Constitutional Carry Part II

obamaStarting a new thread to speed the loading process.  First I extend my apologies for being somewhat brash and undeterred on my position concerning the current laws we have for conceal carry.  I do understand there are fears, about conceal carry, just as people have fears about driving close to semi trucks on the freeway.   Basically we have two choices as I see it.   We can do what is needed to protect our rights and freedoms, or we can continue on with becoming a police state.   JAC and I live in different worlds, so to speak.  In my world, everyone carries and there is no problems (or crime).  I’m used to not even thinking about it, so I have no fears on the subject.   I’ll let JAC explain his world if he chooses.  Moving on from that subject,  I do have an interesting question to pose.  Obama has said he will sign EO’s to move his agenda forward.  While EO’s don’t apply to our actions, if Obama signs an order that leads to Feds violating laws, can we 1: defend ourselves and property against any intrusion based on the EO’s  2:  Can we place Federal agents  (who are in violation of law, but following the orders of the EO’s) under citizen arrest and have them arrested by local LEO?



  1. 😎

  2. @Plainly, Continuing our talk on changing the Federal govt, I would also keep the Veterans Administration. That is a promise that was made to them and it should be kept. AS I think on this I may keep more, or mayby you have some suggestions?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I have given it any real thought of late. Let me spend some thinking time on it for now.

  3. Somewhat related… Remember, Barack Obama is merely the “John the Baptist” making way for the true anti-Christ.

  4. plainlyspoken says:

    “As Forbes noted, Chang seemed to draw in his 32-page opinion upon statistics showing no correlation — at least in some instances — between the predominance of gun-carrying citizens with violent crime.

    The magazine compared Chicago’s 2012 homicide total of more than 500, with Houston’s — which stood at about 200, despite similarly sized populations and the latter’s comparatively lax regulation on firearms.

    While Chicago reportedly has no gun stores and an effective ban on concealed carry permits, Houston not only allowed its citizens to carry concealed weapons, but claims more than 180 dedicated gun stores, not including the 1,500 or so other stores — like Walmart — that sell firearms among other wares.”

    • AN armed society is a polite society 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Maybe, but too simplistic of an “argument” in this day and age.

        • Probably, but from my experiences, it’s a very true statement.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            G, I think it is important to remember that a large part of the nation has been “conditioned” to believe otherwise. This was accomplished through years and many decades of being “taught” that the government has the responsibility and ability to protect society, regardless of what the crime statistic show. People have been inundated with the sermonizing on the dangers of people carrying firearms regularly like in the past history of this country. Plus we can blame Hollywood for all the westerns shootouts the portrayed making people think the “Wild West” was more violent than it actually was.

            But, in my own opinion, I think it has comes down to the public perceptions of what the government (at all levels) wants them to believe.

  5. plainlyspoken says:

    AS JAC stated in the other thread, it’s not about good or bad law – but MORE law.

    Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday the upper chamber will continue working on legislation to limit NSA spying, suggesting President Obama has not gone far enough in making changes to protect Americans’ privacy.

    “There’s a concern that we have gone too much into Americans’ privacy,” the Democratic lawmaker told “Fox News Sunday.” “There’s still going to be legislation on this.”

  6. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    We’ve gone on several different paths today…..I’ll stick to gun control specifically the UN Arms Transfer Treaty. I read the complete text of this treaty. What I see in it is the “State” wanting to eliminate all competition from their “legal” arms sales to combatants worldwide. The treaty is suppose to relieve human suffering and genocide etc. However, what I see in the UN actions is them basically standing aside and allowing genocide to occur or continue.
    Ruanda, the UN peace keepers were ordered to step aside by Koufi Anin while hundreds of thousands were massacred. The Balkans went unabated at least Clinton stepped in and pretty much stopped it. The Sudan continues unabated, as is the Congo. The UK was proud of their role in overthrowing Ghaddafi but for years prior sold hundreds of millions of pounds of arms to him. Our foreign aid is usually in the form of weapons. Egypt, Syria opposition. As long as the government supplies and picks winners and losers no one seems to have a problem.Has anyone seen any valid report on how much small arm trade really exists eminating from the US. I suspect very little. The small arms I see in the news are not manufactured here. The heavy equipment like planes, tanks, ships, missiles are all “government” contracted and sold by the government. The last example of small arms trafficing was a government scam called “Fast and Furious”
    Is it possible by default and Congress/Senate not even voting for or against ratification the signature of John Kerry a little over 90 days ago is sufficient grounds enabling Obama by EO to enact provisions of the UN ATT…….just asking….

    An “Act of Accension” or an “Act of Formal Confirmation” in the terms of the UN and Geneva Conventions are worded in a way that could very well by-pass our ratification process. And we are then bound by international laws who 5/9 of our SCOTUS’s consult in their rulings on OUR Constitution.

    • Good news, treaties must be past by Congress and the MUST not abide by our Constitution.

      • must be passed, LOL and must not violate our Constitution.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        There are clauses that in our leaders mind might justify his unilateral action. I named two of them. There is also one that by setting a 90 day limit which has expired and no action has in any way been taken by the Senate and the treaty having been signed by Kerry as the Secretary of State might by signify ratification by default……there have been treaties implemented that way and yes in our country….and our government follows them….have to dig some out…..I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

        • He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

          I was wrong. 2/3rds of the Senate must vote yea to approve a treaty. There are no exceptions or Amendments that change this

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty (by Kerry in September) we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”
            In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified.

            Years ago Clinton signed a treaty in Rome and then repudiated his signature and withdrew from the world court. Bush continued to followed suit. However, the Obama administration is working fully with the international world courts and the Rome treaty without ratification in any way by the Senate.

            • I see your point. However, nothing can affect the citizens, one way or the other, unless it’s ratified by the Senate. Then it must be within Constitutional law. My pops was worried about this treaty, I had to settle him down and tell him that no treaty can violate the Constitution and it first must be ratified by the Senate to be considered law. How the President acts is irrelevant, he can be held accountable if he violates law as well, if we actually had a damn honest Senate, which we don’t. My strong support of the 2nd Amendment has many reasons, this being a big one.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I think Congress will fold like a failed soufle…..all the changes will be so subtle and make such reasonable sense…..most everyone including the SCOTUS will nod their heads in Assension.

              • As of now, the Senate majority says NO. Reid won’t even bring it to a vote because it would cost him his job. As for now, the treaty goes nowhere, as does Kerry’s signature. For the record, if a Liberal likes, I don’t.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Regardless, by Kerry signing it, our government WILL obey in practice the terms of the treaty, inspite of the senate NOT ratifying it. Politically they will survive because they can say they never ratified it but it will be defacto in force. Obama will by EO make the changes required that will get his agenda in place. The house will object, but Reid will either never bring them to a vote, or will change the rules again providing political cover. The text of the treaty is all about TOTAL government control of arms trading and eliminating the little pesky small competition. The government already controls all but one of the sections of arms to be controlled and that one is in “small arms” and that directly puts “we the people” right in the bullseye. It may take time but be patient, it will happen. With the reading I’ve been doing about the progressive legislation being enacted in this country, the initial objections by the Republicans is usually gone within 5 years and “Progress” marches on. My brother continually says, that there really is NO real difference between the Dems and Repubs. The Repubs just want to do it at a slower pace. Both strict constitutionalists and conservative people and really radical socialists have been marginalized and are equally ignored by both parties.

              • I don’t think that the Administration has any credibility left for people to really care what they try to do. If their counting on the military, their stupid.


                An interesting look at the treaty. I’m calm on this because I will never abide by anything the Obama Administration decides to do. I have removed my consent to be governed by thieves. I’ll just stand my ground from here on out.

  7. Congrats to the Denver Bronco’s and their fans. They dominated the Patriots today, which I was glad to see. Now the Hawk’s need to do the same and it will be a great day and a great upcoming Super Bowl, in the cold, over here on the best side of the country, LOL 😆

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      If Denver prevails in the Super Bowl, I would like to see the Giants and the Broncos go at it for the rubber match and bragging rights of the Manning Bros. Archie has got to be one proud Father of his sons after himself being stuck on such a losing team in New Orleans before free agency.

      • The Broncos would kill the Giants in a real game right now. The Giants are not in the same class as Denver this year. Eli has two rings, if Broncos win, they are tied at 2 a piece. Next year it would be fun to see them both go for #3.

  8. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Thought this was an interesting read

    In the most of the cases used as examples in this paper the governments had NO fear of the people. As power was distributed away from centralized government, the instances of genocide or democide diminished. The warning to me is the continual creep of power being consolidated unto the Federal government and away from the State or people. Our government is transforming into a textbook definition of a Fascist State.

    • Don’t say that to the Sheeple, they call you a Conspiracy Theorist, 😆

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        On what grounds should I not be called one. We have supplied altogether to many instances in our lifetimes and personal experiences of government lying and conspiracies.

        • NONE, LOL. I’m one and don’t care. I post things that are either relevant or not relevant, but at least people that read here can choose. There are so many CT stories anymore it’s hard to keep up, HEHE 🙂 I don’t go too overboard with the stuff though, just stuff that is supported by actual govt documents or legitimate videos.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            The inspectors in Syria are the ones questioning the US contentions of who commited the attacks, not that there was one. The moment Kerry came on the news and with “Proof” my first thought was why would Assad do such a thing. It clearly is not in his self interest to bring down the wrath of the US military on him. Much less the “Proof” of chemical weapons in Iraq. All our government showed was drawings, not real imagery. The look on Colin Powell’s face and actions at the UN told me he didn’t believe any of it but he went along, hoping it was true. I’m pretty sure he had submitted his resignation shortly afterwards and just went through the motions until Bush’s 1st term was up. Instead of by BF’s definition of following ones core principles and resigned on the spot. Could the Iraq war been averted? I think so. Powell had such a reputation of being an honest and principled man that was the last card that the government needed to have dealt to justify US and UN action.
            Our leader espoused “self determination” as a main theme of his presidency, but we have actively initiated, and participated in how many regime changes and military actions lately.

  9. Police, of all people, should no the laws. Based on that, I have to say that the cops involved in this incident should be removed from public duty/or fired.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Unfortunately they know probably no more than the average educated person, maybe less. They leave the legality of their action to be sorted out by the DA and lawyers. The police usually just react to a stimulus. I hope this doesn’t insult Plainly because his insight as a serving police officer has been valuable. I really hope most officers are really trying to do a good job. Unfortunately I’ve known people who went into law enforcement only to “legally” commit violence. Luckily none of them continued their chosen career past 6 years, but who knows what occured in that time. Just read through the briefs on the police shootings of people by the police and lately there is a disturbing trend. Like “we shot him while he was attempting suicide” Huh…..just keep others including themselves out of harms way. Let it up to the person and their maker. The video Gman posted still haunts me. The police could have just blown it off, as the guy tried to get away once he realized what was going too happen to him. But no…they were looking for any reason to terminate his very existence, especially Ramos.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Ex-cop. I haven’t worn the badge since 1997 – coming up on 17 years (in March) as nothing more than John Q. Citizen (and thankful for it). But, I do know and understand the mindset of the members of the “thin blue line”. So, trust me, I am not insulted at all.

