Apparently, During a Crisis, Fleeing the City for Rural Shelter Is “Treason”

By Aaron Dykes

If there is a major crisis – from an economic collapse, to a terror attack, natural disaster or mass civil unrest – your first thought may be to escape the city and retreat to the safety of your hideaway shelter in the countryside. But that’s exactly what the collectivist government DOESN’T want you to do.


Instead, they want you to line up and join the masses at overcrowded FEMA camps and public shelters … and hope for the best.

Propaganda films during the atomic age were heavy on the scare tactics, but this one made clear that self-reliance and prepper-minded individuals are going too far against society – and should be regarded as “deserters” and “treasonous” if they don’t stay put in their cities, follow orders and show up for their job.

After all, it is a collective effort, and even the threat of nuclear annihilation is no excuse for going off on your own – even to save your own family (though that certainly won’t stop the elite from doing so…).

The real reason is that – just as today with terrorism – the government wants a malleable and obedient population that will take orders from central authorities and join the herd. It is instinct and survival against mass conformity and power.

True survival-minded people aren’t wanted unless they are in uniform serving government objectives and power.


10 Strategies to Survive and Thrive During Economic Collapse - Subscribe To Get Your Free Copy

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL

Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.

  • Jeff Z

    As evident from their plethora of black ops, they also crave casualties. Looks good for the nightly sound bites and will motivate the cattle to ‘go get them thar terrrrists’ when the Corporate Emperor declares who is this week’s patsy.

  • Bennie Flagg

    Anyone who depends on another for their Safety is NOT awake.

  • Dio Jones

    And it is getting dangerously close to the point where America will tip into total chaos…

    Always be a light that is .shininginthedark.

  • dale ruff

    For over 100,000 years, long before “collectivist government,” human beings have responded to crisis in the only intelligent way, by co-operating and helping each other. During famines, plagues, etc, the best survival strategy has been co-operation. If you want to entertain yourself with prepper activities, that is your right, but if a tsunami or earthquake occurs, you will be screaming for the government to come to your aid…and you will welcome the efforts of your neighbors to band together in mutual aid, which is the foundation of the social contract. Anyone who thinks they can survive a major crisis by isolating themselves is deluded.

    • Kerry Jackson

      Preppers don’t exactly try to isolate themselves from society, we instead try to isolate ourselves from your government, and people who think like you do. Instead of isolating ourselves, we find each other, because we will know ahead of time those among us that we can trust. We will continue to work very hard to make sure that we do not ever have to rely on your government.

      • dale ruff

        So you isolate yourselves from people who believe that co-operation is the key to survival?

        When an earthquake takes down your house, I am happy to know you will refuse government aid. Amuse yourself!

        • Kerry Jackson

          When the earthquake takes down my house I will rebuild it. I do not , however, believe that a big government person such as yourself ever intends to cooperate with rational people. I think that a person with your elitist mentality thinks that “us lesser people” should pray to the government to cause manna to fall from heaven,so that we do not starve. Being preppard is just nonsense according to many, but in a crisis, your broke government will not be able to take care of anyone. That only leaves those of us who have a little something put back to take care of those less fortunate.

          • dale ruff

            Again, you make assumptions. I have been an anarchist for 55 years, closest to the mutual aid societies or libertarian socialism, which rejects both state and private/corporate tyranny. But in a crisis, only the government is able to respond quickly, and helping people is NOT tyranny. During the 1989 earthquake in the Bay Area, hundreds of houses were destroyed, and FEMA came in, providing temporary housing assistance, removed destroyed homes, and gave rebuild permits for homeowners. This is how a democratic government should react. Neighbors helped each other too, but it took government to clean the huge landslides and removed destroyed homes and enable people to begin rebuilding.

            This is no way conflicts with anarchism, which is not anti-government but pro-self government, pro democracy. When the government acts on behalf of the people, as in a crisis, that is true democratic self-government. When it starts wars based on lies, that is tyranny that robs the people of their money and often lives.

            In a tsunami, preppers are not going to be able to clear out the thousands of dead bodies and destroyed buildings. It’s not a solution: it’s a hobby.

            I am not for Big Government but for democratic government, self-government, an an economy based on workers coops, ESOPS, non-profits and other forms of mutual aid. When the earthquake takes your house down, will you clear the roads, repair the water system, and bring in the cranes to remove your destroyed home. Will you have several hundred thousand in cash to rebuild.? Few will. I doubt if you will.

            Blaming government for everything is as stupid as excusing it for everything. I support government when it acts on behalf of the people, oppose it (and I have walked the walk) when it acts on behalf of the oligarchy. I find preppers irrelevant. It’s a hobby masquerading as a solution to a problem whose solution has always been mutual cooperation and a government acting to help the people. Big Government is wars, subsidies for rich corporations, and tax breaks for the rich. I oppose: do you?

          • Kerry Jackson

            My apology for making false assumptions, but , it seems that you sometimes make conflicting statements concerning your political views. I do agree with some of your most recent statements, and yes, prepping is a hobby, one that has been replayed over and over, and handed down to us by our ancestors. We preppers are just trying not to ignore lessons learned. And, NO, we won’t be cleaning up after tsunamis, or bulldozing collapsed buildings there are people who do that for a living. What we will do is ignore that new pickup truck or bass boat and try not to live beyond our means. We will rebuild what we have, ourselves, not relying on outside assistance. We will try not to live in problem areas, but if we do then we will prepare to deal with these special circumstances as well. And we will be there to help our fellow man if we have adequately prepared. We will not excuse anyone who shirks his or her responsibility to prepare for their own needs just because they feel like it is foolish and the government will be there to take care of everything.

          • dale ruff

            For most of human history (well over 90%), human beings lived in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies of mutual aid. They did NOT prep, as they had no surplus to hoard and had to be ready to move on without baggage. Only in the last era of human history, with settled agricuiltural communities, were there surpluses to hoard. Those who managed the surpluses soon took ownership of what had been collectively produced and formed the first governments based on class and hierarchy. The “primitive communism” of most of human history was replaced with a class-based society made possible by surpluses (from settled agriculture) and the “temples” which held the surpluses. As trade developed, and artisans proliferated, surpluses went beyond food to include tools, etc. At each stage, the government grew stronger and more hierarchical. This in time evolved into “civliization” which was when there was enough surplus from the country to support large populations in the cities…and then empires, feudal society, the era of monarchies, and finally the era of capitalism, where the surplus value of labor was seized by capitalists and wealth consolidated as the workers and unemployed grew increasingly more miserable. Today, 68 individuals have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people, of whom a billion live on less than $1 a day millions of children starve each year, while fat cats in rich nations spend billions to reduce their obesity.

            So hoarding, or prepping, or the accumulation of surpluses is fairly recent, since most of human history was lived by egalitarian hunter-gather societies, which had no concept of private property and shared everything. The rise of surpluses, of prepping, is part of the rise of class societies and the state.

            I think it necessary to have an understanding of human history to comprehend why mutual aid and co-operation is necessary and why opposing prepping to the government misreads how accumulating surplus led to the state.

            From what you say, you will have stocked up bulldozers to clear roads, cranes to demolish destroyed homes, and a legion of bureaucrats to process the rebuilding of homes. I congratulate you on your industry!

            I will continue to promote democratic government, created to help people work together to help each other, including those unable to care for themselves, the disabled, the elderly, and children, as well as the working poor, who can barely pay for their rent let alone accumulate surpluses. I will continue to work to destroy a class-based, hierarchical state, based on the accumulation of wealth and power by the ruthless and greedy. And I will continue to view the preppers (and I have met a few) as irrelevant to the need for widespread co-operatoin as the key to suviival, in ordinary times as well as crises.

            If you want to live lie our distant ancestors, you will get rid of most of your possessions and learn to survive off the land, which is possible only in cooperation with others. I wish you well. Prepping is your right, but I note we are far afield from the article headlne” Apparently, During A Crisis, Fleeing The City For Rural Shelter Is “Treason”

            People fleeing the city will be unable to take their hoarded goods and may not even have cars. If they have a rural shelter full of goodies, while living in the city, they are part of the richer class, since most cannot afford such luxuries.

          • Kerry Jackson

            I did not know any of those people, just my grandparents and g/grandparents. We do try to learn to live off the land, every day. And for those responsible people who will flee the cities during times of crisis there are GOOD people out there who are building communities for those who can bring something of value to the table, not to take in charity cases who refused to try to survive on their own. These GOOD people are called “terrorists” by their government, hence, my disdain for the gov. And Dale we all know that you are a learned man, but we would appreciate it if you could tone down your rhetoric as most of us do not have the philosophical education of a Hugh Akston (Atlas Shrugged).

          • Harlock

            How can you claim to not be for Big Government yet you want gun control?

          • dale ruff

            It’s not about bio or small, a false and constricting choice, but about self-government,democratic government. Local problems should be resolved locally, but some problems do not recognize borders, such as pollution and guns. So they MUST be addressed on an appropriate scale. Greenhouse emissions travel globally and persist for a hundred years, so it takes global responses to deal with it. This can be done within the meaning of democratic government.

            Likewise, local gun laws are ineffective, since you can criminals can just go to the next town or state to buy guns. In 42 states, criminals can buy guns in private sales with no checks, including semi-automatics. So what is needed, and what works in all other 34 advanced nations, with 85-99% lower gun murder rates, are universal laws?

            Since 92% of the public, 85% of gun owners (1/3 of population) and even 74% of NRA members support universal background checks, the unwillingness of government to enact the will of the people is a form of tyranny. Voting for UBC is self-government, since it what 9 of 10 Americans want. And it would not infringe on rights of law-abiding citizens.

            So self- or democratic government can be small where that is appropriate and universal when the solution requires a universal application.

            It’s not about big or small but democratic government, of a size adquate to solve the problem. You are trapped in a false choice.

            Big Government which gives universal education, healthcare, clean air and water, etc is democatic; it is what people want. Big Government for war and subsidies for the rich is not.

            Small government is unable to deal with pollution and other transborder issues (including guns)…and so it is not democratic since the people want to stop pollution, to have clean air and water and food, etc.

            It’s about self-government, democracy,and respecting the will of the public. And so I stand with the 92% who support rational gun laws like universal background checks….it’s easy to claim that is something supported by democratic government, which is what I am for.

            Do you get the the real choices: government for the ruling elites or government of, for, and by the people? Government of a size adequate to deal with the issue? And I support democratic government of the economy, workplace, and in all spheres of life as well, since that is the foundation of anarchist philosophy, not lack of rule, but self-rule, on whatever scale is required. I urge you to read the Wikipedia article on libertarian socialism,which is the philosophy, founded by mutual aid anarchists, and opposed to both state and private tyranny, which I have followed for 55 years. I would refer you to such worldwide respected scholars as Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn,RichardWolf,and Gar Alperowitz, who have detailed how this very old tradition is expressed in modern terms.

          • Harlock

            Would you provide the source of the poll that provided the numbers you claim. I am aware of only one poll that generated similar numbers and it has been discounted for the leading questions used. Most polls show that 55-60% of Americans don’t want additional gun control.

          • dale ruff

            I will, but you will dismiss the many polls. My push is for universal background checks which most people understand do not control guns but keep criminals and other dangerous people from buying them.

            I will give some excerpts and then the link. You can then go to the primary sources.
            ” 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members supported background checks of gun purchasers. Polls taken in 2012 and 2013 supported both figures

            A January 2013 Pew Research Center poll found 85 percent of all respondents in favor of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents, Pew said.

            We noted before a January 2013 CBS/New York Times poll indicating 92 percent of all the respondents at that time favoring background checks for all potential gun buyers. The poll had an overall margin of error of three percentage points. A more recent CBS News poll, taken of 1,047 registered voters July 29-Aug. 2, 2015, showed 88 percent of respondents favoring background checks for all gun purchases including, CBS News said, “large majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (93 percent), and independents (89 percent).a national Quinnipiac University survey of 772 registered voters, taken Jan. 30 through Feb. 4, 2013, found 92 percent supporting background checks for all gun buyers.

            a June 2014 Quinnipiac University poll found 92 percent of surveyed voters in favor of universal background checks for gun purchases….More recently, a Quinnipiac University survey of 1,574 registered voters, taken Sept. 17-21, 2015, found 93 percent of respondents in favor of requiring background checks for all gun buyers. Similarly, 93 percent of respondents with a legally acquired gun in the household indicated support for such checks.”

            Enough sources? There are more: see at
            http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandato/

            Universal background checks, backed up with a robust national database, will in no way infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Today, in 42 states, criminals and crazies can buy semi-automatics without background checks through “private” sales online and at gun shows. UBC will end this dangerous travesty.

            .

          • Harlock

            Only an idiot, a liberal, or simply someone who believes that the ends justify the means would take a Quinnipiac poll seriously. In case you weren’t aware, “The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation” Amazing that all the states mentioned are blue states and voted for Obama in both elections. I won’t address the Pew results as they don’t provide information as to where there polls are conducted. As for CBS, well their liberal bias is well known. The Quinnipac results are not surprising when you look at another question from the same poll. Roughly 60% of respondents believe new gun laws won’t interfere with the right to own guns.
            Contrary to your opinion, background checks do infringe on ownership or provide a path to infringement. Background checks are de facto gun registration, and UBC will make the registration total. During Katrina the local government confiscated firearms, and since then many jurisdictions have passed ordinances providing for confiscation during emergencies for the “public good” of course. With a robust database, authorities won’t even have to go to local gun stores to get lists of owners, they can just print them out.

          • dale ruff

            Normally when trolls begin with insults, but I see you know nothing of polling methodology. It does not matter if you poll in a red or blue state, since there are plenty of people in either representing a statistical sample. Surely you don’t think it difficult to find both conservatives, middle of the roaders,and progressives in any state.

            Quinnipac polls are among the most respected, and their election polls consistently are found to be among the best.

            We have had background checks since 1994 for non-private sales and there has never been registration….so you are just wrong,my friend. Background checks filter out criminals,terrorists,and crazies….and have no effect on law-abiding citizens.That is understood by gunowners, who support UBC by 85% for many polls going back many years. But of course you don’t want to replace your belief with facts, so you malign polls, with no idea of how statistical samples are designed.

            You left off part of the quotation you lifted from the Q website. Here it is in full:
            “Frequently cited by journalists, public officials and researchers, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll regularly surveys residents in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and NATIONWIDE about political races, state and national elections, and issues of public concern, such as schools, taxes, transportation, municipal services and the environment.”

            You deliberately left out “nationwide” so you could create an illusion to protect your lie that Q is not reliable. They in fact are,and who would be more reliable?

            Confiscation during emergencies where there is looting and a breakdown of law and order has nothing to do with background checks.

            I find you ignorant, dishonest,and in denial. Don’t waste my time again. You asked for polls and I gave you five, over a period of years, and I said about your request: “I will, but you will dismiss the many polls.”

            You have. So you are a waste of time. You asked in bad faith….don’t bother me, bro.

          • Anon

            Fortunately people like me will cooperate to kill people like you if you try to take our guns.

          • dale ruff

            You are so macho! Why would I want your gun?. What I want is a universal background check so criminals and dangerous people cannot buy guns. It sounds lkie you are a dangerous person so perhaps when we have UBC for all sales, the ATC will take your gun; you can fight it out with them.

            I wouldn’t have a gun as homes with guns (which after all are supposed to protect us) have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without.

            If you would kill a person for simple theft, you are too dangerous to own a gun…but I wouldn’t touch one with a ten foot pole, since they put you at much greater risk of a gun death in your home.

            I applaud you for using your real name in such a brave announcement. Do you know that such threats are called terrorist threats and can land you in jail? Keep your guns, brother. It’s your life and that of your family you are putting at risk. And if you want to threaten someone, use your real name instead of hiding.

          • Anon

            And when you step too far you’ll realize the police and military can’t protect you from the collected rage of millions of people, but by then it will be too late for you.

          • dale ruff

            You coward in your cyber hood. You would have been at home in any fascist nation, such as Pinochet ruled until the people ran him out. Perhaps the 3d Reich? You are a joke. Your threats are not only stupid but criminal…but no one cares because you are impotent.

          • Anon

            Pinochet was a hero that saved his nation from people like you. He stepped down peacefully, unlike the Venezuelan regime you defend. DEATH to authoritarian Marxists.

          • dale ruff

            Pinochet was a bloody tyrant who killed thousands.
            “Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d’état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.[6][7][8] Pinochet had been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Army by Allende on 23 August 1973, having been its General Chief of Staff since early 1972.[9] In December 1974, the ruling military junta appointed Pinochet President of Chile by joint decree

            From its beginning, the new military government implemented harsh measures against its perceived opponents.[11] Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.[12][13][14] As of 2011, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,065.[15]

            Pinochet was arrested under an international arrest warrant on a visit to London on 10 October 1998 in connection with numerous human rights violations. Following a legal battle he was released on grounds of ill-health, and returned to Chile in March 2000. In 2004, Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia ruled that Pinochet was medically fit to stand trial and placed him under house arrest.[9] By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for numerous human rights violations during his 17-year rule, and tax evasion and embezzlement during and after his rule A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled “CIA Activities in Chile”, revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende, and that it made many of Pinochet’s officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.

            …. the junta exercised both executive and legislative functions of the government, suspended the Constitution and the Congress, imposed strict censorship and curfew, banned all parties and halted all political activities. ;

            ” WiiAlmost immediately after the military’s seizure of power, the junta banned all the leftist parties that had constituted Allende’s UP coalition.[47] All other parties were placed in “indefinite recess” and were later banned outright. The government’s violence was directed not only against dissidents but also against their families and other civilians.[47]
            The Rettig Report concluded 2,279 persons who disappeared during the military government were killed for political reasons or as a result of political violence. According to the later Valech Report approximately 31,947 were tortured and 1,312 exiled. The exiles were chased all over the world by the intelligence agencies. In Latin America, this was made in the frame of Operation Condor, a cooperation plan between the various intelligence agencies of South American countries, assisted by a United States CIA communication base in Panama. ”

            “Almost immediately after the military’s seizure of power, the junta banned all the leftist parties that had constituted Allende’s UP coalition.[47] All other parties were placed in “indefinite recess” and were later banned outright. The government’s violence was directed not only against dissidents but also against their families and other civilians.[47]
            The Rettig Report concluded 2,279 persons who disappeared during the military government were killed for political reasons or as a result of political violence. According to the later Valech Report approximately 31,947 were tortured and 1,312 exiled. The exiles were chased all over the world by the intelligence agencies. In Latin America, this was made in the frame of Operation Condor, a cooperation plan between the various intelligence agencies of South American countries, assisted by a United States CIA communication base in Panama.” Wiki

            His economic “free market reforms” led to economic collapse and sharp decline in GDOL “:Wages decreased by 8%.[60] Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average…Financial conglomerates became major beneficiaries of the liberalized economy and the flood of foreign bank loans. Large foreign banks reinstated the credit cycle,. ”

            Before the economy could recover, Pinochet had to renationalize industries that had been sold off at fire sale prices to private investors, mostly foreign. During his reign of terror, 44% of Chileans were in poverty, as the wealthiest 10% saw incomes rise by over 80%(source Wiki, with primary sources).

            Many scholars have called him a fascist, and those who refuse this label neverthless class him with brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein, Suharto, and Ferdinand Marcos.

            ” 1 December 2000 for the kidnapping of 75 opponents in the Caravan of Death case.[103] Guzmán advanced the charge of kidnapping as the 75 were officially “disappeared”: even though they were all most likely dead, the absence of their corpses made any charge of “homicide” difficult.
            However, in July 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed Pinochet’s indictment in the various human rights abuse cases, for medical reasons (vascular dementia)…..he was later ruled competent and charged with yet more crimes, including mass murders and assassinations.

            In January 2005 the Chilean Army (which he ruled) accepted institutional responsibility for past human rights abuses. Pinochet, remembered as one of the bloodiest tyrants in Latin America died before he could be convicted of his numerous crimes.

            If you wish to celebrate a murderous despot, that is your right. And I applaud you for doing so under the cloakof anonymity.

            The Venezuelan regime, which now has a conservative Parliament recently elected, is the result of fair elections, and the transition has been peaceful. Your terrorist threats are laughable. Your ignorance is hilarious.

            He only avoided prison by dying first.

          • Anon

            Pinochet saved his people. A few thousand dead commies were definitely worth it.

          • dale ruff

            Then why was he on trial for crimes against humanity after fleeing his country. Germans supported Hitler because he would “save his people.”

            Its refreshing to see a supporter of fascism, despite hiding behind a fake name, openly praising fascism and mass murder.

          • Anon

            Killing commies is not murder, it’s a service to humanity.

          • Anon

            Pinochet had the right idea about how to deal with authoritarian Marxists like yourself, we’ll give you a free one-way helicopter ride.

        • rcade

          What a dumb response Dale. Honestly if you could read your own posts. Nobody said anything about isolating themselves from other like minded people. And in an earthquake most all of the people in rural settings will be helping their brothers with more timely aid that the government offers. In an earthquake in the city almost everyone will be pitching in and helping, but of course some will be pillaging. Life is not perfect and our government is far far away…..from perfect.

          • dale ruff

            I normally dismiss trolls who begin with insults but I will requote what I wrote previously: “But in a crisis, only the government is able to respond quickly, and helping people is NOT tyranny. During the 1989 earthquake in the Bay Area, hundreds of houses were destroyed, and FEMA came in, providing temporary housing assistance, removed destroyed homes, and gave rebuild permits for homeowners. This is how a democratic government should react. Neighbors helped each other too, but it took government to clean the huge landslides and removed destroyed homes and enable people to begin rebuilding.”

            If not for FEMA, I would have not been able to rebuild. Our entire neighborhood was saved by FEMA’s quick response and help.

          • Archie1954

            Republicans would have left you suffering in the dark!

    • Donald Johnson

      You are so wrong. If you plan & make preperations, store water & food, ammo, you stand a better chance than the fool that does not. You cant depend on the gov. helping you. They will be helping their selves. Get yourself ready or do with out. And some one will shoot you if your caught stealing their stuff. I know I would.

    • rcade

      Yea, all around the world at the local level people will band together. Also some will come with force to take what they want from those that band together. To be prepared as much as possible is a good thing. One can never have all that is needed and therein lies the connection to other people and pulling together. To be away from the government is a good thing because the government of this country is totally corrupt, has no interest in the well being of its people but only the well being of it’s members power and bank accounts. That is the bottom line. The government is no longer serving (or has ever?) its people.

      • dale ruff

        So let’s take back our government and complete the American Revolution: running off into the hills only solidifies the rule of the oligarchs. Don’t run off: fight back! The only candidate today who is challenging the status quo and refusing to take Big Money is Bernie Sanders.
        Join the tens of millions of us creating a political revoliution to take our government, intended to serve the people, back from the ruling class, who happy to see you head for the hills.

        • John Cook

          You are a fool if you support ANY of their bullshit candidates.

          • dale ruff

            Here’s a fact: if you don’t support the best candidate, you benefit the worst.

            Sanders has a 25 yr record to determine if he is bullshit. I would bet you have not done that. That is prejudice, which, by definition, is bullshit.

            I am not a fool but you are being fooled, because your blanket cynicism helps the very worst to prevail.
            “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” Edmund Burke,the founder of conservative philosophy in the 18th Century.

        • Kerry Jackson

          Dale, in small words can you tell us who will pay for Bernie’s plan when our country is already 18 trillion dollars in debt.

          • dale ruff

            Small words or words for small minds?Why don’t you go to Sanders’ website where he explains it. But I will make it simple:
            free tuition will be paid for by taking speculations on Wall St, of which there are tens of millions a day(I do not mean ordinary investing)

            Medicare for all will save 900 billion by reducing overhead from the 15%for private to the 1.3% for Medicare: multiply this by 3 trillion healthcare costs and you see a savings of 450 billion; ER services for the un and underinsured, according to the Emergency Doctors association is 168 billion so there is a savings of 150- billion; and the tax breaks for insurance premiums, which no one will pay any more, is 300 billion. The total is 900 billion, less that the amount to insure everyone, increase Medicare to 100% and include dental and health. I found this information online so I invite you to do your own research. Medicare for all will provide full coverage for all and leave a surplus of several hundred billion by eliminating the waste in private overhead (500 billion a year), ER services (150 billion) and ending 300 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for premiums, which will no longer have to be paid.

            I have been researching this topic for 3 years. Professor Friedman, of the U of Mass, did an analysis and came up with about the same savings. Once we get rid of the parasitic middleman, who adds nothing to our health, healthcare, or medical research but pays up to 106 million a year: CEO of United in 2009), removed the need for ER for those who have no other recourse, and recoup the 300 billion in tax breaks, the program will pay for itself, plus.

            This is how all other 34 high income nations have superior healthcare at half the cost.
            I suspect my simple explanation of where the savings are will not satisfy you. I urge you to fact check and read Professor Friedman’s analysis. One of the reasons the nation is nearly 19 trillion in debt is that we pay twice as much for healthcare, with 10% uninsured and more underinsured. 500 billion wasted a year of private admnistration of payments, 150 billion wasted on ER, 300 billion wasted on tax breaks….it adds up.

          • Kerry Jackson

            …….in your version of a perfect world. This is not a plan at all. This is just speculation, a guessing game, should all of the facts and figures align. And just in case ANY of these numbers do add up, I think we should all be reading ” The Road to Serfdom”.

          • dale ruff

            It doesn’t take a perfect world (you are here committing the logical fallacy of mocking a straw man) to see there is only one candidate who refuses to sell out to Wall St and Big money. Sanders has proved you can run strong without selling out and lead by example….. away from the corruption of money buying influence and corrupting the political process.

            As for the savings you asked for, I gave them,based on objective data I urged you to check for yourself. It is not speculation that by eliminating private insurers, we reduce overhead from 15% (or more) to the 1.3% Medicare runs on: those are facts,and the savings is 450 billion; nor is speculation that by insuring the 30 million and `tens of millions under-insured (cannot afford deductibles) who use ER as a final resort at an average cost per visit of $2000. We can insure 30 million non-elderly for less than the 168 billion spent on ER. Nor is its speculation that the US loses 300 billion a year by allowing people to write off insurance costs (at $9,300 per capita). None of this is theory. These are savings created by eliminating private overhead, which is 90% higher than Medicare (or Medicaid), ending the need for costly ER,and ending the tax break for insurance costs, since there will be none beyond the taxes and savings which support a single payer system.

            So I did all this work, and just repeated it, and I predict you will dismiss it without fact checking or consulting Prof. Friedman’s economic analysis because it contradicts what you want to believe. But, my lazy friend,this is how our neighbor Canada runs its system,which provides superior health results for all, at 40% lower costs and how 33 other high income nations save from 50-70% vs the wasteful US system of private muilti-payer insurance. This is how do it. That’s not speculation, utopia, or theory but empirical fact. In Japan, they pay 2/3 less and live 7 yrs longer! In all other 34 advanced nations, people live longer and their healthcare cost is 40-70% less. That’s a hard fact.

            If you think paying private insurers 90% more than Medicare is freedom, even when we have Medicare for All,you will be able to enjoy your “freedom”since private insurers will still be able to sell insurance. Do you think all other advanced nations are serfdoms; the fact is, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation Index of Free Economies, 9 of the 10 freest are “serfdoms” with universal education and healthcare. And Canadians,whom you apparently see as enslaved, not only havea freer economy but are richer than Americans, in large part because they spend an average of $10,000 less each year per household for healthcare. And American jobs went from Detroit to Windsor, just across the bridge, because due to differences in healthcare costs, it costs $500-1500 less to build a car in Canada.Do you think Detroit is freer than Windsor.

            I urge you, with no expectation you will listen, to give up your antique dogmas about the right to healthcare being a form of slavery and adjust your thinking to the fact that in the US, we pay an average of nearly $15000 more per household than in the other 34 advanced nations. This money is paid in both premiums, co-payments, and the taxes that support Medicare,the VA, etc.

            If you think being poorer, without a basic right, is freedom, that is your privilege, but the rest of us would prefer to save the wasted hundreds of billions and have total coverage for everyone. The majority in the US support single payer….and I would suggest that enacting the will of the people is another keystone of a free society. But I expect you do not have an open mind….tho I would hope so.

            BTW, here is what Hayek, the author of the Road to Serfdom (written 75 yrs ago) said about national healthcare (suggesting you have never read it):

            “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ” p 125

          • Kerry Jackson

            Very Good. In short… the case may be very strong,however it is nothing short of lunacy about socialized ANYTHING. You are correct I will not look it up myself, I believe that you have accurately posted these numbers, don’t think you have any reason to be untruthful. New day same old plan, government takes all of my money and all of my property and doles out what THEY think I need. All of your numbers and statistics and all of your thoughts bear this out. I understand that you disagree with my ownership of private property,I understand that you disagree with my firearms ownership, I get the “social engineering” thing you guys like to champion, but for now we will have agree to disagree, I’m lazy like that,I have to get my rest because next week… I have to go to work.

          • Archie1954

            Complete and total nonsense. I have to tell you that the US is not the only democratic, capitalist nation in the World. There are many more. All of them have national health systems that protect their citizens from deadly disease except the US. Any American that refuses to even understand the national health systems is not only a fool but unworthy to participate in them.

          • Kerry Jackson

            Ah, the game is afoot. Dale, honestly does not need an ally. What he needs is a worthy opponent. I tried but i’m not up to the task.

          • dale ruff

            Do you understand that for almost all of human history, everything was socialized, or common property? Do you understand that the internet was developed by the government? Do you understand that the commons has been gradually stolen by private interests?

            Do you understand the difference between personal property (your toothbrush, your care, your house) and the kind of private property which is capital, such as the stock in Walmart the Walton family owns (who did not build it and do not work), who have more wealth(ie private property beyond personal use) than 100 million Americans,such as the private property of the 68 individuals who have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, a billion of whom live on $1 a day. This is the kind of private property which is theft, the result of the stolen commons and has nothing to do with your personal property?

            Do you understand that universal background checks do not infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners, which is why 85% support ubc?

            Do you understand that the reason that 5% own 90% of the wealth is a result of social engineering by which, to quote Founding Father John Jay, “Those who own the country ought to run it.”?

            I worked until age 74, when I retired a year ago. Since 1989, as the incomes and wealth of the rich rose by 300%, the median wage has fallen 40%. So when you go to work,you are having your pocket picked by people whose theft you are defending: Since 1999, houshold income is down over 10? Why: tax brakes for the rich, fallin wages, and criminal wars which benefit the banks,fossil fuel industry, and the weapons makers? Do you get that?

            Do you get that for each dollar you spend for healthcare insurance, the corporation takes 15% and spends 85% for medical, that Medicare takes 1.3% and spends 98.7% on private medical?

            Until you answer these questions, you will continue to be ripped off with your consent.

          • Kerry Jackson

            Dale, I have to tell you that your intellect is truly dizzying. While I can only aim at one target, you can fire on multiple targets,hats off to you. I have followed the standoff in Burns Oregon fairly closely and the lesson that I got from it was not to judge people for their beliefs. My needs are very different from those people, my problems are different, as are yours and mine. I have an idea that if we talked to each other face to face we would find that we probably agree on more than we disagree. Maybe we can go fishing some time and debate over the biggest fish.

          • dale ruff

            My goal is justice; there are a thousand strains of injustice…so I do not fire on multiple targets but only the one of justice, and I draw in all the injustices to challenge.

            As for having much in common, I am sure that is true. Unless you are rich, almost all people have most things in common.

            As for fishing,as a radical egalitarian,I do not grant myself the right to kill others (including animals) so I do not fish. I am a vegan,and so perhaps we could go out and harvest fruit together.

          • Kerry Jackson

            Fair enough, I like pears.

          • Archie1954

            Finally someone who understands and is willing to state the facts for all ignorant Americans to read!

        • Anon

          BERN THE MONEY

    • Archie1954

      Sorry but you are pontificating as if the government were not responsible for the disaster in the first place. That is a very remote possibility.

  • motleyalaskan

    Yeah…..Well good luck with that! Oops….most folks are in ‘gun free’ States….Sorry! Hey you NWO Fascists….Chuck you Farley!

  • Archie1954

    Unbelievably disgusting, but that is what the American public’s disinterest has created. Enjoy reaping the harvest you have sown!

  • littljo

    join the fema camps – line up – they are here to help. right.
    If gubberment wanted to help we would all have deep under ground bunkers complete w/ enough food for every man and sally jack amongst us as well as heat and running water and sewage – the same as the imbeciles in DeCeipt.

  • Al Kene

    In WWII, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Soviet civilians were prevented by force-including deadly force- from leaving the city by order from Stalin, Order Number 227 .
    Men, women and children had a simple choice to fight, build, work for the war effort or to die for being “regarded as deserters and treasonous.”
    More than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing by the Luftwaffe.

    “Follow orders and show up for [your] job,” Comrade, for the glory of The State!

  • dale ruff

    Good point:the year before Brady Act went into effect, the US had the highest number of gun murders (17,000) and within 5 yrs, it had fallen to about 10,0000. IF the Brady Act did not have that huge loophole which allows criminals to buy semi automatics in 42 states without background checks in private sales, it would be even more effective, as such laws are so dramatically successful in the other 34 advanced nations.

    Japan, which once had very high gun murder rates (similar to the US) reduced its gun murder rate by 99% since the 1950’s; Australia has reduced its gun murder rate by 60% since its gun reforms of the middle 90’s when it bought back nearly a million guns.
    And in the US, the gun murder rate dropped by 40% within 5 years after the Brady Act took effect.

    One of the key lessons of my study of gun laws and gun violence is that the longer a gun law is in effect, the more effective it is.

  • dale ruff

    The word is “liar” not “lier” and I am not lying. Here is a direct quote from the Q website:
    “Frequently cited by journalists, public officials and researchers, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll regularly surveys residents in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and nationwide about political races, state and national elections, and issues of public concern, such as schools, taxes, transportation, municipal services and the environment.

    Known for its exactness and thoroughness, the Quinnipiac poll is featured regularly in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and on national network news broadcasts. In 2010, respected public opinion polling analyst Nate Silver ranked the Quinnipiac University poll as most accurate among major polls conducting surveys in two states or more. The Quinnipiac poll was also called “the standout performer” by City and State for the most accurate prediction in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor in 2013.”

    Here are two fairly recent examples of national polls
    “The Dec. 3 national poll found homegrown jihadists more dangerous than refugees; U.S., other countries must do more on climate change.

    The Dec. 2 national poll found bump for Trump as Carson fades in Republican race; Clinton, Sanders surge in matchups with GOP leaders.”
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/

    Quinnipiac has been a highly respected national polling institution for many years.

    I will not call you a “lier” but point out that you are misinformed.
    I have no interest in controlling people; my interest is in correct information.

  • Anon

    Crybaby commie can’t handle the banter. Leftists are weak.

  • Anon

    Fascists are heroes for killing millions of Communists.

  • Anon

    Why don’t you give me your home address and SS# Mr Not Anonymous?

    • dale ruff

      Why don’t you come out from under your KKK hood so I can report you to the FBI? You are a coward, making threats from behind your anonymity. HOw despicable!

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend