Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Obituaries / ROGGOW, Jo Ann - b. August 25, 1947 - d. November 20, 2017
« Last post by patyrn on Yesterday at 06:10:13 pm »
Jo Ann Roggow of Howard, Kansas passed away on Monday, November 20, 2017. 

Visitation will be held on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Countryside Funeral Home, 206 E. Washington, Howard, Kansas.  Funeral service will be held on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., also at Countryside Funeral Home in Howard.

A complete obituary will be posted when received.

(taken from the Countryside Funeral Home website)
Politics / (Interesting) Political/Economic View of World Events
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 20, 2017, 06:18:10 am »
The world is changing, but the west is clinging on to a unipolar vision of the world that has passed. It’s attempts to discard this changing reality in exchange for a western worldview expressed in their politics and media are so ungrounded, it’s (as) comical as it is dangerous. This western bubble of reality laid down before the west's general public seems to hold up for now, although fragile and less and less by the day. Really, Russia again? Outside this western bubble however, credibility is lost daily as the west places itself on the sidelines of history.

The fundamental building blocs in western hard power and soft power are not under attack as the mediapolitical landscape could make us feel they are, it is more that they are revealed for what they are without the sugarcoating. As the multipolar world creates the political and economic power to pursuit alternatives and show new perspectives and interpretations, they now have the power to reflect the actions of the west mirrored back upon themselves as apposed to ‘just the way things are’ in the world.

Here's the link to a long article;
Politics / Re: Market and Entrepreneur vs. State and Bureaucrat
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 19, 2017, 11:01:16 am »
Like Redcliff, I read nearly every day. It is one of the top libertarian forums. It is also dominated by academic libertarians, those associated with colleges and 'think-tanks'. It is, rightfully so, full of criticism of the status quo government we have in DC and the fifty states. It's problem, in my opinion, is it rarely proposes solutions to the ills that control us.

Mr. Rozeff makes valid points. I agree with him across the board. My question to him, and others, is how do we "get rid of its 100-year and more buildup of State bureaucracies, controls, regulations, wealth redistributions, subsidies, taxes, foreign meddlings and unjust judicial rulings"? Voting doesn't seem to work. Every election cycle the plurality of registered voters support more regulations, not less. Every election cycle the so-called right seems to move further to the so-called left until the two are just one big pretzel. Just what steps are entailed in 'getting rid'? Any constructive thoughts, Mr. Rozeff? Redcliff? Others? Where is the discussion on action-items that will rid us of excess government?
Politics / Market and Entrepreneur vs. State and Bureaucrat
« Last post by redcliffsw on November 19, 2017, 06:29:04 am »
Market and Entrepreneur vs. State and Bureaucrat

People in the U.S. government naturally favor explicit control by government. They ignore and criticize the unplanned virtues of free markets. This is why they lauded fictional growth in the USSR that didn’t benefit its peoples. The same error is being repeated in thinking of China as an economic giant that threatens America.

This country would do well to do the right thing, which is to get rid of its 100-year and more buildup of State bureaucracies, controls, regulations, wealth redistributions, subsidies, taxes, foreign meddlings and unjust judicial rulings that support the whole structure. Thriving free markets will be the result. America will not be led to regard China as an enemy. America will develop unheard of energy sources and transportation methods. The false justification for securing the oil of Saudi Arabia or any other foreign country’s oil or any resource for that matter will be shown to be the phony excuse it has always been for U.S. interventions. America will not have to fear immigrants who come here to work and engage in productive activities. What it will have to fear and should always fear is the worship of State and bureaucrat and the accretion of State power over the people’s lives. Americans should fear the backdoor invasion of freedom by ideas and cultural practices that introduce pathways to totalitarianism. Americans should always fear the strangulation of freedom and free markets, not their presence.
-Michael S. Rozeff   
Politics / Cannabis vs. Surgery . . . . . Kansas, Move Into The 21st Century!!
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 18, 2017, 08:05:48 am »
"A twelve-year-old girl with epilepsy is suing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Agency to legalize cannabis across the country.

Alexis Bortell developed epilepsy at the age of seven, and FDA-approved medications failed to improve her condition. She suffered from multiple seizures per day, and doctors were considering brain surgery.

“Nothing she tried worked,” the suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, states. But when she tried whole plant cannabis oil, she experienced “immediate relief from her seizures.” She uses a strain called “Haleigh’s Hope,” which comes in the form of liquid THC drops she takes twice a day."

Should government stand in her way? Would you go to a Doctor who recommends surgery over a few drops of medicine?

See the rest of the article at;
Politics / Veteran's Denied
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 18, 2017, 07:48:50 am »
"For decades, the military flat out denied medical care to those it injured through unethical experiments. After being poked, prodded, and force-fed with everything from lethal nerve gases like VX and sarin to incapacitating agents like BZ, and given drugs like barbiturates, tranquilizers, narcotics and hallucinogens like LSD, soldiers were told that is what they signed up for and were offered no care after their end of active service."

See the short article at;
Politics / The Disappearing Right . . . .
« Last post by redcliffsw on November 18, 2017, 05:26:16 am »

The Disappearing Right to Earn a Living

Too often, occupational-licensing laws are less about protecting workers or consumers as a class than they are about protecting the interests of incumbents. Want to compete with me? Good luck, now that I’ve lobbied for a law that requires you to shell out cash and work toward a certificate before you can begin.
-Conor Friedersdorf

Read on:

Politics / Clintons, Comey, Trump, et. al.
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 17, 2017, 08:50:14 am »
More Hillary Chronicles
By: Judge Napolitano
Published on Nov 16, 2017

The Department of Justice will soon commence an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation (you read that nonsense correctly) of a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation and a company called Uranium One. It appears that FBI decisions made during the time that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for espionage will also be investigated to see whether there should be an investigation to determine whether she was properly investigated. (Again, you read that nonsense correctly.)

Only the government can relate nonsense with a straight face. Here is the back story.

When President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey last spring, the attorney general's stated purpose for recommending the firing was Comey's dropping the ball in the investigation of Clinton's email when she was secretary of state. After a year of investigating her use of her own computer servers to transmit and store classified materials instead of using a government server to do so — and notwithstanding a mountain of evidence of her grossly negligent exposure of secret and top-secret materials, which constitutes the crime of espionage — the FBI director decided that because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, it should be dropped. Weeks later, the DOJ ratified Comey's decision.

At the same time that Clinton was failing to safeguard state secrets, she was granting official State Department favors to donors to her family's charitable foundation. There are dozens of examples of this so-called "pay to play," the most egregious of which is the Uranium One case. This involved a Canadian businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton's, Frank Giustra, who bundled donations from various sources that totaled $148 million, all of which Giustra gave to the Clinton Foundation.

At the same time that Giustra made this extraordinary donation, he was representing a client that needed federal permission to purchase a 51 percent stake in Uranium One, which then controlled about 20 percent of America's licensed uranium mining capacity. Secretary Clinton freely gave Giustra's client the State Department's approval, and it soon acquired the remaining approvals to make the purchase. Giustra's client is a Russian corporation controlled by the Kremlin.

When the FBI got wind of the Giustra donation and Secretary Clinton's approval and the Kremlin involvement, it commenced an investigation of whether Clinton had been bribed. At some point during former President Barack Obama's second term, that investigation was terminated. We do not know whether the investigating FBI agents learned that the Clinton Foundation was not even registered as a charity by the states in which it was doing business or authorized by them to receive tax-free donations.

At the same time that the FBI was looking into Uranium One, American and British intelligence agents were surveilling Donald Trump. The belated stated purpose of that surveillance was to ascertain whether the future president or his colleagues were engaged in any unlawful activity by accepting campaign favors from foreign nationals or were improperly assisting foreign intelligence agents to interfere with the presidential election.

One of the foreign nationals whose communications were captured during that surveillance was Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the United States. He spoke with Michael Flynn, then the national security adviser to President-elect Trump. Mysteriously, portions of a transcript of those intercepted communications were published in The Washington Post.

Another foreign national who caught the FBI's attention is a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele. Steele had compiled a dossier about, among other things, alleged inappropriate behavior by Trump in a Moscow hotel room years earlier. After offering Steele $50,000 to corroborate his dossier, the FBI backed down.

After being confronted by irate Republican members of the House and Senate judiciary committees, who demanded to know why the investigations of these matters had been terminated, Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed that he has asked career DOJ lawyers to commence an investigation of all of the above to determine whether an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate all of the above.

This is the investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation. This is also the DOJ's reluctance to do its job.

Can the government investigate itself? The short answer is yes, and it has done so in the past. But it hardly needs an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation. The job of the DOJ is to investigate probable violations of federal law. Sessions should not shy away from this and should not push it off to another independent counsel.

We have one independent counsel already because his target — let's be candid — is the president of the United States. That is a potato too hot for the DOJ. But Hillary and Bill Clinton, the FBI's tampering with the political process, and the use of intelligence-captured communications for political purposes are not. It is profoundly the duty of the DOJ — using its investigatory arm, the FBI — to investigate all this.

Whatever Comey's motive for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton and the DOJ's ratification of it, the current DOJ is not bound by these erroneous decisions. The evidence in the public domain of Clinton's espionage and bribery is more than enough to be presented to a grand jury. The same cannot be said about FBI involvements with the Steele dossier or the use of intelligence data for political purposes, because we don't yet know who did it, so we need aggressive investigation.

But none of this presents the type of conflict that exists when the president is a target, and none of this requires an independent counsel. All of this simply requires the DOJ to get to work.

That is, unless the lawyers in the leadership of this DOJ are fearful of investigating their predecessors for fear that their successors might investigate them. Whoever harbors those fears has no place in government.
Politics / As American As Apple Pie
« Last post by Wake-up! on November 17, 2017, 08:40:28 am »
Secession, that is . . . . .

In 1839, John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, Sixth President of the United States, member of Congress, delivered an address celebrating the Jubilee of the U.S. Constitution. In it, he affirmed the principle of secession. “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint."[/u]

Read the five-page article at;
Politics / Big Conservative Media: The Big Con . . .
« Last post by redcliffsw on November 17, 2017, 06:42:08 am »
Oh, and this is the same G.W. Bush who recently referred to President Trump and, by extension, the millions of Americans who Bush’s buddy, Hillary Clinton, called “deplorables”—Americans, doubtless, who voted for him and who constitute Rush’s audience—as “racist,” “white supremacist,” “nativist,” and “bigoted.”

This is the Swamp Creature par excellence with whom Rush colluded for eight years as they convinced Deplorables to vote for a man who, as it turns out, shares Hillary Clinton’s assessment of them.

Yet Rush was not alone. Hannity, Ingraham, radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher and some other merchants of The Big Con worked just as tirelessly as Rush labored to advance the agenda of Bush and his Republican Party
-Jack Kerwick

Read on:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10