        Now, here’s where I and the posts author part ways some..

        Brown: ” With regards to the dispatcher, it’s my belief that no officer should have been dispatched to the scene since no laws were broken.”

        I disagree, the dispatcher was called by a member of the public about this guy and since the police should be responding to reasonable calls/complaints of the public, the dispatcher was right i sending a unit to the area. While the dispatcher is aware of the legality of openly carrying a firearm in public – that dispatcher is not at the scene and has zero authority to decide the appropriateness of a police response when the public has called in.

        The officer, Moe, was certainly acting within his responsibilities to go to the area of the call. Now – based ONLY on what I read in Brown’s blog post, it is after Moe’s arrival that Moe crosses the line and violates Deffert’s rights. What Moe had a right, even a responsibility to do was observe – without interference – and make the call on whether he had a legal right to take any action against Deffert. Moe had another option – to make friendly, consensual contact with Deffert and simply have a polite conversation in which he would make it clear to him that he (Deffert) was doing nothing wrong, but was concerning at least one citizen who ended up call the police.

        That kind of contact would normally start out in this way (or in a similar way): “Excuse me sir. Good morning to you. I was wondering if I could take a moment or two of your time up?” Barring that, Moe should have done nothing more than observe until he was clear there was NO law violation occurring.

        Were Deffert’s right’s violated, most likely, but even Brown states in his post that “the entire incident is not captured on the dash cam video of the police cruiser…” so there may be something we don’t know that would change the views on the actions of Moe and other officers at the scene. That is for a civil trial to work out.

        Brown wrote, “He should also not only be sued, but charged in violation of the very law he swore to uphold.” Well, Brown needs to review the laws a bit, any “charges” for violating Deffert’s rights are not criminal – they are civil torts, hence the lawsuit.

        Some other comments to what was in Brown’s posting:

        City Attorney Catherine Mish said the police response was “very reasonable,”

        Well duh, did anyone think that the city’s legal eagle would make a public statement that would place the city, police department, or Moe “guilty” of a civil violation of anyone’s rights?

        ” How people feel is irrelevant to the fact that someone obeying the law should not be put through this.”

        True, how people feel is irrelevant in this kind of situation, but as I said above – it being irrelevant has no bearing on the officer responding to observe the individual for himself.

        ” Law enforcement is going to have to start telling paranoid 911 callers to chill out because no laws are being broken and stop responding to these situations that end up violating the law and the rights of the citizens.”

        Unless a caller is speaking to a sworn officer, who has training (even inadequate training), the “law enforcement” Brown is speaking of would be a non-sworn, non-law trained, civilian dispatcher. Now, could the call have been routed to an officer on duty in the station (if one was there) – sure. Otherwise that dispatcher is NOT qualified to determine whether a law is being broken (and I have been a police/emergencies services dispatcher too) and it is proper for an officer being dispatched.

        Otherwise, from what I read – Moe’s goose is going to get seriously cooked.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Moe gets off without any penalty.

          Option B: City settles for some small amount.

          But I think any jury sides with the Cop. Why? The guy talking to himself is enough for most people to consider the stop and approach a reasonable action to prevent harm by an “unstable person”.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            So, had this guy been walking down the street talking to himself (no weapon visible) and a citizen called the cops because they thought it was scary, the cops could still stop him as a suspicious person?

            I mean, come on, what happened to probable cause requirements? In either situation (there or what I said here) there is no probably cause to stop this guy from what I read in the blog post on it. Ergo, why I said initiate a consensual contact and have a conversation with the guy (if he’s willing to stand and chat with you).

    • plainlyspoken says:

      G – the cops no the law no better than a lot of attorney’s and that’ because there are too damn many law’s to “know”. That’s why we have volumes and volumes of laws we can refer to in order to insure we have a criminal action occurring. Cops have a good knowledge of some laws, a general idea of others, and not a clue on many. That’s why training is constantly required.

      On training – the problem is ongoing training in too many areas is “required” by the department, much of it as a result of the cultural aspects (such as interpersonal communications, anti-bias – i.e. tolerance, etc) instead of laws.

      As to determining whether or not Moe should be fired – maybe, Depends on whether or not Moe acted in a criminal manner, or violated the department’s operating policies and procedures. It’s an opinion he’s a bad cop, yet that may not be completely so my friend.

      Did he screw up? Sure looks like it, yet termination – maybe. Would you be surprised to learn I was a respondent in a civil suit against my department? I was accused of violation a arrestee’s rights and violating department operational procedures – as well as state law? Further that the jury did find fault with myself and the other officer involved and the jury awarded damages against me to the plaintiff? Should I have been fired because this civil jury said so? The department internal affairs investigation cleared me – the complaint against me was unfounded, and no criminal charges were ever filed against me by the DA. Yet, a jury said I was wrong in some manner.

      • I agree with everything you have said in your two replies. Notice I left the door open on the firing issue, because there wasn’t enough info on the cop. In many ways, I saw this as lack of training or just lack of experience. The dispatcher was awesome, calm the caller, let the cops deal with it.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Police, of all people, should no the laws. Based on that, I have to say that the cops involved in this incident should be removed from public duty/or fired.

          So fired or the rest of his career as the property room officer? lol….Maybe he could becomes the department training officer? 😉

  10. Congrats to the Seattle Seahawks and their fans! Broncos vs. Seahawks In SB 48. Should be a good game.

    • I will say that I think the Broncos will win easily, IF, the weather is not nasty. If it’s a bad weather game, it’s a pick’em game.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Eh, I lost interest when my Packed folded. I’ll likely only watch for the commercials, otherwise the game will be muted. 🙂

        • I grew up loving the game and still do. I’m a Dolphins fan, but enjoy a good game by any teams. Whoever wins will be a good thing for different reasons for me. 🙂

  11. The aftermath of the verdict on the Kelly Thomas police killing. It seems protesting is the call of the day in Fullerton. It’s nice to see people finally waking up and standing up for something.

  12. Good morning all: Been rather busy on the border recently and working for the Greg Abbott campaign. Some interesting things going on down here in Texas.

    First, there is a “cultural” movement trying to get a foot hold….team names like Cowboys, Indians, Redskins, warriors, night fighters, raptors, Pumas, and Rebels are considered “culturally insensitive”….however, team names like Lobos, Aztecs, Comanches, Apaches, soldados, Yankees….are not culturally insensitive.

    Secondly, high school names like Robert E Lee, Stephen F Austin, Burk Burnett, Davy Crockett, and even World War Two Hero Audie Murphy are considered culturally insensitive…while Ceasar Chavez, Benito Juarez, Martin Luther King are not culturally insensitive.

    ( Of course, this movement will amount to nothing).

    Thirdly, it is very interesting that the Wendy Davis campaign coffers have reported that 89 percent of her money has been raised out of state, while 91 percent of the money for the Greg Abbott campaign has been raised in state.

    Fourth, two Texas conventions have been cancelled in New York City, supposedly under the direction of Cuomo because, as the letter from the Four Seasons Resort has stated, “the Texas beliefs of gun control, gay marriage, and right to life issues are “inconsistent with the beliefs of New Yorkers and it is in the best interest of all concerned that other arrangements be made.” The same from the Adolphus Hotel. I have not seen the letter from the Adolphus but have seen the one from the Four Seasons.******

    Interesting developments……

    Fifth, you can fill volumes of what is not reported concerning the border. In the last three months, we have stopped and detained twenty cases of chicken pox, 19 cases of measles, 6 cases of TB and 2 cases of Polio. We are getting a flood of immigrants to the border now, THANKS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF EBT CARDS IN MEXICO, under this administration, that is encouraging this exodus of ILLEGAL immigrants with diseases that we have practically eliminated. Texas, with its own money, is setting up “Ellis Island” inspired entry points to protect against this invasion. Want to come to Texas. do it legal and get examined medically….do not want to do that…go to California.

    ***** There is a Texas movement to now cancel all conventions and rentals of Four Seasons properties here. The Four Seasons Hotel in Las Colinas Texas is reporting a 30% drop already. The power of the purse.

    At JAC……good morning my West Coast friend…..I have some Texas goodies for you. I do have your address…..and will send them right out.

    • This is going to cost the state of NY a lot of money as this goes viral. This is but just one example of how Liberal’s don’t care about people and there jobs or business’s.

      Glad to hear from Ya Colonel 🙂

      • Hey Gman…….been here reading and working as well. Did not see any reason to join the chat with JAC concerning guns and laws……….even the new born have guns.

        • Interesting discussion. I’m still baffled about the need for the permits, but it’s what it is today. Just read about an armed robber shot dead by a customer carrying concealed in Dallas Country (Dollar General). The store had a sign not allowing open carry. It seems the sign didn’t affect the bad guy. Strange that people think a “no gun ” sign is going to do any good at all. They really think criminals obey the law or some such nonsense 🙄

          • plainlyspoken says:

            G, you know better than that. That sign is for law abiding citizens. We all know criminals don’t care about any rules.

            As for signs against open carry – I have no problem with those. It is the business owners choice too – which is better than the government choosing for the business. 🙂

            • I get it. It just seems to me to be an invitation for disaster. I think that has been proven. But it’s the business owners choice and I respect that. We don’t have many “no guns” signs around these parts. Business’s would have to close down if they did that, nobody would do business with them.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I feel it is a reasonable choice by a business. Some businesses make it appropriate to not allow open carry. The last job I worked (here in Colorado) as a hospital contract security officer (before I went over to the in-house security team) had “no open carry” signs, which I felt were very appropriate for a hospital to have. But, one idiot decided to “test” our response to the signs and walked in and down the main hall of the hospital carrying a short-barrel double-barrel 12 gauge (which he carried openly all over the city (as was his right) on a neck strap. I was the “lucky” one who made initial contact (no I was not armed – carrying only a radio for equipment) and pinned him against a wall with my hand wrapped around the hammers & trigger guard (ok – so I have large hands, so what – lol). Other officers joined me and we pulled him into a side corridor and I disarmed him (yep that sucker was loaded).

                He was charged with a misdemeanor carry violation for ignoring the signs and was found guilty in court. I’m sure he has a new shotgun by now because the one we took was confiscated and destroyed after his conviction.

                He freaked out a lot of people at that hospital – the last place people need to be getting freaked out – so the no carry openly was VERY appropriate for the setting.

              • Hospitals and Govt buildings. That’s true here as well. I can see a hospital for sure. In Ohio, the signs are everywhere, and, so is crime. Imagine that 🙂

          • We do not have open carry in Texas for handguns…..we do have open carry for shotguns and rifles.( You can carry a rifle or shotgun anywhere in Texas…..including banks unless posted. )

            As far as permits… are quite right that only the law abiding will purchase a license. I have no problem with this….however, the licensing provision in Texas simply requires an 8 hour course on weapon safety, As I said before, most everyone born here has a weapon and can use it before they are weaned off the teat.

            However, I have mixed emotions on licensing. Part of me says that it is no one’s business what I wish to carry and how many rounds in a magazine…..another part of me says, that a PROPER form of screening would help…..however, I have seen no screening process that does not restrict the freedom of information. To properly screen, where does one set the litmus? Make all health records public knowledge? Make all criminal records public knowledge? Do speeding offenders with outstanding tickets get screened out? How about dead beat dads? In Texas you cannot be a dead beat dad, owe property taxes, have a lien. But, you can be mentally ill because those records are not allowed to be checked. You can have NO felony convictions on your record, expunged or otherwise….and you cannot have outstanding class three misdemeanors. You can have no DUI’s no matter how old….you will be screened out…but, again, that is for the law abiding.

            Our licensing process….take a class on how not to look down the barrel of a loaded weapon…do not point a loaded weapon at anyone you do not intend to shoot…how to clear a loaded weapon…how to care for your weapon…do not drop them on the ground…

            We go to a range and show that we know how to load a weapon and shoot it. We are required to shoot and hit targets at 9 feet, 12 feet, 15 feet, 25 feet. Our women folk can do this blindfolded… all it shows is a proficiency to point and shoot. and load a clip or magazine. We are required to shoot 7 rounds in 10 seconds and score 8 or better on the targets. That is it……….

            So,why the class? It might be different in Chicago or the cities….but everyone here has a weapon…and I know people think I am exaggerating about the newborn……I am not. I had toy weapons that shot corks at age three and a 4-10 shot gun at age five and was hunting birds. My children the same….both make and female…but this is gun country.

            Criminals will always have weapons…so no screening process will catch those. The only thing a screening process does….is screen the law abiding……so I have mixed emotions.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I find it odd that Texas, being a state with so much gun ownership would not have open carry laws. Why is this Colonel?

              • Hi Plainly…..go figure….We can wear a six gun, fully loaded, at all times, just like the old wild west days, complete with holster…..but have to conceal any handgun that is automatic or magazine fed.

                We can carry an AR 15, AK 47, a bazooka, or tow a missile launcher in the open….we can carry any shot gun or rifle and hang them in gun racks in trucks….

                But, by golly, we cannot open carry a side arm unless it is a six gun………

                Not to worry tho….open carry is on the next legislative agenda and it will pass easily.

              • Hell…even OKLAHOMA has open carry.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gotta watch them Oklahomans ;).

                That makes no sense to me, though I’d be fine with a single action six-gun (rather like them myself). If it takes me more than six, I’m likely in a heap of trouble anyway. 🙂

            • It is an emotional subject, due to fears that some people have. No screening process will affect those hell bent on doing evil. We have laws that outlaw the ownership/possession of all guns for Felons/Mentally Ill etc. While I believe in good training and practice, this should be an individual responsibility, not a govt edict to “Permit” people to exercising their rights.

              This has all been gone over recently, we have what we have, some want less, some want more. Law abiding, responsible citizens need neither.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I have no problem – even encourage – people get training in the safe handling of firearms (of any type), including range time – which is why I proposed letting private business offer that training and provide a “certification” document when a person successfully completes the training. Then let them carry if they choose to and only provide proof of that training when necessary. There is no reason the government needs to be involved in that process or have a government issued permit on file.

                But, the one thing any certification class or government permitting process will NEVER be able to certify is good judgement. Period. That takes a hell of a lot of training AND experience (as I stated before).

              • We are on the same page on this. Strange how we, with our extensive weapons background, see it this way and those with considerably less experience want permitting.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I am unsure what JAC’s background history is with firearms – so no picking on him on that score for the moment. 😉

                My pop hated firearms (for various reasons) and never had one in our home, which was a good thing considering he was a drunk. I never subscribed to his beliefs and obviously had enough training in life to feel quite comfortable having guns in my home. I taught my kids that were were NEVER to touch any firearm in our home unless I was with them. Even when they were little one gun was always kept loaded and ready for use (albeit on a high shelf in the closet) and never did they ever touch it.

                Good firearms safety, like so many things, begins in the home if you have firearms present.

      • I dont think that New York will lose one dime…..they will fill their hotels…it is a tourist trap after all….however, I do not think that the up state New Yorker’s feel that way. I know a couple of people that live upstate,,,,,,Cuomo does not speak for them.

        • I have a Upstater hunt here every year with his Uncle. He says the same. He also says that there is a lot of hate growing for Liberal’s. Interesting times ahead.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Geez, well I never was fond of NY state either. Hey Buck, Mathias – does the guvner speak for you too?

      New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo believes that pro-life activists, along with anti-gay activists and supporters of the Second Amendment, are not welcome in his state.

      • Zip, zero, nada coverage on this from the liberal media. They are too busy with Christie. Amazing that when the fascist shows his true colors the media goes into hiding. One of the seminal moments in my political development was way back when I heard Bobby Kennedy actually imply that sometimes the end justifies the means. I could never ever support a politician or political party that believed that.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning to you as well this fine morning.

      Can’t wait to see what Texas treasures are included.

      Hope all is well with you and Family.

      Got a note and some pictures from my friends in Nevada yesterday.

      If you haven’t already gone I suggest you PASS on the ski trip to Tahoe.

      The ONLY snow is man made at this point. The Lake is well below the damn level.

      We are facing a West Wide drought of significant proportions this coming year. That is if we don’t get some serious snow in the Mtns soon.

      4 months to go……….. 🙂

  13. plainlyspoken says:

    Lets Make A Deal*******

    Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has demanded that the United States must cease military operations and airstrikes, as well as resume peace talks with the Taliban, before he signs a security deal to keep some U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond this year.

    Here’s the only deal Karzai should get from the USA. We’re done and going home, your on your own. Bye-bye now.

    • And……take our equipment with us and destroy all compounds and forts.

      • plainlyspoken says:


      • Sir, the nasty part is that we could do that and then watch as we are again inundated with “refugees” both from the Stan and Iraq. The howl of indignation as the Taliban starts destroying schools, hospitals, killing little girls, throwing acid in peoples faces will demand that we do “something”. The something will involve massive resettlement of people holding views inimical to ours and yet another dagger into the heart of America.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          So? This nation was created by a (yep, just got to say it) a melting pot of people with diverse political and religious beliefs. Yet, are you saying you’re justifying this nation being in wars and countries we have absolutely no damn business being in? The USA needs to get over this “we are the world’s cop” stuff and stay at home.

          Justifying our nation’s safety by military force in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is – if you’ll pardon me – a crock of………

          • Yea it was but they all shared a common belief in freedom. I see a total absence of that in this potential group of refugees.

            Our involvement in Afghanistan should have been get Bin Laden and leave. Period. The parallels in our hubris between Vietnam and Afghanistan are staggering. In the former, the French experience and French advice was deliberately ignored. In the latter, Russian experience and advice was ignored. The line, as Col. Hackworth heard Senior army planners put it “About Face” was, the French can’t fight, they didn’t have the guts to win, we are Americans”. It was about then that Hack decided it was hopeless.

            My dad in discussing the difficulty of improving slums in NY used to say, “you can take the people out of the slum,. you can’t take the slum out of the people”. I would expand that to, “You can take the people out of the seventh century but you can’t take the seventh century out of the people.”

            • plainlyspoken says:

              And had this country not gone off and invaded Afghanistan to get one man then there wouldn’t be this concern you are expressing about Afghani refugees coming to the US. We created that problem and we had no business being there in the first place – let alone spending 12 years over there.

              Funny how we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia to get the financial backers of bin Laden, or Pakistan for their “unofficial” support of the Taliban, or Iran to get the US hostages back and take out Khomeni back in ’79, or, or, or.

              I won’t even go into the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by US military forces to kill bin Laden (and I believe there was never any intent to capture him alive and return him for trial). That in itself was an act of war and no better than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

              There are many who come to America with extremist political views – and still will come – under laws providing sanctuary to them from suffering potential harm in their native lands. So whether or not the movement is a massive one is beside the point. In fact, 11 men (I think it was 11) with extremest views found it quite easy to get into the USA and hijack some planes and fly them into buildings.

              • Plainly,

                Not looking for a drawn out discussion on anything other than this question..

                What would you have done as a response to 9/11..considering the multiple other pre-hits we took?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I would not have military attacked a sovereign nation, as Bush decided to.

                Speaking to the nation from the White House Treaty Room at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, on Oct. 7, 2001, President George W. Bush announced the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom against the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The joint U,.S.-British air assault would be followed within days by a ground assault, which involved mostly Afghan forces. Bush’s remarks follow.

                Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime


                We didn’t attack Iran in ’79, so what’s the difference? You can not claim to be a law-abiding, civilized nation when you ignore the right’s of other nations to exist. The tragic attacks on 9/11 do not justify any invasion of Afghanistan. That was an act of criminals, not a foreign nation. Afghanistan is not the only country to ever harbor someone considered a criminal by another nation (we do it as well – think of the Shah of Iran) and we can not be running off to war as we choose to get some criminal or destroy some criminal organization. Those are not matters to be handled by military force.

                The options open to use were diplomatic in nature and that is what I would have done regardless of how long it may have taken to get our hands on bin Laden.

              • Fair enough. Though years of diplomacy on the other attacks only invited a huge attack. But ok..not looking to pick a fight 😉

              • Anita, interesting as it is, the recent release of 28 top secret pages from the 9-11 report to Congress led to a leak. According to the leak, Saudi Arabia political rulers funded the operation. This information is being ignored by the MSM and Congress. Let’s say this is 100% true and proven, should we invade Saudi?

              • I may be totally mistaken, but if memory serves me, Bin Laden was the HMFIC..he fled to Aphganistan…you know..that was “the right war”..Go in there..pluck him out dead or alive..get out..then maybe the money guys would have been ready to talk diplomacy.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                OK, he was the HMFIC – so? It was NEVER Bush’s intent to only go after bin Laden. Proof is the statement he made letting America know we were attacking Afghanistan.

                It matters not even if it was his intent only and if that’s what would have happened. You don’t invade foreign countries with military force to capture a criminal – period. Why, you might ask? Other than being wrong and an act of war, the precedence is set for any nation that wishes (stupid as it would be) to attack us to grab a criminal would be “justified” in doing so. It is certainly not something the US has done in other nations harboring the HMFIC’s of criminal organizations operating in the USA either.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Uh oh, looks like I forgot a closing tag to turn off the bold, oops, my bad definitely.

  14. plainlyspoken says:

    When you travel to a foreign country, you should be fully prepared to obey their rules. I find that this gentlemen got his own butt into hot water and it is NOT our governments job/responsibility to get him out of it.

    Mr. Bae was a missionary trying to build a covert proselytizing operation in Rason, using a tour business as a front, according to a videotaped sermon he gave at a St. Louis church in 2011.

    • Mr. Bae obviously was not up on what it takes to be a martyr for the cause. Now he complains!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I saw this kind of thing when I was in the UK in the air force. Local cops came to the base to investigate a military member who was a suspect in a crime that occurred downtown. I was the cop who got to be the witness to the local cops “interview.” We were standing out next to the suspects car (I had my Desk Sergeant call his unit and get him sent down to speak with the local cop).

        During the interview the local cop walked over and opened the door to this service members car. The kid asked the cop what he was doing ad the cop said he was going to search the vehicle. The kid start telling the cop he could do that because he (the service member) hadn’t given him permission and the cop had no warrant. The cop said to him, under British law he needed neither. The kid looked at me and said “stop him” and I said no since the US Constitution didn’t apply in his case and what the cop was doing was legal under British law.

        The kid then confessed to his crime and was arrested. Plus the cop took the evidence he found in the kid’s car.

        Mr Bae made his bed and now gets to lay in it.

  15. Maybe it’s me, but today’s Liberals are really starting to look and sound very Hitleresque. Am I imagining things?

  16. the Filippidises were on New Year’s Eve eve, southbound on Interstate 95 — John; wife Kally (his Gulf High sweetheart); the 17-year-old twins Nasia and Yianni; and 13-year-old Gina in their 2012 Ford Expedition — just barely out of the Fort McHenry Tunnel into Maryland, blissfully unarmed and minding their own business when they noticed they were being bird-dogged by an unmarked patrol car. It flanked them a while, then pulled ahead of them, then fell in behind them.

    “Ten minutes he’s behind us,” John says. “We weren’t speeding. In fact, lots of other cars were whizzing past.”

    “You know you have a police car behind you, you don’t speed, right?” Kally adds.

    Says John, “We keep wondering, is he going to do something?”

    Finally the patrol car’s emergency lights come on, and it’s almost a relief. Whatever was going on, they’d be able to get it over with now. The officer — from the Transportation Authority Police, as it turns out, Maryland’s version of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority — strolls up, does the license and registration bit, and returns to his car.

    According to Kally and John (but not MTAP, which, pending investigation, could not comment), what happened next went like this:

    Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

    “At home in my safe,” John answers.

    “Don’t move,” says the officer.

    Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

    First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

    The officer came back to John. “You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

    Of course, John couldn’t show him what didn’t exist, but Kally’s failure to corroborate John’s account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars.

    Ninety minutes later, or maybe it was two hours — “It felt like forever,” Kally says — no weapon found and their possessions repacked, the episode ended … with the officer writing out a warning.

    “All that time, he’s humiliating me in front of my family, making me feel like a criminal,” John says. “I’ve never been to prison, never declared bankruptcy, I pay my taxes, support my 20 employees’ families; I’ve never been in any kind of trouble.”

    Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? … And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

    Now, despite having fielded apologies from the officer’s captain as well as from a Maryland Transportation Authority Police internal affairs captain, John is wondering if he shouldn’t just cancel his CCW license.

    For a guy who’s not looking for trouble, that’s not an unreasonable conclusion. And it would please fans of gun control by any means. But let’s hope John Filippidis, American family man, taxpayer and good guy, doesn’t cave, because it would be a sad statement about the brittleness of our guarantees — some would call them sacred — under the Constitution.

  17. We have talked in the past about gun ownership being a right, compared to driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. Anyone who has been in traffic court is informed by the judge/government that driving is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. One that can & will be taken away by the government at their discretion.

    And then this morning I hear about a friends’ friend who was stopped for speeding in a small town. He has a permit. The officer orders him to place & keep his hands on the dash at all times. Orders him to surrender his firearm. He then unloads his firearm. After releasing him, returns the firearm & keeps his ammo.

    Since concealed carry is a license issued by the state, it looks more & more to be a privilege granted by the state, subject to being rescinded or violated by anyone with a badge.

    • These are reasons why permitting is ridiculous. The cop should be charged with theft, he had no right to take the ammo.

      I was stopped for a nonmoving violation last summer. I was packing and other than the lack of inspection sticker, was not doing anything wrong. The State trooper never asked if I was carrying. I also have numerous pro 2nd Amendment stickers on the back of my van. That’s how things should be handled by the cops. Anything else should result in criminal charges.

      • If it were me, I would be charging them with violating my 4th Am. rights with that seizure that also becomes a 2nd and. violation. I might end up owning a town..”Welcome to Illusionville”

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is today’s version of Gman’s world regarding Guns.

    “In my world, everyone carries and there is no problems (or crime).”

    So lets assume this is true, that is his “view”.

    In his world the certifiably insane, criminals, wife beaters, etc, etc, are ALL carrying weapons if they want to.

    Nobody knows or has any reasonable expectation that the person with the gun is stable or not.

    Then everyone howls Civil Rights violation when a Peace Officer stops someone carrying a gun who is walking down the street talking to himself. Because there is no permit to check the Officer has no choice but to force the guy to the ground because the guy just keeps screaming about his “rights” instead of answering a few questions.

    • Keep in mind that not ALL people can legally own or possess a gun. In this day and age of MP3 players, seeing someone talking/singing/mouthing along with a song is common. Same as with drivers in vehicles, or someone talking on the cell phone using a Bluetooth (like I do a lot ) . The cop has zero justification for confronting anyone that is not committing a crime. But like Plainly said, a pleasant discussion would not be a problem, even for me.

      The officer had a choice, it’s called observation. Not all people are unwilling to answer polite questions, I don’t think anyone here would have an issue with it. What if’s and assumptions are not cause for the violation of peoples rights without just cause. Carrying a gun when it’s legal, is not just cause. 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        So now your position is that everyone in your world will not own a gun if they want to own a gun?

        How do you decide who?

        How do you enforce this?

        • JAC, please read what I have posted. I stated quite clearly, in English, that laws that disallow certain people to own/possess guns are still the law. Felons, kids, those diagnosed as mentally ill would still be barred, along with any others identified by such laws.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You want NO data bases, you want NO controls yet you want CERTAIN people to NOT HAVE GUNS.

            You complain the existing system does not do this.

            So what the hell is YOUR proposal???

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G – I’m glad he’s picking on you for the moment – Anita has me busy enough. 😉 I hope you know I am kidding you Anita?

            • JAC, again, try reading what I write, because you are not comprehending that I’m only talking about CCP, nothing else.. Do you understand, just in case, ONLY CCP 👿 Quit putting words in my posts that I have not written. You are really starting to act like a true Left winger. Your sated desires for freedom are taking a big downward hit lately.

              I have stated my proposal. If one can legally own a gun, he/she can also conceal carry, no stupid permit required. That is and has been my position throughout this discussion.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Then tell me what in your statement I am supposedly twisting:

                ““In my world, everyone carries and there is no problems (or crime).”

                Did I misunderstand the word “everyone”?

              • In my world, everyone who, as of today, that can legally own a gun, can carry. I have never said everyone as your terms dictate. Maybe that’s our misunderstanding? I was very clear with Anita, thought you would have read that, I could be wrong, if so, my apologies. 🙂

      • If the gun toter is not bothering, threatening or otherwise committing a crime, maybe people should just mind their own business, that would go a very long way to having less and less of these kinds of issues. Even a neighborhood watch is taught to observe. Should people call the cops on everyone talking on a Bluetooth wearing a hoodie with the hood up on a cold day because he/she MIGHT be carrying a gun? Nobody knows as you say if the person is stable.

        • Here is the SANE take on guns for your enjoyment. Amazing what can be done with “facts”.

          • Oddly, I have read well over 100 articles/studies that refute everything in this article. Even our own FBI stats fail to agree. I wish I had time to really go after this, but at this moment in time, I don’t. It reads to me like nothing more than more Liberal propaganda.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            “Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons in the United States aged 5–34 years (1). In 2007, approximately 44,000 persons were killed in motor vehicle crashes


            That’s 120.55 (rounded) deaths per day. What are we going to do about all those damn cars in the hands of Americans? And those drivers are (or should be) trained and licensed to operate those vehicles too.

          • “One of the most recent and largest studies to date on gun violence in America concludes that widespread gun ownership is the driving force behind gun violence in the United States. The study compiled data from 50 states between 1981-2010 to examine the relationship between gun ownership and homicide. ”

            Gun ownership is at an all time high. Gun violence is at a historic low. Sure, you can find “articles” & “publications” that “prove” nearly any position you want to take on anything….

            “widespread gun ownership is the driving force behind gun violence in the United States.”
            Then why isn’t gun violence at a historic high? Why isn’t gun violence widespread? Why is most gun violence confined to poor, black neighborhoods filled with gangs & drugs.

    • “Here is today’s version of Gman’s world regarding Guns.”

      “In my world, everyone carries and there is no problems (or crime).”
      “In his world the certifiably insane, criminals, wife beaters, etc, etc, are ALL carrying weapons if they want to.”

      Ok, but lets call it my world. I’ll agree with G! even to the point of owning this position.

      A world where the certifiably insane are ALL carrying weapons…until they break a law, harm or endanger another. Then they are arrested or shot resisting arrest.
      A world where the criminals are ALL carrying weapons…until the are arrested for committing a crime or shot during the process. How many burglars and rapists will there be when every “soccer mom” has a “six-gun” strapped to her waist all the time?
      A world where the wife beaters are ALL carrying weapons…until their wife who is also packing has had enough and removes that bad seed form the gene pool, hopefully before they conceive.

  19. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here Anita.

    Fair enough. Though years of diplomacy on the other attacks only invited a huge attack. But ok..not looking to pick a fight 😉

    I know you aren’t looking for a fight. It was a fair question. But, I would like to respond some to your further comment.

    Ok, so other attacks led to a – in your words – huge attack. Those attacks were carried out by criminals in a criminal organization. Should we use our military against criminals & criminal organizations is my question to you? If so, why are we not attacking the cartels in Mexico and Columbia; the gangs in America in the drug trade, the Russian and Italian mobs in America, etc.

    Let me be clear too on something. On November 4, 1979, my unit was in the middle of a field training exercise down at Camp Bullis, Texas (the Colonel may know that “garden” spot) outside San Antonio. We were pulled from the exercise and returned to base camp. We were placed into barracks under armed guard, prohibited from any communication to the outside world and give a “secret” briefing on the embassy takeover in Tehran. We were on alert for immediate response to Iran should President Carter order military action. For 3 days we stayed locked up in that barracks and then were ordered to stand down as Carter decided not to use military force. I, and all of my fellow servicemen hated that call and the weakness Carter was showing. It took me years to realize Carter was right, though I still consider him a weak president (he was too nice of a guy for the office IMHO).

    Why was he right? Well even though the “students” who took over the embassy were supported and protected by the Iranian government, it was still a criminal act – not an act by a nation that could be considered an act of war. Plus, no one has ever been brought to justice for that takeover.

    What has been the outcome of military action in Afghanistan? Not good I say, not good at all (and I will be specific as to why of your are interested?).

    • I’m thinking we won’t see what we call true wars any longer, country v country type wars. It’s going to be these lone strikes. I don’t know the answers. I just know that even the bullied kid gets fed up and retaliates. (calm down BF)

      • plainlyspoken says:

        OK, lets say you’re right. What right do we have to make these lone strikes into another sovereign? These strikes, in and of themselves, by military forces are an act of war against that nation as well.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Also, I’d like to ask you how you would feel and what you’d be screaming to our government to do, if lone attacks were being used inside our national borders – in violation of our sovereignty – by other nations like we do to others?

        • I’m the one asking the questions’re not backing me into a corner. 😉 Sounds like you’ll never matter what. I don’t feel too safe suddenly.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            ROFL. I might initiate diplomatic sanctions. 🙂

            Seriously though, how would you feel about it?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      At this point I would like to remind everyone that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy DID NOT ATTACK the USA. Despite us sending arms and ammo to their “declared” enemies.

      So given the modern day arguments against war what was the USA’s proper response?

      • Didn’t Germany declare war on us first, then began attacking ships in the Atlantic with their subs? I’m not up to date on Italy as of yet 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          We were shipping arms and material in violation of existing International Treaties, as I understand it.

          Per those RULES Germany was within its “authority” to stop, detain and/or sink such ships.

          The point that fits here is that sinking a “ship” is NOT an attack on one Nation by another, even if conducted by a Nation.

          Did not the USA do the same thing with the Russian ships bringing missles to Cuba?? We barricaded and threatened to sink any ship trying to run the barricade.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          From the History Channel archives:

          On this day, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict.

          The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor answered that question. On December 8, Japanese Ambassador Oshima went to German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to nail the Germans down on a formal declaration of war against America. Von Ribbentrop stalled for time; he knew that Germany was under no obligation to do this under the terms of the Tripartite Pact, which promised help if Japan was attacked, but not if Japan was the aggressor. Von Ribbentrop feared that the addition of another antagonist, the United States, would overwhelm the German war effort.

          But Hitler thought otherwise. He was convinced that the United States would soon beat him to the punch and declare war on Germany. The U.S. Navy was already attacking German U-boats, and Hitler despised Roosevelt for his repeated verbal attacks against his Nazi ideology. He also believed that Japan was much stronger than it was, that once it had defeated the United States, it would turn and help Germany defeat Russia. So at 3:30 p.m. (Berlin time) on December 11, the German charge d’affaires in Washington handed American Secretary of State Cordell Hull a copy of the declaration of war.

          That very same day, Hitler addressed the Reichstag to defend the declaration. The failure of the New Deal, argued Hitler, was the real cause of the war, as President Roosevelt, supported by plutocrats and Jews, attempted to cover up for the collapse of his economic agenda. “First he incites war, then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war,” declared Hitler-and the Reichstag leaped to their feet in thunderous applause.

          Now Notice the reference to US attacks on German UBoats which ticked off Hitler but which had not caused Germany to declare war on the US at that time.

          So you are correct in that Germany declared war on the USA. Do we believe the USA was not going to do the same thing anyway?

          • I really don’t know if the US would have gotten involved if not for Pearl Harbor. It would be nice to go back in time and listen to the thinking behind the scenes. I won’t assume one way or the other.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            “Do we believe the USA was not going to do the same thing anyway?”

            Oh FDR was looking for the excuse to for damn sure. He had his feelings against being isolationist and wanted to rid the world of the fascism in Europe and Japan in the Pacific.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Is sending arms to their ‘declared enemies’ an act of war? If so should we have attacked Switzerland for their selling weapons to Nazi Germany?

        Also, we did not declare war on Nazi Germany until after Hilter declared war on the US. FDR held back from declaring war in October 1941 when a US destroyer was attacked and sunk by a German U-Boat (and yes, I am aware that destroyer was conducting convoy escort duties – but only as far as Iceland).

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        The Tripartite Treaty between Germany Italy and Japan. Three days after war was declared between Japan and America, Italy declared war first then Germany. After an shooting incident between the USS Greer and a German warship in September 1941, a shhot on sight order was issued by Roosevelt. The Rueben James was sunk by torpedo in October……….FYI…You know that we are taught in our history of WWI that we entered the war “because” of the sinking of the Lusitania. The sinking occured May 1915 and the US entered the conflict in April 1917, a full two years later.

  20. Here I am Plainly

    Lone Strikes= Modern war…regardless of who’s who.

    Of course I wouldn’t approve of other nations coming here to pluck someone out. I’m also assuming (yeah I know) that our CIA or FBI or (gasp) Homeland Security would help hunt the criminal down. The guys in the ME (Karzai!) are more like double agents if you ask me.

    Reading your mind for the next statement of ..then what makes it ok for us to……The difference is that I assume we would help extract the bad guy…they’re not helping us..example Pakistan hiding Bin Laden.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      If, under your assumption – the US was helping to extract the bad guy there would be no need for foreign troops to enter the country to do that. We could capture the person ourselves and after an extradition hearing allowing the extradition, turn the person over to that country.

      So, back to what I asked, keeping in mind we are not helping but actually providing safe haven (which the Taliban did for bin Laden and possible Pakistan did when the US took him out).

      • err, dude! What more do you want from me. If we’re hiding a known fugitive..without protection of asylum..then I guess fair is fair. I’m saying I doubt it would get to that point.

        (mother hubbard checking out for now..must get raw materials to feed the flock)

  21. Been to busy to really join any discussions-but I felt like this article would add to the recent discussions. Can’t help but feel that many of our discussions make things much more simple than life actually is!

  22. As today is MLK Day, does anyone here think the MLK would be proud of the black community today? How would he view Democrats? If only 🙄

  23. Just A Citizen says:


    OK all you folks who think No Govt should be able to ban drugs.

    Tell me this……………WHO stands to benefit from a Nation where most of the people are stoned much of the time?

    • So who stands to benefit by saying that if drugs were legal that MOST of the people would be stoned much of time (which is total and complete bullshit) ?

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        The “demon weed” propaganda films of the have been proven to be BS with their conclusion of the domino theory, weed-heroin and there’s no stopping it. But what better things did the law enforment have to do after the legalization of alcohol again than to create a new war.

        Just sort of glancing through the drug law history of the US, there was a concern about addiction of opiates, mostly through “legal” perscription drugs. Mostly were women with menstrual problems. Most drugs were available through “Licensed” dealers. With taxes being paid to the government. Look at the catch -22 below.

        “This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, licensing bodies did not issue licenses, effectively banning the drugs. The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution”.

        I have felt for a long time the government really doesn’t care what you do, just as long as they get their cut. Numbers game, illegal…. Lottery, legal.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          1930 films…..somehow got cut

          • It’s not hard to figure out WHO runs the opiate business in this world, which a vast majority comes from Afghanistan. Russia wanted that control, guess who has it now? 🙄

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              three guesses and the first two don’t count?

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              The death rate from overdoses of opioids in 2007 was roughly three times that of 1991. In 2008, deaths from opiate overdose surpassed the combined overdose deaths of cocaine and heroin. This year the CDC says that, “opioid overdose resulted in 14,800 deaths, accounting for 73.8% of all prescription overdose deaths.”

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Heck….the Feds couldn’t get Capone on trafficing illegal booze, murder and all sorts of illegal activity, they got him on TAX evasion. I’d bet if he had stood up and paid his income tax all along even though it was on an income derived from a banned substance due to no licensed manufacturers who paid taxes, the government would have not won their case.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Gee, Capone smarter than the government. But then, he shoulda never let his accountant out of his sight – or at least the records. The government got lucky, but hey, even if they hadn’t Capone only had about 16-17 years left before he died of syphilis.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I know you ain’t talking to me – there are drugs that should be banned for recreational use by government.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        hmmm….that sounds backward. I mean there are drugs that government should ban for recreational use.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      No better way to control a population than to have them get stoned on Mary Jane.

      All those MELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLO Revolutionaries are sure going to pose a threat to the “Establishment”.

      Just like they did last time.

      First they gave us massive Sports Arenas. Now we get cheaper and readily available POT. WITH TAX of course……….

      Here you go lil’ sheep. We will let you have your hemp as long as you pay us a TAX.

      • Got Whiskey?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Those supporting the use of POT have always claimed that POT does not create the anger and testosterone laden confrontations you get with many people who use alcohol.

          Mellowwwwwwwwwwwww little sheep.

          • Experience says a lot JAC, have you ever tried it? I’ve never known a pissed off pot smoker, LOL. More unfounded fears JAC, getting paranoid on us, aren’t you?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I have tried in when I was a teenager. I have also dealt with people high on pot and some of them (just like some users of other drugs) were definitely angry – making things much more confrontational.

              • Many mix, with alcohol and other drugs. It’s not right or good for anyone, that I agree with. Pot has been illegal forever (check the history, it’s not about getting high), now, it has medicinal value with no known problems that I have heard. How many people are gonna START smoking because it’s now legal? Remember how all hell was going to break loose when people got CCP’s? That didn’t happen either.

  24. Colonel, My mistake earlier today, as Dallas County is in Alabama.

  25. Actually, I think this is also either the most inept group of Liberals on the face of the earth: How do they expect to pay for Obamacare, when their main source of payment is from the young and healthy, who, up to age 26, can be on plans with their parents? IT INTENDED TO FAIL!

    They have the technology to spy on every single American and foreign leader; read our e-mails and texts; monitor our internet usage; listen in on our cell phone conversations; track us through an ever-growing network of surveillance means, including unmanned aerial vehicles and cameras; watch what we post on Google or Facebook; crack any encryption system in the world with a “super” quantum computer (actually, they’re still working on that one); and store much of this information in a ginormous $2 billion data center in Utah.

    They can do all that without anyone knowing or caring all that much, but they don’t have the technology to determine how many people are currently covered through Obamacare.


  26. Just A Citizen says:


    Four planes went down, Buildings were destroyed and thousands of lives were lost.

    All due to the actions of MILITANT ISLAMISTS.

    The one who put the plan into action is in US Custody. The one who conceived of the idea but probably was not in on the planning is DEAD and swimming with the fishes.

    The TALIBAN were ideologically aligned with Bin Laden and his group, hell the latter helped them gain power, with all the US help of course. They allowed him to operate from within their country.

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are different. Individuals within those county’s Govts’ are supporters of the same movement, but NOT the official Govt itself. Which is as you say, looks like double agents to me as well.

    So in my opinion we had every right to take out the Taliban. The problem came from trying to control the outcome once we chased them and Bin Laden into the hills. Which of course is one question unanswered. Who the hell gave the order to pull back when we had Bin Laden cornered? I mean the real order, not the field order. Who and Why??

    We should have left right after the Taliban scattered. We could have come back “long range” style again anytime to RESTATE the POINT, if needed. 😉

    Just thought you might like to hear something a little less hating on the USA.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I beg your pardon, “hating on the USA”? Yeah, that’ insulting. Just because I stand against what the government did/is doing does not mean I hate the USA.

      But apparently one is not different from the other in your thinking?

      • hating on the USA.

        Plainly, relax. That’s Left Wing speak for disliking the corrupt government and their past actions. To them it’s about control, not freedom. We can love our country (as we do) and not like our government at the same time. It just shows that we have shed the BS propaganda and have enlightened ourselves to the truth.

        As far as the pot thing, eh, once the newness wears off it won’t be an issue. Those who didn’t smoke still won’t, those that do will grow out of it. It’s been around for many decades, legal or not, it is still a personal decision. For the record, if it were legal here, I wouldn’t smoke it. Had my fun many years ago, now I’ve got more important things to do with my time 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Where did I say YOU were hating on the USA.

        I did not disagree with much of what you posed, except that Afghanistan was NOT a Criminal issue in my mind. There was too much direct linkage between those behind the attacks and the Taliban, which were the Govt.

        The difference between your approach and mine was that I would have started as we did but left within the first year or two at the latest.

        Once the old “war lords” were in charge we just needed to establish “diplomatic relations”.

        For the record, I am targeting those claiming the USA did 9/11 and if not directly it was all our fault anyway. I did not see where you made such a claim.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Sorry, but I have been the only one really ranting on the government this day. So, maybe I was a bit sensitive to the remark.

          No, I do not believe our government did 9/11 or that it was our fault. Like you, I believe it was militant extremists of a criminal terrorist group directed by bin Laden (though I do think there were those that directed and supported bin Laden and his group).

          I would not have been happy with your approach, but would have not been quite as hostile about it under your approach.

        • Just wondering JAC, Was the loss of US service members lives and the 10’s of thousands of injuries worth it?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            worth what? What loss of US life??

            How many were lost at the point I said I would have stopped??

            • What you would have done is irrelevant, it didn’t happen and there’s no guarantee it would have went the way you wanted it to go. Now go back and read the question again, it will answer your questions quite clearly.

              • Can’t answer that question . Who knows what would have happened had we NOT done what we did. What if they would have sent 10 more planes over?

              • I bet many of them could answer that question 🙄

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Apparently you weren’t following along…………AGAIN.

                Plainly and I both posited on how we would have done things differently.

                So you try the old “was it worth it” as if I was somehow supporting what was done.

                So your WRONG. It has everything to do with what I would have done because that is what the discussion was about.

              • So 34 dead is OK with you, based on your paradigm? How many innocent Afghani’s were killed/wounded? Now, as you ponder this question, can you think of ways that would not have put our troops in pine boxes?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I checked the numbers for Afghanistan for killed wounded. In the time period Oct 2001-Oct 2003 there were 61 killed, 174 wounded of US military personnel.

              I got the data from

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I got 34 total killed by end of 2002, which is when it was OVER by my standard. Wiki has a month by month break down of Total and KIA.

                So pretty close and a far cry from the over 3,000 we now have.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                JAC, I believe adds combat and non-combant deaths (same for wounded), not sure what wiki does. But yes, pretty close numbers.

    • We were “casualty adverse” according to my son. Careers in the Army are made on not losing bodies on your watch, the next guy watch is ok but not yours. Talk to Gen. Franks about that.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I don’t think that explains the order to Stop the pursuit of the Taliban and Bin Laden in the first months of the campaign.

        Several reports indicate we “probably” had him INSIDE Afghanistan still when the order came.

        WHY? WHO decided?

        The fear of casualties explains much of the later decisions. That and the PC Neo-Con view of “nation building”.

        • Franks did not want to send in the battalion that was requested. We should double check that one with the Colonel. It was that Tora Bora thing.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Yes, we could use some clarification here.

            It was my understanding that the existing force could have completed the job. The extra battalion was just more “certainty” if you will.

            But I am talking about an order to Halt and withdraw., not just to prevent reinforcement.

            Maybe the Colonel will shed some light on this. I have read several accounts and right now they are all mixed up in my head.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Maybe it was the very guy who quickly ran off an attacked Iraq?

  27. I have been pondering a question for a long time. Why the hell is Iran and having Nukes an issue? Is it not clear to them that if they nuke Israel that they could be wiped from the face of the earth with similar weapons? We ONLY have enough nukes to end the world a few times over, so what with all this BS? Totally unnecessary if you ask me.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Would the Mullah’s in Iran, order the destuction of one of their most holy sites????

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes, in my opinion. They have done it before in history. Then they rebuilt.

        Besides, they could simply declare a NEW REVELATION that moved the Holy City that was not a Holy City to a new location where it was supposed to be if the guys in the olden days had just interpreted the teachings of Mohammed properly. 😉 😉

    • Just A Citizen says:

      If you give a crap about the stability in the geo political since then it is worth dealing with.

      If not then it matters not.

      What ever happens you will have to DEAL with it anyway.

      How many nukes we have doesn’t matter. NOBODY in the World thinks we would use them anyway. Unless we were directly attacked by a mass attack. Which nobody would try. We will NOT NUKE Iran if it uses such weapons on Israel. And if they do Israel isn’t going to be able to strike back with much it would seem to me. Unless they have more “submarines” than we know about.

      But imagine Iran with Nukes and what happens in the rest of the Middle East where nobody else but Israel has nukes.

      If you care then Iran matters. If you don’t then don’t worry bout it.

      Since the Mega Powers have been working to REDUCE Nukes in the world for decades, why would we turn our back on those trying to INCREASE Nukes???

      • Well I really don’t want people dying of this little Israel vs. the Rest of the Middle East issue. I am however truly amazed at your “I know all” about what the US will do if Iran does nuke’em question. Shit, next time I want to know what our govt will or won’t do when another country gets stupid, I’ll just ask you.

        Now, I don’t know shit compared to you, but in my little idiot opinion, we need to get out of the Middle East, quit getting our people killed and get our own oil under our own soil, which is readily available. Let the Middle East do what ever they do, as long as WE are out of it. Wouldn’t eliminating all those radical extremist terrorist types make the world safer? If they kill each other, we will be fine. It would surely end all this Sharia Law talk. Want to end Muslim terrorism in the US, kick them all out and tell them when they clean up their issues and are no longer a threat to so many innocent people, they may, upon certain conditions, come back. Maybe we should have done this instead of war, nobody dies that way.

        • Actually, with Obama as President, your right JAC, we wouldn’t do squat to Iran, didn’t think of that, my bad.

        • Wait. What? Muslim terrorism in the US?

          • So say the believers, LOL. Did you know that Bin Laden’s Sect, religiously speaking, didn’t believe in harming innocent women and children (so those religious smart people say)? Did you also know that Bin Laden originally denied having anything to do with 9-11 (via video) and later changed his mind? How many terrorists deny terror, even if they didn’t do it? But do not fear my Michigan friend, word is that another really nasty terror attack is just around the corner. Since the planes into the skyscraper thing had been done, what on earth could they think of next that would kill thousands and be “Really Terrible”. Bio Terror? You know, poison the water for a lot of people (whoops, that won’t work). ??????

            Think back to ’01, nobody would have imagined flying jets into skyscrapers (me included). What would be so “unimaginable” that no one would look for or suspect? That is the answer to the next attack. If we can figure that out, maybe we can stop it. Honestly, I do believe this nation will be attacked in such a nature again, and soon. It doesn’t matter if we call terrorism or a false flag attack, it can be stopped if enough people think and pay attention. If we count on govt to stop it, we’re screwed.

          • I think we are degenerating here a bit. What concerns many of us with the increased Muslim immigration to the US is really the same as increased Hispanic immigration. The refusal to adapt to the culture and mores of the host country. Now it does not help that the host country has its head up its proverbial ass in this regard. 100 years ago that wild man Teddy Roosevelt, Mr. Progressive said that there was no such thing as an Irish American, a Polish American, a German-American. You were either an American or not. No hyphenated Americans. This was from the father of all progressives, an interventionist and an internationalist. Yet, his progressiveness was rooted in something far different from what is being taught today. He was also the father of American exceptionalism and that no longer exists.

            Looking at Europe, France and England in particular is instructive. They have been dealing with Muslim immigration far longer than us and they are Socialist states much more attuned to the “needs” of their immigrants than we have been in the past. With thinking like Obama’s and the entire democratic party for that matter, we will soon emulate all their mistakes probably at warp speed and overtake them. This will lead to the Balkanization of the country. The signs are already here. The crap in California and the Southwest, La Raza, Shira courts, the constant harping on the wrongs of slavery and the resultant separation of the black population from the rest of the country. Things are bad and only going to get worse.

            We have dealt with similar problems in the past. The anarchists in the early 20th century, the red scare at the same time. The difference? Then we insisted that the ethnic groups spawning those ideas conform to the main culture. In less than a generation, those folks assimilated. They maintained their ethnic identities and pride but they became “Americans” as Roosevelt wanted. Today, it is almost a hate crime to suggest that these roots be made to conform or to even suggest that. Soon it will be a hate crime.

            • I really don’t feel a problem with immigrants, but do read about what you say. I don’t care if people live by their cultural beliefs at all, and have always found it intriguing to be invited to experience their lives. I think there is TOO MUCH push to just accept different people, like Gays. Nobody really likes to be told what to think or not think, which is where my issues lie. I don’t care if your Prophet says Blah blah is a sin, I don’t care if your afraid of those who believe in that prophet, neither should keep me from exercising my rights and decisions, as long as I don’t harm others.

              • ” Nobody really likes to be told what to think or not think, which is where my issues lie.”


                This points at the root of a key underlying issue in society. It is exactly what is happening.

                Instead of building from ideas that are based in mutual benefit, we live in a world where society is structured as to pit us against each other, …forcefully via law.

                Believe exercise and celebrate what you truly believe as an individual. Do the same with others of similar mind, …or different mind, or whoever you like. You are free to do so, …so long as it does not violate others.

                We all have rights, thus tolerance and respect are of mutual benefit.

                When you label yourself as A B and C, then go find other ABC’s and celebrate being ABC’s, ..awesome.

                When you label yourself as A B and C, then go find other ABC’s and celebrate being ABC’s, and then compete for dominance over XYZ, or otherwise violate …it creates problems.

                The enabler is government force.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              And keeping Muslims out is going to change this balkanization you speak of? Should we exclude anyone else?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I am not trying to be an expert or know all on the USA vs. Iran question when it comes to Nukes.

          I am simply looking at our track record and our culture. We have spent over 50 years trying to avoid using them at all cost. We are willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent young Americans if needed instead of using just ONE such weapon against an enemy.

          Besides, Iran would most likely NOT launch Nukes at Israel. They would give them to someone to use on local targets. So that would prevent the US from acting against Iran with a Nuclear Strike.

          And the issue in the Middle East goes beyond Israel. It is not just them against the rest. It is the Jew, Arab, Persian and Turk against each other, or with each other, depending on the convenience of the moment. Or as a movie character once proclaimed; ” I will do it if it pleases me” (Lawrence of Arabia).

          • plainlyspoken says:

            The idea of Iran using nukes on Israel is a doomsday scenario really. It would not only be Israel that suffers from any nuclear attack by Iran, but the whole of the Middle East. Haven’t seen the nuke developed yet that can be restricted to an area of devastation that doesn’t stretch out beyond the immediate target.

            Also, do you really believe Israel will sit still if they truly come to the conclusion that Iran – or any other Middle East nation – was ready to nuke them? Likely they’d make their “preemptive” strikes to get their licks in first and hopefully stop the Iranians from carrying through.

            Hell, there’s only one nation in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons…..right or wrong…..against an enemy.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          One other thing on foreign oil.

          Why not buy foreign oil which is of better quality and SIT ON OUR OIL?? The cost is about the same.

          Someday we are going to wish we had those reserves for our use.

          I wonder if the elite will ever realize that deflating the dollar will allow them to create the illusion that oil has remained flat in price in future decades??? Just a sudden “I wonder” popped up there so I figured I would share it.

  28. A lot of talk about Seattle’s CB Sherman after yesterday’s game. Saw it, thought nothing of it, just a player ranting at the heat of the moment. For the record, He is NOT the best CB in the league, despite what he says, LOL. But, this has taken a back seat and wrongfully. Accusing a player of taking another player out is really deep. Considering who it’s coming from, well, you be the judge.

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    I wanted to address your earlier comment regarding the US keeping bad guys, like the Shah and equating that to Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    There is a distinct difference. When the US takes in a despot like that it is usually after much “International” debate and negotiation. An attempt to calm a situation by removing the catalyst for outright violence and reprisal.

    And here is the big part. When they come here they don’t get to keep running their operations against the homeland from our soil. Same for other countries.

    Bin Laden on the other hand was given free reign by the Taliban. Both in terms of being able to run his training camps but ability to come and go despite International warrants for his arrest.

    Now I split the hair on this when we add Iraq to the mix. It is true that Al Quada had some training camps in Iraq. However, there has never been any evidence I know of showing Iraqi Govt complacency or “support” for them being there. They existed in an area NOT CONTROLLED by Hussen’s henchmen.

    Where as the Taliban controlled the are where Bin Laden got to homestead.

    Thus I felt attacking the Taliban themselves was justified but not attacking Iraq due to Al Quada’s presence there.

    I agree with your argument about National Sovereignty and proper response on a Nation State basis. But that raises the question of how to deal with renegade Nation States that thumb their nose at the world, which includes allowing violence to be exported from their Nation.

    Now with that said, where I would have backed off is if the reports of the Taliban offering up Bin Laden are in fact true. I would have cut the deal and left the Taliban to their own inevitable demise.

    I find it ironic however that so many “Liberal” elite decry the Afghan AND Iraq wars yet both were waged against Tyrrants killing their own people. As one “EX Democrat” said, “Liberating Oppressed People is the most Liberal Thing you can do”.. So what the hell happened to the Liberals? I still cannot figure out how the “LEFT” decides what is a righteous war and what is not. Liberating Sudan is righteous but liberating Iraq is evil. Is it because there is oil in Iraq?? Or is it as simple as WHO is in the White House?

    • plainlyspoken says:


      First – good morning to you. Hope all is well in your world.

      Now, as to the difference in the US harboring tyrants – I don’t completely disagree with your points. However, I will say that you have left out a key point in the issue. That being that you have not considered the view that a nation would have on the US giving sanctuary to the tyrant. In the case of the Shah, we actually – as I recall (and feel free to correct me) we only allowed him to come here for medical treatment on a temporary stay (remember he did end up dying in exile in Egypt). Yet, the Iranian government stirred up their peoples resentment towards the US for doing even that, leading to the “students” taking over the embassy. It isn’t what the rest of the world thinks that matters in the end.

      Now, taking that into mind, the only real reason most nations wouldn’t invade this country over a bin Laden (or any other tyrant being here) is the traditional one – America is beyond reach of the greatest portion of the world’s nations to invade. It has served us well since the last time the British tried. We are a “first world” power – a superpower – as well and it would take a country closer to our equal to even attempt such folly. Since we can’t be directly attacked (and because most nations know we’d pound them down hard) these nations resort to letting “isolated” attacks occur on US interests around the world as retaliation.

      But, that begs the question of our support for tyrants in the world. It was the western powers (primarily the US & Great Britain) who put the Shah into power over Iran in the first place and supported him until his exile. While the government wouldn’t allow him to continue his control, we did do just that while he sat on his throne in Iran. Does that not make us just as bad in almost the same way as the Taliban? While the Taliban had no ability to support a tyrant in that tyrant’s control over their nation like the US can and has done for years around the world, does it make the US “better” than the Taliban? It seems that the Iranians could be just as pissed at us as we were at the Taliban.

      There were nations that – if not openly – gave their “international” support to the Taliban for their allowing bin Laden to be in Afghanistan. That the Taliban allowed bin Laden to continue running their show around the world makes the Taliban “criminal” in their behavior, but then the US has behaved “criminally” just the same. Look how things went with Panama. As long as Noriega played ball he received our support (and granted, I know we removed him from power – but only when we felt it necessary).

      The outcome of Noriega’s capture also begs the argument of the fact that he was captured as a prisoner of war, brought to the US, tried by the federal court system and imprisoned – makes a rethink of Guantanamo and our actions with the prisoners we took in war and how they were/are being handled now. But, that’s a different topic we could go on about.

      Plus, those renegade nations states out there have been allowed for decades to exist without direct military action into their nation by the US. North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya could be examples of that. While they may not have directly participated in attacks, they certainly supported those who attacked – financially, with training bases, intelligence, etc.

      I know it isn’t a straight-forward issue, like many there are nuance’s and I try to consider those – yet still have a problem with the idea that “might makes right”. We certainly wouldn’t be attacking another nation if we weren’t the power we are. I also strongly feel (as I believe you do) we way overstepped in continuing a long war in Afghanistan, or our war in Iran. We done wrong, but who has the power to “punish” the US for it? No one.

      I don’t know if we will ever know the truth about the Taliban offering up bin Laden. It will remain one of those secrets of government until long after the fact. Certainly the US government doesn’t want us to know for sure – it would place the government in a different light to us – as well as to the world. I too would have cut the deal and left the Taliban to swing on their own rope.

      The Left, like the Right, will swing their views depending on the importance to them of the issue at hand. That will never change for either side.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Very good summary of the conundrum we face due to our bankrupt foreign policy over the past 150 plus years.

        While many claim the Shah being allowed into the US was the “reason” for the takeover of the embassy it is not “exactly” true. It caused demonstrations which were called for by Kohemini. But it turns out the occupation had been planned BEFORE the Shah was allowed into the US. Obviously the agitators did use the event to fan the flames even further.

        Here is an interesting clip from Wiki. The section before this discussed how the State Dept OPPOSED the Shah being allowed into the USA but Kissinger and then CFR president Rockefeller intervened and convinced Carter to let him in. One again we see the affect of the Council on Foreign Relations…………


        Anticipating the takeover of the embassy, the Americans attempted to destroy classified documents with a burn furnace. The furnace malfunctioned and the staff was forced to use cheap paper shredders.[28][29] Skilled carpet weaver women were later employed to reconstruct the documents.[30]
        The seizure of the American embassy was initially planned in September 1979 by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a student at that time. He consulted with the heads of the Islamic associations of Tehran’s main universities, including the University of Tehran, Sharif University of Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology (Polytechnic of Tehran) and Iran University of Science and Technology. Their group was named Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line.

        Asgharzadeh later said there were five students at the first meeting, two of whom wanted to target the Soviet embassy because the USSR was “a Marxist and anti-God regime.” Two others, Mirdamadi and Habibolah Bitaraf, supported Asgharzadeh’s chosen target—the United States. “Our aim was to object against the American government by going to their embassy and occupying it for several hours,” Asgharzadeh said. “Announcing our objections from within the occupied compound would carry our message to the world in a much more firm and effective way.”[31] Mirdamadi told an interviewer, “we intended to detain the diplomats for a few days, maybe one week, but no more”.[32] Masoumeh Ebtekar, spokeswoman for the Iranian students during the crisis, said that those who rejected Asgharzadeh’s plan did not participate in the subsequent events.[33]

        The Islamist students observed the security procedures of the Marine Security Guards from nearby rooftops overlooking the embassy. They also used experiences from the recent revolution, during which the U.S. embassy grounds were briefly occupied. They enlisted the support of police in charge of guarding the embassy and of Islamic Revolutionary Guards.[34]

        According to the group and other sources Khomeini did not know of the plan beforehand.[35] The Islamist students had wanted to inform him but according to author Mark Bowden, Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha persuaded them not to. Khoeiniha feared the government would use police to expel the Islamist students as they had the last occupiers in February. The provisional government had been appointed by Khomeini and so Khomeini was likely to go along with their request to restore order. On the other hand, Khoeiniha knew that if Khomeini first saw that the occupiers were his faithful supporters (unlike the leftists in the first occupation) and that large numbers of pious Muslims had gathered outside the embassy to show their support for the takeover, it would be “very hard, perhaps even impossible”, for the Imam Khomeini to oppose the takeover, and this would paralyze the Bazargan administration Khoeiniha and the students wanted to eliminate.[36]

        Iranians stated that their motivation was fear of another American backed coup against their popular revolution, as was done in 1953. They claimed that in 1953, the American embassy acted as a “den of spies” from which the American coup was organized. Documents were later found in the embassy suggesting that some workers in the embassy were working with American intelligence agencies. After the Shah’s entry into the United States, the Ayatollah Khomeini called for street demonstrations. On November 4, 1979, one such demonstration, organized by Iranian student unions loyal to Khomeini, took place outside the walled compound housing the U.S. Embassy. The occupation of the embassy then took a second purpose, which was leverage to demand the return of the Shah to Iran for trial in exchange for the hostages.”

        By the way, I didn’t fail to recognize how the others would view our action. I am sure they would be very upset depending on the circumstances. And justifiably so. But as you say, bad people have been exiled or given refuge in a myriad of other counties in history. But such “exiles” are mostly formal in nature and they are cut off from “working their evil”.

        Bin Laden was not cut off and in fact was aligned with the Taliban. So in my view we had justification to take on the Taliban as the “Govt” of Afghanistan. Now that is a bit simplified and I am aware of that.

        Because Afghanistan was not a “normal” Nation State then. It was divided into regions run by traditional tribal/clan groups and their leaders. So this acts against my position to some extent. On the other hand there is little doubt the Taliban were the GOVT in control of the region they claimed, and the area where Bin Laden was given free reign.

        The initial US incursion was more in tune with this reality, and that is why I thought it a good method at the time. If we had the intel. and capacity to hit Bin Laden and Taliban without putting people on the ground it would have been preferred. The next best thing was to simply give support to the OTHER Clans and let them put the Taliban and Bin Laden on the run.

        Now I want to make something very clear in our discussion. I am NOT disagreeing with your view on 9/11 as primarily a “criminal” issue rather than a war issue. I am simply saying that in this case our attack on the Taliban was “justified” per what I consider the proper function of Govt and the use of our military. That being Defense and Retaliation against attack.

        Since the Govt has been so good at keeping anything that might enlighten us on the matter most of the what was “the best option” is unknowable at this time.

        I would have and still support your approach as “First Option” in a case like this. But my memory is that we had little ability to execute such an option. We had supposedly been chasing Bin Laden for years via the “criminal prosecution” and “law enforcement” method.

        On the other hand, I question the voracity of our Govt in that effort. Notice how fast we started rolling up bad guys once Congress pumped some more money into CIA budgets.

        I also wanted to raise the issue so those who read here stop and think about the complexity of the Geo Political scene. And of course what the USA should represent and how it should act within that reality.

        I say Defense or Retaliation to an attack. But how do we react to attacks that are carried out by Non State third parties, even if supported covertly by Nation States? Do we retaliate against the Nation State in some “equal” manner?

        My view is leave people alone. But if they attack us we impose so much pain on them it won’t happen again. Chinese hacking into our internet commerce and breaking into Govt systems is a current example. I am not comfortable with the eye for an eye. More like an eye and two arms for an eye.

        Oh, and we need to acknowledge to the world that we have been BAD PLAYERS in that our actions have at times been in conflict with our principles. Our apologies should be aimed at the Central American and Caribbean states, however. Not the Middle East. Our monkey business in the ME is minor by comparison. And of course there are differing causes.

        For those that don’t remember, I did not pile on Obama over the “Apology Tour”. I am not confident his motives were pure and maybe his timing was bad. Certainly driven by much Hubris. But we as a nation do have some things to apologize for to the world.

        Oh, I forgot to share one thought on Afghanistan. Thought of it while typing but forgot to put it down. What would the PUBLIC reaction have been to Bush II if he has NOT invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and go aver Bin Laden??

        What would the Democrat Party’s rhetoric have been for the four years he was trying to use the “criminal or Law Enforcement” process??

        Imagine the Campaign Rhetoric by John Kerry in the 04 elections, that is if Kerry even won the primary. It might have been a more “Hawkish” democrat, if they have one.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          JAC….I glad to see that someone else actually recognizes that the US Embassy was briefly overrun after the Shah abdicated and left. All personnel were sent out of the country. We as a government continued doing limited business through another countries legation. I believe it was Canada or Switzerland. Remember Saddam Hussein also was consolidating his power in Iraq in 1979. In the early summer after Khomeni consolidated his power he gave an interview to Le Monde. He pretty much outlined the future Iran/Iraq war by calling for a revolution of the majority Shiite Moslems in Iraq. Revolt started, crushed, border crossings by planes and tanks etc. Saddam kept saying to back off. Eventually he got tired of it all and pulled the trigger. Provoked by Iran, worldwide blamed on Iraq. Khomeni threatened any country who took the Shah in, even for health care. We were thinking to ourselves, no embassy, no advisors, no oil workers, no other business people to hold hostage. In August I was shown a request for Marines to volunteer for embassy duty in Tehran. Along with the request was an addendum that they were NOT to defend the embassy if attacked again. In the interview Khomeni was saying the same thing the former Iranian president continually said, that his goal was only to destroy Israel. The interviewer asked how he planned to keep America from intervening in case Iran ever got that far. Khomeni’s response was not to worry,that America would NOT get involved. These are exact translations of the wired interview to the interviewers home office in Paris. Needless to say, The Embassy was fully reestablished with spooks and all, Marines ordered not to defend the Embassy, Shah was allowed entry into the US and the Embassy was taken, creating the hostage crisis that lasted until Reagan was inaugurated. Immediately upon the hostages were taken the MSM was saying how a president was never un-elected from office during a crisis. Carter was in severe political trouble at that time.

          The Shah was NOT installed by the US. After WWII the British and Soviets overthrew his father for siding with Nazi’s. They installed him to the peacock throne. However there was a constitutional monarchy set up with an elected prime minister. In 1950 Mosaddegh was elected PM. He was continually trying to get the Shah to nationalize the oil companies in Iran. These companies were controlled by Britain, not the US. The Shah was against such action for two reasons, 1) he said there were contracts, and 2) that the country did not have the skilled people to run the oil field. Mosaddegh was removed as was the shah power, only briefly and reenstated because the successor was more incompetant than Mosaddegh. He continued trying to nationalize the oil, the british navy blockaded the coastline, mosaddegh tried seizing more powers than the law entitled him to have. In 1953 the British came to the US asking for help to remove Mosaddegh claiming his support was coming from the communists. Needless to say, we got involved at that point. The Shah left briefly for “his safety” and when Mosaddegh was removed by the Anglo US operation, he returned. Leap forward to 1974….the Shah and King Faisal were both now calling for the nationalization of the oil companies in their respective countries. In March 1975 Faisal was assasinated by a prince who was US educated. The Shah continued to push for nationalization. The new King in Saudi Arabia, King Khalid was imploring the Shah to back off the rhetoric. As we know Carter withdrew support of the Shah based on human rights violations only to be replaced by the Khomeni mob who made the Shah look like a kindly old gentleman by comparison and ultimately killed millions.

  30. JAC, i think that there are degrees of tyrants. I know that sounds stupid but if you follow the history of the Shah, Tito and Franco, you will see that they all started off being pretty bad. As time went on, they loosened control. I do not think it was a matter of becoming more mellow with age but rather a planned change. As their countries matured they brought them forward. In the case of Franco, before his death, he planned out Spain’s transition to a Constitutional Democracy. Tito failed because he never picked and trained a successor. We, upset the apple cart in Iran.

    You have to also get back to the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian which if memory serves me correct was described in High School history class as the former being a society where you pretty much went about your business but could not mess in politics. the latter was a society where everything you did was controlled. All three of my examples morphed from Totalitarian to authoritarian.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      It doesn’t sound stupid, except when we are philosophizing on “principles”.

      There are no doubt “degrees” of tyrants if tyranny is defined as “against” freedom and liberty. Our USA tyrants are not as bad as Pol Pot or Stalin. At least not yet.

      I think some of your observations are correct. Age is part. But that coincides with the conditions when they take over and those that exist after decades of rule. One reason that the use of Armed Revolution to take back our Govt should be viewed with EXTREME CAUTION.

      It could easily devolve into a blood bath and installation of a Dictatorial type Govt. Probably by Committee rather than and Individual. We do so hate Kings after all.

      I have some vague memory of the distinction your are referring to in school as well. Will have to do a little homework on that. Don’t remember the details.

      As for the differences, I don’t think we should draw distinctions when it comes to our foreign policy. Our GOVT should remain neutral in the affairs of others as long as they are open and non violent towards us. This leaves the decision to trade or interact with such a country to the INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS who may want to trade with others in said country.

      Reality dictates that this is not possible in our lifetimes. It would require the OTHER Nation State to reciprocate in kind. But what we see is Free Trade from US and protection/manipulation from THEM. China and Japan for example.

      Now if MY view is not the new policy we must address the question of WHOM do we do business with, or at least tolerate, and WHOM do we try to isolate. And then HOW do we ISOLATE them in a more moral and ethical way than starving their population. IF that is even possible.

  31. Tell me this is not real:

    A California group has proposed a ballot initiative in Colorado that would require couples who want to get married to take mandatory pre-marriage education classes.

    The Colorado Marriage Education Act would require potential spouses to complete 10 hours of pre-wedding marriage education. Twenty hours would be required for second marriages and 30 hours for third marriages, reported Monday.

    A re-marrying widow would be be treated as a first-timer under the proposal, which would not apply to civil unions.

    A California group wanting to change Colorado……..oh, well…

    • Well, People get needed training to get a drivers license, and in some cases a CCP, so this should make some people very happy 🙄

      Me, I think it’s more Liberal insanity. They will claim it will create jobs 😆

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I haven’t seen this in the news, but I will go looking. lol. I wonder what they would have required for the fifth marriage (as mine was) to my wife now?

      No social engineering going on there huh? I will read up on the topic and get back to you Colonel.

  32. Quote of the day !! The truth to liberals is like daylight is to vampires.

    Wendy Davis having a bit of a time:

    I was a single mom and divorced at 19 ! Oops…Wendy….you were married and divorced at 21.

    I worked my way through college and Harvard Law school by my own boot straps ! Oops…Wendy….your second husband paid for your last two years of undergraduate school and all of Harvard.

    I am a mother and understand the role of women ! Oops….Wendy….You could have gone to SMU school of Law and received the same degree that you got from Harvard….but instead, you abandoned your children for three years to go to school…..then you were an adulteress that got caught and lost custody of your children….divorcing your husband on the same day that last Harvard school payment was made…..

    And you wish to be governor……good luck.

    • Really? Nice piece of work but sadly it will be swept under the rug as the Cuomo atrocity is. The important thing is that, “SHE IS FOR A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE”. Say, isn’t that one of the things Cuomo defines New Yorkers as being? Perhaps you could arrange a hostage exchange and take some poor deserving AR-15, right to life, traditional marriage person out of NY in exchange for her.

%d bloggers like this: