Open Mic Part 19

ocareBring forward whatever you desire!




  1. 😎

  2. Wilson criticized the decision saying, “Rather than fret over EPA’s computer model-based warning about the dangers of inhaling soot from wood smoke, residents have more pressing concerns on their minds such as the immediate risk of a freezing when the mercury plunges.”

    This is more proof that the means through which ultimate confiscation and control of all American lands in compliance with the UN agenda 21 mandates will be pursued through environmental regulations. This is just the ridiculous beginning to what will be a tragic outcome.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not sure how this is supposed to fit Agenda 21. This pressure on wood stoves has existed for over 30 years.

      Current wood stove technology was “forced” by the EPA in the 70’s and again in the 80’s.

      Rather than focus on wood stoves, the issue should be HOW to regulate or control Harmful air pollution.

      The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have given the Federal Govt defacto control over almost every aspect of your life. They could literally shut down everything if they wanted to.

      They don’t because they don’t want the backlash to undermine the laws. The Greenies do not like that approach, but the greenies within the agencies understand the risks. Thus you see the slower approach to total control.

      That is when the Agenda 21 goals/objectives come to play. Which is to create massive Metropolitan Islands with large areas of Wilderness between them.

      • The EPA’s new stuff don’t mean much of anything, except to the manufacturers of new products. Like most of what govt does, it will just make prices go up. Considering that good woodstoves can last for a generation or two, it’s mostly useless.

        They could attempt to shut down everything, they would lose that battle in short order. 🙂

        Hope today finds you and yours well today, JAC.


    Question, when someone unequivocally lies on the senate or house floor, which then becomes part of the permanent record, can he/she be sued in any way?

  4. One good thing about this winter, the Glabal Warmists faux scientists and their groupies are eating crow at an alarming rate (we may have to protect the crows). BWAHAHAHA! 😆

  5. plainlyspoken says:

    A New Jersey honor student suing her parents in a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit had her motions for financial support, including high school tuition payment, [was] denied Tuesday by a judge who said it would set a bad precedent by setting limits on parenting.

    This kid wanted $654 a week for support! I’d like to know how she came up with that number as being needed to live for one week?

    • She lost, which is good. What is not good is the judge didn’t order a thorough spanking to occur and be aired on every major channel on cable. 🙄

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The one who needed spanking was the LAWYER FRIEND who instigated the whole thing.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          From what I understand this was just an initial ruling. I believe she still gets a full hearing of her case before the court. If she loses she should be sanctioned with paying her parents defense expenses. Now there would be a good lesson in civics for her!

          Her lawyer pal should be sanctioned too for bringing a frivolous lawsuit if she loses.

  6. Plainly, I am going to being something forward, my Colorado friend.

    • Here ya go……

      Plainly……read me very carefully, please.

      1. Invade, we did. Pure and simple. I acknowledged that.
      2. Were we at war with the State of Afghanistan, no we were not. There was no declaration of war from our Congress. That is it, pure and simple as well. ( Now, understand that is the technical definition of war ).
      3. Invited in….yes, the NATO alliance was invited in. By whom? There was a civil war raging in Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban were seizing, by force, power from the current government. The current government invited troops in and even supplied residence, food, and their own troops for training.

      Now, I gave you my definition of war vs law enforcement. IF the Taliban and Al Qaeda were just unorganized street thugs like….the Crips or Bloods or even like the Mexican Cartels….that us law enforcement. BUT…..the Taliban and their brotherhoods…..the Al Qaeda and their brotherhoods…are State supported, State trained, and state supplied….THAT IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. That is direct involvement by a sovereign state…hence my allegation that the cold war is not over…the players changed. You still have surrogates doing your bidding.

      Here is how I see it…….if Iran sponsors Al Qaeda…..and AL Qaeda hits a target….we should not be going after Al Qaeda….we should go after Iran. You should go after the State that initiated the violence….and do it ten fold. And you must do it without recompense, emotion, or leniency. Then you leave. You do not occupy anything. If we did that…..we would be left alone.

      Allow me a great example in the Somali Pirates….we hit back, now…..and with a vengeance…..when was the last American Registered ship seized?

      Now, the thing that I would like to discuss with you is why you feel that a State supported group is (a) not a surrogate, if you think that and (b) Why is it law enforcement? (Surely you do not believe in International Law and International Police)

      • plainlyspoken says:

        lol….just finished responding over there, so let me bring my response froward sir. 🙂

        Colonel, your turn to read carefully please.

        1. Technical definition be damned, it was a war against the state of Afghanistan and to argue the technical aspect sounds like a lame courtroom defense tactic to me. The US toppled and replaced the government of Afghanistan through invasion and military action. That, sir, is a war.

        2. I don’t know whom you mean by the “current government”? By 2001 90% of the country was controlled by the Taliban, and they damn sure did not invite the US to come overthrow them. You need to provide evidential links to your claim.

        Country Designation Date
        Cuba March 1, 1982
        Iran January 19, 1984
        Sudan August 12, 1993
        Syria December 29, 1979

        The current list of state sponsors of terrorism. When do these wars start Colonel? When does the US unilaterally decide to attack them (even if we just pound hell out of them and leave)? Terrorist are not valid military targets, and the states that sponsor them are not either absent any action by that nation to directly attack the US (and don’t, please, give the tired argument that a nation supported the attack on the Twin Towers – it does not justify invasion of a foreign nation). It is, historically and rightly, a law enforcement/criminal justice system responsibility to punish the terrorists.

        How many times has the US supported acts against nations we wanted to destabilize? By rights were should have had our nation attacked long, long ago – but our strength and arrogance prevented that from happening.

        • LOL back…ok….I just responded over there…let’s make a pact,,,,,keep it here on this thread…be right back with the forward.

          • Your point one……I was answering the question from Anita,however, lame or not, that is the defense that has been widely used since time began, I guess. Point tho….the Taliban did control most of the country….not the government. Now, you need to recognize something…because of the feudalism that was rampant after the collapse of the Soviets, the current government in Kabul did not represent the majority…but there was a government. When the tribal Pashtun (Taliban)….started systematically eliminating the Kabul government, forcing the elite into leaving the country, they did not become the legitimate government and because Pakistan recognized them…no one else did…to my knowledge. That does not make the Taliban the legitimate government…it was an over throw. So, if you are adopting that the Taliban were the legitimate government….your assumption would be correct.

            Your point two… answered above.

            I simply do not care about the list of state sponsored terrorism….we can be added to that list because our skirts are not clean, by any stretch of the imagination. The statement was centered around becoming isolationists……if we become totally defensive in nature….staying out of everybody’s business……not inflicting violence and simply trading…and we get punched in the nose….my response would be….hit the ones responsible….do not kill the messenger…..chop the head off the sponsor.

            In answer to your statement about should we have been attacked? you betcha…. and I agree that we are and should remain he biggest boy on the block and wield that power in our legitimate defense.

            So, now, a question for you……..if you feel as you do that it was a law enforcement issue…who enforces the law and how? Internationally? Sanctions? Against whom?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Ok, let me see if I can get this all squared away.

              Yes, I know you were answering the question to Anita. Though I think (correct me if I am wrong) technical definitions do not make it right. No matter how we look at it the US invaded on the unilateral authority of a law passed by Congress (which was to afraid to assert their authority to declare war or not and wimped out with a permission to use force). We both agree, I believe, that Congress did not carry out their responsibilities under the Constitution and to check Bush’s adventurous desires, trapping us into a decade and a half (almost) of war.

              The Taliban controlling 90% of the country makes them the government in power, just as the US controlling 90% of the territorial US made it the government over the USA throughout the 19th century. The only “state” we had to fight at the time was the Taliban, the Northern Alliance was no more than a losing contender for the thrown of state. I would say that the Taliban are no different than those dissidents in the Ukraine who for toppled the leader and sent him packing. Who is the rightful president of the Ukraine we might ask? (The answer is, don’t know, don’t care, not our problem).

              Yes, I agree, if this nation is going to go into an isolationist period we should be the biggest and baddest kid on the block to insure others leave us the hell alone. It reminds me years ago of a prisoner we had in the state prison I worked as an officer in (here in Colorado). This guy was doing life for murder. He was black and also a martial arts black belt of high degree. No one messed with him and he bothered no one. He just wanted to be left alone to do his time and stay out of the BS of prison society. It worked and the US would need to be the same way in the world of nations.

              We handle it in a law enforcement way the same as we do with any criminal we want to stand trial – we hunt, we wait, we get our hands on them as we have always done. As long as they are hiding in another country that won’t assist us there isn’t much we can do in direct law enforcement activity. As to what to do with the nation refusing our demands to capture and extradite the wanted person(s), that is a diplomatic issue to be handled in the traditional ways one diplomatically pushes a country to meet our demands. Bush’s “argument” was the mean Taliban wouldn’t turn bin Laden over so we had to punish the Taliban. Geezsus, what stupidity on Bush’s part. Anger sir, pure vengeful anger, pushed this war into existence.

              Now, I concede that using law enforcement to get bin Laden may have meant we’d still be waiting to this day to get our hands on him. Yet, one does not go to war over a criminal. How long did western Europe wait to get their hands on Carlos the Jackal? He at times hid in Libya yet Europe didn’t attack Libya to get him. It is the reality of law enforcement, we may never get the guy we want behind the crimes, yet military strikes/invasions isn’t proper regardless of what we think of the government harboring the criminal.

              It sucks to be denied, but then that is reality.

              I await your further thoughts. 🙂

              • Well, I see it differently on the law enforcement issue. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are extensions and, in my opinion, are not common thugs. A common thug would be a Somali Pirate……they are nothing more than extortionists. But the Taliban/AlQaeda/ sir….militants that are trained and supplied by third parties.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Going to insert a comment here from “Happy Days” sitcom….Richie asked Fonzi why people sort of left him alone and had a reputation of being a tough character, yet had never seen him in a fight. Fonzi’s answer was “I had to have hit someone once”

                To the Colonel’s opinion on how our political leaders should conduct themselves and the proper use of our military, specifically against terrorism.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            lol….agreed sir.

  7. JAC…..interesting developments in Texas….incumbents took a beating.

  8. D13
    “Allow me a great example in the Somali Pirates….we hit back, now…..and with a vengeance…..when was the last American Registered ship seized?”

    Ah, not because of US vengeance.

    After the debacle (now a movie) where boys without shoes pretty much demonstrated moxie and guts in the face of a few hundred million dollars worth of force, ships now carry armed personal instead of water cannons.

    …and most sail 300 miles away from the coast. Those that don’t are the ones raided.

    Nothing has changed on the pirates side. The shipping side is did all the changes.

    • Very very true……..but is not arming ships, a form of vengeance? Do not forget the two squads ( units ) that are on standby on Navy ships also patrolling the same straits..that have, one one occasion, choppered in and retrieved an American taken off a Dutch ship and destroyed the compound in the process.

      Moxie? Maybe. I always wondered, though… does a skiff actually stop a loaded ship travelling at…..say 20 kts on open seas….and actually board? That could be considered moxie, I guess. But Navy seals taking the ships captain back, to me, fits hitting back with a vengeance. However, I would be willing to bet Mathius’ Thor’s Hammer, that if an American Ship went within 10 miles of the Somali Coast….it would pass without incident.

      • “but is not arming ships, a form of vengeance?”

        I would say it is common sense!
        There are many more (and more dangerous) pirates that roam the sea – South China Sea is notorious, though less famous (maybe because it far more common and has occurred for longer time, probably seems “normal”).

        Maybe its because the Somalians show the moxie of a bunch of shoe-less, hungry men are capable of seizing such big ships?

        “it would pass without incident.”

        The Alabama incident was the first attack on an American ship. (Apr 2009)

        4 days after that incident, the pirates attacked another American flagged ship (MV Liberty Sun), but just barely failed to board it.

        Then in Nov. of 2009, MV Maersk Alabama was attacked again, but the armed guards on board repelled the attack.

        Then in Apr 2010, the pirates brazenly attacked USS Nicholas (FFG-47), USS Ashland (LSD-48) and failed.

        In May 2010 MT Marida Marguerite (US) was seized and ransomed.

        In Dec 2010 MV Panama (US) was seized and ransomed.

        In Feb 2011 S/V Quest (US) was seized, all aboard killed.

        In Nov 2012 Azamara Journey (US) was attacked, but escaped.

        Seems to me that the opposite occurred….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You surprise me Sir. Arming ships a form of vengeance?

        I thought you more resolute in your RETALIATION.

        Attack our ships………..flatten Somalia.

        That should take care of the pirate problem. 😉

  9. Mathius™ says:

    Obama was asked “what are your plans for nuclear war with Russia?” during a press conference.

    His reaction was priceless. link.

    • Hee Hee Hee-Gotta give you that one 🙂

    • That was funny…..even Obama would not pull the nuke trigger. No President would any longer. There is no need. The economies have changed so much…..nukes are rendered almost non issue.

      BF…comments? I think that the debt controls the decisions and the threat that the US has now against its currency…even though still the strongest….is a major weapon that can be employed.

      • Depends on the means of economic warfare and the mindset of the people.

        Sometimes it hardens the people and then the weapon is pointless, and other times it has caused Revolution.

        The US is actually quite immune to the machinations of other nations trying to “subvert” the dollar. There is no viable replacement so by default the US$ will remain unmoved.

        Russia “becoming independent” of US wouldn’t make a dent to the US – the US exports a mere $11 billion to Russia and imports $26 billion, per year about.

        Canada exports $325 billion to US and imports $290 billion….

        • Yes…with the economic issues in Russia and China…the USD is ( currently immune ). It is hard to imagine runaway inflation like they have currently but it somehow works for them. It would be interesting to see how the black market is working in both countries…I would assume quite well.

      • I agree on the nukes – scary that they all still sit on a hair-trigger and massive incompetence runs amok on both sides holding the that trigger (Pakistan and India are even scarier…). Hard to imagine the magic password to WW3 was “00000” …. eeek!

        …but… MAD works, it seems, to the point that no major war between major powers has happened… War is fun when the minions do the dying, but the threat that the Powers-that-Be themselves are threatened with obliteration seems to stay their hand…

  10. Jac…. After some ass clown called off the SF’s who had bin Laden cornered. Me thinks this is where the mission and goal “Changed”. Or at least someone admitted it was changing.”

    I sure would like to know the full story here as well. The full report is classified and the one that I got to read was so redacted that there were like ten words on one page. I would like to know what decision was made and why. We had the entire thing cordoned off and could not pull the trigger. All entrances were closed…and then the order to pull back. Why, I wonder.

  11. @ BF…..Now that some time has passed….how is the arm, my friend?

    • Thanks for asking!

      It is “the new normal” – kinda got use to the reduced mobility and once in awhile I’ll sleep badly on it and wake up with it all seized up … but that’s temporary and returns to “new normal” in a few minutes.

      And you? How are you keeping?

  12. Lois Lerner invokes the 5th again. Guilty as hell!

    • Being that Ms. Lerner is being paid by the people, and the people want answers, which she is refusing to do, the people demand that no further payments are made on behalf of the people, to Ms. Lerner, until, she decides to speak up. Plead the 5th, that’s fine. NO MORE GOVT MONEY, BITCH!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        No G. She has her rights under the Constitution regardless of who pays her salary. I was paid by the public and ended up in a civil trial over a jail incident. In the IA investigation I was given my rights and invoked them. The department then compelled me to answer under an administrative authority after advising me that nothing I said could be used against me in any criminal proceeding (should one arise – it didn’t BTW). It couldn’t even be used in the civil case either – only for administrative purposes of the department (I could have been sanctioned or fired if the department concluded wrongdoing on my part (they didn’t).

        So, her invoking her rights can not and should not be punished arbitrarily by loss of pay under these circumstances, unless her agency finds her to have violated some rules.

        • , unless her agency finds her to have violated some rules. Last I saw, email’s certainly did show some wrong doing on her part. She quit (retired) because of this case, tell me why should the people continue to pay her ? (It may not be legal to with hold the money, but just saying). You were given amnesty, which is an option. Just ranting because here we have another rogue govt employee getting away with screwing the people who pay her salary, SCREW HER!

          • Don’t mind my ramblings, it’s just another prime example of what our federal govt has become, criminals.

          • You screw her….I have much better taste. 🙂 Had to put some levity in here.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Hardly. I was not given any kind of amnesty or immunity. I was just protected criminally from anything I said. I was still facing potential punishment if the department found wrongdoing on my part.

            • Lerner may or may not have broken any laws. As a public employee, she answers to the people when it comes to her duties. If she is unwilling to answer to the people, then the people should with hold her pay, that’s the price of working for the people, it requires integrity. Lack of integrity should lead to lack of income. Just my opinion, nothing more and it won’t change a thing.

              It’s not like the fix is already in when it comes to this. Obama says nothing wrong, Holder the same. Special investigator is a devout Obama supporter. It’s a joke on the American people, except most of us ain’t laughing.

  13. plainlyspoken says:

    JAC: Brining your comment forward so I can answer here.


    My comment about your response to Anita was over her discussion of her Muslim friends and acquaintances. It had nothing to do with the discussion of Afghanistan.

    Yes, you can believe what you want in that regard. However, when your beliefs defy common definitions and use of terms they are in error. Call it technical if you like but claiming things like we were at war with Afghanistan completely distorts the reality.

    For example, if we were at war with the Nation of Afghanistan, most of the country would be in ruins.

    Ok, I stand corrected on your first point. Sorry.

    My beliefs defy common sense just how sir? I doubt seriously there is any distortion of reality, but will await your points to show me my distortions.

    Most of the country would be in ruins. Define ruins? Physical? Political? Economic? The country was thrown into “ruins” by military force in which the controlling faction/government/tribe was ousted from power/authority and the military ruled until setting up a new government more to our liking, that we then had to support militarily and economically because it couldn’t – all the while now fighting remnants in opposition to our entry – illegally – into their country in the first place.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Lets deal with one point at a time.

      If the 30 million Hispanics in the USA rose up in revolt and with the help of citizen soldiers from Mexico and Cuba were able to take over Washington D.C., WHO would you consider as the “legitimate” Government of the USA??

      The new declared Nation of Hispania, or the US Govt that was in exile in Detroit??

      • Can I play……..US Government in exile

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Gee JAC, really? Who was the legitimate government when the colonists rose against the King?

        But, in answer to your question – I would say the legitimate government would be the one that the people in the country let govern them.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The new Nation of Hispania was formed by FORCE. Some people are fighting against it but they CLAIM they are the new govt.

          Are they the Govt of the United States or not?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            So was the United States. What’s the difference?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              We are dealing with MODERN Nation State in MODERN times. The colonists revolting against the King is irrelevant at this point.

              Point of clarification. The New Nation of Hispania is claiming the Entire United States as its new nation.

              Yet the US Govt has retreated to Detroit to manage that portion of the country that is still under their control.

              So WHO is the legitimate Government of the USA??

              • Well, I’d say the exiles in Detroit are the legitimate government until such time as the people get to vote on the issue.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Dang JAC, I have answered. Let me be more plain – the areas controlled by each would be the legitimate government over those areas.

                We’d have to wait out any war fought to decide who was the legitimate government over all the territories of the other.

                And what happened in colonial America is relevant, it set the precedent here in the US of legitimate government.

          • Funny, I no longer accept the current government of the United States legitimate, why worry about a coup?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            The “legitimate” government is the authority that the people allow to rule them. That is the way it has worked. Now should the people in Hispania fight against Hispania, then the people will force either a return of the pushed aside US Government in exile or bring forth a new government.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Now, my personal choice would be the government in exile in this case. In colonist America my choice would have been the new government.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The Govt of Hispania are ruling by Force. There are people in the east still fighting but some have just decided to comply. NY and NJ are prime examples.

              The new Govt is CLAIMING the ENTIRE region/NATION of the United States as the New Hispania.

              So your answer makes little sense, given that Hispania was created and maintained by FORCE and yet it controls only the eastern and part of the southern region of the Untied States.

              Oh, the Republic of Texas has somehow managed to maintain its independence and is supposedly in discussion with the United Stated Govt, now in Detroit, about an possible alliance with Canada to help remove the usurpers.

              Once again, WHO is the legitimate Govt of the United States??

              Are the New Hispanics declared legitimate just because they were able to take D.C.?? They obviously do not have the approval or support of the people, but many are in “consent” mode as they are helpless against the New Hispanic weaponry.

              • I think you should have capitalized that word LEGITIMATE!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                JAC, you can throw all the conditions on the argument you want, it won’t change my answer. Hispania can claim all they want, but if they don’t control the territory they aren’t the legitimate government.

                By the way, there were colonists who were helpless against the newly instituted government too.

                If you don’t think my answer makes sense, so be it. It’s reality.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                lol…he can capitalize it, bold it, italicize it, underscore it – it makes NO difference to my answer.

              • I’m thinking Plainly, if you want to be a Country of laws and not of men/might makes right, perhaps it should.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                How so VH?

              • The government in exile was duly elected by the people and legitimate means “conforming to the law or to rules”. The people who decided to take over by force may or may not be the peoples choice but until such time as that is established the elected will remain the legitimate one. IMHO

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So you admit it is what the people decide. Thank you, supports my point. now I could be like JAC and add to the argument by saying an election is held and the people in the territory controlled by Hispania approves their rule. But then, changing the parameters of the discussion aren’t really fair huh? What if’s………….

              • I don’t think anyone is arguing against your point-I suspect everyone would agree-in the end it is up to the people.

                But I also see your argument as applied to Afghanistan-did the people really get a choice before we went in there-or from another perspective-would they have gotten a choice if we hadn’t gone in?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Next question. Did Mexico and Cuba INVADE the United States by supplying arms and troops to help the indigenous population in their REVOLT??

      • plainlyspoken says:


        • Just A Citizen says:

          Canada is now helping the United States Govt take back the territory along the east coast.

          Is Canada now Invading the United States?

          Oh, you do realize that you just claimed the Right of Conquest as legitimate don’t you?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Canada is helping how? Material support? Troops? Both?

            No, I don’t say the right of conquest is legitimate. Might does not make right.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You just claimed that Hispania is legitimate if they can CONTROL the geography.

              So what is your position on the “legitimate” govt of the “United States”.

              Remember, Both are claiming the SAME territory as being under their jurisdiction.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                OK JAC, let me clarify for you – The area controlled AND The “legitimate” government is the authority that the people allow to rule them.

                It always come back to the people.

                Now answer my questions on the difference between this period and colonial America, as well as Canada?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Difference? International treaties BANNING the Right of Conquest.

              The colonies were also NOT Nation States, they were colonies. The Revolution came from within, a NEW nation was established and the majority of people then approved.

              And one more key point. The Revolution did not end until there was a TREATY signed by England ceding the colonies to the new Nation State. Well Federation of States.

              So the early American experience is different in many ways for the example I constructed.

              Now how do you define “allow to rule them”?? Is this simply passive or must there be some election or expression of SUPPORT??

              • Just A Citizen says:

                OH, and Canada provides both men and material.

                To add to the story, there are only three other Nations in the world that formally recognize New Hispania as “legitimate”. These are Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela.

                Does the “recognition” of legitimacy by the International body of Nations mean anything in your view regarding who is to be considered the Nation State?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Damn, international treaties……follow them when it suits your purpose, ignore them when it doesn’t.

                By whatever means JAC. Voting, armed rebellion, however the people choose to respond to the new government.

                By the way you initially said “If the 30 million Hispanics in the USA rose up in revolt….”

                Is that not something that comes from within? Or are those 30 million all of a sudden illegal aliens?

              • “International treaties BANNING the Right of Conquest.”

                The Nuremberg Decision…now codified into the UN charter.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Canada, both men & material, once they cross out of territory controlled by the government-in-exile – yes they then invaded. They can be invited in to territory controlled by the government-in-exile to the territory they control and it is no0t an invasion.

                Recognition by the international community (some, none, or all) means nothing to the legitimacy issue. The people there do only.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              BTW JAC, when the southern states – by choice of the people – chose to leave the union, who was the legitimate government over those states?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                If Texas voters told the US, by voting, to get out of Texas because Texas was independent again and the US Government refuses – who is the legitimate government over Texas?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Under the Constitution as written, it was the Untied States Govt located in D.C.. While I disagree that the “intent” was to permanently “capture” states by accepting them as such, that is the way the document was written. The Right of Leaving the Union was left out.

                One reason that Lee wanted to take D.C. quickly was to force and end to the war. Which is consistent with the OLD SCHOOL of conquest. Take the Capital and you become the New Govt. or you can force a treaty.

                But as I said, these were the OLD rules. They were abandoned in hopes of reducing the use of WAR to take and hold territory based on whim. Modern times, modern rules.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So what the people choose in those states means nothing? They chose before any war began to leave the Union. What actions/plans Lee wanted to follow to quickly end the war/issue has nothing to do with invalidating the choice by the North. The people spoke, so who was the legitimate government, D.C. or Richmond?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes, I said the 30 million revolted, as in they were here. However, I also stated that their ability to win was dependent upon the men and material they got from Cuba and Mexico. Who you say were “invading” the USA by providing aid.

              I also clearly stated that they took and held territory by force. That is by GUN. Also that many Americans continued to fight back but are to few to displace the new SELF PROCLAIMED Govt. The territory was lost because NY and NJ couldn’t resist. No guns ya know.

              Now Canada has joined the US Govt in Detroit, providing men and material to RETAKE the territory taken by the New Hispanians. So now you clam that Canada is also “invading”. I assume you mean the New Hispania which was Self Proclaimed and only recognized by three other Nations.

              So at this point is the United States also “invading” New Hispania??

              • plainlyspoken says:

                NY & NJ brought it on themselves for banning guns. 😉

                See now we get into the murkiness of the issue. I am sure you will tell me I am making no sense, but here goes anyway.

                I already said recognition by other nations means nothing, so lets lay that to rest.

                I never said that the government-in-exile didn’t have a legitimate reason to go kick out Hispania. I said the people are the deciders. Canada is not invading until they cross into territory outside US control – then they are sticking their nose into a p-lace it doesn’t belong. Remember, this is an internal struggle of who rules. Now, if the government-in-exile wants to accept material assistance then Canada isn’t invading (no boots on the ground).

                Is the US invading (without outside troops) – no. They are in contention for territory they controlled. The US would be invading if – IF – the people in the new Hispania voted to accept the rule of the new “nation”. That would be the 30 million Hispanics AND the people living in the territory.

                The government-in-exile would have to accept the choice (and please let us not start down a route of whether or not it was a legitimate or fair vote – that muddies the waters unreasonably).

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Did the US quit fighting after British forces captured and burned Washington during the War of 1812…..I think not….Did the Russian’s quit after Napoleon captured Moscow. In fact did any nation really quit during the Napoleonic wars after their capitals were captured. Some forces did and some did not but the battles continued. Usually they took a break then took up the battles again. Lots of exceptions of the rule that capture the capital or local radio station and you win. I believe that will hold if the people truly believe the invader is actually a savior of the nation not a usurper.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So as I stated, New Hispania has NOT held any elections. They hold territory and rule by FORCE alone. There is some resistance but they have confiscated the weapons of many opposition, aka those claiming to be US citizens.

              Now the US is trying to take back the country. Canada is providing men and material as in boots on the ground fighting beside the US troops.

              Per your prior comment, the US is NOT invading Hispania as Hispania was not authorized by the people.

              Is Canada now invading Hispania? If you say yes, then how can it Invade a “nation” which is NOT legitimate when it is fighting with the Govt that was legitimate, before the revolution/invasion.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Not held by vote of the people, then Hispania is the government by FORCE, until such time as the people overthrow such force. Legitimate under this narrow definition – no.

                However, using Canadian troops to fight alongside US troops IS an invasion by Canada, they have no business being involved in direct military action. It would be no difference if the US jumped into a fight between the French-Canadians and the government of Canada with troops to “free” the French-Canadians by force from the rule of Canada . NONE of our business.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I am curious too JAC, if the people voted beforehand for theis new nation of Hispania, then Hispania would be the legitimate government?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Next question: If the “government” of a Nation invites another nation to send in troops to help it fight insurrection is the outsider still INVADING said “Nation”??

      • plainlyspoken says:

        verb: invade; 3rd person present: invades; past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded; gerund or present participle: invading

        1. (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.

        verb: subjugate; 3rd person present: subjugates; past tense: subjugated; past participle: subjugated; gerund or present participle: subjugating

        1. bring under domination or control, esp. by conquest.

        Since the troops are there to help subjugate those in insurrection – yes.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I would submit that my example does NOT fit the definition you provided. The definition implies the purpose of “subjugating” is to place under the power of the invader. In my example the troops are “helping” the Govt put down an insurrection.

          But if you consider it an “invasion” then that is fine.

          So now lets summarize.

          In YOUR opinion the presence of ANY foreign troops within another country is an INVASION if said troops are engaged in battle of any kind.

          It does not matter whether they are invited by the “govt” of that nation or not.

          Is this correct?

  14. plainlyspoken says:

    A different topic to add to this days mix of debate. One point I bring from this article is discussion of the use of jail house informants.

    Is the use of these type of informants an aspect of criminal prosecution that can be trusted, or are they all out to gain for themselves?

    I have my opinions based on my time working in the system, but I will withhold them while I hear the thoughts of others.

    • I’m not to keen on the death penalty, except in extreme cases. I don’t like criminals being a trusted witness in a criminal trial, but I’m sure they can be helpful in keeping the peace in prison.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        but I’m sure they can be helpful in keeping the peace in prison.

        Yes, they can and I used them often for that purpose.

  15. ROFL! What’s wrong with this picture?

  16. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here VH.

    The government in exile was duly elected by the people and legitimate means “conforming to the law or to rules”. The people who decided to take over by force may or may not be the peoples choice but until such time as that is established the elected will remain the legitimate one. IMHO

    So what about the Native Americans, did they get to vote for who ruled them when their territory was taken by conquest/force? How about the Mexicans living in Texas when Texas tyook independence from Mexico by force? Or the natives when Alaska was sold to the US? Or, or, or…..

    • Now you are asking me to explain all the injustices that happen in the world-might makes right-comes to mind.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        So, to be clear – did that might make the US the legitimate government, or Texas in their case?

        • PS, I believe that I agree with what you’re saying, and no it didn’t make it right then. But it’s also not right now. I am part Cherokee (small part) and I don’t believe it was right sho’ enuff that GA took my ancestors land away from them.

          Also, I think the same about this as I do when talking about Muslims and Christians and who has killed the most starting back at the Crusades. That was Then. This is now. It still doesn’t mean it was right back then, but again, that was in the past what has been done is already done.

          I personally believe we should be tossing our own Government out on their asses and see how THEY like it when it’s them. We elected them. It should be our RIGHT to throw them out if we don’t like and can’t trust them enough to do as “we the people” who elected them want them to do.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Rebel, maybe so – yet the modern version of that seems to, if I understand JAC correctly, mean we can do whatever we want in the world if another country is not governed by voter approval and UN recognition. This seems it legitimizes war?

            At the same time, again if I understand JAC correctly, there is no way to remove a national government except under their defined rules (if they have any), so be damned citizen if you don’t like it.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You DO NOT understand what I am saying. In fact I never addressed any of the points you are now assigning to my via your “understanding”.

              My discussion of Texas, and the South, was relative to OUR laws. Period.

              You want to secede? Go ahead. You can expect the same treatment the South got in 1860. But who knows, maybe you will win this time.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Ok, pardon – we will stick to our laws. You support whatever government action is taken against anyone/group/segment of society who doesn’t follow our laws to change government?

                Plus, you made the references to Afghanistan, not I. So our laws dictate how the US decides nwhether another nation has a legitimate government then? Don’t get riled, just asking.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Do so peacefully and by a plebiscite and the outcome may be different this time and fully supported by those countries that the US tweeked in the past by instantly recognizing their separation from the rest of their nation.

            • Sorry JAC, but I seem to have gotten that idea too from reading your posts. When is it OK to overthrow you Government?

              I realize that you are talking about the realities that we live in today. And I agree that if we tried that crap in the U.S. that they would stomp on us like bugs (after we killed some of them back of course), but you are making it sound as if it’s WRONG for the people to change their Government. And THAT I do not agree with.

              • Rebel, JAC is pro government, nothing else needs to be said.

              • I don’t believe JAC is Pro-Government G. But I’m also not clear what he is saying here.

              • JAC has been quite clear on his personal need for government to exist, even in a smaller form, but he is certainly pro-government.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Apparently you aren’t the only one Rebel. But then he did insist he’s only pointing out my inconsistencies….apparently I am the one making no sense.

              • Hold up there people-no one-has stated that they agree with how everything is being done-it is simply a discussion of what has been done and the laws that have been passed to try and stop all the years of Countries conquering large pieces of territory. Or groups of people with power controlling everyone else. It really comes back to might is right-in trying to stop it-we have succeeded to a degree and failed too. But it boils done to how do you stay a nation of laws where the people choose, instead of being a world of might is right and whoever can-does take over. You disagree with the laws we have ways to try and change them-but your disapproval doesn’t make JAC’s statements wrong or mean he agrees with the way it is.

                This has gotten way to nit picky-we were discussing the correct wordage for what happened in Afghanistan based on the reality of the world-not what we personally thought was right and wrong.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                This nation was founded by force used by the people, but that doesn’t count since it isn’t the modern way of doing things..

                Under the modern rules the ONLY way to throw off “legitimate” government is by the rules defined by said “legitimate” government. As long as that “legitimate” government controls the rules we must live under whatever repressive rules they may institute.

                If the USG suspended, by Congressional vote, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments and declared a state of emergency is the government still legitimate?

                In other words, when is the government no longer legitimate?

              • By who’s measure, the individuals in the countries, the international communities. I have no problem answering that question based on moral grounds. But answering it as it relates to reality is much more difficult. I find my personal opinion isn’t worth much when pitied against everybody else’s opinions.

                So my only answer is when the people have the will and the power to proclaim it such and fight to insure it. That’s my natural right and it’s a part of our founding documents. Everything else sounds nice but there just words.

              • I like your answer VH! It should be up to the people, all of it.

  17. plainlyspoken says:

    Also down here VH.

    I don’t think anyone is arguing against your point-I suspect everyone would agree-in the end it is up to the people.

    But I also see your argument as applied to Afghanistan-did the people really get a choice before we went in there-or from another perspective-would they have gotten a choice if we hadn’t gone in?

    Good questions on Afghanistan and I would say no and no.

  18. plainlyspoken says:

    BF, anyone else, am I off the mark in this discussion with JAC?

    • Nope.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      It is not a matter of being off. I am trying to gain perfect clarity of your view.

      I have constructed this example to mirror the Afghan situation. You may hold a different view. My only claim is that your view is not consistent with that of the world we now live in. That is relative to “invading” and who is or is not the “government”.

      That was your challenge to me. To show how you were not consistent with reality. That means the world we now live in, relative to the “rules” of national identity, etc, etc.

      Oh, and the US Govt would still be the legitimate Govt of Texas. And despite all the bluster, the Texicans know that as well.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Ah, so NO choice by the people will ever make a government legitimate? Ever? The world nations are as they are and can never be de-legitimized?

        The people’s choices don’t matter. Hear that Colonel, you’re all stuck with the legitimate rule of the USG over you.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          In a nation of free people who are allowed to make choices then their opinion does matter. However, you are mixing the concepts of what should be with what actually exists.

          This was my prior point to which you asked me to prove the case.

          For example, no matter the vote of Texas it remains a STATE within the Untied States and subject to United States Laws. Voting alone does not dictate a Federal response. Taking up arms against US govt agencies would cause a MILITARY response.

          Under OUR EXISTING system this would be allowed and the US Govt is the ONLY legitimate Govt of the United States, to which Texas is PART.

          Now luck for us, our founders envisioned such potential conflicts and provided a means of settling these disputes peacefully (amendment). However, as the South found out, this only works if 3/4 of the States AGREE to the split.

          Or, to agree with the right to split.

          Now, the US could undergo another Civil War and lets say splits in two. The Govts are elected for each by a majority in each.

          Two States now exist. But whether those are both “recognized” internationally will be subject to a vote of the International body, aka UN. It is that group that will announce Full Diplomatic status for each or only one.

          I expect if the PEOPLE of both new nations voted in free elections to split, that the UN would recognize BOTH.

          But that was not the situation in my example, and it was not the situation in the place we call Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Who gives two farts in the wind what the UN says? Your saying the US can go fight in any coujntry it chooses to if the people haven’t selected that other country’s form of government AND the UN recognizes that government?

            In other words, it was okay to go to Afghanistan because they had no legitimate government?

            Hello, calling the North Korean people, you’re government isn’t legitimate cause you don’t get to vote for it so JAC and the rest of the warriors will be along shortly to free you and give you a legitimate government. 🙄

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I have not many any such claims.

              Jumping the gun and chasing little rabbits.

              The reason the UN matters is because that is what the Nations of the world have decided to use as a means of avoiding constant global WARS

              • plainlyspoken says:

                The wars wouldn’t occur if nations (this one included) minded their own damn business.

                Oh, jumping the gun – ok, is the North Korean Government the legitimate government.

                And, you seem to me to be of the belief there is no way to alter government unless it is only by the rules established for that government, no matter how oppressive you feel they are?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        It seems to me JAC that you are saying that if the USG decided the government of a political subdivision is not legitimate then the national government is right and the people can go to hell? Is that what you are saying?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Depends on the “level” of the dispute and the “authorities” being challenged.

          The STATES cannot REJECT the Federal Laws that are consistent with the Constitution.

          Any attempt to do so can be considered Sedition and/or Treason.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            So as long as the feds say it is a Constitutional law you’ll back their authority to go and do as they please under that law?

            “We The People” are just empty words then? We can never throw off our federal government (because you know damn well the Congress will never let an amendment in with a process to leave the Union). Don’t bother tossing off tyranny, we have no right to under any CURRENT rules of nations and international law.

            My God JAC, why even bother with state or local government or elections other than national? Just let the feds run things since they are the legitimate national government?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You have run the wagon off the road. Is this intentional in order to divert the discussion?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Nope, I am trying to clarify your beliefs of what is and is not legitimate government and the right’s of people to self-determine.

                I have no reason to divert the discussion since I have answered you clearly each time and let you question to clarify things all you want (to even changing the discussion parameters as you chose).

                It is now that I feel you are the one making no sense.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              No sir, it is you who has modified the discussion. You are now addressing entirely different issues from those I started with.

              I will address them but this is diverting us from the original.

              You are also projecting beliefs and “meaning” onto my statements that simply are not there. A tactic you decried someone else using just the other day.

              So for now I am going to stick with Afghanistan and Hispania.

              Once we have cleared up those points I will address your other questions.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well alrighty – shame on me. I won’t bother with questions then, just answer yours.

                Manage this conversation as you will.

  19. plainlyspoken says:

    Obamacare Architect: ‘You Don’t Need a Doctor for Every Part of Your Health Care’

    O’Reilly is an idiot here. First, my wife is finishing her masters to become a nurse practitioner and she sure isn’t a “Lenny” from Community College. Bachelors and 7 years of nursing experience (largely in ER/Trauma) and 3 years working on her masters. Plus, as a part of her masters a large amount of time in clinicals training under licensed professionals, plus after college she’ll need another 2-3k hours under a physician in order to obtain her prescriptive authority.

    O’Reilly is fear-mongering here.

    Also, who said your paper medical records were any safer? The 5k for a record would be just as easy to obtain by getting copies of the paper records.

  20. YOu cant make this up either…

    ISSA to LERNER : I have your e mail that was sent. And it says ” This Tea Party issue is VERY dangerous! Can you explain what this means?

    Lerner: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my 5th amendment rights.

    ISSA: Ms Lerner, you and the President once stated that if there is nothing to hide and that there is no shred of wrong doing, then why are you invoking the 5th amendment?

    Lerner: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my 5th amendment rights.


    • Colonel, I thought that was VERY interesting also. For someone who allegedly did nothing wrong, she sure is taking the Fifth a lot. I wonder why? 😛

      My guess is that there is a WORLD of doo-doo in that case. And Obama and the Democrats don’t want to get splattered when and if it hits the cyclical air generator. I know if I had been thrown under the bus like she has been, No one could keep me silent. If I went down everyone I could implicate would go down with me. But that, obviously, is just me.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I believe she had, through her attorney, asked for immunity. Usually when someone wants immunity they think they may have been breaking the law somehow and don’t want to be accountable for their actions.

      Suspicious indeed.

  21. Just on the news….Russia now in total charge of Crimea….and Putin stated that any sanctions on Russia and he will confiscate all assets and accounts from Europe and America.

  22. plainlyspoken says:

    JAC< I am getting lost in this thread(s), so may we consolidate down here at this point?

    I would submit that my example does NOT fit the definition you provided. The definition implies the purpose of “subjugating” is to place under the power of the invader. In my example the troops are “helping” the Govt put down an insurrection.

    But if you consider it an “invasion” then that is fine.

    So now lets summarize.

    In YOUR opinion the presence of ANY foreign troops within another country is an INVASION if said troops are engaged in battle of any kind.

    It does not matter whether they are invited by the “govt” of that nation or not.

    Is this correct?


    • Plainly, what law is there that provides guidance on how to get rid of a tyrannical Federal Government? NONE exist.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I guess it would require amending the Constitution…..good luck there huh?

        • That will never happen. You and I both know that tyrannical governments will not be “voted” away. The only recourse mankind has known, is to overthrow said government. That usually requires violence, but, there may be an occasion where it can be avoided. Just saying. For the record, I agree with you on the invasion issue. We invaded Iraq and we invaded Afghanistan. How there can be a dispute is beyond me.

    • I believe, and I’m sure JAC will correct me if I’m wrong, that what he is trying to say is that the only way IN TODAY’S WORLD that you can change the Government is through voluntary means or through the Amendment Process. In other words, in both instances, the Government would have to cut their OWN throats!

      Good Luck with that.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am not saying it is the only means. It is however, the only PEACEFUL means.

        The broader point was that WE THE PEOPLE adopted the Constitution. It provides a means for peaceful resolution. So to REBEL against the Constitution is to REBEL AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE.

        At least until there becomes an obvious an documented BREECH of trust between the People and the Govt. And in order for that breech to justify civil war or revolution, it will have to be serious enough that the majority will NOT SUPPORT the Federal govt suppressing the rebellion.

        Important Point to consider. One which separates the Revolution from the Civil War.

        Think about the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence. All the “procedures” used to get some action. Then the Dec. itself. Read its stated purpose, that is the rationale “requiring” a DOCUMENTED set of Grievances.

        The Civil War resulted from a series of actions that did not follow this “American” tradition.

        The RIGHT of the people to revolt against Tyranny carries many responsibilities. One of which is to exercise great restraint before pulling the trigger of war.

        That is why our Founders built the peaceful means of revolution into the Constitution itself. Thus armed rebellion would only come after the effort of Amendment had failed.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          At least until there becomes an obvious an documented BREECH of trust between the People and the Govt. And in order for that breech to justify civil war or revolution, it will have to be serious enough that the majority will NOT SUPPORT the Federal govt suppressing the rebellion.

          What? That’s not the way the Constitution laid it out to change, but now it’s ok? Make up your mind.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            There is noting to make up my mind about. My answers are completely consistent and complimentary.

            You are reacting to YOUR creation not mine.

            I never said that Revolt was off the table in the USA. Nor did I ever say that Revolt could never result in a New Govt or Nation.

            I said that an effort to Revolt would be met with Force by the US Govt. And that such use of Force would be justified by OUR LAWS. It would also be justified in the eyes of the International Community. Although there would be a scrambling of nations to take sides in order to tip the scales in “their” favor.

            The POWER of those laws depends on the magnitude and reasons for the revolt. If the magnitude is not large enough the law will govern, because the super majority will put down the insurrection. If the magnitude is great, and the reason significant, then the attempt to put down the revolt may fail. Because the “majority” will not support the Federal action.

            Our LAWS provide for a peaceful means of CHANGING our Govt if we do not like it. By the common law of man, as used by our forefathers, one must exhaust the peaceful means before resorting to armed revolt.

            And in either case, the PEOPLE must make their case against the Govt. and they should do so loudly and clearly for the world to see. This is the REASON for the Declaration of Independence.

            Because even they recognized the need to have the World understand and thus possibly support the rebellion, should it be necessary.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              ok, Are we moving on or are we not?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I thought you wanted to address these issues that I put aside earlier.

                Sorry if I misunderstood.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                IO think we covered the whole Afghanistan thing in your postings since you said you constructed it based on Afghanistan. So, lets go on to those other points raised. Or not, as you wish.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I was not discussing Afghanistan with the above, but the issue of revolution within our system of laws. In response to Rebels question.

                So YES, lets address those questions/issues. I suggest we start another thread below.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                very well, my mistake. I await the next item below.

            • Maybe if our government would follow our LAWS your words would hold an ounce or two of weight. However, they do not, and have not for quite some time. Based on that, while I think a Convention of States is a shot in the dark, it is quite unlikely that the feds will abide by any laws or Amendments that will come from it. To believe that they will is naïve beyond reason.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Any Amendment properly constructed will be followed by the Fed Govt.

                They still fear doing otherwise. Contrary to your belief.

                They will then over time try to find every CRACK or CAVEAT. And then eventually we will have to plug those holes.

                It is a constant game requiring attention and resolve.

                If you do not believe in this then you have two choices left.

                One of those ends badly for many.

              • JAC, one Amendment will not come close to resolving the issues with the 8000lb gorilla your so in love with. And, no, you can’t say they will obey anything, because you don’t know shit about what they will do, you can only speculate based on your emotions. The game is over, they are large and in charge, which isn’t quite the way things are supposed to be working, legally.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      OK. So now let me summarize and clarify some things where I believe your original arguments were wrong. Maybe wrong is to strong, because some of the differences are in definitions and some are in how these terms are used to denigrate or condemn the US.

      Did we “invade” Afghanistan? If you use a strict definition of the term ‘invade” or “invasion” then we did INVADE something. But where?

      We did not invade Afghanistan, per se’. This is not just a rhetorical trick. We did invade a region controlled by the Taliban. This invasion began when we crossed out of the region controlled by the Afghan govt, which was then located in the northern part of the country. This Govt was then called the “northern alliance”. It was the Govt that controlled most of Afghanistan prior to the Taliban civil war. That Govt controlled the region by popular consent, although there was no significant “centralized” force. This was the Govt “in exile” so to speak.

      The Taliban created a Civil War and “invaded” those areas of Afghanistan which they did not control. The Taliban were created from some tribes of the southern part of the country. But here is the kicker. The “Taliban” were created, organized and trained by PAKISTAN. This is why I used the term “invaded” for the Taliban’s taking of Afghan territory. You see, they were small in numbers. In order to take the country they had to have help. It came in the form of thousands of Al Quada fighters. Also trained in Pakistan and recruited for the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and parts north. Money and arms flowed in from these “outsiders” as well.

      The Taliban took this territory and held it by BRUTE FORCE. It was not held by consent or agreement of the people. Not in any meaningful sense that you used relative to elections. In fact there were no elections. Only the slaughter of thousands who expressed opposition.

      The Taliban and Al Quada were intertwined in their organization and sharing of people and material. One of their leaders was related to bin Laden by marriage. This should help explain why the US ignored the Taliban’s supposed good gesture to turn over bin Laden, if only we could provide proof of his guilt. Oh, and only if he stood trial under Sharia law.

      Were we “invited” into Afghanistan? Yes. We were invited by those who were part of the “accepted” govt PRIOR to the Taliban taking over most of the country. This was a symbiotic thing. Who knows who asked who first. I am guessing we were already involved and once 9/11 happened we simply asked if they wanted REAL help. They said hell yes.

      Why were we there? As I said above, the Taliban and Al Quada were FULL BLOWN PARTNERS in taking over Afghanistan. So after 9/11 we went there to take out the Taliban, which was the “visible” state sponsor AND to eliminate Afghanistan as a base for Al Quada.

      Oh, and the unstated purpose was to interrupt Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran using the Taliban as a “surrogate” in their plans to control the Afghan region. How was that Colonel?

      Now this leads to the conflict of your prior argument. Originally you said the Taliban represented the Govt and thus was Afghanistan. If this was true then the USA had every right to invade to conquer the Taliban. The Taliban and Al Quada were in bed together. Tied at the hip. There were no degrees of separation to support the claims that Taliban offers to give up bin Laden were truly serious. So despite all the howling to the contrary, the Taliban were part of the 9/11 attack.

      The northern alliance leader spoke in Europe before 9/11 warning of a major event against the US that his intelligence had uncovered via the Taliban. He was later killed by Taliban operatives just days before 9/11. They were posing as news reporters. Al Quada took credit for 9/11. It seems the Taliban KNEW in advance. I do not know how much they helped, beyond giving bin Laden and his TEAM all the space and logistical support they needed to keep from being killed or captured.

      Now applying the newer argument, that the Taliban were NOT the govt, then we did not go to war against Afghanistan at all. We went to war alongside the Afghan Govt to eliminate the Rebels and Invaders of Afghanistan.

      Thanks to the various assassination carried out by the Taliban and Al Quada, it became necessary to establish a “new” govt in Afghanistan. This was done by Afghan leaders, with our help and “coaching”. This is when Karzai comes to the front.

      So in summary.

      We did NOT go to war against Afghanistan.

      We DID go to war against the Taliban and al Quada, who occupied part of Afghanistan.

      I will grant you that we “invaded” that part of the country controlled by the Taliban and Al Quada.

      But, we WERE INVITED by the northern alliance and leaders of the Afghan Govt that had been displaced by the Taliban and Al Quada.

      I do want to mention the issue of “invasion”. I spent time on this because of how the term is used vs. its technical meaning. Yes, we “invaded”. But the frequent use of the term is to create the image of the US TAKING territory for our purpose. It lends itself to the ERRONEOUS claim that we were waging war AGAINST Afghanistan.

      I have no problem with using the word in its proper context. That being OUR troops FIGHTING on foreign soil. The purpose is irrelevant to the meaning of the term “invasion”.

      Now, do you have any remaining comments or questions on this before we move onto the other stuff?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Very nice JAC, you should have been the writer for Bush – his justifications for what he did would have sounded so much better.

        Yet, lets move on because we are not going to agree. I could, but don’t want to waste time yet again refuting some of you arguments on Afghanistan.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I did not include anything that was not in the public arena prior to our “invasion” of Afghanistan.

          I think we have just forgotten what happened and what was said. Makes one wonder about the accuracy of all History when you we can’t even remember things from ten or twelve years ago.

          I am curious thought what it is you “disagree” with in my presentation. I don’t think it a waste of time to seek greater clarity or understanding.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I find no source (and I have been looking) that specifically speaks to the US being invited in militarily to aid in fighting the Taliban prior to our – attack – on the Taliban in the country. Just for openers.

            But, continuing to argue over what the words mean and what “rights” the US had isn’t worth more time. We disagree and that’s pretty much all there is to conclude.

            So, lets just move on – unless you need me to say your right first? Because I wouldn’t wait around for that.

  23. plainlyspoken says:

    Here G, we can talk outside the scope here.

    I hope the feds never bring forth a law that forbids Texas from enforcing federal immigration laws. If Texas ignored them then the feds could send in the troops to force Texas to comply and dismantle their system of enforcement.

    • They might try, but it would be illegal to use troops under Posse Comintatus. (sp). That would still fall under a law enforcement issue, I believe. Let them try, I’d like to see just how many troops follow those orders.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Like the feds would care about Posse Comitatus? They could just declare martial law and that voids Posse Comitatus. All Congress has to do to get around Posse Comitatus is approve the use of the troops.

        yes, from wiki:

        Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

        In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

        Plus, I am not as sure as you are G about what the troops would or wouldn’t do.

        • Great point, as I see it, if the Feds suspend any other rights beyond habeas corpus, they have deemed themselves illegitimate. That section you show, is the only authority given to the feds in the Constitution, as far as suspending the bill of Rights. Will they care, not right off. When the bullets start taking them out, which will happen, things will change I think. I don’t think the troops will follow Obama against “we the people”. He has already polarized them to the point of hatred. I’d like to see him try though. Think about this, why would the troops kill those that pay them?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            G, think a moment. All the feds have to do is declare – per my comment – Texas (in this case) as being in a state of insurrection to the US (just like during the Civil War period) and viola – invoke the Constitution.

            • Yes they could, and it would be the biggest error in judgment that they could make within our borders. Declaring war against the people of Texas would not sit well with the rest of the populace, because we would know it could be us next. Let’em go for it. The feds would lose miserably, which would be a good thing (please talk them into it). 😉

    • What is the point of passing State Laws? Every time a State passes a Law the Feds don’t like, they just say that ALL Federal Law supersedes State Law and the Courts agree with them. Thus, what is the point?

      Maybe if the States banded together they MIGHT get some traction to force the Feds to back down, but I ain’t gonna hold my breath waiting on it.

      • The Feds and the Fed court system no longer represents the people. Voting will NOT fix this problem in 100 hundred years or more. Nothing will happen until the Feds totally overstep their bounds, which I feel will happen in our lifetime. What triggers this event is not known, but it could be as simple as a computer hack job by a 15 year old or as complicated as pushing the wrong button and launching a nuke.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Now G, the SCOTUS was never intended to represent the people. It’s function has always been to uphold the Constitution only, and if that should represent the will of the people – great, if not – tough.

          • The number one job of the Feds is to defend the Rights of the people. The #1 job of the SCOTUS is to make sure what the Feds do is within their limited powers. Both have failed in our lifetime. Federal Judges throughout this country play politics daily. It’s over my friend, the representation of the people no longer exists in DC, and that includes the Judicial branch as well. Just my opinion and why I won’t waste my time voting for any further corruption. 🙂

        • I think they overstepped their bounds with the OCare Law. And they have continued to overstep them ever since.

    • We have ignored them thus far on two fronts….we use live ammunition and we are using voter ID….and we are enforcing not only Fed Law but are enforcing laws that we passed that do not conflict with Fed Law on immigration. Holder said that he would stop us on voter ID…he has not and he will not.. Good luck on that. As to using Fed troops…..I doubt very seriously that any would comply….Very serious doubts. The reason would be an interpretation of a moral and lawful order. To use martial law to forbid the enacting of laws would be unconstitutional….( my interpretation )….but I am sure that we will push the Feds to see how far they will go.

      In this last primary election, just take a look at what we have done….incumbents took a beating and we have thrown several seats into runoffs. We have been successful at getting more conservatives to run at the local levels and they are winning. Everyone that had a Cruz endorsement….won except two. Sessions and Cornyn. And, let me add, these are not Tea Party types even though the media is trying to label same. The Tea Party candidates lost as well because we do not want far right in there either. Cruz is labeled Tea Party when he is not.

      My point is….Texas is inserting its independence in State’s rights at every turn we can. We are electing people at the local levels that believe in State’s rights. We made a small step this time….we hope it holds.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I applaud Texas for asserting it’s States Rights, yet – if I use JAC’s model of reality and law, Texas is doomed when the feds get tired of Texas independence and acts to stop it in whatever way it finds necessary. The people of your single state isn’t enough to qualify to make your actions legitimate and the USG’s illegitimate under the model given.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          That is NOT my model. Why do you keep misrepresenting me?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Oh for f’s sake, not “you” as the model creator, “you” as the one putting the model forth as the discussion point.

            Getting a bit touchy are you?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Further, I wonder what happens if the government does move to the right? Will the feds then be in shutting down the pot shops of WA, CO, CA, etc since pot is against federal law – regardless of what state voters have chosen to do?

        That too would be legitimate under the model provided.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The FEDS have the full authority to do just that.

          But they probably will not. Because their heart is not in it and they dont’ want to spend their powder on small things.

          • What power? What article states that they can outlaw anything?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Yes, I am sure you believe/feel they do – and they can for sure since they have the strength to do just that, regardless of what the voters say. Quite frankly it is no business of the feds.

        • Just a thought, what gives the Feds the power to “outlaw” pot? There power lies with regulating commerce. There is no commerce with a blanket outlawing of pot, so I will claim that the feds have overstepped their authority, yet again (even though it was a long time ago). LOL, Damn Feds need shut down soon 😉

          • Just A Citizen says:

            So you and Plainly are standing by an assertion based on YOUR opinion that the LAW as written by Congress and the Regulations written by the Executive and which have both been upheld by the Supreme Court, are all nothing but Bull Shit. and thus have no binding power on anyone.

            Is that your argument?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              You might want to redact my name from this comment you just made. 1. You don’t know what all I believe, 2. I speak for myself thanks, 3. More than once I have taken G to task over his thinking about government.

            • UMM, let me rephrase. What part of the Constitution gives the Feds the authority to OUTLAW anything? Pretty simple question, not requiring any emotional responses. And, as far as myself, if they have overstepped their written authority, then yes, it’s all bullshit that needs to be reigned in and changed, or, sent to the States where the authority belongs.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                The Power to Regulate includes the power to prevent.

                I know that doesn’t fit the BF theory of “regulating” as to make “regular” but that is NOT what the word meant when it was used in the Constitution.

                Now, I will agree that SCOTUS has extended the “power to regulate” beyond the original intent of “interstate” commerce.

                However, this does not negate the fact that their lousy rulings have established LAW.

                Law that we have only a few ways to address. Simply calling BS and ignoring them is not going to be very effective. Unless there is a large number doing so. That is in essence what is happening with the Pot laws. By states passing legalization laws it is sending a message to the Fed that they have overstepped.

                But that does not mean the Fed cannot crack down, under the Law. So why don’t they?

                Either they really agree, or they don’t won’t to upset the apple cart. In other words, they are afraid to enflame to much of the public at once.

                Frankly, with this administration I am not sure which it is. They flex their muscle one minute then back off the next. Much like their campaigning. Always trying to have it both ways.

              • Take for example their taking the German Home Schooling family to court to deny them refugee status just to make their stupid assed point, and then letting them stay anyway.

  24. OH SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We are sending F-15s to Poland to pressure Putin. Of all the Stupid, Moronic, Dumbass things to do!!!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Well gee whiz, alert the troops, fire up the transports……the dogs of war may be abarking yet again.

      Yes sir, modern rules are so effective at preventing war to decide outcomes.

      I’d love to make some pointed remarks but I’d be turned in for sedition or treason….lol

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Yet, I believe it is an empty gesture – those F-15’s I mean. In today’s world the US on fights when they know they can beat up the targeted country. Russia we can’t. Though I wonder if the government has learned from history about attacking Russia?

        • Obama’s trying to save some of his sorry ass face. He’s a useless piece of shit and has no business in the job he’s in. Sissy Boy can’t hold Putin’s jockstrap in this issue.

    • LOL, a whole 6 F-15’s BWAHAHAHAHA! Obama can’t even save face without looking like a sissy boy 😆

  25. plainlyspoken says:

    VH, what assets of ours in Putin threatening? Freezing our assets in Russia. as we have already basically said first that we will do that to them.

    • US companies operating in Russia is what they’re referring to. Pepsi, Coke, Exxon Mobil all operate to the tune of billions in Russia. It won’t hurt us as a nation nut those companies will be hurt..and could ultimately get out of the USA.

      • nut=but, duh

      • plainlyspoken says:

        So, that’s the price of doing business. We don’t go to war over something that silly. I didn’t see us go into Venezuela when Chavez nationalized multinational businesses there. If Pepsi, Coke, and Exxon get tossed out on their asses – oh well.

        • And I’m not suggesting that we should.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Didn’t say you were VH. I was looking for more information and responded to Anita’s post is all. I’m not saying she said we should either – for the record. 🙂

      • Anita, I think your making some assumptions here. There are Russians who are stakeholders in American companies in Russia, so the impact would likely be nothing. Now, with holding debt payments to US banks, dumping US dollars and treasuries is another thing.

        • Not assuming a thing. Just relaying what I’ve been reading. It’s not just US assets, it’s all foreign assets there. Don’t know how smart of a threat it is. Who would want to invest in Russia under threats like that?

          • I wouldn’t worry much, Putin has the control and Obama will lay down like the little sissy boy that he is. We have no business interfering in that region anyway. Putin owns the spigots that feed natural gas to a lot of Europe, I doubt the EU will back up Obutthead knowing this. 🙂

  26. Anita….seizing assets in foreign companies has been happening for a long time. Every time Mexico gets pissed at us, they do the same thing….then release them. The only people that get hurt are those in the stock market…as it will affect not only the stock market here but the European one as well. Putin is no dummy. He also knows that any confiscation of assets there will lead to the same here.

    I do not know why we are worrying about the Ukraine…let whatever happens….happen. The best thing the US could do is just shut up….pull the funding from NATO and pull the funding from the UN. That will get some attention.

    Sending F16’s to Poland…..symbolic. It is an election year and the Dems are in trouble. They scream and yell when Bush rattles sabers….well, they are doing the same thing. There is going to be no repercussions to Russia from us nor Europe. Putin has what he wants…and will not give it back. in two more weeks he will have all of Ukraine and then have his hand on the spigot to Europe. That is what I would do if I was Putin…Turn oil and gas off for one day….let Europe go dark for 24 hours….they will walk lock step.

    • I have to ask-it’s in our natural interest to have Europe walk in lock step with Russia?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        How does it hurt it anymore than any other? If that’s what the Europeans want to do, that is their issue. Why would it be of our national interest? What do the Europeans really have to offer us?

      • VH….whether Europe walks in lock step or not is their business. Europe has lived under the Soviet/Russian threat for decades…and it will continue to do so. Now, your post said natural interest and I suppose you meant National interest.

        The answer is it does not matter… long as our dollar continues…it does not matter.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I already has his hand on the oil spigot and natural gas valve. At the eastern side of Ukraine instead of the Western border. So what. He’ll play that card first on Ukraine, then Europe if they go beyond rhetoric. Congress is considering changing the export laws for crude oil and natural gas. I assume to counter act any losses to Europe. Just like we sent refined gas to Europe after the debacle in Libya and them losing 80% of Libya’s output due to anarchy incited by the west.

  27. plainlyspoken says:

    OK JAC, down here.

    Why is legalized pot in a state the business of the feds then?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Oh, and for the record I think there are a lot of things that are no business of the feds, just the States. None of means the feds won’t make it their business.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Yes JAC, SCOTUS overreached in the regulate rulings more than once. I agree. I also agree under our laws that give the feds all the authority they need to top their laws.

      Yet, it doesn’t mean it is any of their business in the first place. I can ignore it at my peril, especially since I feel that once the federal government takes an authority on they are not willing to ever give it up. They will – in my opinion – just continue to build upon that authority and both sides do just that.

      • JAC: 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

        You can’t just change the meaning to agree with your view. it clearly states that what they can regulate, MUST be among the several states, therefore, they have NO POWER to outlaw, but only to regulate commerce “AMONG the STATES” . If something is outlawed, then there is no commerce to regulate. Try again!

        • plainlyspoken says:

          No G, not that simple. “We the People” gave the country SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of any laws. If SCOTUS says it is constitutional, then it is law. The only way to overturn the SCOTUS is through legislative action.

          So, basically we are screwed either way when the people, or part of the people, disagree.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          To outlaw a commercial product is regulating its trade between states. It is prohibiting trade under the authority to regulate.

          I am not changing the meaning of the words. The notion that regulation only means to make trade regular between states is NOT SUPPORTED by the historical record.

        • uh oh G. Looks like the states were the first to outlaw marijuana

          • I’m fine with the States doing it, it’s within their authority. Non issue my dear!

          • plainlyspoken says:

            yep appears so. then the feds got in on the act in ’37, then said during WW2 – grow hemp, we need it; then outlawed it again. Funny how that works.

            They didn’t care, they cared, then didn’t care, then cared again. oy vey.

            • Anybody know why it was outlawed to begin with? Hint: it had nothing to do with getting high.

              • How about you just tell us your theory instead of playing gotcha.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Here G:

                he Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

                Marijuana was outlawed at the national level in the US by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. (Note that the US Government has traditionally used the spelling “marihuana”.) There were a number of reasons given for its passage in the congressional testimony. The quotes included:

                Two weeks ago a sex-mad degenerate, named Lee Fernandez, brutally attacked a young Alamosa girl. He was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to 10 to 14 years in the state penitentiary. Police officers here know definitely that Fernandez was under the influence of marihuana. But this case is one in hundreds of murders, rapes, petty crimes, insanity that has occurred in southern Colorado in recent years.
                I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That’s why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.
                Did you read of the Drain murder case in Pueblo recently? Marihuana is believed to have been used by one of the bloody murderers.
                . . .a boy and a girl . . . lost their senses so completely after smoking marihuana that they eloped and were married.
                It is commonly used as an aphrodisiac, and its continued use leads to impotency.
                Practically every article written on the effects of the marihuana weed will tell of deeds committed without the knowledge of the culprit, while he was under the influence of this drug. . . . “A man under the influence of marihuana actually decapitated his best friend; and then, coming out of the effects of the drug, was as horrified as anyone over what he had done” (9). Then we have the case of a young boy in Florida. The story runs as follows: “A young boy who had become addicted to smoking marihuana cigarettes, in a fit of frenzy because, as he stated while still under the marihuana influence, a number of people were trying to cut off his arms and legs, seized an axe and killed his father, mother, two brothers and a sister, wiping out the entire family except himself.” (10)

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That’s why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.

                🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

              • Yea, that’s some serious bullshit there. A se-mad whatever high on pot, BWAHAHAHAHA! that’s so terribly stupid and unbelievable, But, I will digress for a few. Pot, better known as hemp, was demonized because it was a serious competitor to the cotton industry. Just like today, lets pad a few pockets of some politicians and poof, away goes the competition. Now you can see just how long, if not longer, that the feds have been representing special interests and big money. Nothing really new to see here, just put on your rose colored glasses and go vote 🙄

              • Do you also know why the spelling has changed? I do.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        As I have said here many times. What should be and what is are not aligned in many cases.

        Until we establish a solid moral/ethical foundation and then base our govt and laws upon those standards we will continue to have these discrepancies and contradictions.

        And even then, it will be a constant challenge to keep the Beast in its cage.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          And that moral/ethical code will not be agreed upon due to the differences of opinions/beliefs of people. So the discrepancies will always be present. The Beast got out and it will not be recaged.

        • JAC, I used to have so little patience with that line of attack. I see why it’s necessary much more clearly now. Been wanting to give you an atta boy for your persistence for some time now. Just don’t ask me what my or the country’s principles are.

          • The failure of JAC’s statement is that the nations morals are heading down into and below the gutter. You should see that. Persistence in wanting the unachievable is akin to living in a fantasyland, which seems to be the case far too often.

            • Welp. I guess we can’t count on you to help turn things around. You deserve exactly what they give you.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Welp, I guess so. 🙂 Good for you that you believe, the R’s or Tea Partiers, or whomever will love that you are there helping to legitimize their actions.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Now if they’d put an “abstain” choice on each vote we might – over time – be able to really show what the people think. Hell, I’d vote nationally then.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            • Maybe you should be reminded that we have people playing the knockout game, committing murders with no remorse, raping and mutilating innocent people just as to be accepted by a gang. Or maybe all those who think the sun revolves around the earth would make a good group to go with. Wink at yourself in the mirror when you think that the folks who have made a living collecting welfare checks and those hooked on government protected heroine should have a place in your moral government, when the government itself is no more moral that the dregs of society. You really love you some government. You can keep them and when you are licking their boots, remember who warned you. 😉 😉

              • Is this necessary?

              • Hell NO, Anita, it’s NOT! It’s ridiculous to talk down to and ridicule you for voicing your opinion. Also because you vote. SO DO I!! And if y’all think it’s stupid, you can kiss my Country White ASS.

                If you don’t want to vote, that is just fine with me. That’s your prerogative. But don’t laugh at the rest of us because we do. Our vote may not do any good, may not make any difference. But your NOT voting sure as HELL doesn’t make any difference.

                If NOBODY voted, I would be right there with them. We would then be making a difference by not voting. Just imagine that! But as long as there are Liberals out there voting for outright MORONS like Obama and even worse, Biden, or Billary, I’ll just have to keep voting, thank you very much.

                Voting for Tea Partiers and Conservatives may not make things a lot better, but they are sure little dog turds better than the CURRENT Asshats in office.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                daaamn G.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Having said that, the national government will never be changed from the selfish it that it is now through law. Ain’t going to ever happen in my opinion.

          • I agree with you far more than not. We are screwed, our kids are screwed worse if we don’t effect some kind of positive change. As long as people like McCain and Pelosi and Reid keep getting elected, elections are a farce. Those who think it can change things are in denial.

  28. OFF SUBJECT: I will put up a new thread in the morning due to the high volume of posts today. This helps speed up loading times for folks. I will also be absent (except for phone) most of the day and will be limited on my replies (no jumping for joy, LOL).

    Now back to your debates!

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    I am confused Sir. You said the incumbents took a beating.

    But I could only find a couple of R races where the incumbent was forced into a run off.

    The Lt. Gov seems to be the only major player that took a beatin.

    Couldn’t help but notice the R Govt winner got more votes than ALL democrats combined. BUT……….. how many D’s voted in the R primary in hopes of getting the “right” opponent?

    My take on the Texas primary is that INCUMBANCY still rules.

    So I guess I would need more info on the candidates to determine which way the wind is blowing.

    One other question. You alluded to NO TEA PARTY types as you don’t go for the right wing fringe. Where I come from the Tea Party may be right wing but they are the ones opposing wars every where, balancing the budgets, reducing the debt, halting subsidies, etc.

    So who are the “tea party” types in Texas?? Cruz would be a close fit for a Tea Party guy in Montana or Oregon, maybe even Idaho.

  30. plainlyspoken says:


    Hmm, seems the SUFA Congress has been adjourned for the day. 🙂

    • Whats the matter?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Nothing….I have been waiting for the next side topic conversation with JAC. Guess that’ll wait for another day. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not at all. Waiting for questions.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Question, if 3/4ths of the states legalize pot is the federal law then invalid or still the supreme law to be followed?

        • I think you know the answer to that question…

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Hello Buck, how’s it going?

            I know what would be said legally, I am looking for personal beliefs. What say you, personally?

            • Pretty good Plainly, you? Was reading along earlier with your whole back and forth with JAC – made for some good entertainment to take my mind off the piles of work!

              Legally – federal law remains supreme

              Personally – federal law remains supreme

              What say you?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Doing good too, thanks. Glad I could entertain you with my misguided beliefs. 😉

                Legally – federal law rules

                Personally – Federal law nullified (just my opinion of course).

          • Good idea for an Amendment 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          It remains the supreme law.

          However, the Executive would probably not be enforcing it, or would only help enforce it in the other 25% of the States who do not legalize it.

          Large scale action by States can have a “nullification” affect. But I would think that if 75% of the states would pass a law in conflict with Fed law you would see their Senators and Congressmen act to eliminate the Federal Law in the first place.

          Unless they need a little nudging. In which case the States passing such laws will give the Congress the courage they need to act.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            And see, here’s the problem – in my opinion. It shouldn’t be if that many of the people, through their state legislatures, say otherwise. At some point it should nullify the federal law, unless we are discussing a clear and unambiguous Constitution Clause or Amendment (yes, I hear the words “Commerce Clause” echoing my way already).

            How much more friendly could the nudging be at that point? Nice, peaceful show of the will of the people.

            • Oooooh me! Over here!

              Supremacy Clause!!

              I know in your opinion it should be otherwise, but it ain’t. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Here’s an honest question (though my other was offered honestly too).

        Does does government sanctioned killing outside of any battle zone, become assassination?

        • plainlyspoken says:

          oy, not “Does does” but “When does”

        • It’s always assassination. The battlefield is one thing, downtown Toronto is another.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          When it targets “civilians” or those NOT tied to the nation we are at war with??

          I add ???? because I don’t remember the International Law on this.

          Will have to do some checking. My instinctive reaction is if we target anyone outside the Govt structure of the country we are at war with.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          What a fun little ride in the law field. Many articles saying any assassination is illegal under Geneva. But virtually all of them are opinions about bin Laden’s death. Biased to say the least.

          Then I found one where the guy gives a great legal explanation of when “target killing” aka “assassinations” are legal under Geneva Conventions. Was similar to my assumption except that it is limited to those within the general combat zones. I think. It was created around the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

          Then I found another lawyer who completely disagrees when it comes to POTUS. Clearly assassinations are illegal, per this guy. EXCEPT in the following case:

          ” (c)(4) Can a foreign leader deemed a lawful combatant be assassinated?

          It is evident from the above analysis that any attempt by the President to assassinate the foreign leader of a sovereign nation engaged in hostilities against the United States would be deemed both a violation of international law, and a violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. However, this conclusion is only correct if the foreign leader is not classified as a “participant” or “combatant” of the armed conflict under international law. If the target of the assassination, the foreign leader, is a participant or legitimate combatant, then the assassination could not be classified as a willful killing. So what exactly constitutes a combatant or participant?

          Under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict who upon capture qualifies for prisoner of war status.[102] The Third Geneva Convention identifies lawful combatants, entitled to prisoner of war satatus, as members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, but have distinctive signs, carry arms, and conduct operations according to the rules of war, or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[103] Accordingly, if the foreign leader targeted for assassination serves in a military capacity and takes a direct role in the armed hostilities, he could be qualified a lawful combatant and thus a legitimate target for elimination within the armed conflict.

          The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the President’s constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to identify which forces and persons to engage, capture, or detain during an armed conflict.[104] Given the status of a foreign head of state as an elected official protected under international law, classifying the targeted foreign leader a lawful combatant could be a difficult task, unless he or she is clearly engaged as a participant in the conflict. On the other hand, killing a foreign leader who directs his state’s armed forces in an armed conflict would not be a war crime and would not violate the War Crimes Act of 1996. ”

          My read on this is guys who go around wearing military garb and like issue orders on the battlefield are fair game, even when they are sitting some place else.

          By the way, the “legality” issue always comes back to the issue of combatants vs. non combatants in Geneva. It looks like civilian “officials” of the other country are NOT combatants, and would thus be subject to “trial” of some kind before they could be executed.

          I am not sure whether that protection applies to Military Officers not on the battlefield.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            So, has the US, at any time since 9/11 assassinated someone versus killing them lawfully? And what of those who die in the collateral damage during the killing?

            • I just remember the chaos after Vietnam and Watergate. Between Bobby Kennedy and the CIA trying to knock off Castro, The Diem assassinations in Vietnam. Lamumba in the Congo, the Phoenix program in Vietnam and a host of other CIA “proposals”, the congress went nuts. Gerry Ford signed an EO in the ’70’s banning political assassination . I believe Carter strengthened it.


              In my opinion the current and previous president have been using their phones and phones and ignoring it.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The US citizen turned Taliban that was killed by drone would I think qualify. However, as with all these laws there are avenues to make it legal. Like the Theater of operations. Remember, we declared it was global.

              If the target is legal then collateral damage is legal. I do know that much.

              By the way, the word “assassination” was not actually in the Geneva accords or in the law I read pieces of. They refer to protected classes and authorized or legal killing/targeting etc.

              Those who use “assassination” are using it for a “psychological” affect on the audience, I think. Most of the discussions on legality of “assassination” deal with targeting other National Leaders or Officials.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I understand what you are saying. Not sure I agree on the collateral damage though.

                We could spend a day on the concept of declaring a world wide war on terrorism too I think.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The “legality” of collateral damage is a matter of “law”. Not our opinions.

              As I said, IF the target is legal under the law then collateral damage is legal. This meaning that war crimes cannot be brought for the attack which kills innocent people.

              So as for the drone attacks in Pakistan. If the strike targets are legal then the collateral damage, people killed, is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.

    • Question. Should a person who has proclaimed themselves to be against any portion of the Bill of Rights be permitted to hold public office?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        G, that’s not a Constitutional requirement one must meet.

      • Of course they should. First of all you can advocate just about anything these days and safely too! Things that would have earned you a night in the hoosegow awhile back or at least a punch in the mouth are now fine to say.

        Secondly the Bill or Rights no longer means anything, period. A judge can re-interpret it, a president can use his pen and phone and it is gone.

        Like Matt says, the meanings of words change over time and the Constitution, is, after all, a living breathing document.

        The pretty words remain, archaic though they are but the meaning, in the New World Order, in “1984”, whatever they say it means.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh Lord, the IRONY is so thick you can see it.

    “On May 4, 2012, the Board or Immigration accepted Homeland Security’s argument that since German law prevented everyone from homeschooling, the Romeike family did not have a legitimate case that they were being persecuted.

    On May 14, 2013, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Board of Immigration’s decision because “the German authorities have not singled out the Romeikes in particular or homeschoolers in general for prosecution.””

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Sounds like a sound ruling from a dysfunctional government. But, alas, the law is the law.

    • And, they will not deport them, after all the tax dollars spent in this case, actual justice happens, despite the rulings.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        What makes you say the government won’t deport them?

        • They said as much several days ago. This is old news to those of us who have gotten away from the MSM. I know folks don’t like PrisonPlanet and such, but their much more on the ball than FOX and the rest of the corporate whore media 🙂

          • plainlyspoken says:

            naw, won’t work, They aren’t some downtrodden, poor, liberal family – just a conservative home-schooler. lol. You know how the government hates them kinds of people. 😉

            • Yea I do, but the Feds have said they will not deport. Considering the circumstances with the illegal aliens they want on the voter roles, I don’t think they wanted to go that route.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What Homeland Security gives, Homeland Security can take away.

        Just wait until the media attention disappears.

  32. plainlyspoken says:
  33. plainlyspoken says:

    Massachusetts court says ‘upskirt’ photos are legal

    (CNN) — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person’s clothing — a practice known as “upskirting” — prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

    The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

    “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.

    Yes sir, there’s so much to be said for the rule of law!

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    This is just say cool. This young man was a classmate of Lil’ JAC. I’m guessing he wouldn’t recognize him now, he has grown 3 inches and put on a bunch of weight.

%d bloggers like this: