imposing on you or others. So – how about we herd the self-identified “stupid” into a great big pen and let them elect Leaders to Lead them? But leave the rest of us – who are not stupid – alone?

            • Eric, It’s been done. The one whom the stupid people elect is called “the president”. Only he doesn’t leave us alone.

            • Eric, how self-contained are you, really? All of our lives are regulated by the government. You electricity, water, land, food you buy.
              In spite of the fact that I live in an apartment in a city, I’m probably as isolated as you are. I do not know any of my neighbors, I have very few friends, I never go into crowds. I am on the Internet for hours everyday. I pay exorbitant fees for Cox “Bundle,” what a joke.

              But, I imagine – I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong – I pay for govt. controlled power, I prefer this over darkness. I drive on govt. controlled road – I’m old enough to remember driving on roads before Interstate and freeways, as I’m sure each of you do. Who on this thread living ‘Naked and Afraid,’ building your own hut, making clothes out of weeds, finding food in the wild?
              Your Adorable Clover

              • Gail,

                You write that “all of our lives are regulated by the government.” Yes, exactly. But the question is – is this good? Is it right?

                I personally do not want the government regulating anything that has to do with my life. If you want someone to regulate yours, then please hire a nanny for that purpose – but leave me out of it, if you would.

                Of what relevance to this discussion is it whether you or I know our neighbors?

                Of what relevance to this discussion is it that you choose to pay “exorbitant fees” to Cox for cable?

                You prefer government controlled power and roads. What if others do not prefer them? You believe your preferences entitle you to impose them on others. This is exactly why I call you an authoritarian collectivist!

                Then you trot out the old saw that without authoritarian collectivism, “there would be no roads!” And that we’d be living “naked and afraid” in huts…

                Jesus Christ… my teeth are aching…

              • Personally, Gail, the maintenance of personal freedom in my life has been paramount. Having lived the first half of my life in NYC area, which these days, is as bad, if not worse than CA & MA, the quest to be as free as possible became my #1 priority.

                Yes, thanks to authoritarian collectivists, I HAVE to use gov’t regulated roads which were paid for with my money and even encroach on my property- but since I work at home and only drive on those roads c. once a week on average; and in this very rural county, in the 16 years I’ve lived here, I’ve never encountered a pig-mobike, I still have much more freedom than I did on the roads in NY, where you can’t go anywhere without encountering multiple mobile pork-pens, complete with license plate scanners and all; and red light cameras and speed cameras, etc.

                And in NY on “one’s own” property, you need a permit to pick a dandelion; have to pay a fee; have to have the stem inspected; and that is if it is even legal in your fiefdom. Where I live now, there is no zoning or code enforcement or anything. I can do literally anything i want on my property- like building a 25′ x 22′ garage on a whim…and all I had to do was get the materials and get my tools out, and voila! I can grow what I want (Well, not so much if I wanted pot or something like that….) and have livestock, and put fences where I want, whenever I want; and I put up an above-ground pool for nothing more than the cost of the pool…meanwhile my friend back in NY paid as much as my whole pool cost, just for the permit to put his up!

                Those of us who care about freedom, tend to find ways to be free. It’s a damn shame that everyone in the US of A can not be free- but then people tend to get the government they deserve.

                Our electricity is provided by a co-op. I suspect they may be subject to some federal regulation, as they get a lot of their power from the Tennessee Valley Authority- but really, they make no encroachments on my freedom, and if they ever do, I’ll kick ’em to the curb. Electricity is just a convenience. It might be nice to live without it. People have for thousands of years till just lately. I’m not thrilled with the fact that your wonderful government destroyed entire towns and disenfranchised many innocent people to create that TVA from whence our power comes….

                But in chort, as for phones and such being regulated and controlled by Uncle- I had nothing to do with such things, and in fact I vehemently oppose such regulation, taxation, subsidy and or government involvement in what should be the sole province of the free market- but all the authoritarian collectivists who perpetuate and defend the system “Be it right or wrong” have imposed these things upon all of us, by creating a government monopoly to which there can be no alternative, because even if someone manages to create an alternative, like Uber….they will wither regulate it or criminalize it, for the Mafia does not tolerate competition.

          • Gail,

            “I maintain that the best is controlled government.”

            You continue to repeat the same things over and over – without replying to the questions raised.

            How does one control a government that is given unilateral power to decide the degree of its own authority? Has the “limited government” experiment worked here?

            If people are stupid and cannot be trusted, how does entrusting people with authority – authority to hurt other people, to put them im cages, to take things from them using violence – fix that problem?

            I agree that some people are stupid – and just mean (Clovers, all the way up to the worst of them, the Stalins and Hitlers). But they are much more readily kept in check when they are not given power over us. What could Hitler have done without the government of Germany backing up his bloodlust? Take that away – and Hitler becomes merely an annoying, creepy guy who everyone tries to avoid.

            I can deal with a random scumbag who breaks into my house – or at least, I have a chance.

            But how do I defend myself against a Hut! Hut! Hut! no-knock raid by government goons?

            • Eric, tell me your experience with the ‘government goons.’ Inquiring minds want to know.

              I come and go as I please. I can’t remember ever having a bad experience with the government. Wait! There was a cop at the Capitol building, but he was fired over the incident. Clover

              If I didn’t like something I followed the procedure to get rid of it, and 90-99% of the time I changed the law, or got rid of the person – because I worked through the proper channels.Clover

              I said again, select the best of humanity, work with the system and live your life the way you want. I do.

              • This one beggars belief, Gail.


                Every time I leave my property I have to worry that some costumed goon will notice I am not “buckled up for safety” and waylay me at gunpoint and steal $100 of my money. Or, the same thing for “speeding” and various other concocted offenses.

                The bastards steal a third to half my income each year. If I do not “stand and deliver,” they will SWAT my home and put me in a cage and steal all of my property.

                They force me to pay eternal rent on a house I paid off years ago.

                They subject me to a degrading search if I wish to travel by air.

                I am open to being stopped at gunpoint at any arbitrary moment an made to produce my “papers” – or prove that I am not “drunk.”

                I may not conduct business with whom I wish, under terms agreeable to us. I must obey the vile control freaks who believe I and others have no right to free association.

                But you think you’re “free” – because you don’t regard the laws as tyrannical and obey – but even so, you’re still open to being targeted by these buzzcut, gum-snapping low IQ government goons.

                • Eric, I don’t give the things you mention any thought at all. Except maybe, my actions if any of those sames might happen. I’m not as eager to go to court as I was at one time, and I know that the court isn’t a friends either. I also realize and accept the fact that as an elderly, handicap woman I will be treated with more kindness than a White or Black male would.

          • Hi Gail,

            I believe that there are some good ideas in the constitution, but I do not believe that words on paper can control those who, through the mechanism of the State, seek dominion over others. Especially when those who wield the power of the State have arrogated to themselves the sole right to judge the meaning of those words. As Lysander Spooner noted a long time ago, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”.

            Perhaps, the most eloquent expression of your view, and in some way ours, was written by James Madison in Federalist No. 51.

            “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

            Madison clearly recognized the problem we describe. His solution was to create separate branches, each with an incentive to check the power of the others. However, history has clearly demonstrated that this does not work. Long ago, those in each branch realized that collusion, rather than antagonism, would lead to an increase in power for all.

            The fact that men are not angels is a powerful argument against government, not for it. Robert Higgs explains it very well here.


            Kind Regards,

          • My life was probably saved by an assistant coach who asked in freshmen civics class what we knew of Vietnam. No answer, silence. He them said “You boys might want to learn something about it cause you’ll be there soon enough”.

            So we studied that war to the end of high school and no one from my class is a veteran. We smelled the rat(I’d inject a quote by Jack Nicholson here from The Departed but don’t know it exactly as he said it). The rat was money for the main part.

            The ‘love it or leave it’ crowd, if debated, which many couldn’t debate, just sling insults, were easily stopped in their tracks by the truth of that war. I even had those who were willing to listen, tell me “if you don’t like it, then do something about it, isn’t that your duty?” Damn right it was and I took it seriously. It was my country as much as anyone’s and my seeing LBJ and the entire DC corruption tank as being what they were only intensified my desire to “right a wrong”. If everybody had been the patriot I was the war would have never existed. But most, like Gail, don’t have the guts to stand up for “right”, just that simple. You have to buck a trend and believe me, that road less traveled is mined like a mofo by the politicians and those who do their dirty work including the general public.

            People are so stupid they don’t even know they’re being bled dry for others gains. Not to mention 58,000 US citizens killed, the vast majority being conscripted slaves who had a choice of prison or armed forces at the point of a gun. How could something like that not get your attention? For the young men of this country, it was certainly something to jerk your head around, especially attending funerals for those guys who were no different from you but not as determined to do the “right” thing and simply go along to get along(famous last wished for that huge majority).

            So I got my FBI file started that only continues to grow. They never let go and it will most certainly live beyond my mortal life. Being a real patriot, in the face of stupid, blind obedience, isn’t an easy task but it’s one those of us who had been raised to do the “right” thing and have good morals were bound to do or either just become another version of the hypocrite LIOLI crowd. I could have been silent. I’d had a back injury when I was 13 and couldn’t have passed a physical but whether I could have been drafted wasn’t here nor there to me. So for the LIOLI crowd, I say Fuck You, you goddamn, gutless ass lickers.

            • Hear, hear, Mr. 8Man!!!!!


              I was just a little kid when Vietnam was winding down, but conscripted slaves “fighting for our freedom…that’ll show them commies!” was pretty much all I needed to know. Kinda set the stage for the rest of my life- to know that words bandied about by the media and the government essentially have no meaning, or mean the exact opposite of their true definition; that people are fools, and are willing to kill and be killed for nothing more than a slogan and a uniform; that we are not free; and that the powers who truly rule this country are some sick mofo’s- and yet there are no lack of people and churches who support them.

              Great lessons for a 10 year old…and that was 1972, and it’s exponentially worse now….

              Guys like you are indeed the real patriots, 8. Anyone who will pick up a rifle and kill someone who has done them no harm, just because they are told to, is nothing more than a mercenary, and an evil bastard- worse than a robber, because at least the robber will not make it his priority to kill; and is not doing so in cold blood just because he’s been trained to do so and commanded to do it.

              Those bastards deserve the treatment they get from the V.A.. It’s kind of fitting, really.

              • Nunzio, thanks. But remember, not everyone could figure a way out of slavery. After all, it was the rest of your life you’d be scum if you fled or simply a criminal if you refused to serve.

                Keep in mind, everybody who got drafted almost to the man(boy), was no older than 18, a mere child or at least everybody I knew was including me. If mortally wounded I would probably have cried for my mother(mama, mama they’ve killed me, help me please) just like most kids that age did. Even those who were gung ho, and not many my age were, in fact, very few my age were gung ho. They’d already buried the gung ho’s and had gotten a good look at their corpse or “not”.

                But people like Gail have no empathy, they have no sense of responsibility to make their country what it should be. It’s so much easier to simply march to that drum beat and wrap yourself in the flag…..and for most, pray to the god that wasn’t listening. Don’t mean to insult those who are religious but if your god was in any way responsible for evil such as that. it was an evil god.

                And this brings me to what has been done in this country since Vietnam and the need to have another war. The demonization of S. Americans as was tried for a decade and a half wasn’t a take was changed to people on the other side of the earth who definitely had another “bible”. Even though those who defended Islam as being a beneficent god to a peaceful people were quickly not quoted in the MSM and only those they’d made bitter from killing their families and had what was actually a righteous cause to hate what they saw as Americanism, the slaughter of their people and made them easily pliable by those who used them for their own purposes. Remember when “America” was the great brother to Afghanistan when the godless Russians were slaughtering them? Once the Russians were defeated, we had no enemy to squander the public dollar on so those evil bastards demonized the Islam people in general. Sling enough bombs, kill enough people over enough countries and soon you have a “radical” jihadist enemy. No doubt Gail was done there front and center saying “Kill those godless Muslims” as they chanted “god is great” and fought back. You can thank the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers for the shitstorm we have everywhere in the word. You can also thank the BO’s, Clintons, Bush’s and all the Bush neocons inherited from Nixon for having Mexicans hiss at me “thousand needles” when I was in Mexico in 2004. That’s the way the entire world views us and for good reason. But the MSM they listen to doesn’t tell them the average person in this country is as much a victim as they are. it’s the Gail’s of the word who give us all a bad name.

                • I read and identified with the book “Ugly American,” and you’re right – I couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thought of me, nor my country.Clover

                  Since I never personally served in a war zone, I don’t have the empathy you speak of, Eightsouthman. I am the child of a Warrior, born and reared in the US Navy. I know how it feels to have a POW, or not really know who my Sailor Pappy is, because he was gone so much that the only thing I recognized was the uniform. I am the descendant of a line of Warriors in this nation dating back to the Revolutionary War, signers of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and my own contribution to personally lobby Congress. Four of my sons have gone to war and returned with honor. I told my sons the words of General Patton, “I don’t expect you to die for your country, I want you to make that poor bastard to die for theirs.” I do have a cousin that probably thought or was shamed by people like you, and ‘ate his gun.’ One of the many reasons that I believe we should support emotionally our warriors. So the shame is yours, not mine, nor any person who supports our nation in war and peace.Clover

                  As to you rant on religions – let me tell you that I have a Muslim daughter-in-law, and my son has decided to embrace her religious beliefs. She is a good person and I accept her. How many of these people in your realm can you personally relate to, or do you just like to be “agin it!” Whatever you ranted about, I probably have in my family; Mexican, yep. Black, yep. I even have a Gay cousin. My life and acceptance is probably much broader than yours, and I don’t choose to isolate myself as I witness from the posts on this site. Clover

                  What have you done to support and/or better this nation?

                  • Gail,

                    Substitute “mercenary” or “unwilling conscript” for “warrior” and you’d be more accurate.

                    PS: Don’t forget the mercenaries sent by Uncle Abe to rape/stomp/murder the Southern states into docile obedience. That is to say, your ancestors.

                    But you’ve become like Stalin’s chicken. Might look that one up…

                    • Sounds like!

                      Her cognitive dissonance is striking.

                      I wonder whether it has ever occurred to her that – as an example – Adolf Eichmann made the same case for his “country and flag” (uber alles) that she has for hers… yet she doesn’t grok the moral horror.

                • Good points, 8.

                  Another tactic of the state: Get ’em while they’re young and stupid- whether it be for cops or soldiers…..

                  Some people will take the high ground though0 at any age- whether it means jail, or being burned at the stake. I’d like to think that there are certain things that I am not willing to do…no matter what.

                  Pay the consequences that the state imposes on you when you’re 18 for not doing their dirty work…or pay the consequences your conscience imposes on you if you do do it. Either way, you’ll pay. A lot of times, doing the right thing often ends up making things work out.

                  I recall having heard of one guy’s experience: He got his draft notice, and knew that he had to appear at the induction center or face arrest for failure to answer the summons. So he bought a bus ticket and went.

                  When there, he was in a line of men, and they were all told to raise their right hand or some such and take a step forward, and they would be soldiers. Everyone did so, except for this young man. He just stood in his place and didn’t rasie his hand.

                  Some yelling…and talking back and forth….he was taken to another room…..threatened with jail and who-knows-what-else, over the course of several hours. He said “You can throw me in jail, or stick a gun in my back, but I’m not volunteering and I’m not following orders to do something which is against my conscience”…..yada, yada.

                  Eventually that day, he was given a bus ticket and sent back home.

                  Years later now, as he tells this story, he gives the legal explanation: Paraphrasing, of course: They can’t and never could force involuntary servitude upon you; but they could get you for not answering the draft summons, or for desertion or insubordination, etc. The trick was in getting you to “volunteer” when you answered the draft summons, by raising your right hand and stepping forward. If you didn’t “volunteer” they really had no legal power over you”.

                  Of course, as an 18 year-old kid at the time, he didn’t know all of that…he just did what was right; was unwilling to violate his conscience and do what he knew to be wrong…..and bu doing so, it turned out to be the exact thing he needed to do.

                  We all have lines that we ultimately will not cross- whether we’re 12 or 70. You can read of Christian kids much younger than 18 being burned at the stake by the Catholics, because they refused to renounce what they believed.

                  Thankfully, my generation did not have to deal with the draft- but ya know, I don’t see much difference between a jail cell and a barracks.

                  This subject always makes me think of this comedian I heard once, who said: “I’m writing a memoir of my experiences during the Vietnam War; It’s going to be called A Guide The Bars and Taverns Of Montreal”! 😀

    • Jeremy, I am pleased that my effort in getting the repeal of NMSL has made life more comfortable for you. However, no one has asked me why I took this on, nor why I was so successful. Even though I lobbied Congress alone, many people went into the turn of the tide, especially Swamprat who trained me, and Eric who believed in me. While some say that I “rode the wave,” that’s because they never taken on something like I did. I wasn’t trained to lobby, I wasn’t paid the big bucks that some lobbyists are paid. It was truly a grassroots, shoestring operation that had some interesting twists.

      • Hi Gail,

        I have a new mission for you – getting rid of speed limits as such!

        Think about it. 65 or 70 or 75 is just as arbitrary as 55. Why should a person be punished merely for driving faster than a number on a sign erected by government bureaucrats? Isn’t it like punishing a strong man for bench pressing more than 200 pounds? Because it’s “unsafe” for a weak man to try that?

        Why not go to a standard that is based on the person’s driving? That is to say, if a person is in control of his car and there is no objective fact (such as weaving over the double yellow or some such) to indicate he is not in control of his vehicle, why not leave him be?

        Isn’t stopping people for “speeding” because – in the opinion of some Clover, it is “unsafe” and he might hurt someone – exactly like ticketing a guy who is wearing a gun on his hip because a Clover is terrified by the sight and whines that that the guy might shoot someone?

        • Eric wrote: “Think about it. 65 or 70 or 75 is just as arbitrary as 55. Why should a person be punished merely for driving faster than a number on a sign erected by government bureaucrats? Isn’t it like punishing a strong man for bench pressing more than 200 pounds? Because it’s “unsafe” for a weak man to try that? ”

          You are ‘preaching to the choir’ with this remark. I agree completely.

          Personally I feel that any speed signs should only be advisory, and those should be a “true” suggestion. I drive an overpass everyday it has a 25 mph advisory limit (orange sign), the first time I drove the loop, I couldn’t even go that slow, but I tried because it spooked me (both the loop and the sign. After all, aren’t traffic engineers suppose to give a design speed?) I have found that in my minivan that I can safely drive the loop at 45 mph, and I’m sure a low sports car could go faster. I lose all respect for traffic engineers that are lying to us.

          Find another symbol for the dunces, I resemble your using my favorite Irish 4-leaf clover. How about a Laughing Hynea?

          • But nearly every if not all edicts of the state are like the speed limit. An arbitrary decision which benefits insiders at the expense of everyone else under the cover of some greater purpose and certified by intellectual experts who do whatever it takes to support it. The speed limit is just the tip of the iceberg of rackets.

            Every single subject I’ve taught myself on I find the state employed experts tossing aside anything which does not support the politically demanded conclusion. Nothing has changed in human society in thousands of years.

      • Hi Gail,

        You have placed your faith and your patriotism front and center here. Do you not see that these ideals conflict? When you say, “my country right or wrong”, when you pine for a globe spanning American Empire, when you say that you, “bleed red, white and blue”, do you not understand that you are making an idol of the US State?

        Please consider this passage from Nunzio: “‘Right or wrong’ says it all. It says that one is willing to do wrong, just as readily as they are to do right, because to them, it’s not the moral principle/justice that matters, but rather just blind obedience to their master- and if one is willing to do wrong for their master, it means they are in opposition to my Master”.

        Based on what you have written here, I can only conclude that the God you really worship is the US State. Is that the idea you wish to project?


    • Hi, Jeremy,

      Ideas do indeed have consequences. The thing which is disturbing, is that the ideas of authoritarian collectivists have the severest consequences, -such as death, enslavement, usurpation of property and abridgement of liberty. And since the system is set up to foster these aims, often all the individual needs to do to help perpetuate or expand such nefarious practices, is to give their assent by voting.

      It is often impossible to change the worldview of people who have fully accepted and are satisfied with a given philosophy, and/or who feel that it suits their needs. When one states that “The basis for all human interaction is the government”, that is pretty much a belief that, short of a spiritual or philosophical epiphany, is not going to change, and will in-fact dictate the rest of their thoughts, beliefs and actions.

      But to anyone who may be open to the truth- whether they would see the error of such a belief, or merely come to realize that such a belief is the core philosophy of much of what they have been taught, and reject it upon realizing such, or upon seeing the superiority of the alternatives- one thing is generally true: Those who will respond to the truth, will do so regardless of how it is presented or how they discover it.

      I realized from an early age that those who peddle ideas with the greatest finesse and tact, are usually the least principled, and the most interested in just selling something/adding numbers to a roll/etc., as opposed to gaining true converts who believe with heart and mind in what is being proffered.

      I remember when I was young. Although I had very Libertarian ideas from childhood, I didn’t really know anything about “Libertarianism” as a movement, or that there were others who thought as I did, and who all had come to realize some commonly accepted ideals- so in my teens and 20’s, there were still some things which I had not yet figured out- but I’d find that I’d grow the most, and come to more light when confronted by a hostile force- be it someone (an author; talk show host; live person…) who was opposed to something which I erroneously still held to at that point, or someone who was hostile to the principles of Libertarianism which I had already formulated.

      The truth is the truth, and those who seek the truth will find it. But often, a little “jarring”; confrontation, etc. can cause us to think more about a given subject, be it a new idea which we are initially opposed to, or an assualting of an idea which we may hold at the time.

      I’ve found it to be most thought-provoking, when I’ve been incensed about something, and whatever it was thus stuck in my mind, and cuased me to think about it at random times after the initial confrontation. It is at times such as those, when you either annihilate what has incensed you, by a preponderance of sound ideas to the contrary; or you realize the invalidity of what you had believed, and the superiority of what has incensed you.

      Of course, I don’t consciously try and create such situations- but nor to I try and avoid them if such occurs in the natural course of heated discussion. You might say my mantra is: Speak the truth and let the pieces fall where they may. Ultimately, those who appreciate truth will appreciate the candor and vehemence of those who proclaimed it to them most heartily; as opposed to those who were soft and easy, but who failed to really get the full effect and urgency of the message across.

      It’s kind of like the difference between an evangelist who says “God loves you!” (Well great, I guess I don’t have to do anything!), and one who says “You’re heading for Hell! Repent and believe!” (Uh-oh! I’d better get with the program!)- The world today loves the former- but that is why Christianity has died in our culture. The world hates the latter, but it is the latter type who effectively change people’s lives and beliefs.

      tl;dr version:
      People who advocate authoritarian collectivism, and approve of it’s violent coercion, and who perpetuate it’s existence, even if they do an occasional good deed through that system, or use that system to propagate conservative ideals,….are still authoritarian collectivists who are helping to perpetuate death and oppression.

      Someone in an impoverished nation in Africa or South America may say “Yeah, that guy may be a communist, but who gave me a piece of bread when I was starving?”- and so he might warm-up to communism, which ultimately will be to his own detriment and to the detriment of all his countrymen.

      • Hi Nunzio,

        I agree with the gist of what you say but, I would be amazed if anyone who knows me thinks I “peddle ideas with the greatest finesse and tact”, ha! I never present watered down versions of the truth as I see it. However, I do try to tailor words and arguments to specific people and circumstances. For instance, until I have developed a rapport with someone, I don’t introduce myself as an anarchist or begin a conversation by claiming that government is inherently immoral. I ask questions designed to cause others to think about the nature of the government they admire. I will often accept the premises that supposedly grant legitimacy to government (consent of the governed, delegation of authority, popular will, etc…) and then ask questions like, “If I cannot withhold consent, how can I grant it”? Or, “How can I delegate a power that I do not possess”?

        Here, I feel free to reveal all of my political/philosophical beliefs. In normal society, I temper the presentation in the hope that we can reach a level of understanding that allows for further discussion.


        • Hi, Jeremy,

          Oh, sorry- I did not mean to imply that YOU employed obsequious finesse and tact. I was just speaking generally. I agree with you 100% here, in that your method of asking questions and thus forcing others to think in a non-confrontational manner, is superb. I only wish I had the ability to do so- but unfortunately, us Italians, despite the best of intentions, tend to be impulsive, impatient and emotional…

          Opponent: “Yeah, but….”
          Italian: “AH-HAAaaaa! YOu SON-OF-A-BEE! WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ‘YEAH, BUT’?! ” 😀

          LOL! That reminds me, of a friend of mine who is more Italian than I (His parents were from Italy, whereas my grandparents were)-Back years ago when I lived in a suburban apartment in NY, he’d come over and we’d get in a heated discussion. We could talk for hours and have a ball. I’d later find out that the neighbors were bracing for violence, and fully expecting to have to call the fuzz.

          • Ethnicity. 58% British, 22% Irish, 7% Volga-Ural region, 13% Northern Europe = 100% American. My parents were born in the South (North Carolina/Mississippi), So also, the Great, Great and Great back to the 1700s before Carolina was North and South. I have Virginia heritage, Jamestown, dating back to 1609. I had direct ancestors in the Colonies before the Mayflower arrived with 2 sets of 11th Great-grandparent. I bleed Red, White and Blue. and you guys are walking on the fighting side of me.Clover

            • I had direct ancestors in pizza parlors before Chef Boyardee made his first can of spaghetti! With a few traces of German, Irish and English. (And according to one relative who’s into geneology, maybe even a little Jew. I hope it’s not Woody Allen!)

              • Would you believe that I’d never heard of, nor tasted a pizza until my New Yorker first husband told me about them. I could not imagine what it would be like, nor if I would like the taste of it. Sounded gross to me. We had been married almost two years when we traveled to his parents home in Brooklyn. He couldn’t wait for me to sample this delicacy. Pizzas in those days were different than they are now. To start with you bought them by the slice. I don’t know if they even sold them by the whole pie. There was no choice of toppings – one kind with anchovies. I’m telling you – I wasn’t impressed, and he took it personally. LOL

                • ROTFL!!!!!!

                  Oh, that’s a good one, Gail!

                  Actually, REAL pizzas are still like that….it’s just that outside of NY/NJ, you can’t really get real pizza.

                  I’ll never forget the first time I traveled, and tried a slice of pizza somewhere else- in fact, it said “NY style pizza”- and come to think of it, it was in a small town in Nevada!

                  All I can say is, I had a good laugh!

                  Then there was this time I was in CA. and got to talking to this guy out in the middle of nowhere where i was taking a walk. He deduced from my “Brooklyn accent” that I was from NY…and long story short, I started telling him how I tried a pizza there in CA. and was flabbergasted to see that they used CHEDDAR (or some kind of yellow)cheese instead of mozzarella! I was like “THAT’S not pizza!”.

                  Turns out, the guy I was talking to was the manager of the local pizza place! (Heh, that was 30 years ago, and I remember it like it was yesterday!)

                  So you were married to a Dago from Brooklyn….. that must have been interesting! (Did he say “foncul” a lot? 😀 )

    • Thank you for that, Jeremy. I don’t agree with everything our government does, or has done. I especially was appalled by the rein of Obama. I definitely did not want either a Bush, nor Clinton Dynasty, and regardless of how good Pres. Trump may turn out to be, not his family either. I recognize and under that believing in the government is like grabbing a ‘Tiger by the tail,’ at the same time I believe that government is necessary, and it is up to each of us to keep it in check. In order to be effective we have to come across as rational and supportive, otherwise we will never experience the freedom and peace that each of us desire.Clover

      The reason that I was so effective in Washington DC was because I provided facts, studies, and came across with sincerity. I was not a ‘hot shot’ fast driving teenager, I managed to find the few ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats in the party to support the NMSL repeal, as well as the Republicans. There were a few that would support the issue, but they went too far, and because of that I knew I couldn’t get the repeal, so I distanced myself from those, some wouldn’t go far enough, so I turned my back on them as well.Clover

      I’m here to tell you whether you support the government or not – you are in fact the government itself. Remember “We the People.” That is each of us.

  6. CloverIt’s obvious that I’m not preaching to the choir. But because you guys think I’m wrong, doesn’t make it so. And get off this Hitler kick – never going to happen through our government. Maybe Kim jong un will lop an A-bomb on us, or China will walk one over, after all, they already own us – but our government will never be a Hitler, in spite of the fact that it already kills millions of unborn humans every year, and getting ready to take down us older folks with the ‘good death.’ Too many will rise up, and most already have guns, for a Hitler-like through our own government. Take heart, my dears.
    Your Clover

    • Who or what, post-Hitler/Stalin days, is responsible for the deaths of more human beings on the face ohis earth than any other entity?

      HINT: It’s the same entity which contains a WHOPPING 25% of the world’s incarcerated people, while only containing 4% of the world’s population.

  7. Very well said. 🙂 I did not vote, out of principle. Having said that, I had false hope that maybe, just maybe, The Orange One was going to be different. I knew Killary was going to get us into a war, but Trump (the question mark) made a great strategic move by reaching out to the alternative camp and the angry white male. He had many convinced and many hopeful that he was going to stick it to the puppet masters. He has, unfortunately, and to the chagrin of many a voter that took a chance on him (against their better judgement) turned out to be the (orange) turd in the punch bowl.

    • This election above all, just illustrates the folly of voting.

      That Trump was the “best” choice of all the candidates, is pretty revealing.
      That they can say ANYTHING when campaigning, and not be held at all accountable in any way…
      And that even the “Libertarian Party” candidate was a steaming turd…

      Why anyone wastes their time voting, I’ll never understand- but so much more could be accomplished by non-participation. They call us irresponsible for not participating, but in reality, their participation is what keeps the system alive.

      Imagine how we’d feel had we voted?!

      • I ended up voting. there were two maybe three things on the ballot to eliminate units of government. I couldn’t pass that up. I wrote in Ron Paul and Monty Brewster for president and vice or the other way around. Can’t remember.

        • If Ron Paul were in the mix, even I would vote for the first time in my life!

          That there was no one running who was worthy of his endorsement, pretty much told the story of this election, and of where we are in history.

      • How do I start a new thread? I want to post a partial article, it proves that there will always be someone taking control – it is a matter of making an attempt to keep what government we already have in check.

        “. . .Republicans in turn won control of all three branches of the federal government – at least the three envisioned by our Founding Fathers – for the first time in a decade.

        As a consequence, Democrats have pinned their hopes to stifle President Donald Trump’s pro-growth agenda on the unprecedented insurrection of an unchecked, de facto branch of government: the bureaucratic state.. . ”

        Unless you can find yourself a deserted island, there is no way any of you are going to have the solitude you desire, but before you do this – sign up for a 21-day stint with Discovery’s ‘Naked and Afraid.’ To get a real feel how living on your own would be like.

        • You just don’t get it. We’re not talking about “living on our own” on some deserted island in a state of nature. This is not at all the same thing as the simple right to be left alone and not be interfered with by gun-toting control freaks.

          What we are talking about is human interactions being voluntary rather than coerced by violence or threat of violence. I do not live on an island by myself. I obtain what I need from others by trading value for value. I have no desire or expectation that some cadre of psychopathic goons calling itself “government” is going to loot my neighbors at gunpoint supposedly for my own good.

          I do not see government as having any legitimacy whatsoever, no more so than any other group of gangsters running a protection racket. In fact the primary difference between government and “organized crime” is that the Mob is less violent and has far less blood on its hands. Elected thugs are still thugs. These are facts that cannot be disputed.

          Now if the federal government would restrict itself to attending to its duties enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and otherwise leave us the hell alone to live our lives probably most of us could live with that. But that motley collection of violent control freaks is not willing to do that. Ditto for the rest of them all the way down the line to the local costumed “heroes” collecting revenue on the highway and beating people senseless, or killing them, when they sniff any non-compliance.

          I say spit on them all and feed them fish heads.

          • Democrats Turn to Bureaucrats to Stop Trump

            As a consequence, Democrats have pinned their hopes to stifle President Donald Trump’s pro-growth agenda on the unprecedented insurrection of an unchecked, de facto branch of government: the bureaucratic state.

            Through executive orders, President Trump immediately began cutting needless red tape draped across the federal government by his predecessor. This led deliberately resistant entrenched civil servants to wage a campaign to subvert the administration’s clear intention of deregulation.

          • Dear Jason,

            Well said!

            Except for the part about feeding them fish heads.

            Most Westerners don’t know it, but fish heads are actually delicious. Chinese and other Asian peoples cook them all the time.

            They are very “Primal”. Very “survivalist”. Very “waste not, want not”. The diametric opposite of millennial snowflake squeamishness.

          • This is so, and it is your fault for not having tried to stop them. We the People – that’s you and me, are the government. If you haven’t done anything to control the government, then you are the reason that it is out of control.Clover

            • This is hilarious Gail. Instead of you and the statists like you accepting blame for building the government, cheering it on against their neighbors, using it to enforce the way they think everyone else should live and so on you blame the freedom minded people for not stopping it.

              It’s wonderful debate tactic because no matter what they did to stop it you simply set the standard higher than their efforts. Even someone who pursued politics for couple decades instead of his other interests could be labeled as not doing enough.

              Let’s face facts here, if the blame is to be with the masses it’s not the informed people who have been ridiculed and worse that are to blame but the people who accepted what they were told and supported government. Those who looked to government for solutions. Those who gave into fears of the other, their neighbors, or whatever other boogiemen the state used to justify itself.

              • BrentP, if you do anything at all, it really is enough. It is doing nothing that isn’t enough.

                “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke quotes from

                We the People have been asleep at the wheel for a long time, and this almost succeeded in our nation being our worse fears, but they have awaken. History will tell whether President Trump is what he says he is, but whatever is to be – the people have taken a stand to break up the train wreck that we were headed for.

                You have no “facts,” BrentP – none of us do. We have opinions, beliefs, assumptions, and some of us will have a learned direction that may be taking us in the wrong direction as well. This much I have learned over my long years of life. I have witnessed many things proven and then disproved. Whenever you believe that you really have a set of facts, remember yourself that it was a scientific “fact” for centuries, and proven by the “experts” that the earth was flat. Clover

                Just today the weather experts told me that the high would be 75 and the the low 69. When I got up this morning it was 52, and never got higher than 65. So much for the experts.

                When I was young and fit there was a health food expert by the name of Adelle Davis. I swore by her, read every book she wrote, and followed her advice on food to eat. She died of cancer at the age of 70 in 1974. I threw away her books and restarted eating eggs, butter, salt, meat – everything that has been said to shorten your life and kill you. I know that I will eventually die, but at the ripe old age of 82 it will probably be of old age. Live, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

                • Ahh so you chose an escape route. I’ve encountered the ‘what have you done’ argument too many times to accept that. It’s always about a moving scale. Why didn’t you run for office? Why didn’t you win? Why couldn’t you change things after you won? It’s always demanding the next level out of people. I’ve done enough and why I still try to get through to people who knows? Maybe it’s my lot in life to spoil people’s illusions.

                  And what I referred to as a fact, is very much a fact. The people who _built_ government are the ones to blame for the present conditions. You built it, you own it. It’s not the fault of the marginalized who failed to stop it, it’s the fault of people like you who welcomed it, cheered it on, and demanded it.

                  Your opinions may have shaped what you cheered for, but you cheered for it none the less and as such you are to blame for the result. Don’t go around blaming the losers of the political battle and the apathetic for failing to stop your statists. Blame yourself and your fellow statists. You took the actions to create this monster, not them. You demanded to be kept safe or this or that. Your fellow statists even when you disagreed with them on specifics you agreed with them on the principle that government had the power. So no, it’s not opinion, it’s fact. There are those of us who want to be free and those who want society to be managed. You chose the later and it’s your fault, not those who failed to stop the managers.

            • We’re supposed to control the government? I thought the government was supposed to be keeping our human nature in check by controling us [says Gail]?

              And Gail? If you and your chillin support the government, be it right or wrong, and even take up arms against your fellow citizens and sovereign nations in the service of that government,; and seeing as people like yourself, who just go with the flow and parrot that paradigm, it becomes a little difficult to control the government and the millions of so-affected citizens who are “keeping us in check”…..

              Then again, I guess all we need is a majority (as if we lived in democracy) and enough arms to out-power our adversary, and then we could control it, eh?

              • Dear Nunzio,

                George Orwell identified the process by which authoritarian collectivists can blank out the obvious contradictions in their own thinking, and claim with perfectly straight faces to be defenders of freedom.

                Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.

                Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind.

                Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

                This is how Gail is able to “reconcile” the glaring contradiction in her position: “Government is necessary because people are evil by nature. Therefore some people who are evil by nature need to be given monopoly power over other people who are evil by nature”.



                • Of course, Orwell also hit the nail on the head with “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

                  The problem in the U.S. of A. is that we have developed several classes of animals who are more equal. Make a list. (I bet Orwell’s group will make the list.)

                • Bevin, is it fun for you guys to twist everything I say?

                  Check out the movie ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington’ with James StewartClover

                  The system isn’t perfect, but it is far better than the alternative. Or, any other system in the world.

                  I’m not sure why you feel so repressed. I’m free to do what I want. I’m free to come and go as I please. I’m free to redress my Congressional representative.

                  • Dear Gail,

                    There is a meme on the Internet that you must have seen at one time or another.

                    It reads: “When did protect and serve, become obey or die?”


                    As an early Baby Boomer and former defender of the American Dream, I lived through this sea change in America. I watched in dismayed incredulity as America degenerated into Amerika.

                    When I was younger, America was indeed far closer to the America described as “land of the free, home of the brave”. Back then, I could sing those lyrics with a lump in my throat, and without any sense of irony.

                    But that was then. This is now.

                    As the years went by, I was reluctantly forced to acknowledge that limited government was delusion, rooted in flagrant self-contradictions.

                    I was forced to admit that expecting government to remain limited, was like expecting a weaponized virus dropped in a city’s water supply, not to multiply and kill everyone who drinks from it.

                    Thinking back, I came to realize it was no accident. It was inevitable, given the inherent structural defects in limited government, i.e., any government.

                    You see, government is by definition, a “territorial monopoly on the use of force”. A monopoly of any sort, always abuses it monopoly power. A monopoly in the use of force most of all. Why would anyone ever expect otherwise?

                    A government, any government, is a “crime family with a flag”, one that demands money and obedience from anyone unlucky enough to living inside a line it drew on a map.

                    Hell, a government is worse than an ordinary crime family. An ordinary crime family is usually content to leave you alone as long as you have paid them “protection money”.

                    A government, by contrast, insists on micromanaging your life even after it has robbed you at gunpoint.

                    You say you feel free. But that is only because you have yet to reach the end of the leash that Big Brother and the Nanny State has fastened around your neck and that of 300 million other Americans.

                    The moment you attempt to move an inch beyond the length of the chain, the strangling sensation in your throat will be unmistakable.

                  • Gail, my mother says she feels free to do what she wants. Bear in mind, she doesn’t want to do much. She’s spent most of her time in an apartment or house. Only drove for a brief period of time in the 1950’s; never built/owned a business; never owned real property; has absolutely no objections to being searched or scrutinized, and generally does anything she’s told to.

                    It is only when you want to do things, and also expect to have the basic human rights, like the right to privacy and of being secure in your person, papers and effects, or the right to travel unhindered and without interference, etc. that you start to feel not so free.

                    • You are talking ‘apples and oranges,’ Nunzio. As I’ve already demonstrated, when I say “. . .my country – right or wrong. . .’ I didn’t say that I tolerate the wrong, I work to change it, I don’t sit around bitching about everything that is wrong. What I take serious is the part of the Constitution that reads “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence, promote the general Wilfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                      Unlike your mother, I am very busy, and I drive. I do all the driving since my husband is legally blind. He refers to me the as race car driver mario andretti. I tell him “Get in, Sit down, Hang on and Shut up!Clover

                      In spite of my limited physical condition, I swim, ride a stationary bike for 5 minutes, walk slowly on a tread mill for 10 minutes. I wear a fitbit to gage if I’m doing as well as I can without killing the nerve system or weaken the muscles. I am an active member (meaning that I attend their luncheons and meetings) of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the Mayflower descendants, Colonial Dames. I do family history research for myself and my husband and at the present time I have 5 clients. I have made several trips in the last 3 years, one to Alamogordo NM, another time to Austin, TX, and the latest one was to Reno NV, where I drove through a blizzard, with heavy snow on the ground, and returned in the driving rain. At present I am planning a long trip that will go through Alamogordo NM, through El Paso, TX, down to Austin, TX over to Victoria, Tx, through to the East coast to Charleston SC, head NW to Chicago IL, up through the Dakotas. I will be the sole driver.Clover

                      As to your statement about your mother, “. . .has absolutely no objections to being searched or scrutinized, and generally does anything she’s told to. . .,” doesn’t apply to me either. While I would be compliant on the road, if I am stopped by the police – I have never fought any of my battles on the side of the road, I take them to court. I would not permit either my car or person to be searched.

                      Ask Swamprat about the last time I got a ticket, and if you need any help fighting in court I would be happy to help you. In the meanwhile, take care and as long as you are a decent, legal
                      citizen, not in the process of a bank robbery or murder, you don’t have anything to worry about.

                • Here is an answer I left at Quora, that is related to the matters we have been discussing.

                  How would libertarians get from here to their model society?
                  Would the move from current governance (in the US or any other country) be fast or slow? How would you reduce the governments role? Are there parts you’d keep?

                  Bevin Chu, long time commentator on Sino-US relations
                  Answered 5h ago

                  Q: “How would libertarians get from here to their model society?”

                  First, let’s talk about how NOT to get from here to there.

                  One cannot get from here to there by means of revolution. One will never achieve a libertarian society by overthrowing an existing government. If one is “successful” in overthrowing an existing government, the new government will simply replicate all the ills of the old government.

                  The only way to get from here to there, is through a radical transformation in mass consciousness. The only way to get from here to there, is for a critical mass of the public to come to the realization that oppressive governments only exist because they themselves assume they are “necessary” and must continue to exist, otherwise “anarchy” [sic] will prevail.

                  The problem is the near universal but pitifully mistaken delusion that governments are “necessary”, and cannot be dispensed with altogether. Far too many people believe that if the government were to suddenly vanish, people would promptly run amok and begin murdering their neighbors, as depicted in the SF movie “The Purge”. This assumption is so deeply ingrained, no historical evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

                  The surprising fact is that oppressive governments do not need to be overthrown. In fact, they must not be overthrown. Anyone who believes that governments need to be overthrown, is someone who foolishly believes in government. He believes that if Government B replaces Government A, then everything will be hunky dory.

                  He doesn’t realize that the problem doesn’t lie with Government A or Government B. The problem lies with GOVERNMENT PER SE. The problem lies with any government, A, B, C, or D.

                  Governments do not need to be overthrown. Governments do not need to be replaced with “better governments”. There are no “better governments”. There are only bad governments, and worse governments.

                  The way to get from here to there is not revolution. The way to get from here to there is a radical transformation in political consciousness. People must come to realize that government is not a “necessary evil”. Government is an unnecessary evil they can live without. In fact, they can only truly begin to live when government no longer exists.

                  When a critical mass of people in any society achieve that level of political awareness, we will already “be there”. No revolution will be necessary. Because the revolution will already have taken place. It will already have succeeded wildly, inside peoples’ minds.

                  The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

                • Mr. Bevin, I’ll never understand the Doublethink paradigm. Regardless of what one calls it, it must take a specially-cultivated mind- one that has been desensitized to logic, to be able to fool oneself into thinking that concepts which contain such ludicrous contradictions, are somehow integral.

                  I dunno- do all of those who embrace such things, deaden their perception with alcohol and drugs?

                  I gave up trying to figure it out. How they can listen to political speeches, for instance, which they know are BS, and which they know were written for no other purpose than to appease them and make as many of them think that the speaker is saying what they personally want to hear; and if a stray logical thought should somehow pop-up in their mind, it is quickly squelched by “Look at all the others cheering and jumping on the bandwagon! See? This must be right. What was I thinking to question it?!”.

                  But how can their senses be so deadened, so as not to feel the shame of knowing that they are defeated, yet continuing to act as though they are right, even when they can not answer a simple logical question, and must change the subject, or get mad and go away; or use the “Yeah, but…” retort -But yet they remain undaunted.

                  I forget if this was in Hayek’s chapter on why the worst get on top, but if it isn’t, it should be, as it’s another one of their tactics: Feel no pangs of conscience and acknowledge no defeat when you are clearly defeated by a preponderance of facts; just ignore and keep going. And they do.

                  I’d love to know what goes on in their head- like when sonmeone would tell us how they were sure that Saddam had WMDs and was ‘hiding them’… and when you’d ask “Why,, if he were such a madman and had WMDs, would he hide them and not use them even when his country was being attacked and destroyed?”- and the person to whom you were speaking would just go silent for 20 or 30 seconds. The thought had never occurred to them; so they processed it; could not refute it, so they just say “I don’t know” and then keep believing exactly what they had believed before.

                  Then years later, even after it becomes acknowledged fact that of course Saddam did not have WMDs, and of course, the logic of your argument was correct, and the obvious absurdity of their argument was wrong…they again fall for the very same thing the next time it is proffered.

                  I think ultimately, Gail has given us the ultimate answer: They unquestioningly support what the state decrees, be it right or wrong.

                  Apparently though, they are not honest enough to outright say “It’s wrong”- so they argue and try to justify the wrong and make it seem as though it’s right- and of course, they can not convince those who are at all logical and who care about truth, and about supporting right, and fighting wrong, but I guess going through the motions at least helps them justify it in their own minds. But why waste their time? They know they’re not fooling us, so why not just say: “It’s wrong, but I support it, because I don’t care if it’s right or wrong”? -especially when they have already admitted such?!

                  • Dear Nunzio,

                    I’ve been busy on Quora, demolishing all manner of specious arguments for victim disarmament, euphemistically known as “gun control”.

                    One gun rights defender urged everyone to ignore any “questions” that were obvious instances of trolling.

                    I disagreed. I noted that the reason for posting rebuttals is not to convert the trolls, but to sway the undecided.

                    Not everyone who stumbles across Quora questions has their mind made up.

                    Some people, mirabile dictu, are actually open to being swayed. I know, because over the years, I’ve actually had a handful of people turn around and say that I was right.

                    • bevin, I’ve had the same experience, and no, you don’t have people knocking your door down “converting” to every point you make.

                      The only thing that seems to happen instantaneously is electricity and we all know that’s not an objective view either. The older you get the less sure you are about absolutes but libertarians can agree on some, taxes and death included with taxes being theft by the state and death being the inevitable part of life.

                      20 years or so ago, the phone rang and it was an old friend on the phone I hadn’t heard from in years. I answered and she immediately said “You were right”. Damn, said I, I guess a broken clock is correct twice a day and never thought I’d ever get that much acknowledgement.

                      Ok, I was just being facetious and we both laughed so I asked what I had been right about. She said “Vietnam, it all was a conspiracy”.

                      I was sorta shocked realizing not everybody by the mid-90’s hadn’t already knocked that off. My point being, changing opinions or anything else with people is very much an issue of time passing.

                      I think I offended my best friend recently when he mentioned Beck’s “Control”(he gave me a new copy). He has refused to use the internet up until now since his wife died and there’s no longer anything flowing in but Fox. He still subscribes to Republicanism and thinks the only reason any of us still have a gun is because of Rand Paul. Obviously we don’t agree on that subject. I told him I think Rand is a Zionist ass kisser and thinks more of Israel and got the standard Republican reply “You’re an anti-semitist”. I’ve heard this enough times to expect it now. That mindset of Republicanism(or being a Democrat) boils down to talking points, one of which is to accuse anyone who doesn’t support the militarized state of Israel is anti-semitic. And it’s mainly those who don’t do the internet but plenty still who do. The Zionist moniker just flies by their presence like a gnat in the wind. Reading the MSM, you’d naturally think everybody in Israel supports that immoral cabal just as we(sic) all support our wonderful govt. As Dewey Cox would say “It’s a long, hard walk”.

                    • Dear Mssrs. Bevin & 8Man,

                      (tl; dr version right now, as I’m a-headin’ fer the pool!)

                      Funny, but after reading Bevin’s comments, I was going to say, not only are they true, nut: “A lot of times, one will not make an instant convert, or even seem to make any headway at all; but to those who are willing to see and or who care about things like justice and freedom and truth, the seeds are often sown in what we may say, and even though someone may mock us, they may also remember what we say for years to come, and see examples of what we have said being played out, that they otherwise may have been unaware of; and one day it may hit them”.

                      And then 8Man goes and posts an example of that very thing having happened! 😀

                      Trouble is: Some take so long to see it…. Which is better than never seeing it at all; but then there are the ones who see it, and yet fall for the very same thing next week when it happens again; and who revert back to their same old argument when you try to show them that the exact same thing is indeed playing-out again.

                      Sometimes I think that those who care, will eventually come to an understanding of the truth regardless of anyone else; and those who won’t, will not be affected by what we do, because ultimately it is the love and desire of truth, freedom and justice which determin whether they will or will not be on the side of those things, or enemies of them.

                      But even preaching to the choir is a worthwhile endeavor. I remember before the internet, when I thought I was the only one who possessed this particular mindset….

                      I’m not a social person, but it’s nice to know there are others, and share a little fellowship; and that no compromise is necessary.

                    • Dear 8,

                      People seldom change at their core personality level.

                      But they definitely can change at the ideological level. I already mentioned my own renunciation of top down urban planning for “aesthetic reasons”.

                      That definitely was a case of time passing. It took time to overcome “cognitive dissonance”, and admit that it was irreconcilable with my professed libertarianism.

                    • Dear Nunzio,

                      In the Internet Age, it’s hard to know when something one posted online will have an impact.

                      Have you ever Googled your own name?

                      Ripples on a pond mang.

                    • bevin, you’re correct about changing at the core level although I think even that is changeable as you age and learn.

                      I was a big D democrat for the first part of my life. It was easy to get behind anyone who wasn’t a mean-spirited Republican. In fact, it was automatic for me although Democrats didn’t represent me either.
                      It was the 80’s that changed me politically into finally not voting. I was desperate for anything that politically represented me. Honestly, I didn’t think it would happen…..but it did and I’m grateful for it.

                    • Ah, Mr. Bevin,

                      Years ago, when I’d Google my real name, one thing would come up: An article in which I was interviewed about an industry I was involved in years ago. These days, nothing comes up. I’m careful to guard my privacy (Or, more accurately, just don’t have the need to disseminate my info through the normal channels).

                      Interesting: Googling THIS name brings up some results, and they now have me wondering if those people took their name from an obscure reference to a fictional character, as I did- or if that is their real name?!

                      You really didn’t think that I’d have a Twitter account did you? (Who am I to be hob-knobing with the POTUS?!)

                  • It’s often a waste of time to debate someone face to face in an isolated setting, say at a party.

                    But debating online can actually wind up reaching a surprisingly large number lot of people.

                    For example, I recently posted an answer that got a gratifying response:
                    6.6k Views · 254 Upvotes

                    Q: “What is the central issue in the gun control debate?”

                    The central issue behind the “gun control debate” is not “safety”.

                    The central issue is much simpler, and right under everyone’s nose. But many people do not want others to see it.

                    The central issue is whether everyone should be considered equal, and enjoy equal rights, or whether an “elite” ruling class should enjoy special rights denied an “unwashed” ruled class.

                    Never forget that whenever some politician insists that “gun prohibition is necessary for public safety”, he has absolutely no intention of “ridding the nation of guns”. He merely intends to deprive you of your guns, while retaining guns for himself or his personal bodyguards.

                    The “safety” he is concerned about is his own, not yours. That is why he sends his children to elite private schools staffed with armed security guards, while denying you the same right to protect your children with guns.

                    Barack Obama for example, insisted that “Guns don’t make you safe!” If so, why didn’t he order his Secret Service detail to get rid of their guns, and make the venues for his public appearances “gun free zones”?

                    The central issue is not “public safety”. The central issue is EQUAL RIGHTS. Those who advocate “gun control” oppose equal rights. Those who oppose gun prohibition demand it, as is their right.

                    6.6k Views · 254 Upvotes

                    • bevin, so true. Cops, to an astonishing degree, don’t see anything beyond their present condition. They don’t seem to understand their possessing a gun in this society could be taken from them. There’s already a BO law passed that denies guns to anyone getting psychiatric counseling. Cops were the first group to find out they were considered nothing more or less than a mundane according to that law. Now cops won’t seek counseling because they’ll likely lose their gun.

                      In a way, I can’t blame anyone for not seeking counseling because of this law.

                      I grew up with a gun in my hand. It’s hell to be disarmed. Of course I view guns as tools and use them accordingly. I’ve used a .22 to mark a ceiling to roof hole in a extremely tall ceiling(25 ft.). It gives you a spot on the roof to cut your hole for whatever need you have. I use a Garand to cut big limbs from tall trees and it beats $600 to have a tree removal do it. It’s tough to live in the country with no firearm and very few people do it. Of course country dwellers seem to have a better grasp on life.

                    • Dear 8,

                      A law that takes guns away from anyone seeking counseling eh?

                      Talk about your “law of unintended consequences”.

                      Even someone cursed with a room temperature IQ ought to realize that will only discourage people who desperately need counseling from seeking it.

                      That only increases the chances of them blowing a gasket and shooting everyone dead in a “gun free zone”.

                    • bevin, the crazy thing is they check to see if someone has a gun who seeks counseling, a really easy thing to do with cops. You’re not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer or the most stable either. Get that dog in a corner and make him feel defenseless….really smart. No doubt “new” psychiatry thinks its grand.

  8. America is great because it’s people property and abilities are great. If you exchanged all our politicians with North Korean politicians. Nothing would diminish, only different hands would be greased.

    If you sent all American politicians and military to North Korea and they had only the people and resources that exist there, there would be no improvement.

    Government and military are takers. They can only consume or redistribute what already exists. They contribute nothing.

    • True, Tor- except, our people aren’t so great anymore. A majority of them act more like North Koreans than real Americans these days- and that is largely because of the influences exercised upon them by our government, through the schools and the media, and other methods of social control, like welfare programs.

      Take the current condition of blacks for instance: 50 years after slavery had ended, the vast majority of black kids were born in wedlock, into homes where men were the bread-winners and head of the households. Now, 50 years after the “Civil Rights” movement [More like Malcolm X-crement’s bowel movement!] and “the Great Society” of the state “goan pay all they bills”, look at the state of ’em! Almost 80% of niglets born out of wedlock; it’s a rarity to see a black household headed by an employed male who is married to the mother his “chillen”, and something like one third of all jigs have been encarcerated by the time they’re 25. [The above was basically a paraphrase of what Thomas Sowell has stated].

      Communists use propaganda; the threat of violence; compulsory “education”; laws & regulation; and economics, to not only control the actions of people, but to control their minds, so that they will eventually come to DEMAND the very things that the state wants to shove down their throats- like Obozocare.

      Our government is practicing all of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto- and the vast majority of our people now support these actions.

      • Hey Nunzio,
        I agree with the substance of your analysis, however calling my fellow blacks niglets and jigs really wasn’t necessary… I find it a bit offensive as a black man and really don’t see the value such name calling brings to the discussion. Again, I whole heartedly agree that “civil rights” and the “Great Society” among other things were a detriment to the solidarity and stability of the black family specifically and the whole of society of the “unwashed masses” generally. If more of my contemporaries truly understood who our true enemy was and still is, we would be well on our way to 10,000% improvement of our lot.

        • Hi Mac,

          No offense intended, I can assure you. I just abhor politically-correct terminology (That, and I do get rather annoyed with the behavior of a lot of “your people”….)

          Hey, if you’ve read enough of my posts, you may have noticed that I refer to my own people as “Dagos” and “WOPs”!

          And NOTHING pisses-off liberals more than using un-PC terminology, which is one of the reasons I love it! You want to try something neat: Go on a public forum where something like N. Korea is being discussed, and defend the Koreans against our warmongering threats- only refer to the Koreans as “Gooks”.

          Everyone will call you a “hater” [because people today are taught to react to certain words and concepts, without any actual thought- i.e. programming)- Even those who advocate bombing NK and killing innocent people who have done us no harm and who pose no threat to us, will call YOU the hater, merely for using the word “Gook”, even though you would be advocating the preservation of those very people.

          Such is the absurdity of our times- and personally, I think it a positive thing when such things can be illustrated to the few who may be willing to listen or who care.

          So…how about that Thomas Sowell? 😀 (Seriously, I love that guy!)

            • Ah, you probably know this old stand-by already, then, Eric:

              How do you circumcize a hillbilly? >
              (Kick his sister in the jaw!)

              I love all ethnic, racial, redneck, liberal, etc. jokes- basically, making fun of ANYBODY!

              (Some of the liberal ones aren’t even really jokes, but rather, just true statements- like the G. Gordon Liddy quote: “A liberal is a person who feels a great debt towards society, which debt he proposes to pay with your money.” )

              I’ve always loved the racial and ethnic stuff- but I love it now even more, because it just drives idiot white liberals INSANE! Where I now live, a lot of people have never even been more than an hour or two away from home; never spent any time in a big city, much less the “hood”. Most have never even personally met a Jew. Many have never personally known a schvatze (Sorry, Mac! 😀 but believe me, it was one of the more conservative choices;) )- and yet, because of their programming, they will promptly volunteer to tell you all about these different groups and their problems, and “how they are all caused by de eebil white man” and “racists”; and of course, the obligatory “everyone’s the same”….. That stuff is more hilarious than any joke.

          • Ok, cool. Believe me, I get just as annoyed (or more annoyed) with “my” people for their complete idocy. Indeed, using the old slurs (especially in reference to the group of which you’ve been labeled a member) and everyone (libtards, repubtards and everyone in between on that unidimensional spectrum) flies into a cum stained, piss soaked tissy! I know this first hand! In re-reading your post, I see I might have been a bit sensitive, and can sense your frustration with the entire works, lock, stock and barrel. I’m there with you. It burns my fucking hide when race hustlers, purposeful bigots (of every color), etc. vehemently and zealously wax indignant with the absolute wrong things and offer the problem (more government intrusion) as the solution. I weep when the great majority (of every cultural background) lap it up like manna from heaven. I know plenty of you all are atheistic or agnostic, so excuse me when I pray “Come Lord, QUICKLY!!!” I swear we are all doomed to the dustbin of history if he doesn’t come and set things back as they were intended with an old liberal bent.

            • Hi Mac,

              For me, one of the depressing things about our time is that so many people have lost their sense of humor, become hypersensitive and Perpetually Aggrieved. Jerry Seinfeld’s comment that he can’t do shows at college campuses anymore says a lot.

              The racial hate thing depends, of course, on collectivism.

              X hates Y presumptively because of the slights/wrongs committed by Z. Or because of the slights/wrongs committed by Z’s ancestors – and not even them, specifically.

              Of course, the hustlers in and out of government want us thinking collectively. It keeps us from thinking too much about them.

              • Mornin’ Eric,

                You know, between the air of seriousness and walking-on-eggshells created by these libturds; the reverential god-like attitude they expect one to have, which precludes all humor; and the entitlement attitude they have created around certain classes of people, they are actually doing MORE to fan the fires of contempt than to extinguish them.

                It’s like when I used to live in the city. A lot of my neighbors were handicapped. Many of them contributed absolutely nothing to society, and were just “useless eaters” [Not because of their handicap or ailments, but because the government had made them so]- and their sense of entitlement was so outrageous….

                They just expected special and reverential treatment from everyone. They acted as if it was their RIGHT to have anything and everything they ever wanted or needed provided to them. They demanded special treatment, while acting only in their own interest, and not giving a hoot as to anyone else. Most of them acted like state-created monsters.

                I used to see them crossing the road sometimes and think that it would be great to run them down!

                In short, most of them made themselves into the most abhorrent people you’d ever want to meet [Not all- a few older ones worked and did what they had to do- one whom I knew personally, despite being in a wheelchair, had 3 jobs and helped others, and didn’t expect anything from anyone…but such were rare] to the point where to this day, I still cringe when I see a handicapped person. What the libturds made these people into, has made me discriminate against them- whereas I never would have before.

                I have a physical ailment myself- but I’m pretty good at hiding it- and those who don’t know me wouldn’t have a clue. My former neighbors though [It was a newer “accessible” building in a neigborhood of older non-accessible buildings- which i guess is why it attracted a lot of gimpers…], my former neighbors would EMPHASIZE their disabilities and use them to full advantage to get special treatment. Their behavior made me sick.

            • Hey, Mac!

              AHhhh! The glorious truth in what you say! Such truth transcends any superficial human distinctions, like race or culture- it’s just truth!

              It’s like when someone doesn’t know I’m Italian and refers to someone guido as a “greaseball” or makes a reference to organized crime when they see some pisan scheming- It’s the people who are perpetuating the negative behavior whom I have the problem with- not the people observing that and calling it what it is.

              And you know what I’ve been seeing a lot of too, lately? Now that some black conservatives and/or Libertarians are becoming a little more well-known in the mainstream, the very PC libtards who have a meltdown if one dares not use the proper most reverential PC-language when referring to “an ehtnic minority”- those very same idjits will dismiss a Ben Carson or Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams as “Uncle Toms”, merely because they do not support the radical Marxist liberal nonsense that “blacks are supposed to support”.

              And how ironic is that; that the libtards fully act as though blacks are inferior and incompetent, and need the welfare state to take care of them and protect them from society at large and their own “dysfunctional ways”?

              But, use the wrong terminology, or advocate freedom for all….and suddenly YOU’RE a “raciss”!

              And AMEN! May his kingdom come! I know our atheistic friends here like to hope that somehow libertarian society will come about- but it’s never going to happen, humanly speaking. The world gets less and less free with each passing year, and has, since the beginning. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the ultimate end of human endeavors will eventually result in worldwide destruction and mass death- and people being what they are, those who survive would just rebuild the exact same type of societies as were destroyed, as indeed has happened down through history.

              If WE did not have a Divine hope, we would have no hope for this world.

              What often passes for Christianity these days gives us a bad name, so I don’t blame those here for being leery- but I know that I am a Libertarian because I am a Christian- and historically, Libertarianism has it’s roots in Christianity, because we always seem to be the ones who are affected first and most severely by the workings of kings and states; and we have always realized that the fundamental thing is to ensure freedom for ourselves and our neighbors, so that we all may live our consciences before God. Better that we should tolerate some bad behavior by other free people, in order that freedom should abound, than that we should demand enforcement of our beliefs upon others- because such does not prevent evil anyway, but it does squelch freedom- ours, as well as theirs. And I do believe that this is the very thinking of many of our American founding fathers, but is lost on many people today (Thanks largely to the government schools)

        • Well, in my day – young Black children were called Pickaninny – which has since become racist. I don’t know if our Black brothers and sisters decided to take offense at this or rather our White Liberal brothers and sisters decided it was, and pushed it until everyone believed it. I thought it was cute, and all young children are cute whether you call them ‘rugrats,’ ‘Curtain-climbers,’ ‘munchkins,’ or whatever. Can’t we all just have fun and get along.Clover

          BTW and for anyone’s information, the word Pickaninny stems from Irish folklore of small, black faries that lived in the hills. Who doesn’t like faries?

          • It had to be the white liberals, Gail. I’m sure it was them too who invented “African-American” (I used to know people from Haiti and Jamaica who HATED that term!).

            I like “turdler” for a young black kid; or “teenaper” for an older one! 😀

            And it has nothing to do with race, or “slurs”- it’s just freakin’ funny!

            The Verazanno Bridge in NY goes between an Italian section of Brooklyn and Staten Island. I once heard a Mick refer to it as ‘The Guinea Gang-plank’ and thought it was the funniest thing ever! I didn’t get all offended and think “Oh, what a prejudiced guy who must hate all Italians!”- I just laughed!

            Once, I, very-Italian Nunzio, was with another very Italian friend, and we saw this tough-looking guido who fulfilled just about every Italian stereotype you could think of. He had some little kids with him. Later on, I was making a remark to my friend about the guy and his kids, and I referred to the kids as “Little Mafia kids”!

            Yes, if people would just relax and stop taking all of this stuff so seriously.

  9. This Gail Morrison chick is one sick momma and a perfect representation of everything that’s gone wrong with those who falsely claim to be Christians. With her comments I more fully understand the concerns Bevin and others have expressed in the past – & share some of it – when it comes to the likes of her. I.e. “Exodus 15:3 – The LORD [is] a man of war:” yeah, yeah, just ignore the whole bit about Jesus saying, ‘Love your enemies’ and such. I suppose people such as her take that to mean, ‘Love them to death’ or something, and she and her ilk are, The Hand of God alongside Ceasar as they facilitate and support wiping out Christian churches in formerly secular Mideast countries? Could you imagine her ilk happily working alongside Ceasar? No wonder The Daily Bell got such flack for their excellent piece, ‘Body of Executed Terrorist Mysteriously Goes Missing’ By Joe Jarvis – April 16, 2017.

    How freaking covetous is it to say with a straight face, “with the exception of Israel, it doesn’t bother me at all to take over the whole area, and bring them into the 21th century.” as if she were a god herself and theft is only something which ‘other’ people do. It’s sickening to read her remarks. Imho, there’s no way to use reason with a person who says such, she’s like Greg Hunter, they see ‘Isreal the government’ as if it were a Christian entity and the chosen people of God, irrespective of the words of Paul as he brought ‘The Word’ to the Gentiles, while the Sanheddrin who still rule modern Isreal (and the world?) rejected it.

    She sure does go to great lengths to describe this and that, but she never seems to get around to answering anyones questions. Funny, that. Very, bot-like. Flesh or software, sometimes, either one is the same.

    I am still kind of shocked whenever I see an Imperial christian say words such as this: “As far as being a warmonger, yes, of course I am. But I believe in winning the War, and keeping the spoils. This is how and why the USA is great”

    Imho, there’s absolutely Nothing Christian about this statement, or this woman. It’s economically ignorant, to boot. [See: Austrian Economics] But I guess that’s par for the course these days. With that, I can understand the disdain many people have towards christians, especially the hypocritical Imperial kind who work against freedom and liberty.

    She reminds me of the troll Gil [or, is it Clover?] who I noticed used to haunt Will Griggs blog, too, when she writes, “I have interacted with the government and changed laws. Now, tell me what you have done to make your life and our country more to your liking?” Very, king-like words. Very, love the system, words. As if working within the system ever changed anything for the better in the long run. Oh yay! We get to drive 65mph, everyone gets to feel more free, while in fact, everyone is made less free by other means. What a slight of hand.

    I guess she and those like her will Never understand the contrariness of a statement such as this one, “I never developed the ‘socialist mentality’” Ah-hem, oh yes you have lady, you bought into it lock, stock and barrel.

    One thing is for absolute certain, in no way, no how, is she ever close to being, a ‘Free Spirit.’ I wish it were not so, but from where I’m reading, she may be about as far from that as one can be.

    What really reminded me of Gil was when she wrote this:
    “Did it occur to you to ask me what I thought constitute a crime before deciding what I believe?” as if she’d done a real good job of discussing the facts you all presented towards her and answering questions posed. She’s a Perfect representation of an ugly american’t Imperial christian.

    Did she ever answer even ONE question?

    Is she the poster child of, “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” or what?

    “I used to have a bumper sticker that read: ‘NUKE ‘EM, TIL THEY GLOW!’”

    Pardon me, but OMG, may God have mercy on her soul for being so foul. Based on this thread, there’s absoluetly Nothing, ‘Christ-like’ about that woman, nor her views. It’s totally the opposite.

    That’s all I have to say, except – mang! – Apple PC’s suck.

    • After you get through ranting, and raving, pissing and moaning Donald J. Trump will still be president.

      I give you a challenge; Try to shift your mindset from what is wrong with the USA to what is right. List 10 things, or 5 or even 2 things that you appreciate and/or thankful for.

      • Dear Gail,

        I’m thankful for the fact that surprising large numbers of Americans still realize that the right to keep and bear arms ought to be sacrosanct, because it is a natural right essential to individual liberty.

        Other than that, not much to be glad about.

        The Republican Party has totally abandoned any pretense of support for Old Right political values, and has become the Party of RINOS, Republicans In Name Only.

        Today’s GOP is largely distinguishable from the Democratic Party. Today’s GOP is essentially a watered down version of the socialist Democratic Party. It is best described as “Democratic Party Lite”. Whatever the Democratic Party advocates, today’s GOP advocates in “kinder, gentler” form.

        The GOP establishment should change its party emblem from an elephant to a rhinoceros.

        • Bravo, Mr. Bevin!

          What you said can be simply illustrated by the fact that the Repugnantcans no longer oppose socialized medicine; they just want a version of it that works better now.

          It’s kind of like having an alternate party in Nazi Germany, who favors not gassing the Jews, but instead wants to just starve them to death.

          • Dear Nunzio,

            Obamacare. That was one of the key points I had in mind too. The GOP establishment no longer opposes it. They merely want their own version of it. “We can do it better”.

            As Ayn Rand correctly noted decades ago, the GOP is a “Me too!” political party with no firm principles of its own. It is content to be dragged inexorably leftward toward a socialist dictatorship by the Democrats.

            This may not have been true at one time, but it is now, and has been true at least since the Vietnam War era.

            The clearest evidence of the GOP’s decadence was the way the Republican National Committee treated Ron Paul during his 2012 primary campaign.

            Here was a man who was the exemplar of Old Right Republican political values. He should have been the Republican Party’s flag bearer.

            Yet the RNC evinced greater animus toward him than it did toward the Democrats. I suspect he was an embarrassing reminder to them of their own betrayal of the party’s erstwhile principles.

    • Dear Helot,

      Impressive continuity we have here on this forum. You still recall the knock down, drag out debates we had about whether organized religion encouraged authoritarianism!

      I haven’t forgotten either, even though that was several years ago. Time certainly flies.

      • Bevin, not to start a row or insult anyone but religion has to rely on brain washing since there are no hard facts. It’s always seemed to me very religious people are more easily duped into believing government dogma. I don’t say any religion is a false doctrine since I cant prove it just as it can’t be proven to my satisfaction that it is the truth.

        • I’m not offended either.

          Sadly, what goes on in most “Christian” churches, is just a model of statism/authoritarianism. Which I guess, is why so many of them seem to support statism and the military etc. -in defiance of the Word of God.

          I’ll bet you though, that a large contingent of Libertarianism can be traced back to Christianity though [i.e. real practitioners of the Bible- not large organized churches- who were more often the persecutors and real enemies of such Christians].

          For both in Europe, and here, it was primarily the Christians who objected to the forced alternate “morality” of the state and it’s moral system [laws], and who realized that in order for them to be free to worship and live life as they so choose, they must preserve freedom and restrain the state.

          Even today, it is primarily such Christians who are the first and loudest objectors to such things as national IDs and social engineering and government intrusion.

          • I do not belong to a mainline Christian church. In fact, my church have been horribly treated through their short existence. Driven from place to place, called cruel names, chased to the end of the known area of the country in the desert to die, but they didn’t. When they didn’t die, the government sent the Calvary in, that fort is still an active military base today. We have been and still are laughed at, poked fun and called a cult. Often people want to rescue me, because they think that “I don’t know about the church.” When I joined, I lost friends, and even my family member stopped talking to me. But my beliefs and salvation is more important to me than anyone’s opinion of what I should believe. Our chapels are small, we have several congregations that meet at different times during Sunday. Members of that group are asked to speak in the meetings. We do not have a paid ministry, all is volunteer. We live what we believe. There are high standards, and morals. Those who don’t comply are ex-communicated. Yet, we aren’t as strict as we once were. So in that respect, I’d say that the early Christians were NOT libertarians. Even though the early settlers came to America to worship the way they wanted, they were just as harsh, and maybe harsher than the powers in Europe.

            If we go back to the way it was, you’d not get more freedom, but less – remember the Blue Laws and Prohibition.

            • Hi Gail,

              We try to avoid religious debates here for one reason: No adherent of any faith can produce objective facts to prove the existence of their specific deity nor this deity’s (supposed) instructions/demands, etc. It’s all hearsay and opinion – belief. People become annoyed when their beliefs are challenged and it’s annoying to be unable to challenge someone’s beliefs on the basis of facts. You end up with a shouting match that Eukenaba is superior to Jebediah who takes no second seat to Hxtlopochtli who farts in the direction Allah.

            • Hi Gail,

              I’d really like to discuss authoritarian collectivism with you.

              Do you understand what the term means?

              In simple terms – and one term at a time:

              Authoritarian: The exercise of force or its threat by one person or a group of people against other people to compel their obedience.

              Collectivism: The precedence of the group over the individual.

              Now combine the two – and apply to the GOP and the Democrats and the Communists and the National Socialists (and so on).

              Do you see a common thread?

              The philosophical – the moral – difference we have is that I reject both authoritarianism and collectivism while you appear to support both of those things, so long as they are directed toward ends you personally approve of – such as “nuking them until they glow” and so forth.

              Which means that in principle, you have a great deal in common, morally, not only with Democrats but also with Communists and Nazis (and so on) since you all accept that authoritarianism and collectivism should be the basis for society and government. You wish to surrender your self to the hive – to the will of the Queen Bee – whom you believe (somehow) transmutes the will of “the majority” – or (when it goes your way) the majority (or minority) you approve of. You support the use of force against people who want no part of the hive, who simply wish to be free to be left in peace.

              I’d really like it if you would address the above – directly. I don’t want to hear about “old glory” or any other such.

              Explain why authoritarianism and collectivism are moral when practiced by the right but not the left, for instance.

              • Eric said [in response to Gail]:” I reject both authoritarianism and collectivism while you appear to support both of those things, so long as they are directed toward ends you personally approve of ”

                DIng!Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding!

                This is how most people operate today, and how our pluralistic “two party” system is kept enshrined.

                This is why someone like Gail can fight the establishment when it comes to the 55MPH speed limit, but yet not give a hoot about the concepts of Libertarianism [liberty] in general, and as it pertains to others.

                To someone like Gail, there is no problem with an authoritarian system, as long as that system works for her. It’s like “All others be damned! As long as I’m comfortable with the constraints placed upon society by the system, and as long as that system doesn’t interfere with what I want to do; and criminalizes what I don’t want other people doing….”

                And as such a system grows, eventually emcompassing more and more aspects of life, it can only end in pure tyranny- which is why we are at the place we are at today.

                • You have that partially right, Nunzio. I will tell you why. . . It isn’t that I can fight some issues, but not tolerate others – the fact of the matter is the government is necessary or we would have anarchy, so either of these systems would be bad is allowed to get out of hand. This has been so since the beginning. The government needs to be controlled at all times to keep it small and under control. I see on the highway less and less control and rudeness. People cutting each other off, driving on the wrong side, etc. Once there were unwritten rules of the road, and unless one was ignorant, they were practiced, now not so much. it is being disregarded in other areas too. The riots we are seeing – this isn’t the right to assembly or free speech, this is anarchy. ‘Black Lives Matter’ fails under the same umbrella, too.

                  Many of the posts are the same – attacking me for my opinions and/or beliefs are refusing to allow me to practice and post mine. Those that are posting, including you, Eric, are trying to “make” me believe in your philosophy or shut me down. Where is the difference?

                  • If we didn’t have government we would be ruled by sociopaths! Oh wait… um….

                    The roads are discourteous places because of government. Government has spent the last 80-90-100 years focused on speed and revenue. As a result it has become an environment where all rules only matter if you get caught breaking them. “Speed Kills” has destroyed any respect for rules but since these rules still exist conflict results.

                    We’d be better off with ruleless road system where at least we would still have civility. BTW, look up hans monderman. See what a driving environment without rules does when it replaces one with lots of rules.

                  • Dear Gail,

                    You wrote:

                    Many of the posts are the same – attacking me for my opinions and/or beliefs are refusing to allow me to practice and post mine. Those that are posting, including you, Eric, are trying to “make” me believe in your philosophy or shut me down. Where is the difference?

                    There are several differences. But I will focus merely on one, the most critical one.

                    You are the only person here attempting to justify the initiation of brute force coercion to “make everyone obey the rules”.

                    Everyone else here is a free market anarchist, and subscribes to the Non-Aggression Principle, or “NAP”.

                    It is obvious you have no familiarity with the NAP, so I will explain.

                    The non-aggression principle (or NAP, also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression”, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual’s property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism.[2][3][4][5]

                    You on the other hand, cling to the myth that “Government is necessary”.

                    In fact, government is not merely unnecessary, it is a moral abomination.

                    Government: a gang of thugs that demands obedience and money at gunpoint from everyone inside a line it drew on a map.

                  • Gail said: “government is necessary or we would have anarchy”.

                    Oh, wait. You’re implying that something is wrong with anarchy? That unless men elect other men to rule over them with violence, that society would break down into violence, corruption and economic manipulation, much like what we have today? Oh…

                    Gail: “This has been so since the beginning”.
                    No, it hasn’t, actually. Except for modern times, and for those who lived under the rule of the empires of the past, a good deal of human history has gone on in patriarchal societies which enjoyed great stability and freedom.

                    Gail: “The government needs to be controlled at all times to keep it small and under control.”

                    That’s an oxymoron. Which is it? Does the government control the people, or do the people control the government? And if the people control the government, why can’t they just cut out the “middleman” and control the problem people themselves?

                    Gail: “I see on the highway less and less control ”

                    Perfect example! Never before have humans been under such control and scrutiny, as they are today when traveling in their cars. There are cameras and sensors and radar guns; license plate readers; RF monitors; and cops everywhere, who are empowered to molest the innocent for something as innocuous as not wearing a seatbelt. In NJ you can get a $1000 fine for not having your pet restrained in your car, and people are ticketed for going 2MPH over the speed limit.

                    Despite this unprecedented level of governmental interference and control, as you have observed, people’s behavior has become FAR worse than it was 50 years ago, when much of the above did not exist, and you could drive cross-country doing unlimited speeds in many places (as an older friend of mine used to do in the 60’s) with no consequence and very little threat of such- or at the most, a mere ticket.

                    That is just one example of how your thesis that government restrains bad behavior, is fatally flawed.

                    In fact (and you are old enough to have personally observed this): It seems as though the more government we have, the worse the behavior of society at-large becomes.

                    If you have a government of the people, and those people are largely ill-behaved and corrupt, all that happens, is that ill-behavior and corruption become institutionalized and given legitimacy and power- and THAT is exactly what we see.

                    An then, it is doubly worse for the innocent, as they must not only battle random lawless criminals (or be prevented from doing so by the government which protects those criminals) AND they must also battle the government, which finds it more profitable to harass the average harmless citizen who has assets, than to bother real criminals.

                    I would not have much of a problem with a very limited government, such as the Founders sought to establish- but the problem is, as we have seen to be the case, that power structure can grow all too easily and rapidly, while disenfranchising those governed of their power.

                    So what is the advantage of government? We have rampant crime and social decay, and are powerless to do anything about it. The average person has more money stolen by the government each year than could ever be stolen by any robber; and is FAR more likely to be the victim of one of the governments armed agents of any variety, than they are of being the victim of a private criminal- and are even rendered powerless in many cases to defend themselves against those criminals by the very government which claims to exist for their own protection.

                    Government is thus worse than useless- it is a mechanism under which crime is perpetrated and flourishes.

                    And this is not even to mention the economic crimes, and wars which can only exist under the rule of governments.

                    Do you realize that in patriarchal times, and even during some of the early empires, like Babylon and Persia,, 1500 years could elapse with NO inflation? Inflation [legalized theft] is ANOTHER crime of modern governments. [As is fractional-reserve banking; fiat money; income tax; property tax; yada, yada- all crimes against humanity, which could not exist, but for kings and governments, and those who serve them!]

            • Gail said: ” I’d say that the early Christians were NOT libertarians. “.

              Ah, but Gail, you fail to distinguish between voluntary association as opposed to compulsion/coercion on all.

              For instance: I believe in free speech. You come to my house though, and start spewing profanity, I will kick you out. I impose standards in my own life, and over my own property, and any who will not respect those standards are not welcome.

              On the other hand, I would not want to see government dictate what I nor anyone else can say at any time or in any place, because such is not their right.

              So it follows, that if we choose to associate with a group of people, regardless of what their beliefs may be, we do so voluntarily, and as a requisite to that association, we may be required to adhere to certain beliefs and conduct in order to maintain our association with that group- be it a church, or secular club, or political association.

              Even the staunchest Libertarian is not going to tolerate someone taking the stage and giving a lecture on the merits of Marxism at a meeting of the Libertarian Club.

              Libertarianism is all about freedom of association- which, next to property rights, are pretty much the line of demarcation between freedom and tyranny.

              Liberatarians do not have to accept and tolerate everything…or anything; as a fundamental of liberty is that it is your choice as to what and whom you will accept or tolerate, be it everyone, or no one at all, or only certain ones who meet your criteria; and for no other reason than that it is your criteria which you hold, without needing to justify such to anyone else.

              This is why the Bible in general, and the Apostles/New Testament church did not advocate conversion by the sword, or by civil legislation, but rather advocate conversion by evangelism and example.

          • Nunzio, there may be some truth to what you say but for me morality is almost exclusively derived from mores, something that differs radically from culture to culture.

            • 8Man, I don’t quite “get” that. You mean morality is just something that is arrived at by what has been accepted by a majority of similar people over a given period of time so as to be associated with that group’s traditions?

              If that’s so, then head-hunting could be considered moral for natives of Myanmar; as could communism be considered moral for inhabitants of California. It all becomes relative then, and there would be no absolutes.

            • Dear 8,
              When you say “differ radically” that leaves considerable room for interpretation.

              Culture definitely plays a role, but I don’t believe it leads to utter subjectivity based on arbitrary tradition.


              Because different cultures must still comply with natural law, which is objective.

              This is why the Golden Rule is so universal. Ancient or modern. East or West. The Golden Rule, which is closely related to the NAP, reigns supreme.

              One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).[1]

              One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).[1]

              • bevin, in some cultures female babies beyond a certain number are killed simply because eons of living there and nothing changing everyone knows there are only so many people who can survive. A large crop of babies would mean death for everyone at some time in the future. That’s a more that is viewed as a moral. Indeed it would be immoral for the person having a baby beyond the certain number for that season to allow it to live.

                Other cultures use a certain size ring around everybody’s neck. Once you get to a certain size you are choked to death by it. That allows the entire society to keep reproducing and survive. Should someone remove their ring they would be killed or banned from existing anywhere that society lived. Necessity is not only the mother of invention(thanks Frank…..mud sh sh shark)but becomes a more that represents the “morals” of that society.

              • bevin, and let me say this too. It’s not subjectivity based on arbitrary law. It’s very much based on objectivity, no exceptions. It varies greatly from Texas Rangers hanging a horse thief no matter what the circumstance. It’s certainly not like the subjectivity of valuing a phero’s life more than a mundane, hence the capital punishment laws regarding killing a cop. FE, FEFH’s.

                • Dear 8,
                  The scenarios you describe are unfortunately all too real.

                  But that said, I firmly believe that with civilizational progress, people of all cultures are advancing toward much less “Social Darwinian” norms.

                  It’s a big question all right. I won’t deny that.

    • Oh, really?!?!?! Do you spit on our returning warriors, and call them ‘baby-killer’ the way your grandparents did? What nerve!

      • That spitting on Vietnam vets never happened, pure propaganda, I was enslaved by the military back then and if anyone had ever spit on me or my buddies they would have been rendered incapable of ever spitting again. That meme was the start of the brainwashing to worship anything in uniform that plagues Amerika today.

        • Mike, I narrowly missed becoming a scared shitless kid in uniform. I knew lots of draftees and one single person who joined voluntarily. Gail never refers to the “returning slaves “.

          Goering rightly described war.

      • I sure would, Gail. “Returning warriors” my ass! People who drop napalm and bombs on other humans who have done them no harm, just because someone commands them to, and because they would rather inflict death and suffering on innocents, rather than suffer the consequences of disobeying a tyrant [while claiming that they are “fighting for our freedom”] are not “warriors”- they are cowards and criminals- just as those who did Hitler’s dirty work- and if being spat on is the worst thing that happens to them in this life for their crimes, then they are getting off far too easily.

          • Gail, you surprise me. I was really expecting better from you.

            Would you give the same courtesy to a burglar to who didn’t intend to kill the homeowner? “He just got in the way!”.

            I’m embarrassed for you, Gail.

            • Nunzio, you’re embarrassed for me – don’t bother. You don’t sound happy with yourself, your country or your president. I don’t know what your experiences have been, but they must have been pretty gruesome for you to be so jaded.Clover

              I do feel sorry for you, but not embarrassed for nor by you. God bless!

              • Gail,

                Please confine your posts to facts and reasoned arguments. How you feel is of no interest to anyone here. Nor your family history, etc.

                PS: Your language, your choice of words, reveals your conditioning. For example, “our” president. No. He is the president. “Our” conveys a kind of servile reverence as well as the implicit idea that “we” must line up behind – that is, support and respect – the president, because he is “our” president.

                Well, Gail, many of us do not consider him “ours” – just as I am certain you didn’t consider Obama yours.

                Why the deferential attitude toward these people? What gave Trump or Obama or any of them the right to order any of us about? To take even a cent of anyone else’s money? Because they hold office? Because other people voted for them?

                I’d like a specific answer, if you are up to it!

              • Gail, my country is not of this world; and this deranged lying warmonger is not my president, nor was any other man who has been in office in my lifetime.

                We technically do not even have a president, because a legitimate president is one who is constrained to exercise only the powers granted to that office by the Constitution- and no president of the last 150 years has ever been so restrained so as to be faithful to that oath.

                Personally, I’ve had a wonderful life, and continue to- and that continuance is only because I abstain from entanglement with this illicit and corrupt system by residing in a remote rural area, and operating strictly within what’s left of the free market.

                All Americans should be able to live so freely in “the land of the free”- but 99.5% no longer do, because of our government overstepping it’s bounds, while at the same time failing to uphold the very things which it is obligated to do- such as protecting our borders from ALL foreign invaders!

                • “and no president of the last 150 years has ever been so restrained so as to be faithful to that oath”

                  Take a good look at Coolidge. While not perfect, I believe he was the last to be aware of the limitations of the office as proposed by the founders. Others will argue that he wrote “tons” of Executive Orders. But if you look at the subjects, most are things an Executive should be able to control and apply to his own branch. As I recall, few, if any, tread on the Legislative’s territory.

                  I recommend “Coolidge – An American Enigma” by Robert Sobel. As fate would have it, we got Roosevelt Lite, then Roosevelt because a kid played tennis without socks. I don’t hold with the butterfly/tornado theory, but it is amazing how small events can result in catastrophes (like FDR).

                  • Thsnks, ARY!

                    I don’t know much about Coolidge, but I kinda sorta remember hearing some good stuff. I may just have to get that book, to fill in the void. It was a very interesting time period- in a way, much like our own, with huge upheavals in society, such as feminism, and the push towards communism, which ultimately resulted in FDR’s reign- as well as being the beginning of mass popular culture and it’s use to distribute propaganda.

                    Very interesting too, as my mother was born in 1925- so I have an actual eye-witness 350′ from where I am sitting, to the days of FDR!

          • Dear Gail,

            Speaking of “educating yourself on the use of napalm”, I guess you never heard these “jody calls” that troops shouted out while jogging in formation?

            The following verses are from “Napalm Sticks to Kids.” One of the cadences of Vietnam, its use by the U.S. military created controversy about the theme.

            Bomb the village
            Kill the people
            Throw some napalm in the square
            Do it on a Sunday morning
            Kill them on their way to prayer
            Ring the bell inside the schoolhouse
            Watch the kiddies gather round
            Lock and load with your 240
            Mow them little motherfuckers down[11]

            The messages chanted by recruits may depict brutal treatment of civilians and the themes even suggest that troops might kill civilians gathered in public areas.[12]

            • All part of the programming. The one that sticks in my head went:
              Napalm sticks to little children,
              All the children of the world
              Be they yellow black or white,
              They will light up in the night.
              Napalm sticks to little children of the world

              Pure class and civilization there.

            • You do realize that this is an anti-war song sung by the same people that spit on the troops coming home – right? The draft-dodgers. The grandparents of today’s “Pussy Parade.’ Right?Clover

              Who’s side are you on? Those that will build the nation or those that will tear it down?

              • Gail,

                Do you believe that slavery is moral?

                I ask because the draft fits the definition of slavery: People with power (the state) claiming they have the right to forcibly conscript another human being and compel him to “serve” their interests. That is slavery. The fact that it is not permanent alters nothing as regards the morality of the act.

                Furthermore, it is worse than merely enslaving a person so as to exploit their body and steal the fruits of that body’s toil. The draft entails ordering a person to kill other people he has never met, who’ve done nothing to him. You will say these people are “the enemy.” Of whom, exactly? The ruling clique? Which of course doesn’t do the murdering it insists others do on its behalf.

                If it’s “pussy” to question the right of some random strangers in this thing called “government” to threaten me with violence if I do not agree to do violence to other people I’ve never met on their behalf, then I joyfully assume the mantle of “pussy.”

                I harm none who haven’t harmed me first – or tried to.

                And you know what, Gail? By that standard, the people in “our” government are far more a threat to me than foreign people thousands of miles away whose names I don’t even know. Think about it. What “freedoms” have been “taken away” by “Islamic terrorists”?

                How many freedoms have been taken away by white (allegedly) Christian men right here in the “Homeland”?

                The Chimp took away my freedom – and yours – to travel by airplane without being subjected to a loathsome and degrading incoming felon “processing.”

                Not bin Laden.

                Just one example.

                Stop taking the bait.

              • Gail, a more noble generation, instead of spitting, would have shot those returning criminals. Murderers; torturers; and oppressors of people and sovereign nations who have done us no harm nor threatened our borders, are no different than Hitler’s SS.

                Every illicit war we enter into destroys our own country more than any enemy ever could, for it makes us hated the world over; puts our nation into deeper debt; straddles the public with a bunch of desensitized, psychotic PTSD bastards when they return from their crime spree (Most of whom end up as cops or other government agents- if they don’t become drug addicts or criminals first- or even if they do in many cases); and worst of all, it morally degrades this entire nation, collectively and individually, to the point you are seeing now in everyday life, where everyone has become so used to rationalizing pure bullshit, that words and concepts no longer have any concrete meaning, and brutality and violence havec become the accepted norm.

                What we inflict on others, is returned upon our own heads.

              • Dear Gail,

                Did you not get the part of these “jody calls” being the chants that “our men in uniform” chanted during training???

                Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

  10. President Trump has not deflated. You do not understand how he works. You want to see establishment behavior out of President Trump, and you will not get that. Trump actually won on Repeal and Replace! He got directly behind Ryan. He promoted what a good man Ryan is and that he will get it done! And Ryan didn’t do the job. So it became Obamacare lite and then it became Ryancare. And then… Ryan is suddenly saying we can get this done!! Ryan got played, and the people (well most people) saw that Ryan was the problem, not President Trump.

    Oh ye of little faith!! The game has changed and you are not going to get the square peg to go into that round hole no matter how badly you want to!!

    • Hi Tuaca,

      Well, here’s what I know:

      Trump has not replaced (much less repealed) Obamacare. He doesn’t even talk about it anymore. It looks like Obamacare is here to stay… until we’re saddled with “single payer,” once Obamacare collapses.

      He has instead “intervened” – that is, committed an act of war – against one foreign country that in no way threatened much less attacked the U.S. and seems to be preparing to “do something” about another foreign country (North Korea) that could have horrendous consequences and, in any event, will do nothing at all to make Americans more free.

      His cabinet is lousy with the same poltroonish chickenhawks and neo-cons we would have seen had Hillary won – or The Chimp been brought out of retirement.

      I grant that he did not run as a Libertarian. But at the same time, I was hoping for not just another Republican.

      • eric, another day, more bullshit. These people arguing for their obvious Republican jackoffs don’t bother to delve into what their heroes are really doing. Ryan’s health care bill was 230 pages of backdoor gun grabbing….for all intents, the same thing as Obamacare. Both were written so that those without the big bucks to pay for the horrendous amount for expensive stuff such as life saving operations and treatments give up their rights to retain the guns they had previously legally owned.

        The Klintonistas first tried this tack and with the help of the NRA succeeded in throwing people with guns and illicit substances on the same property into possible huge prison terms and the much more rewarding forfeiture and seizure law that has been the greatest thing to ever happen to any law enforcement crowd….bar none
        Not only does it allow for taking everything someone owns, their freedom for as much as a few lifetimes and their guns.

        It’s all a huge win for law enforcement of any type or level.

        The Patriot Act simplified hell out of the process by giving LE a bye for using what had been before legal protection to the public at large.

        I love the line in The Departed where the chief cop says I Love the Patriot Act. They can verily do nothing wrong legally, great for them, not too great for the people’s rights.

  11. Eric, I can’t find the post that you wanted me to comment on. The email link doesn’t take me to it. I wanted to reply to Nunzio, too and some others.

    • Hi Gail,

      If you are a registered user this link: takes you directly to the comments. A screen may come up displaying a “sorry, no log-in enablers provided”. Ignore this statement and put in your name and password in the space provided. If you bookmark this link, you can always go directly to the full comments page. It is much easier to navigate from this page. The comments appear chronologically. To the right of the comment there are two headings, “in response to” and “submitted on”. If you click on the date/time section under the “submitted on” heading, it takes you directly to the specific comment. I hope this helps.

      I hope to comment on the gist of your posts shortly.


        • After you get through ranting, and raving, pissing and moaning Donald J. Trump will still be president.

          I give you a challenge; Try to shift your mindset from what is wrong with the USA to what is right. List 10 things, or 5 or even 2 things that you appreciate and/or thankful for.

          • Gail, the only thing “right” about the USA, is the Bill Of Rights. So as far as the country goes, I am thankful for ONE thing: That we still have a view vestiges of those rights left. They’ve pretty much all been severely compromised; and if you are deprived of them, there is nothing you can do, unless you have a decade or two and a million dollars or so to pursue every infraction to the Supreme Court…if they will even hear your case; and even then, there is no guarantee that they will uphold what is right.

            Well, maybe one thing us older farts can be thankful for, is for what we USED to have here, and the heritage of the Founders and our ancestors and the Christian culture that once was- which ultimately is where the knowledge of and appreciation for those freedoms came from. That unique heritage and what it conveys is largely gone now, thanks to the flooding of this country with immigrants from other cultures which don’t share those values, and the filth that our government promotes in the schools and through it’s coercive laws.

            We should be MOURNING the loss of what we once had here. It is too late to be thankful,. Ichabod. [The glory has departed].

            Now personally, I have so many things to be thankful to God for, that I could spend an hour rattling them off (and sometimes do in prayer) but those things have nothing to do with this country, but quite the contrary, are in spite of it.

            And of course, all of the millions of innocents killed directly by this country’s actions- from the 1000-1500 or so people murdered by cops every year; to the millions of our own citizens lives who are ruined, and whose finances and families are destroyed when they are caged wrongfully or for doing something which caused no harm nor violence to any other person….to the Injuns whom we executed for their land, or just to rid places of them; to the millions of innocent citizens of sovereign nations we’ve attacked around the world- I don’t think they can be too thankful; nor should we be thankful for what was accomplished at their cost.

            We [The USA] truly fit the Biblical criteria of the end-time Babylon.

      • “sorry, no log-in enablers provided”

        That refers to the fact that Eric’s config doesn’t allow logins from google, yahoo, facebook, wordpress, and so on to be used. It has to be a logon for this site.

    • Hi Gail,

      Leaving aside the morality of what you endorse, your assertions seem to be based on a number of demonstrably false premises. First, despite the hysteria, terrorism does not pose a significant threat to people living in America. This threat, though still very small, has been aggravated, not ameliorated, by US military involvement in the Muslim world.

      Second, you assert that we must fight them over there so as not to fight them over here. This canard, based on the idea that terrorists are motivated to attack “us” because of our “freedoms” is not borne out by empirical evidence. Such evidence strongly suggests that terrorism is motivated primarily in response to Western actions, not religious fanaticism. Of course, religious fanatics employ dogma to justify, and make attractive, terrorist martyrdom but, absent military intervention, it is unlikely that such preaching would succeed on a wide scale. Think for a moment what it must be like for a Muslim male in the aftermath 9/11. Nearly all of whom, living in an “area of conflict”, are defined by US policy as terrorists. Imagine he witnesses schools, weddings, funerals, tribal meetings, soccer games etc… bombed into oblivion. Imagine that he knows that most of those killed were not terrorists. Imagine that he lost most of his family and then had to listen to the president of the US ludicrously boast that the difference between “us” and “them” is that “we” don’t target civilians. Imagine that he knows that the US intentionally targets weddings, funerals, tribal meetings, hospitals, etc… and then justifies these attacks based on the false certainty that most of those killed were terrorists. Imagine he knows that the identification of terrorist targets is rarely based on hard intelligence but rather unverifiable, self interested tips and inherently unreliable “signature” information. Imagine he sees that “his” government is either unwilling to stop any of this or actively colluding with it. Imagine he knows that, no matter what he does, if he is killed by the US he will be classified by “us” as a terrorist. Finally, imagine that he sees only one element of his society offering any avenue for “justice”. Is it surprising that he would turn to these people? US policy has increased terrorism and made it attractive to many who, otherwise, would not be involved. “Attacking them “over there”, increases the likelihood of them attacking us “over here”.

      Third, you claim that only a show of force will prevent war. Recent history does not support this assertion. The destruction of secular regimes has increased war and violence. For all their faults, Sadam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi prevented widespread religious violence in Iraq and Libya. By deposing secular leaders, the US has empowered Al Qaeda and led to the rise of ISIS. Going further back, the 1953 CIA coup against Mohammed Mossadegh led to the rise of religious fanaticism and the rule of the Ayatollah. Imagine if the first secular, democratically elected government had been allowed to continue. Perhaps this would have led to a more peaceful, democratic Middle East which, after all, is the stated purpose of US policy.

      It is clear that you are a Christian. Does it not bother you that the actions you endorse have led to the destruction of the oldest Christian community in the world (Iraq) and the persecution and murder of Christians in Libya? Should Assad be deposed in Syria, the only relatively safe place left for Christians in the middle east will be Israel and Iran.


      • No, Jeremy, I don’t think that ISIS want to “. . .terrorists are motivated to attack “us” because of our “freedoms” . . . They want our country and they don’t want us here.

        As far as Muslims go, I have a Turkish Muslim daughter-in-law, and my son who has decided to embrace her religion. She is a wonderful person, and treats me with more respect than most Christians I know, and that includes my own family. She tells me that Muslim is a religion of ‘Peace,’ and I have no reason to doubt this. While ISIS claim to be Muslim, my sweet daughter in law says, “no!”

        I don’t like to use the word “terrorist,” as we have our own ‘Home-grown’ loonies to cope with, who may or may not be Muslims.

        I’ll tell you what I can imagine, and that is what the mothers felt and endured from the behavior of their sons. I am appalled at the arrogance and rudeness of many men today. Where did so many mothers go wrong? Is this a result of ‘The Hand that Rocked the Cradle,’ wasn’t the mother, but rather the day centers, and the Liberal run public schools?

        As to your last statement; with the exception of Israel, it doesn’t bother me at all to take over the whole area, and bring them into the 21th century.

        • Hi Gail,

          You believe, “they want our country and they don’t want us here”. Based on what? “They”, as you call them, have been very clear abut what they want. Namely, they want “us” to leave them alone. The idea that radical Muslims plan, and are poised, to take over America is a delusional fantasy. Moreover, if we left them alone it would likely lead to the waning, and eventual irrelevance, of the influence of the extreme elements of Islam. Perhaps if we left them alone many Muslims would reveal themselves to be quite like the “wonderful, respectful” person you know.

          “As to your last statement; with the exception of Israel, it doesn’t bother me at all to take over the whole area, and bring them into the 21th century”.

          So, it’s OK that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people be murdered in order to “bring them into the 21st century”. For what, exactly? Perhaps so that Muslim men can learn to be as rude and arrogant as American men?


      • Jeremy, think what Obomer administration said years ago and it was doubly driven home by the Hitleryites that you and I, both being over 40, believing in our unalienable rights and the 2nd amendment, are, by their beliefs, domestic terrorists. Of course they lump us into the Christian, bible thumping, gun toting crowd because we’re white. I often wonder what that makes my black friends. The kool-aid crowd always has some denigrating moniker for those of us who aren’t socialists, fascists, Communists, or part of the pc crowd or the government suckers. The “My Country,Love It or Leave It” crowd. Fuck em all and when the collapse comes, Let Them Eat Cake.

      • The more I see of “Gail’s” posts, the more I am convinced that “she” is just a newer gang of Yale or Harvard weenies sitting around trying to “rattle the cage”. Surely no one can be that gullible, and unable to rebuff counter-arguments or offer new ones, who has lived the many years “she” claims. Unless totally senile, of course.

        • I know Gail… she is real. She was involved with the National Motorists Association’s efforts to repeal the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit back in the ’90s… I’m not sure when she became a Chimp-snuggler and warmonger…

        • Arylioa, you are wrong about all of your assumptions about me.
          Well, maybe the senile part. LOL One never knows, does one?

          Thank you, Eric, for chiming in. BTW I thought Bill Clinton/Bush, Jr./ and Obama were the Chimps and Heaven help me, if I ever snuggled up to them. Trump is nothing like them. I stand with him 100%.

          As far as being a warmonger, yes, of course I am. But I believe in winning the War, and keeping the spoils. This is how and why the USA is great, – Well, at least it was until we gave away most of what we won. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama had given the southwestern states back to Mexico. And then, there was Spain, England and so forth. What we enjoy so much in this country, we fought for, and WON! Fact!

        • ARI, if it weren’t for what Eric says, I would agree 100% with you!

          In one post, Gail mentions that she “grew up during the Depression”- but she claims to be 82 years old, and the Depression ended pretty much in 39, at which time, Gail would have been 4 years old, and thus not even old enough at the time to even have remembered the Depression!

          That, and her tendency to dwell more on personal issues rather than deal with facts, are the classic signs of your typical internet troll/disinformation specialist. (And in my near 20 years on the internet, I think I may have suspected people of being trolls on maybe only 2 or 3 occasions….)

          And ya STILL never know- I mean, how many times do even major players in various movements turn out to be agents or provocateurs, etc.?

          Not that it matters- Our words can speak for themselves; let the readers see who has the sounder argument. But it’s funny too, that she does show up just when the site was hacked and is experiencing various glitches……

          And as someone who has lots of experience with the elderly who act much younger than their age (I come from a family of long-livers) I have to say that Gail doesn’t even seem at all even like a very young 82.

          • Well, thank you for the compliment. LOL

            I was in a sleep study and the doctor told me that I had very young brain waves for someone my age. What can I say – I’m a teen-ager at heart, only my body has grown old, and I’m fortunate that the old body hasn’t grown as old as some, and I’m still on this side of the grass.

            Let’s go into the Depression . . do you suppose that the Great Depression – which it was called that at the time, not for years later – started on October 29, 1929 and was over the next week? The results of it lingered but longer than the registered 10 years designated. And, in rural areas such as my parents came from, it lingered even longer. But I was fortunate as my Dad was a sailor and his income was $59 a month when I was born in 1935. Their rent was $11 a month. No, I don’t remember this, I was told by my parents. We were rich compared to most of the nation. One time my father walked to and from the ship to save a nickle each way and brought my mother an eggbeater. Today a bus ride would cost you $3 each way and there is no way you could buy an eggbeater for $6. Here are some things that I remember from my early years – my hand shut in the car door when I was 2 yrs old, my dolly fell off a kitchen stool and her eyes dropped out. Ever heard of the Galloping Gertie? This was a bridge that collapsed in Tacoma Washington in November 7, 1940, I was still 4 but nearing my 5th birthday. I remember driving over it, and the roar of it collapsing. My father stopped our car and I remember seeing cars slip into the water, and people climbing on their hands and knees up the collapse bridge to safety. I don’t remember if any made it or not. The effects of the Great Depression went on into the War years with rationing, government controlled transportation. Don’t tell me what I remember, because you don’t know.

            Eric has vouched for me, so you know that I’m not a troll, nor a hacker, and frankly, I resent your saying these things.

  12. Trump must be overcompensating for his tiny hands/penis by showing how macho he can be. Didn’t take long after the 59(!) missles at $1.4 million a pop to drop THE BIGGEST BOMB EVER on Shitganistan; WTF is next, an actual nuke?! I confess to hoping Drumpf would shake up the warmonger cult of D.C. but he’s done a whiplash 180 on most of his promises, should have known better – fool me 100 times, shame on me. So now he’s filling the swamp and jumping in with both feet, and all the chickenhawks cheer. I just want to live out what’s left of my life in a comfy chair with the cats on my lap, but if these psychopaths provoke a nuclear war I hope for a direct hit on myself so it’s over quickly, and may the rat bastards that cause it die slowly and painfully from radiation poisoning.

    • Ditto, Mike.

      It’s insufferable.

      Not Trump so much; he did as expected. But the lowing cattle who jeered Obama/Hillary for missile tossing and hegemony humping now cheer the Orange One.

    • Ah, Mike, just get out of that liberal shit-hole and join us in the boonies where like myself, you can only hope that they take out Taxachussetts and Neuva York, and Kalifornia. It would improve this country immensely. (Oh, and DC too, of course, but they might not, as if they got a look at “the hood” which half of it is, they’d think someone had beaten them to it).

      [Former NYer here]

    • That’s a pretty cheap shot, Mike in Boston. It is very adolescent to be pre-occupied with a guy’s size. Just hanging out in the gym locker room – checking them out, right? Well, I guess if you think with your ‘dick,’ it is difficult to reflect on how a guy can do anything constructive unless his appendage hangs to his knees, and just forget about a woman having any credibility at all – correct?

  13. I hate to have to do this on my favorite forum but here goes: I was just as appalled and sick as everyone else here when I heard about the $100m cruise missile whack job/hit/rubout.

    Then I started thinking about it- and came to some of the same conclusions that Scott Adams did about the 3D chess game being played.

    Government is not moral. It is “like fire, an untrustworthy servant and a fearful master”. And yet, we (individually, nationally, and western civilizationally if that’s a term) are truly at war.

    We are ALL individually at war for our freedoms, which is to say our souls however you define them. War is the inverse of civilized behavior. It is the negation of all higher law. Which is what offends us all so much about the nazi/commie thug cops attacking innocent people over fabricated non crimes like driving “distracted” or not wearing a suicide strap or having a couple beers with dinner before driving home. They are making war (lawfare) on us in violation of all that is civilized, decent, and good.

    By doing this thing, trump has bought himself a tactical victory and room to maneuver strategically. The communist propaganda assault of “collusion with the Russians” looks laughable now. Insane McCain and the blood chorus are temporarily appeased. Leaders around the world are looking askance at the lunatic with his finger on the trigger after he’s proved that he is ready, willing, and enthusiastic about pulling it.

    I don’t care for whatever it is that Muslims believe, but I do respect their immediate, overwhelming, and disproportionate reaction to slights and offenses to the wierd 9th century mores they seem to treasure.

    Do I like it? Not one bit. But I will watch and prepare and hope and pray that we have hired a competent manager this time in Mr Trump, and in any event he is still doing better than Bush Jong One, Willy the Turgid, Shrub 2 the sequel, and Obastard did and Hitlery would have. Of this I have no doubt, because they were only interested in attacking the things I hold dear, and I still hold to the hope that Mr Trump is defending them in a way that ultimately works.

    OK, let the saloon brawl commence. But dont call me a damned clover, them’s fightin words.

    • Hi Ernie,

      I’d like to think you’re right – but I think Trump has embraced the War Baby. Whether it’s because he decided that getting rid of Obamacare was a political loser for him and he needed a way to placate his fuuuuhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttball loving, war-mongering Republican base… or because he was shown the Zapruder film from a different angle… is ultimately immaterial. We are back to “fightin’ fer freedom.”

      Might as well have (s)elected Hillary.

      • eric, like you I’m affeard you’re correct. Obomer didn’t get a major offensive going till late in his reign. No doubt the Shrub would have with the slightest reason he got early on by telling everyone warning him of the oncoming attack to fuck off, a good enough move back then when the howling blinded dolt Republican cheerleaders were genuflecting at his feet, kissing his ring….and his ass and lining up to give him a BJ so they could absorb some of his DNA and pass it on every “Christian” way they could. It was too much to expect voters could connect the dots to his familial CIA genealogy
        Even though the prez of Diebold publicly declared he and the employees of same were committed to giving him the election, hardly anybody was listening.

        Most of the rabid Republican Bush suckers are still committed to it even now.

        And even though the election was a sham and will always be the MSM continues unabated to do their job of total obfuscation.

        So what’s changed? Not much except the need for war continues to be ramped up before the end of the world economy so the benefactors can roll in their piles of money and continue to believe they have enough control to keep allow their shit when the rest of the world is starving but still have their guns and ammo. That alone should ensure them of only having to deal with half as many people when the masses of the cities have a to swarm into rural areas only to find weuns done gone to ground aND are hunkered down behind something better than our false fortifications. Once the herd is culled the powerful will find the ones left are out for blood and it will be theirs.

        I don’t see a pretty picture for any of us and the expensively coiffed will look just as dead as the poor hanging by their neck.

      • Forget obamacare, that’s on the head of Congress, not President Trump. Give credit where credit is due. President Trump is moving faster than a speeding bullet, in 100 or more direction – with Democrats, Liberals, and apparently Libertarians trying to shot him down from every directions. So far, he is doing everything he said he would do, and he is doing it under cost and under budget.

        • I am sorry Gail, but what are you talking about? Trump has done nothing but break promises. Repeal ObamaCare, didn’t do it. Now you say it’s on the Congress, but it was a key plank of his platform during the campaign. For you to attempt to sweep it under the rug is disingenuous at best. Tax reform, didn’t do it. Stay out of Syria, didn’t do it. Border Wall, didn’t do it. Get rid of Common core, didn’t do it. He has broken just about every single promise he made, with the exception of appointing a conservative judge to the SC. I am hugely disappointed in him.

          • In all of my 55 years [and I’ve been an observer of politics since I was a kid- I had a Nixon bumpersticker on my bike when I was 10 !] I have NEVER seen any politican break so many promises, so fast, and do the very opposite of what he said he was going to do on so many issues, as Trump has already done in just 3 months in office.

            Even that lying piece of shit Obama!

            • What has he broken? He has signed 25 Executive Orders – the most in the quickest time in history. He managed to get Neal Gorsuch into the US Supreme Court. He convince China to brace down on North Korea. He has gone after ISIS. And a number of other promises – the whole while having incredible opposition from the left and right, Democrats and GOP, and from reading this thread, the Libertarians too. Clover

              None of you guys, seem to realize or even understand how angry the American people, like myself are – and we will remove, through the elective system, the rest of the opposition. It boils down to “Get on the Trump Train,” or ‘Get run over.” If you had a candidate that would have been capable of doing better, the election would have gone different – but you don’t. So you can jump up and down, whine and cry, throw tantrums and Trump will still be president.

              • That’s hilarious. You’re cheering a president for ramping up the executive orders? That you’ll fix things through the elective system?

                The Trump Train has Goldman Sachs people running it.

                • BrentP, help me. I think I’m going to choke to death….slap me on the back, call the EMT’s. Gail is the most perverted clover I think I’ve ever seen.

                  It’s obvious she doesn’t even begin to understand the NAP. She’s all for empire building. Yaaaackkk!!!

                  • 8Man, I don’t know what it is with people like Gail. I see the same thing in my mother. They may be basically very good people, but there is a logical disconnect: They politically support things which are contrary to their own values.

                    The government can be exposed as a bunch of perverts, pedos and crooks, and yet when it comes to supposed aggressions and wars, suddenly they believe every word those filthy scumbags say.

                    They teach thier kids to uphold their moral values, and then send them off to government schools where those values are assaulted and replaced, and then demand that the kids do what they are told and earn the approval of their kommissars…..

                    It just doesn’t make any logical sense. It’s like a form a mental illness.

                    You can show them THOUSANDS of videos of disgusting cops committing outrageous crimes against our fellow citizens; show them statements where it is admitted that many such things are even a matter of policy- and yet every single time they will say “Oh, they’re not all like that; that’s just ONE bad one”.

                    They refuse to accept reality.

                    But WHY?! What has gotten so deeply embedded in their brains, that takes all precedence, to the point where they will act upon that programming rather than upon their own values and interests.

                    The only thing I can think of, is that the state is their god above all others- just as in ancient Rome, you could worship any god you chose, as long as you acknowledged Caesar as superior first.

                • Funny how the Trump train suddenly looks identical to the Hillary train, only now those who voted for Trump don’t seem to care- as if what Hillary would do is suddenly A-O-K, as long as it’s Trump who’s now doing them.

                  • Morning, Nunzio!

                    All that people like Gail care about is that they have a white male of their partei in now rather than a black dude or a harpy woman. The policies don’t matter. Just that “our team” is in. Note the fuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttball parallel.

                    If Hillary had won and was bombing Syria and doing exactly what Trump has been doing, the Republicans – Gail, et al – would be stomping their feet and denouncing it all.

                    But because it’s their Dear Leader…

                    • Exactly, Eric! It is for that reason that during the election, knowing that this would likely be the scenario (just as it was with Bush) I said that it might almost sorta be better if Hitlery did win, because then the conservatives would be appalled, and might finally say enough is enough- whereas if one of their own (supposedly) gets in, he’ll have carte blanch to do pretty much anything, and it will be O-K because “He is our guy”. And that is exactly what happened.

                  • What am I overlooking here?????Clover
                    Hillary was at best a Socialist, maybe worse. She openly advocated chopping up and selling unborn children body parts. She wanted to take our guns away. In fact, she felt that the US Constitution was obsolete and wanted it done away with. She supported same gender marriages and sharing bathrooms, teaching children as young as kindergarten how to have recreational sex. Shall I go on? I do not see anything to equate her with Donald Trump. Nothing!

                    • Gail,

                      You have advocated for aggressive war and mass murder. You pine for a globe spanning American Empire. You believe that the “spoils” of such rightly belong to “us”. In short you believe that it is OK to kill people and take their stuff, so long as the killing and theft is done by the State you so admire. When people challenge these “ideas” and point out that they seem incompatible with your professed faith and supposed reverence for the constitution and the rule of law, you respond by calling us bullies and cowards.

                      You claim that you”don’t like to be challenged or misunderstood”. Well, most people here believe that you are promoting evil ideas which deserve to be challenged. As to being misunderstood, I think we understand you perfectly well. If not, please explain.

                      Perhaps the triumph of evil occurs because otherwise virtuous men come to believe that evil is good. As I see it, you are promoting evil ideas, we are resisting those ideas.


                    • Gail,

                      The Constitution is a meaningless old document that holds no water, as far as anything meaningful regarding our rights.

                      Like most Republicans, you have a moral fetish about other people’s sex lives. Do you know what the answer is? It is the restoration of property rights and the right of free association – which are two of many things that Republicans do not support.

                      Certainly, Trump does not.

                      Teach your kids whatever you consider appropriate; leave me (and my wallet) out of it. And keep your nose out of my family’s business.

                      Don’t want a transgender person to use your bathroom? Great! So long as you are the owner, you have every right to say no – or yes. This extends to allowing smoking – or not – and every other such thing on your premises. But Republicans do not believe in free association.

                • Morning, Brent!

                  You and I both know Gail personally. She is a nice lady, but like many of her generation unable or unwilling to parse exactly what is meant by such terms as “old glory” and “democracy.” She, like many people, doesn’t think conceptually. “America” (not defined) is “the greatest country on earth” and “our boys” are “fighting for freedom,” etc. She literally worships icons of state authority like the flag and suffers from both “hero” worship as well as leader worship.

                  Her mindset – her emotional state – is very much like that of the typical German in 1930s Germany. Blood and soil. Deutschland uber alles. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. The parallels are obvious, but she won’t see them. Because this is America – and we are free.

                  Cue Len Greenwood track.

                  • I don’t know her personally, I know of her or at least vaguely remember. I just don’t understand how someone who found that government suppressed study on speed limits could still have faith in the state. Reading those supressed speed limit studies is where my conditioning to the state started decaying rapidly.

                  • I suppose you think that I’m going to oppose you on what you wrote, O Leader?

                    I had a friend once, who had been in Hitler’s youth group – you know, the Brown shirts, etc. She told me how happy it made her. They would march, go on picnics, sing songs as they marched. She didn’t know what was going on in the country. When people say to me, “couldn’t they smell the bodies burning?” Do you smell the bodies of the 50 million unborn children burning in the incinerators?Clover

                    I also had a Jewish friend that escaped from Nazi Germany. It was interesting that her future husband, then 16 passed as any Aryan and was in the Youth group. He would sneak food for her and her mother where they were hiding, and helped her to get out of the country to American. He promise to find her, which he did and they married. He became a US Representative.

                    Yes, I am happier with my country of the past, and hope that Trump can bring some of it back. I do not expect miracles, just some of the love of country that once was a part of our culture.Clover

                    Right now I see things going more the way of Russia with the overthrow of the government and the incoming Communism, than the Fascist of Nazi Germany. History does repeat itself, and the Roman empire fell, and some day ours will too, but it would be nice if ours could last as long as the Roman and/or Greek did. – Wouldn’t it? The only thing for evil to exist, is for good men to do nothing. What are each of you doing to resist evil?

                    • Gail,

                      You have your facts wrong. The “brownshirts” were the Sturmabteilung (SA) while the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) were a separate body, under the leadership of (first) Baldur Von Schirach and later Artur Axmann.

                      And: You make the common mistake of not perceiving there is no fundamental difference between national socialism and Soviet communism. Both systems are fundamentally authoritarian collectivist. Just as both the Democrats and the Republicans are fundamentally authoritarian collectivists.

                      I keep pointing this out – and you keep ignoring it.

                    • Gail, you make it sound as though gassing the Jews was the only thing that made Hitler a bad guy.

                      It is not necessary to “smell the bodies burning” -the problem is: the establishment of collectivism/state power, and the minimalizing of the individual/family and the trading of free-market/community-based/family-based economies, for state-contolled institutions.

                      The same exact things are being practised here as were practised in Germany or the Soviet Union- from the heavy taxation, to spying, to children spending the majority of their waking hours in the care of strangers.

                      It matters not if these things come about by brute force, as they did in the USSR, or a combination of force and propaganda, such as in Germany, or voluntarily, through economic manipulation and pure propaganda, as is the case with many things here these days.

                      Our Founders knew, before there was a Hitler or USSR, that it is the love of liberty in the hearts of men, and the pursuit of that liberty in all of their dealings and institutions; and their unwillingness to tolerate compromises to that liberty, and their diligence to be ready to fight all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC who try to squalch that liberty, which keeps liberty alive.

                      A Hitler or Stalin is the merely the end result of a society losing that love of and diligence for liberty.

                      The wiser among us would so much as send our kids to a Girl Scout meeting, because just the uniforms and the agenda of those involved, along with laws foisted upon such organizations, are enough to repel those who care, and who don’t want their kids to grow up to slight the concepts of liberty for a little “fun”.

                  • Finally! Eric, you’ve shown your real hand; “The Constitution is a meaningless old document that holds no water, as far as anything meaningful regarding our rights.” And, with statement we really do not have a common thread to go on, because I feel that our nation is based on the original U.S. Constitution, without it there is not USA.

                    Second, I have no fetish, moral or otherwise about or over other people’s sex lives. I just don’t want to know about it. I do not go around telling everyone “when, how or with who,” I have sex with, why should others be legally able to push their lifestyle in my face. Or call me a bigot, because I don’t agree with them – if they kept this personal, then they would never know whether I agreed or not.

                    I have no problem with ‘Family restroom,’ which any gender could use, with or without children, by handicap, and/or Transgender. My objection is a perv lurking in a rest room.

                    I am an apartment dweller, and I would like to live in a smoke-free, dog/child-free community, but I can’t. Do you know why? It would be discrimination, so I listen to dogs barking all day, and the smell is as if I live in a kennel, kids run me over with their bikes, skate boards, etc., and the smoke comes through the wall into my apartment and then I have an asthma attack. Hotels reserve a few rooms for these issues that I’ve brought up, why is discriminatory for apartments?

                    What? “Certainly, Trump does not.” Does not What?

                    • Hi Gail,

                      Are you going to answer my questions about authoritarian collectivism?

                      Why do you – a Southerner – worship the Constitution? Has the Constitution restrained the federal government in any way whatsoever?

                    • Hello Gail,

                      You say: “I feel that our nation is based on the original U.S. Constitution”. I, and many others, have asked you to explain how your reverence for the Constitution is compatible with your attitude about war. Every US military intervention since WW2 has been unambiguously unconstitutional. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by the Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to delegate the war making power to the President. So, if you take the “original US Constitution” seriously then you should object to recent US militarism, rather than cheer it on.

                      Please note, I am not trying to prevent your views from being heard. Nor am I ridiculing your faith, beliefs and upbringing, I am asking you to support your statements. In other words, I am granting you respect by assuming that you can make such arguments. Nobody here has attempted to silence you. The fact that you can post whatever you want illustrates that fact. While you may not realize it, it is because you are obviously not an idiot that many of us wish to challenge you to think more deeply about the consistency of your beliefs.


                    • Gail, I’m kind of keen on the Constitution myself, what with it being the only thing restraining the government from absolute tyranny- but it IS essentially a meaningless piece of paper, as you buddy GWB referred to it; because now that the people have lost both the love of liberty and the POWER to demand adherence to the restraints of government prescribed by that Constitution, of what good is it?

                      The owners of private property can protest all day long that it is their right to determine the criteria of whom they will admit and who they will reject as renters of their apartments, but when the activist judge laughs at them, and decrees that somehow code and statute law are superior to what is supposed to be the law of the land, where is the power?

                      Once again, by your own words, you prove the very things we are saying.

                      Any time someone takes up arms to do the bidding of the politicians who refuse to be restrained by that which they took an oath to uphold- be it against a foreign nation, or their fellow citizens- they are just rendering that document even more powerless, as they are serving the enemy.

              • Dear Gail,

                If you are serious about “traditional American values” of small government, self reliance, and individual liberty, you really shouldn’t be cheering Trump on, any more than the libtards cheered Hillary on.

                “No matter whom you vote for, the government always wins”. And the individual who values his rights and liberty loses.

                  • Gail,

                    Every time I bring up authoritarian collectivism, you dodge.

                    Why won’t you deal with this?

                    Is it because you know, deep down, that authoritarian collectivism is indefensible?

                    • Eric, I’m having problems with the format of your website. I am getting a narrow strip of text, which is difficult to read, and even more difficult to answer. I have search for a copy of the “authoritarian collectivism,” and I have googled, and to tell you the truth, I can’t make sense out of what you are asking me, or how I should reply. Please send it in an email, so I can print it out and study it.

                      I know what both words mean, but they don’t seem to go together, do they?

                    • Gail,


                      I defined both terms and how they apply very simply and very specifically.

                      This is probably the fifth or sixth time now. One more time:

                      Authoritarian: The exercise of force or its threat by one person or a group of people against other people to compel their obedience.

                      Collectivism: The precedence of the group over the individual.

                      Now combine the two – and apply to the GOP and the Democrats and the Communists and the National Socialists (and so on).

                      Do you see a common thread?

                      The philosophical – the moral – difference we have is that I reject both authoritarianism and collectivism while you appear to support both of those things, so long as they are directed toward ends you personally approve of – such as “nuking them until they glow” and so forth.

                      Which means that in principle, you have a great deal in common, morally, not only with Democrats but also with Communists and Nazis (and so on) since you all accept that authoritarianism and collectivism should be the basis for society and government. You wish to surrender your self to the hive – to the will of the Queen Bee – whom you believe (somehow) transmutes the will of “the majority” – or (when it goes your way) the majority (or minority) you approve of. You support the use of force against people who want no part of the hive, who simply wish to be free to be left in peace.

                      I’d really like it if you would address the above – directly. I don’t want to hear about “old glory” or any other such.

                      Explain why authoritarianism and collectivism are moral when practiced by the right but not the left, for instance.

                  • Hi Gail,

                    “I’m having problems with the format of your website. I am getting a narrow strip of text, which is difficult to read, and even more difficult to answer”.

                    What you describe is an annoying bug of wordpress. It is much easier to read the comments on the full comments page. I’ve re-posted access instructions below.

                    If you are a registered user this link: takes you directly to the comments. A screen may come up displaying a “sorry, no log-in enablers provided”. Ignore this statement and put in your name and password in the space provided. If you bookmark this link, you can always go directly to the full comments page. It is much easier to navigate from this page. The comments appear chronologically. To the right of the comment there are two headings, “in response to” and “submitted on”. If you click on the date/time section under the “submitted on” heading, it takes you directly to the specific comment. I hope this helps.


                • According to this article I surmise that we all are partially correct, and none of us wholly so.

                  I have discussed the Constitution with constitutional attorney, and it is interesting to note that they don’t all agree on the interpretation. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not an attorney. dancer: Clover

                  I refer back to an earlier comment I made concerning Plato’s ‘Shadows on the Wall of the Cave.’ Each of us are stuck in this.

                  For those of you who continue to talk about facts, let me point out some “facts” that have been proven to be wrong. The great scientist of their day ‘proved with fact,’ that the earth was flat, that the Universe revolved around the earth, that a baby was totally formed when it left its father’s body. All these facts have been disproved.dancer: Clover

                  I happen to believe that a society needs rules, and enforcement, and it is up to the people to keep those rules reasonable, and the enforcement for the good of the community. This has not been happening, and maybe it won’t now, but please don’t burst my bubble before it needs be.

                  • Gail,

                    You “happen to believe that a society needs rules, and enforcement, and it is up to the people to keep those rules reasonable, and the enforcement for the good of the community.”

                    This statement is what Ayn Rand would have called bromide… a very dangerous bromide.

                    You “happen to believe.” Well, so? Others “happen to believe,” too. What makes your “beliefs” superior, much less enforceable on others? What makes theirs enforceable upon you?

                    “society needs rules and enforcement.” But which rules? Those you select or approve of? Based on what, exactly?

                    “…the people.” Well, who, exactly, is that? You? Me?

                    You fall for the old con that – somehow – “the people” means you and me. It actually means the people who wield power, which isn’t you or me. And even if it were, what would give us the moral right to lord it over other people? Us claiming that we are the “the people”?

                    How so?

                    “Good of the community.” The ancient justification of all tyranny. Who gets to define the “good” of “the community,” Gail? You? Logically, if “the community” decides it is “good” to enslave certain people then – ipso facto – it is “good” because “the community” has so decreed.

                    Do you see?

                    God, my teeth ache.

                    • Dear Lord . . . oh, wait – you are swearing and not praying.

                      True, true, true – who decides? This is why we have elections, and the “. . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”Clover

                      The person that gave me the courage to redress Congress was Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Surprised? I didn’t support her cause, however, I believe prayers should be in the home, and not in schools. So I didn’t totally object, and I didn’t realize she was an attorney until long after her cause and mine were history. But the very fact that she, single-handed took on the US Congress allowed me to believe that I could too.

                    • Hi Gail,

                      So, our rights – our liberties – are up for a vote? Whatever “the majority” decides is morally acceptable?

                      “Petition the government for redress of grievances”… Why should a free man have to beg for what is rightfully his?

                      My teeth ache even more now.

                    • Isn’t this amazing, Eric?

                      Gail is like a textbook model of the typical American today. Be they liberal, conservative, atheist, religious, rich, poor, whatever, they’re all just keeping the tyrants enshrined by constantly vying to get their interests and beliefs legislated.

                      Imagine, if instead of doing this, they all came together under the common cause of fighting the tyranny, and preserving freedom for all? Then we might have what the Founders envisioned- but there’s pretty much no chance of that, because people care more about whether their neighbor has an abortion, or about forcing their neighbor who would never have one, to pay for theirs. No one steps back and says “Maybe I should be free to do as I see fit with what is my own, and let you do the same with what is yours”.

                    • Amazing… and depressing.

                      Gail is so like all the rest. My mom is like her. Reflexive incapacity to think in terms of concepts and principles and apply them to particular things. This weird cognitive dissonance that you can’t get them to see.

                      I’ve asked Gail at least half a dozen times now to defend the authoritarian collectivism of the right given she is opposed to the authoritarian collectivism of the left.

                      But then, she is not opposed to authoritarian collectivism.

                      Just when it is used for ends she disapproves of. Otherwise, it’s great!

                      But she will not concede this. Instead, she burbles out bromides about “the people” . . . Yes, her people.

                      It’s daunting. She’s not stoopid. It’s worse. She is programmed. Cognitively crippled.

                    • Hey, Eric, at least Gail is consistent! 😀

                      The “petitioning Congress” and “voting” to determine how others should be ruled, is in keeping with her “might makes right” warmongering stance…. 😀

                      I gotta LOVE it when people use the “petition Congress” and “voting” to justify things which are totally out of context, because they don’t seem to realize that our government was never intended to have the power over people’s lives and property that it now has; so using such tactics to merely determine how government will rule over those things, is totally illegitimate, since it was never intended to have that power in the first place, and thus neither were we intended to have that power over others by extension.

                      Such a perversion of the ori9ginal meaning of such doctrines is uaually used by those who would have us believe that the US is a democracy- for that is how a democracy would operate- and the very thing that the Founders warned against.

                      What people like Gail fail to realize, is that such doctrines were established for and only pertain to the legitimate operation of government, and it’s limited sphere of power- and NOT that we can somehow use such things to allow said government to rule as a defacto democracy.

                    • Dear Nunzio,

                      “Maybe I should be free to do as I see fit with what is my own, and let you do the same with what is yours”.

                      Cue Steve Martin… (beat)…


                    • Eric, when you think about it, EVERYONE who is not a Libertarian, is fine with authoritarian collectivism- as long as it is the brand of such that they approve of. And if we don’t like it we can “move to N. Korea or Iraq”.

                      They don’t fight authoritarian collectivism; they just vie to get it to enforce their goals and ideals.

                      Us Libertarians are the only segment of society which understands what freedom is, and advocates for it.

                    • Funny mentioned Steve Martin, Bevin. I was just thinking: If Trump were to ever get called on the carpet for doing the diametric opposite of every single thing he promised during his campaign [Like if politicians were ever held accountable], I could just picture him saying “Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!”.

                    • bevin, teach you PARENTS well. Several times in my life I’ve been accused by older people of being “too honest”. So I should throw everything I learned as a child away?
                      Not to say my parents didn’t have their blind spots.

                      We(parents and me)used to listen to Paul Harvey every day at noon when I was in school(junior high, high school).
                      Paul beat the drum for war every day during the Vietnam “police action” but then as his son(my age)got closer to the clusterfuck he began having problems with it. It wasn’t lost on my mother….thankfully. I had already seen the light and was prepared to light out for parts unknown to avoid killing people I had nothing against.

                      This came about in the 9th grade when an assistant coach asked all the boys in civics class what they knew of Vietnam. He told us we should learn something since we’d be there soon.

                      4 years later not a single boy from my class, and it was the ONLY class in school to distinguish itself by not having one boy serve in the military. By the time we were seniors we’d smelt the rat and could identify it. The old saw about rich man goes to college and a poor man goes to work didn’t fly with us. There were no rich kids. We were all pore, but enlightened rednecks, determined to not go kill strangers for reasons we had come to see as pure blasphemy, evil as it were, doing the rich man’s dirty work. It was the ONLY class to have this distinction in our school. Amazing what thinking about something and learning what it was all about could do for just plain folk. We got no flak from our parents either.


                    • Dear 8,
                      During the Cold War, including of course the Vietnam War, I was actually a hawk.

                      I was opposed to the draft of course, because that was obviously involuntary servitude. But I did believe that fighting the Communists was the right thing to do, as long as only volunteers fought.

                      But I was deeply anti-Communist because of what Mao did to my fellow Chinese on the Mainland. Millions died.

                      Later on, I realized the defects in my minarchist thinking. I realized the Vietnam War would still have been wrong even without the draft.

                      Live and learn. Let it not be said that cognitive dissonance prevented me from changing my mind. I did it. Others can too. No excuses.

                    • bevin, good god almighty, I scrolled a mile to find a reply button. Screw you WP.

                      I can understand what you saw but communism, by it’s very definition, has never existed. It’s just another form of tyranny with the same old system of some having more than others all the way to the top where a few have it all, not a bit damned different in the endgame than fascism, socialism or any of those “isms”.

                      Funny how when I was 16 I wondered how my dad could be further out of it and when I was 40 he was a damned genius. I don’t recall telling him that in those words but I hope he knew that’s how I felt.

                    • Dear 8,

                      Funny how when I was 16 I wondered how my dad could be further out of it and when I was 40 he was a damned genius.

                      “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
                      ― Mark Twain


                  • Gail said: “I happen to believe that a society needs rules, and enforcement, and it is up to the people to keep those rules reasonable, and the enforcement for the good of the community.”

                    That all seems well and fine when those who make and or enforce the rules are in agreement with you; but witness the world around you now, when the rules are being made by those who are now hostile to many of your values, in which behavior that you or I might considered illicit is given official sanction, and WE become the “criminals” for “discriminating” against those who practice the illicit behavior; or for doing something on/with our own property which the rulers deem as improper- such as having a wood stove or collecting rain water.

                    It is far better that freedom should exist for all, even if we have to allow others in the world to do things we disapprove of, so that at least WE may be free to not have to tolerate their actions in so far as it affects us, or our property, or our choice of association; and to ensure that OUR behavior can not be “criminalized”, as is currently happening, when those who oppose us become the majority.

                    And in practice, when have governments ever restrained evil? Whether we look at ancient Rome, or Medieval Europe, or pretty mcu any government of the 20th and 21st centuries, they have all caused evil to flourish, or out-right perpetrated it; and have usually persecuted and or oppressed the good/innocent/Christians.

                    As our Founders rightly observed: Once the power structure is in place to rule and control men, it is ALWAYS used for evil, and never good. The only remedy for that is to ensure that such a structure is never erected, and that the ultimate power rests with the people, over their own lives, affairs and property. Once you abridge the power/rights of others, you have established the machinery which will sooner or later claim our rights- just as when our fathers allowed the imposition of a “small tax on income, which would just affect the top few percent of the very richest citizens”, they created the machinery that would enslave every citizen of their country by confiscating at least half of the fruit of everyone’s labor.

                    • I had a difficult time finding a reply link. Why doesn’t it show up after the post sent to me, instead of the bottom of everyone’s post?

                      Anyhow, I don’t guess that any of you will come down off the Hill of dreams to the real world, but since I like walking up to a brick wall, and beating my head against it – I will try again. Clover

                      Now as Sophia Petrillo would say on ‘Golden Girls,’ Picture this . . . Let’s say you want to grow your own vegetables.
                      Would you through the seeds to the wind, or would have a garden that you’ve prepared for planting. Let’s say you’ve chosen the latter – this would be the U.S. Constitution. What does the preamble say: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America. Clover

                      Ok, so instead of throwing the seeds to the win, we will tilled, hoed, matured, etc. But wait, we don’t have anything to show for our work yet, each day we must tend to our garden – water it, pull weed, keep critters out, etc.

                      You guys are wanting to reap the rewards of throwing seeds to the wind, and I’m telling you it can’t be done. The best we can do is to keep the government under control. I shudder what life in America would be like if we didn’t have the government. To think everyone would just live happily with zero control is foolish. Clover

                    • Gail,

                      I’v tried at least six times now, but you won’t respond to my questions about authoritarian collectivism, which tells me you have no response.

                      As I expected.

                      Authoritarian collectivism is indefensible; a moral atrocity. You know this, even if you won’t admit it openly.

                      So, in order to partake of it – you are compelled to avoid discussing it.

                      You evade it, instead – with bromides about “old glory” and “we the people.”

                      I suppose you also regard “taxation” as something other than theft – and believe that government has the right to rule over people who have never consented to be ruled?

                      Words matter, Gail.

                      They must be used precisely, else they have no meaning at all.

                    • CloverAaah – Nunzio, the crux of the matter is you will never get the freedom you seek, whereas, with diligence, I will be able to control the evil in the system I promote. A good movie to watch is ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington,’ with James Steward. This my model of how to control evil.

                    • Gail, when exactly are you going to start controlling the evil via the system?

                      You’re not doing a very good job of it, because it looks more like the evil are in control of the system and are using it to control the good.

                      Yes, the heart of man is desperately wicked…. -so you think that by having a structure which gives man the ability to amass power over every aspect of other men’s lives, that somehow that will restrain evil?

                      A glance at human history and at our present world might say otherwise.

                      When all are free, at least the good can be free to lead their lives in accordance with what is good, and not be hindered, harassed or persecuted legally by others.

                      When you establish ANY kind of authoritarian system administered by men, the good are prevented from doing as their beliefs dictate, while evil is enshrined.

                      My recent posts have discussed this in more depth, but you can not refute them, so you just keep stating the same things in perpetuity, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

                    • Dear Gail,

                      Control evil using the system?


                      The system itself is the essence of evil. It is brute force coercion. It is some people saying “We’ve just established a government. You’re inside the line we drew on a map. So guess what? You now have to obey our rules and pay us money, understand?”

                      The system is nonsense. It is morally no different that a mob boss coming around and demanding protection money.

                      Don’t you get it???

                    • Gail is quite clearly delusional (or trolling you all – or probably both).
                      The Gails of the world vastly outnumber the free thinkers and won’t be persuaded to think outside the box. If anything, the arguing serves to solidify their narrow views.
                      People have to wake up on their own terms…

                    • Hi dirtybob,

                      Gail is very much like every single Clover I have ever engaged in discussion. They either cannot or will not acknowledge a moral principle and apply it to particular things. They seem unaware of or are unwilling to see the contradictions that riddle their “thinking.” Gail, for instance, touts liberty yet is very much an authoritarian collectivist. But she doesn’t regard her strain of authoritarian collectivism as morally despicable . . . because it’s hers. And won’t even acknowledge that it is authoritarian and collectivist. She – like every single Clover I have ever dealt with – invariably changes the subject, spouts non sequiturs; anything to avoid discussing the fundamental thing.

                      It’s not that they are stupid. It’s that their minds aren’t quite right. Quite human. They have an animal-like reactive/emotive response. Orwell called it “Duckspeak” – a noise disconnected from a conscious, thinking brain.

                      I do not say this to insult her. I think she and those like her are conditioned – and have been damaged. Purposely, by the system, to be exactly what they are.

                      I’d be much less depressed about it if Gail and those like her simply defended authoritarian collectivism as such. Gail, for instance, ought to say: Yes, I support the use of force to subordinate the individual to the collective; the individual has no rights but may be allowed certain privileges, which the collective may limit or rescind at its pleasure. I believe that certain privileges should be allowed, up to a point. I also believe that my personal beliefs and the beliefs of people who share the same should be forcibly imposed on others but that the differing views of others are vile and the people who would forcibly impose them on me are despicable cretins… etc.

                      But they never say such things.

                      I think because at some deep level, they instinctively know that to do so would unhinge their life-long programming and that could trigger a nervous breakdown.

                    • Bevin,

                      They just don’t get it. It’s like there’s something missing in the intellect which prevents them from seeing the logical conclusions of what they advocate; or that no matter how long and hard what they advocate has been practiced, it just never ever works.

                      Even my own mother. My mother and I both abhor cell phones. She won’t have one, and I just have a Tracfone which I keep in my glove compartment, which gets turned on maybe 2 or 3 times a year.

                      I’ll see my mother and rant about “zombies perpetually fooling with their phones”, and inevitably, my mother will always say “They should never have allowed people to have them! Computers either! They should have been just for business.”. 😮

                      Next words out of her mouth: “But we HAVE to do something about that lousy North Korea; They’re no good; they’re communists!”.

                      LOL- They see no contradiction of logic in such things…..

                      And no matter how you explain it, they never get it.

                      Jesus said let the wheat and the tares[weeds] grow together, and that He would separate the wicked from among the just at His 2nd coming- but so many Christians don’t even believe that; they think that Caesar is going to do the work of God on earth now- at least, in the country where they live…but not elsewhere of course. 🙂 So we have authoritarian systems, which promopte thje very evils that such people are opposed to…but yet they are blind to this.

                    • Dear Dirty Bob, Nunzio,

                      I agree. Many people really don’t get it, and never will.

                      So why do I argue with them?

                      Well, at lot of the time it’s to help third parties who might be considering the logic of free market anarchism, by providing them with common sense arguments that they can mull over.

                      Sometimes it’s because I suspect there might be a smidgen of hope that a person will be converted.

                      Once or twice that has actually happened with me online. So don’t rule it out.

                    • Exactly, Bevin!

                      Some of the arguments that have had the best impact on myself, are the ones between opposing factions, where there may have been no hope of either side convincing the other, but to an outside observer, the one making the superior argument is obvious.

                      And what’s even better, is when the person in the right is of lesser talent or intellect, but yet makes a superior argument just by reason of the fact that he is right.

                      Truth prevails- and the more arguments are posited, the more opportunities the truth has to overcome the errors.

                    • “It’s not that they are stupid. It’s that their minds aren’t quite right. Quite human. They have an animal-like reactive/emotive response. ”

                      On one hand people are made that way. it’s the design of the government run schools. The media. Etc. Intentionally done because the so-called elite see us as domesticated animals.

                      Then there is the idea that we are in a simulation. A role playing game of sorts. In all roleplaying games there are NPCs. Non-Player-Characters. They are controlled by the gamemaster or the computer. They are mostly simplistic but can serve many roles.

                      If we are in a simulation how do we tell the player characters from the NPCs? How does one know which one he is?

                  • Hi Gail,

                    “I have discussed the Constitution with constitutional attorney, and it is interesting to note that they don’t all agree on the interpretation. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not an attorney”.

                    “The government needs to be controlled at all times to keep it small and under control”.

                    Herein lies the problem. The very entity supposedly limited by the Constitution has a legal monopoly on deciding what the Constitution means. In other words, the Federal government operates outside of the law. Words on a piece of paper cannot limit the power of the State. Only the widespread refusal of people to obey can do that.

                    When you defer to “experts” as to the meaning of the Constitution, you confirm the impotence of the document. Is it not absurd to believe that 9 government lawyers, chosen for displaying a lifetime of fealty to the exercise of government power, whose livelihood and prestige is entirely dependent on the that, can be trusted to limit that power?

                    You are obviously smart enough to understand what the Constitution says about war.


                    • Dear Jeremy,

                      The problem is not that Gail cannot understand your point.

                      The problem is that she is unwilling to understand your point.

                      Your point is of course 100% valid.

                      The Chinese have an expression that sums up the problem.


                      Qiúyuán jiān cáipàn

                      It means

                      “A ball player [from one team] doubling as referee”

                      As most free market anarchists have figured out, the government policing itself is like the fox guarding the hen house.

                      Too bad We the Sheeple still don’t get it.

                    • Dear Bevin,

                      So nice to hear from you, what a wonderful expression. It sums up the problem in a way any honest man should understand.


                    • Dear Jeremy,

                      It was good to see your name in the comments section here again!

                      I myself drift in and out. I have to leave once in a while, otherwise I would turn into a vegetable in the EP Auto’s garden.

              • Dear Gail,

                “None of you guys, seem to realize or even understand how angry the American people, like myself are”

                It’s hard not to laugh out loud at this. The expression, “Teach your grandmother to suck eggs” comes to mind.

                You’re the one who’s not nearly angry enough, because you’re not nearly aware enough. If you were truly aware, you’d be as angry as we are. You’d be advancing the same arguments we are, instead of defending the corrupt status quo out of blind loyalty.

                Those of us fed up to our ears with the “bipartisan” charade that is American politics are the ones who truly have reason to be angry.

                You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. You clearly have no understanding about how the “deep state” or “shadow government” is pulling the strings from behind the screen.

                When you find out what’s really going on, come back to this forum. You’ll really have reason to be angry then.

                • Exactly Bevin.
                  I usually tell people like Gail that everything is working as it is designed to work and they got what they wanted. It’s not liked much but it is the reality of the situation. There’s not a damn thing they want to dismantle about the system or even how it fundamentally works. They just want the right people running it. For some reason with the right people running it, whomever they are, this system will be paradise on earth. Never mind its fundamental design and the reality of people who run things.

                  • Dear Brent,
                    Quite right.
                    As long as the vast majority of people in any nation demand an overriding authority that must be obeyed, they will remain slaves.
                    They will have chosen their own lot.

                    “… people ought to withdraw their consent immediately… rise up and cast off tyranny simply by refusing to concede that the state is in charge.

                    The tyrant has “nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?”


                • Actually, I am both unwilling and I cannot understand your point.

                  I can agree that the powers have to be kept in check, but I truly and fully believe that without a central government chaos would ensue. Clover

                  Hold onto your britches, guys – I’m quoting another Bible scripture; Jeremiah 17:9
                  King James Version (KJV)
                  9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
                  Some people toe the line because of law enforcement, some because God is looking over their shoulder, some because family or a loved one expects it of them. Without any barriers all bets are off. Clover
                  Just look over the past 30 years – I’m sure most of you can remember that far back – look at how the morals have eroded.

                  Rather than fighting the government, we all need to be fighting the ‘Watch dogs,’ that our Forefathers set up to watch the government who turned on us.

                  I understand that you can’t see the situation as I do, and I hope for all of our sake, that you will never have to endure what you are hoping for.

                  • Gail,

                    You never answer specific questions!

                    Instead, you recite your “beliefs” – and then quote scripture.

                    It’s immensely aggravating.

                    • Dear Eric,

                      As I noted earlier.

                      The problem is not that Gail cannot understand your point.

                      The problem is that she is unwilling to understand your point.

                      Her mind has already raced ahead and realized that you have her checked, and will have her checkmated in another move or two.

                      So in order to avoid losing the argument she walks away and changes the subject.

                    • If I understand correctly your meaning of Authoritarian collectivism and/or Coercive Collectivism, you believe that you can’t have everything you would like and you desire to have no controls over your life. Do I have that right? I find this idea the same as abortion. How so, you may ask? Well, the ‘Pussy Parade’ gals want free rein to kill their unborn at will, without any regards to the human that they are preventing ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Who knows, it has worked for them, maybe it would work for you guys too. But, Authoritarianism is not the same as Collectivism, despite what some libertarian ideologues may tell me ;).Clover

                    • Gail,

                      You clearly do not understand.

                      Libertarian morality is based on something called the Non-Aggression Principle. It means, simply, that no one has the right to use or threaten to use force against another person except in self-defense against force.

                      So, yes – you’re right. I do desire to have no controls over my life. That is to say, I deny that you or any other person has any moral right to interfere with me or in any way control my life unless in self-defense against my having first used or threatened to use force against you.

                      And for no other reason.

                      Like most right-wing authoritarian collectivists, you are concerned with abortion. Well, I’m not having one anytime soon, so bugger off!

                      I also don’t own anyone’s else’s pussy – or their flesh. So I have no right to grab their pussy or otherwise mess with it, unless of course I am invited.

                    • Gail, “Libertarian morality” is a misnomer. Libertarianism is not a religion/value system.

                      It is just a political philosophy which if practriced, would ensure that we are all free to practice what ever moral beliefs we care to, in so far as they affect us and ours and our property and those who may voluntarily associate with us.

                      This abortion rhetoric is nonsense. I don’t want the government in anyone’s womb. And whether abortion is legal or not, there are always those who will have them.

                      And it’s very ironic that you see the state as the protector of the unborn, when in-fact it is the state which has legitimatized abortion, and even restricted those who would protest the practice; and it is the state which forcibly takes YOUR money, and uses some of it to even promote and pay for abortions!

                      You’re so worried about the unborn- which is really no one else’s business, other than the person who owns the womb it is in, and the guy who contributed the spooge- why aren’t you as concerned with the millions of innocent men women and children whom the state has murdered, maimed or oppressed in it’s endless wars, be they wars against foreign countries, or “wars” on our own shores, like the “War on Drugs”- or just the authoritarian culture which does not hold it’s armed goons responsible, even if they shoot an old lady in the face.?

                      The state can decide what or what doesn’t happen to your womb; Who pays for it; What constitutes marriage; the terms of marriage; how you discipline your children; how you educate them; how or if you medicate them; yada, yada, and you seem to think that they are somehow doing the work of God on earth?!

                    • And just think Gail, how many FEWER abortions there would have been had the state not been using our money to fund Planned Parenthood and host of other programs and services, and outright funding MILLIONS of abortions.

                      You’re always saying “get involved” and how the state is all about enforcing some collective moral agreed upon by a majority, on others- well here’s a perfect example of the majority supporting something which is contrary to your values…and forcing you to pay for it. How do you like it?

                    • Nunzio, the state’s actions say volumes. I read an article today that UC Davis is putting the morning after pill in vending machines. Meanwhile our dear leaders keep trying to make vitamins difficult to get.

                    • Brent, It seems that Gail fails to notice such things. She thinks that in exchange for giving the state a few of her adult kids lives to kill some foreigners, that the state will prevent some slut from bringing her future hoodlums to the light of day. I guess she ought to rethink that, eh? 🙂

                      It’s really telling though, but not surprising at all, once we understand the true nature of the state- any state. They are the merchants of death. (And much more so than some skank who kills off her baby before it’s sprung, rather than after.)

                  • Gail,

                    How, exactly, do you propose that “powers be kept in check” when this random gaggle of people who have claimed power over others without their consent does not acknowledge the right of individual people to be left in peace, not have their property taken from them against their will? When the only thing limiting to what extent the government can control the individual’s life and seize his property is its own interpretation of its powers?

                    You advocate a system in which the individual is literally the property of whatever gang has a “majority” – or even a minority – so long as they have “the vote” and it is all done by proxy, according to rules they spout and which you seem to venerate.

                    You worry there would be chaos absent a central government that controls people’s lives.

                    I’ll take my chances – as opposed to the certainty of at least a third of my income being seized by official-legal goons, who also forbid me from ever owning property via eternal taxes that amount to eternal rent payments to the state.

                    • Eric,

                      Remember the first goal of all gangs calling themselves government is to sow the seeds of chaos aka law and disorder!

                      David Ward
                      Memphis, Tennessee

                    • The true problem with government is the state of men (generic term). Getting rid of the government, if at all possible, would not get rid of the hearts of men. Yours may be pure, which I doubt that anyone is 100% so, there is a touch of larceny in us all. It is much like ‘liars,’ we all hate liars, yet we all lie. Our personal lies are just more humane, than others. Clover

                      I’m not allowed to quote from my areas of belief, but each of you can. Sheesh@!

                    • Ah yes, we need to be ruled over by evil men who steal from us and oppress us so we won’t be ruled by evil men who steal from us and oppress us.

                      Never quite understand the difference except in the former the people don’t know they are evil oppressors and go along with it willingly.

                  • Hello Gail,

                    “..but please don’t burst my bubble before it needs be”.

                    Thank you for the work you did eliminating the drive 55 nonsense. I will no longer try to “burst your bubble”.

                    Kind Regards,

                  • Really Gail? We don’t need to fight the government? The government which uses our money to promote things such as the faggot agenda, while fining and or imprisoning Christians [or anyone else] who choose to not do business with, rent to, associate with their favored group, or who dare to criticize such groups? [Some pastors are actually in JAIL in Canada for preaching against faggotry! Pastors from this country have been been denied entry into other countries, just because they are known to be anti-homo; and right here in “good ol’ Merca” business owners have been fined- in one case over $100K- for such “crimes” as refusing to bake a cake for a queer wedding!)

                    And you don’t feel that the agents of evil who promote special rights for one group, while taking away our freedom, should be resisted and fought. (In fact, you seem to think that we should serve them!)

                    And your mis-application of scripture is utterly astounding. You are really making a good case for why many on here are rather hostile towards Chritianity- or what passes for it these days.

                    Also, quoting Scripture to unbelievers who may at least in part be seeking freedom from those who would force them to conform to our value system, is rather counter-productive, -because most of us here are seeking liberty- and in order for US to have liberty to practice our beliefs and religion, and live our lives as we see fit, we must also ensure that others have the same ability- which includes the ability to reject God and/or His moral code if they so choose.

                    Which….brings us full-circle back to the original point: If you want to use an organized group of men who threaten and use violence to maintain “order” and “morality”, whose standards are we going to use?

                    If we could use your standards, then I might not be free to live my beliefs, where they differe from yours. If we were to use my standards, then you might not be free- and whether we could legislate your or my standards, many others would not be free to live their consciences before God…or without God if they so choose- just as if they could use thec government to enforce their standards, we would not be free.

                    This is precisely WHY authoritarian collectivism can not work, and why any time people try and practice it, it always ends in both the destruction of organic cultures and religion, and in genocide, because the only way it can function, is if you have a population who are all on the “same page” and who are all pulling for the same goals; and who are all onboard with the common ethic (i.e. all must believe the same things)- and in order for that to exist, such people must be created, and those who do not “go along” must be disposed of. And this is indeed exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes, through such machinations as political-correctness; fake news; liberal education; and government regulation- and this is what YOU are supporting by supporting the state.

                    And what we see has been repeated ad-nauseum down through history- the state gets rid of those who do not put the state first as their pre-emminent god- be they be Christians, or those who are practitioners of other political philosophies, or just those who want to be left alone and not participate with the state’s BS.

                    I see no clearer evidence of the operation of Satan, than I do in the existence of governments.

                    And as Christians, we of all people should be the most diligent to guard against illicit government, for it has always been the state which has persecuted us; opposed us; and out-lawed the very things we practice (Just try disciplining your kid these days!)- and this should be no surprise, since it was the state which ultimately killed our Savior and most of the Apostles.

                    • Numzio,

                      How’s this for a story. Paraphrased from the New Testament.

                      Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (not sure why 40 of anything is important but it appears to be a recurring theme in the bible). During this time Jesus was tempted by Satan to throw in with his lot. One of the temptations was if Jesus would renounce his Father and join Satan, Satan would give Jesus dominion of all the kingdoms of the World. Wow! That is really really tempting isn’t it? My take is this. You can’t give what you first do not have. In this passage Satan plainly states that all governments are evil and under his control/dominion/tutelage. This alone above any other passage in the bible including the hideous book of Romans should let any person professing to be Christian to not support any government and not to place any trust in them.

                      This is not the only place in the bible that warns against the rule of man over man. It is also clearly stated in the book of Exodus that the god of the Hebrews stated rule of man was not needed. However, after enough whining by the Hebrews he instituted a King but with a heavy warning.
                      The King will take the best of your fields, of your herds, of your sons for his armies and daughters for his sluts. On the day that happens DO NOT COME CRYING TO ME!

                      ‘NUFF said.

                      David Ward
                      Memphis, Teneessee

                    • Notice Alert! The following is a disclaimer!

                      I am not Christian, Hebrew, Jewish, Muslim or any other religious denomination. I, also, do not play one on TV.

                      I do believe in a creator. However, I as a creator of more than 100 pieces of music, believe the creator is much to busy to concern himself with one little speck in the universe. Just as I can’t remember all the songs I’ve written and forgotten. Notice my output is not nearly as prolific as the creator of all things! LOL! And yet I do not worry about the song I’ve lost.

                      David Ward
                      Memphis, Tennessee

                    • Well-said, David!

                      And in multiple places where God says “Ye shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, and not turn to the right hand nor to the left…”

                      If we support/do service to ANY authroitarian government, which is a competing legal system/author of ordinances and statutes, we are enforcing that competing system upon others as well as ourselves, and that is why, conversely, the state has always persecuted Christians, because we acknowledge and obey a different God, and not the god of state (Of course, that is not so true for many Christians these days though).

                      And that is why, this country was established by those seeking religious freedom, and why Christians traditionally have been the ones opposed to state power/the state over-stepping it’s constitutional bounds in America- while the liberals tend to be atheists/agnostics, who often have no problem with the imposition of any type of authoritarian moral code (legal system)- unless, of course, they happen to have the good sense to be Libertarians. Many non-Libertarian atheists are just content to use the state to keep the “church” off of their back, and don’t seem to mind when that state prescribes it’s own value system and enforces it.

                • Frankly, I don’t understand why I bother to even reply to these insipid comments by a bunch of arrogant bone-heads. Shesh!

                  The “evil,” my dear Watson, is HUMAN NATURE. You suffer from it, I do too. The government is the least of our worries, but your being so obsessed with it, you can’t see the real enemy – Humans. They are everywhere, trying to take your money, put you down, so that they look better. The women break your heart, your children spit on you, your mother (except for Nunzio) forsakes you, the grocery man puts his hand on the scale, so on and so forth. The government makes a small feeble attempt to keep a cap on all these questionable activities.
                  Your guys have already lost the war with the government – Don Corleone said it best, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

                  Good luck, guys, with your paranoia. I just hope that I don’t hear about you in a Ruby Ridge situation.

                  Your Clover

                  PS Eric – I like the sparkly clover. That’s my favorite!

                  • Gail,

                    The government is the least of our worries? It has murdered people in the tens of millions! It enslaves hundreds of millions. It steals from us every day; it bullies us every day. We are not allowed to say, “no thanks” to it.

                    You say the enemy is humans. Well, Gail, who controls the government?

                    It’s not people like me and the other “paranoids” here – who do not want to rule your life or take your money. Not even a cent of it.

                    Can you say the same about yourself?

                    Government attracts the worst sort of humans – the control freaks and (eventually) the outright murderers. You would give these humans power over yourself?


                    • You are absolutely right, Eric. The government attacks the ‘control freaks,’ as the police force, mental institution, etc. Clover

                      So shall I say “It is necessary to have some order to our lives?” Because it is important. At the same time there has to be checks and balances, which is what our forefathers set up. (at least mine, I don’t know if any of the rest of the posters can trace their family back to the signers of the Constitution, or not. I can!)

                      We the People are suppose to see that these checks and balances do not get lop-sided or out of control. If we sit around doing nothing but complaining, we will find ourselves overtaken – which almost happen – usher in Donald Trump and with the grace of God he will bring this nation back to sanity. Clover

                      BTW – you guys are in the wrong section of the nation to get any real privacy. Texas has lots of wide open spaces, Nevada too, and don’t forget Alaska. Some states are worse than ever – Virginia being one of them. Nunzio has made an attempt to get away from it in Kentucky, he just didn’t go far enough.

                      Your Clover

                  • Dear Gail,

                    Are you really so blinded by mental rigidity you can’t even see the folly in your own assertions?

                    You wrote:

                    ‘The “evil,” my dear Watson, is HUMAN NATURE. You suffer from it, I do too. The government is the least of our worries, but your being so obsessed with it, you can’t see the real enemy – Humans. They are everywhere, trying to take your money, put you down, so that they look better.’

                    If the real enemy is “defective humans trying to take your money and put you down”, then why in the world would you defend government?

                    Why would you insist that an entity filled to overflowing with ” defective humans trying to take your money and put you down” be granted unchallengeable monopoly power, and obeyed unquestioningly by everyone within reach of its tentacles???

                    Do you honestly not see the jaw-dropping absurdity in your line of “reasoning”?

                    I’m guessing the answer is yes.

                    Your thinly veiled hope that we get murdered like the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge was the giveaway.

                    • Hi Bevin,

                      I’m always amazed that Statists use the “people suck” argument and don’t realize that it is an argument against, not for, government.

                      In fact, even the Bastiat quote doesn’t go far enough as implicit in his observation is the assumption that there will be a similar distribution of “bad people” in government as in the general society.

                      But, power attracts bad people and greater power attracts the worst people. As both of us have noted, there will always be bad people in society. However, these people are outliers and, without legal protection, seeking gain through force is dangerous and costly, which serves as a natural check on sociopathic tendencies. However, with government this natural check does not exist as the cost and danger is not borne by the person wielding the power.

                      Even as a minarchist, Hayek clearly understood the problem.

                      But, it is Higgs who absolutely decimates the “people suck, therefore we need government” idiocy.


                  • If you understand the problems of human nature then why the hell do you want a giant managerial state ruling over you? Who do you think runs that but the absolute worst human nature has to offer?

                    These people cheat to retain the power an under posted speed limit gives them so what exactly do you think they are going to on larger issues where there is more for them to gain?

                    • Dear Brent,

                      So true. Bastiat nailed it long ago.

                      “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?
                      — Frederic Bastiat

                      Yet these militant ignoramuses still don’t get it.

                    • bevin, I’m reminded of Rock Radio when the Hitleresque bureaucrat told his underling “You see that’s the great thing about being the govt. If there’s something you don’t like you simply make it illegal”.

                      Those two lines should be enough to convince anyone “their” govt. is little more or less than a collective of tiny tyrants out solely for themselves.

                      The lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident should be proof enough to anyone there is no real journalism on a national level. No doubt Gail is still living that lie…..and will stick to it to the grave.

                    • Dear 8,

                      Yep. Unless you are on the mailing list for the annual Bilderberg meeting, it’s not “your government”, it’s their government.

                  • Yes, Gail, the problem ultimately IS human nature; and government is the enshrinement and institutionalization of humans who possess that nature. In-fact, those who aspire to rule others by coercion and violence are the ones who possess that nature in it’s most unbridled form and highest quantity.

                    Talk about arrogance! Trying to justify unprovoked violence, coercion and theft by those whose only claim to authority over strangers is that they were chosen by a group of others who possess that same human nature, is about as arrogant as it gets.

                    There is nothing arrogant about wanting to be left alone, and rejecting the absurd entitlements of those who would make a claim over your life and property, merely because you happened to be born in a particular place, and those around you chose to have it so.

                    From a Christian standpoint, this comes under the heading of “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil”, as well as the fact that God nowhere gave men the right to author their own laws and inflict them by force upon others; He instead stipulated that we follow His laws, and only gave men the right (under certain conditions) to administer those laws. And what do we find to be the case with ALL governments? They instead make their own laws, which often justify the wicked; and criminalize those who would obey God’s laws! So if you think that human governments are the antidote to human nature….you might want to rethink that.

                    Once again (as asked already many times previously) show me ONE government which has brought about good and promoted truth, and restrained evil, death, destruction, violence and oppression and error.

                    • Here’s a practical example, Gail:

                      Just humans: I would be free to not have to tolerate homos. I could refuse to serve them in my business. I could refuse to rent an apartment to them; I could refuse to bake a cake for their “wedding”; I could refuse to have one teach my kids.

                      Enter government: They decide that fags are a special class of people who are to be given special rights and privileges, and so enforce their dictates upon me. Now I must either suffer persecution if I want to resist evil, or give in and accommodate evil because of the coercion of government.

                      And you think that this is good?

                      And regardless of where one might stand as far as faggotry goes….I’m sure that all here would agree that we should all be free to determine what we will accept or reject in our own lives and dealings, and to act accordingly with all that affects our property and anything else under our jurisdiction.

                      If I have a restaurant and don’t want to serve fags, and Eric has a restaurant and wants top serve everyone, and if SRV (from another thread) has a restaurant and wants to serve only fags, that may be tolerating some evil- but under your government, we are all restrained from exercising control over what is ours in accordance with our beliefs, and therefore must all accomodate evil….or face persecution in the form of being deprived of our liberty and property, and the ability to do as we deem proper.

                      How is THAT a check on human nature? How is THAT a restraint of evil? It is the diametric opposite! Yet, this is what you support, and with the justification that it somehow restrains evil and human nature.

                    • Nunzio writes: “om a Christian standpoint, this comes under the heading of “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil”, as well as the fact that God nowhere gave men the right to author their own laws and inflict them by force upon others; He instead stipulated that we follow His laws, and only gave men the right (under certain conditions) to administer those laws. And what do we find to be the case with ALL governments? They instead make their own laws, which often justify the wicked; and criminalize those who would obey God’s laws! So if you think that human governments are the antidote to human nature….you might want to rethink that. ” It seems to me that Jesus handled that too.
                      “And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?Clover
                      They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
                      When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
                      Matthew 22:20-22 (KJV)

                      OK, you guys can now marvel at me and go one your way.

                      Your Clover