JAC’s new post

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a major Environmental Protection Agency regulation that forces states to limit air pollution that drifts across state lines, which could result in even more regulations on the coal industry.

Justices sided with the EPA in a 6 to 2 decision, saying that the agency’s rule that states should regulate smog and soot emissions from power plants did not violate the Clean Air Act, reversing a lower court decision striking down the rule.

“In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators must account for the vagaries of the wind,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority opinion. “EPA’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States, we hold, is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.”

The court’s decision was cheered by the EPA and environmentalists, who argued it was a victory for public health.

“This is great news for millions of people who suffer from serious health problems caused by the soot and smog-causing pollution from power plants in other states,” said John Walke, director of the Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Implementation of these long overdue protections will prevent thousands of premature deaths and save tens of billions of dollars a year in health costs.”

Republicans and the coal industry have blasted the decision, saying it imposes huge burdens on power producers and lessens states’ ability to set its own environmental standards. Fourteen states and several power companies sued the EPA over the rule, saying it put undue burdens on some states without regard to their actual contribution to cross-state air pollution.

“Upholding this rule will place a great deal of stress on Texas’ electricity grid,” said Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson. “When EPA issued the original rule, at least two Texas plants were scheduled for closure, now that the final rule has been upheld, we must prepare for plant closures and further strains on reliability.”

The EPA implemented its so-called Cross-State Air Pollution (CSAPR) in 2011. The rule required 28 Midwestern and Southern states to reduce air pollution emissions that were drifting into the air space of states along the East Coast.



  1. I was also having issues with where things showed up. I explained to Charlie that I never saw anything GMan had posted that was a shot at him. I posted the “Give Peace a Chance” video as a reply to Charlie, but it showed up below & separate, not in his box as would be normal. And isn’t that funny, I fit Charlie & normal in the same sentence. Anyone have keyboard cleaning advice? I’m imagining Charlie having a lot of coffee spat on his over the years…

    Hope all appreciate the humor intended and gooooood morning SUFA….

    • ” I’m imagining Charlie having a lot of coffee spat on his over the years…”

      Now why would you expect that, LOI?

      • Charlie,

        For some reason, I just can’t picture you reacting to something that irks or amuses you quietly. Either laughing out loud or cursing with full hand gestures that people on TV or the computer will never see… Combine that with morning coffee while pecking at you “puter..

        “My Poor Charlie”
        I’ve been having fun at work. One of our gay men was working yesterday & asked a co-worker to help. The gay guy was on one side of a wall & shouted, “stick it in the hole” Charlie. Now I’m going to tell his girlfriend, keep the joke running for years…
        FYI, the workers for years have jokingly called the gay guy a “fudge packer”.

        Now honestly Charlie, no keyboard cleaning issues?

        • Us socialists are up far too early in the morning, LOI … I’m up at 3:30 (to work/write) .. I have 4-5 cups of espresso … then get ready for work … usually a pass on the elliptical (down 45 pounds in 2 months so far) … then I go to work … then I come and edit whatever I wrote earlier … then I watch a hockey playoff (or foreign film on Netflix) and go to sleep (and hopefully fall asleep) … I rarely have time to throw computer fits (although you’re right in assuming so … I have quite a few screwed up knuckles from punching walls and other objects (some that threw first) … but with age comes wisdom, even for socialists … I no longer hit walls. 🙂

          • although arguing with some in here is often like bashing my head into a wall, so maybe we don’t learn with age after all …

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Congrats on the weight loss. A tough battle for many.

          • Thanks Charlie, of course, all I heard was the part about me being right….

            • Thank you, G.
              Loi, that’s all ANY of us ever hears …

              • I.e., that (We) are right 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It’s like quitting smoking, it’s a constant battle, although I think the battle for weight control is harder. When I quit smoking, put on 25 lbs in no time. Talk about screwing up a wardrobe, LOL. But I’m keeping things at where I should be at my height. Spring helps as getting active again makes it alittle easier.

                Keep up the good fight, no one wants weight to be why they die early, smoking the same. PEACE. 🙂

  2. The federal government now consumes 31 percent of the U.S. economy due to trillions in spending and thousands of pages of costly regulations, according to a new report.

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank, put out a report on Tuesday saying that the regulatory costs of federal rules amounts to $1.863 trillion per year, or 11.1 percent of the U.S. economy. Combine this with the $3.454 trillion in federal spending last year and the U.S. federal government consumes 31 percent of the economy.

    U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.

    (article edited)

    Currently, the federal regulatory agencies are working on 3,305 regulations. Nearly half of these regulations are from one agency: the Environmental Protection Agency.

    EPA regulations make up 49.3 percent of all the rules currently being crafted by federal agencies. The EPA has announced some of the most controversial regulations during Obama’s tenure, most recently with rules aimed at redefining its authority under the Clean Water Act and carbon dioxide emissions limits for coal plants.

    The EPA is looking to redefine its powers under the Clean Water Act by changing the definition of “waters of the United States” to possibly include bodies of water on private property. The agency says it’s looking to create certainty by clearing up the confusion surrounding past court decisions, but Republicans have called it one of the biggest land grabs in history.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/#ixzz30NE5G1HZ

  3. We are all criminals in the eyes of the State.

    • Not true. We are innocent until someone in government decides we are guilty. Then they look at the thousands of laws & find something we are then guilty of…

      • Black Flag® says:

        We are all guilty until someone in government wishes to prosecute.

      • Black Flag® says:

        I meant:

        We are all guilty, and merely rest on the willingness of the government to prosecute.

  4. There is an easy solution to this…….and I hope we do it.

    The EPA implemented its so-called Cross-State Air Pollution (CSAPR) in 2011. The rule required 28 Midwestern and Southern states to reduce air pollution emissions that were drifting into the air space of states along the East Coast.

    Energy producing states……..do not sell energy to the East Coast….either that or triple the price to the east coast. Let supply and demand rule.

    • Careful Colonel, you’ll just give them more work to do, like writing some redistribute the energy regulations. That means no AC for Texas in July and August!

      Who are they going to fine in case of forest fires or volcanos?

      With all the Clean Air and Water regulations, wouldn’t this just come under local zoning ordinances?

  5. gmanfortruth says:


  6. Just A Citizen says:

    I suggest everyone go to page 38 of the ruling that LOI linked in the article.

    This is Scalia’s dissenting opinion and it explains the Constitutional Issues pretty clearly.

    Another example of how the Court has imposed its view of “reasonable” upon the law.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to pass the Clean Air Act or even the Clean Water Act???

    BUCK………….. time to step up my lawyer friend.

    • Asked and answered….

      “Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate
      Commerce . . . among the several States.” Federal legislative authority over interstate commerce is plenary, which means it is “complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution.” The Commerce Clause has served as the basis for nearly every major environmental and
      public health law passed by Congress, including the Clean Water Act. “

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am unaware of any Commerce involving the sale and transport of pollutants.

        So thank you for making my point.

        • Sigh.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Why the sigh? It is clear that pollution is NOT commerce. So Congress has taken authority it was not given. The SCOTUS has participated in this taking.

            Given the interpretation you apply, along with people like Ginsburg, the entire Constitution is a waste as there are only two applicable clauses which give congresss unlimited power over the people.

            These are the Commerce and Taxation clauses.

            • Wickard v. Filburn
              Share on facebook Share on email Share on print | More Sharing ServicesMore

              View this case and other resources at:
              Bloomberg Law

              Citation. 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942)

              Brief Fact Summary. The Appellee, Filburn (Appellee), produced wheat only for personal and local consumption. He was penalized for growing wheat in excess of his allotment allowed by the Department of Agriculture.

              Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may regulate the activities of entities totally apart from interstate commerce, if those activities affect interstate commerce.

              Facts. Appellee was an owner/operator of a small farm in Ohio. He sold milk, poultry, and eggs. He also grew a small crop of winter wheat every year. Appellee sold a portion of the wheat, used some as feed for poultry and livestock, used some to make flour for home consumption, and the kept the rest for the following seeding. Pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Act), the Appellee’s 1941 wheat allotment was 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels per acre. In the Fall of 1940, however, he planted 23 acres, which yielded 239 bushels from his excess acreage. He was assessed penalties on this amount of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11.

              Issue. May Congress regulate purely intrastate activities under the commerce clause?

              Held. Yes. Appeals court ruling reversed and remanded.
              Although the wheat may be entirely for personal consumption, it does compete for wheat in commerce, by taking away the demand for wheat by the one who grows it. As the one growing the wheat does not have to buy wheat, the demand for wheat goes down. When viewed in the aggregate (if everyone overgrew wheat “for personal consumption”), this decrease in demand would have a significant effect on interstate commerce.
              The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) acknowledges that the effect of the single farmer may well be negligible to interstate commerce, but when viewed in the aggregate of all farmers “similarly situated” it may significantly affect the value of wheat in commerce.

              Discussion. Wickard v. Filburn is in some ways the greatest exercise of the commerce power recognized by the Supreme Court. Note that the Supreme Court seems to say Congress can compel an individual to purchase wheat when the individual could grow wheat for personal consumption.


              • Just A Citizen says:


                Well done my dear lady. And now thanks to Justice Roberts, they cannot force you to purchase the wheat you do not need, or could grow, but they can tax the hell out of you for not buying the wheat as they tell you to do.

                But notice how easily Buck resorted to the plenary power of Congress to regulate Commerce as the “delegation of authority” regarding pollution. Which is not sold or traded nor is it even always associated with the commercial activity at all.

            • JAC,

              You may not agree but I know you are well versed in the legal argument here.

              Briefly put, take the Clean Water Act for instance – the commerce clause grants authority to the federal govt with respect to management of waterways, which includes the authority to regulate with respect to water pollution.

              Remember, the Commerce Clause grants authority to regulate (1) channels (2) instrumentalities and (3) activities with substantial affect. Pollution clearly falls within these categories.

              • Black Flag® says:


                “Remember, the Commerce Clause grants authority to regulate (1) channels (2) instrumentalities and (3) activities”

                No, it doesn’t. You just are parroting what someone else made up in a fantasy.

                It says
                ” To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

                It says nothing at all what you said it does.

              • BF – and what pray tell does regulate Commerce mean?

              • Black Flag® says:

                the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Yes, I understand the arguments and I most certainly disagree with them.

                Pollution unless in the form of some type which could prevent commercial traffic has nothing to do with “commerce”.

                The EPA through Congress is claiming authority over ALL streams tributary to those which might be considered “commercial lanes” if you will. Again, NOTHING to do with Commerce.

                The legal connection here for any waterway should be whether the regulation involves ACTUAL commercial activity on said water way and that such commercial activity is “interstate” in nature.

                As I said before, Congress and the Courts have simply created an authority from thin air.

                Now tell us what YOU believe to be true, rather than just reciting the Progressive “interpretation” view on this.

                Explain how even using the same argument it could apply to AIR pollutants.

              • Airways are also channels of commerce. Not to mention air pollution can have a substantial affect on commerce and the fact that air pollutants cross state boundaries…same arguments for clean water act apply to clean air act.

                The issue here is your insistence on a very narrow view of “Commerce” versus a more broad and expansive view. Why is your interpretation correct? Case law going back to the early 1800s supports a more expansive view…

              • Black Flag® says:

                Claiming case law is an utterly nonsensical argument. It is no surprise that a central government seeks to expand its powers over the lives of the people by plying any and all arguments (weak or not) to the fullest extent it possibly can.

                All this line of argument makes you is a parrot of other politicians.

              • Just A Citizen says:



                Because the Constitution has a purpose and the ever expanding “expansive” view undermines that very purpose.

                There are no provisions in the document regarding pollution for the sake of pollution nor giving Congress authority over public health and safety. Yet Congress has assumed this under an ever expanding record of Judicial Activist Support. Notice Ginsburg’s latest argument that Congress’s inability to resolve a or overturn a prior Courts’ ruling is evidence of their “acceptance” of such a ruling.

                Doesn’t matter that only 4 or 5 have to agree on the court but a majority of BOTH houses and the President are required to make a law to fix their BAD RULINGS.

                That is NOT a balance of power.

                By the way, PEOPLE cross state lines also. Does that give Congress and thus the EPA the authority to regulate PEOPLE in any and all fashion? Regardless of their activities.

                Is this the supposed claim of authority to set rules for “labor”?? Because labor is people and people can move.

                If these interpretations were valid, and yes I know they go way back, then as Madison said, why didn’t the Convention simply include only the taxation and commerce clauses in the Section 8 list of authorities granted??

              • Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective-has there been any cases where the supreme court said No to congress based on the commerce clause. Except for Obamacare which they okayed using the taxation clause. Is there anything they cannot regulate?

              • Black Flag® says:

                According the the government and the parrot named Buck, the 16 words in the Commerce Clause gives the Feds the right to do anything it wants to anyone it wants any time it wants.

              • Yup BF, you got me – I am nothing more than a parrot. Sheesh!

              • Buck,
                My comment is accurate. You merely agree to the Fed’s use of the Commerce clause – not based on any thing YOU think, but because others politicians and their minions say that use is “correct”.

                You are a lawyer, no doubt. You do not think about the laws themselves, you merely apply the laws as they are told they apply.

                You work in the framework, you do not ask the questions nor ponder the framework itself.

              • Right. Because I disagree with you it must be because I am incapable of thinking for myself and am merely parroting what I’ve been told.

              • No, you provide no argument other then the fallacy of appeal to authority. You offer nothing else substantial other than “they said it, therefore it must be so”.

                As I repeat, you have no foundational principle, hence, you have no real argument.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    An absolutely great headline. From Malkin’s site.

    “EPA chief spends Earth Week crop dusting country with carbon emissions in desperate attempt to stave off climate change”

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    For those wondering about why Rand Paul says the things he does about the Republican party. He is trying to capture the “opportunity” represented in the following polling data:


  10. Just A Citizen says:


    Bacterial resistance to drugs is growing even greater. I wonder if I will live to see the pending disaster. I expect so at the rate these germs are mutating.


  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Some interesting information and thought provoking on the issue of wage discrimination. Or as they say, not all is as it seems.


  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Follow Up:

    On the prior discussions of legalizing POT. Perhaps there are some bad side affects after all. Maybe there are lasting impacts to the brain. Perhaps, as I claimed would happen, taxation has maintained the black market instead of eliminating it.


  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Another victim of Anti-trust laws and arrogant judges.


  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Follow Up: The Colonel’s commentary on the Syrian civil war.

    Warning: The pitfalls that can come with revolution.


  15. PEACE back at G … and the rest a’yous …

    I dropped big tonnage before I married the Principessa (current wife … #4 for the moral majority) … but I found it … plus some more … this time it has to do with my bucket list. I want to play in a senior hockey league (my new love) and score a hat trick. I will lose all the weight, but make no mistake. I love to eat too much to die a skinny/healthy man. I know it doesn’t make sense … but it’s me.

    Now, interesting article here from Kareem Jabbar. http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

    • You better blaspheme the NAACP too Charlie. I guess you can be racist as long as you donate! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmesX5vIcAEyNub.jpg

      • Yes, Anita, my love. The NAACP are just as prone to corruption as every Congressman, Senator and President … you can buy anything in America! 🙂

    • Got a lot of respect for his comments.

      He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then?

      Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

      Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he’s just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn’t lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He’s just another jerk with more money than brains.

      So, if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.

      The big question is “What should be done next?” I hope Sterling loses his franchise. I hope whoever made this illegal tape is sent to prison.

      • Also read something about him having a wife involved in running the Clippers? But nobody comments on him having young girlfriends, etc…

        • I can live with his young girlfriend … let’s face it, he was paying for that (and will continue to do so) through his ugly nose … I don’t really care that he owns a team … I’d rather see his players not show up and boycott (take the financial hit). I’d have more respect for them if they did that. Right now, as far as I’m concerned, it’s over. A billionaire racist has been exposed … big deal. I’m sure there are many, many more … they have to live with themselves.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Mornin Charlie 🙂 He was exposed a long time ago, it’s just that the tape finally blew the door off (I have been hearing reports that the tape can’t be verified, by the way). We should be very careful how people like this are treated after simply expressing their views. I’m not sure what kinds of contract issues he had to sign to own a team in the NBA, at the moment I’m leaning towards the NBA following those contract rules, so based on that I would support them.

            Now, as far as punishing someone for privately made comments, I can’t support that part of it. Protecting free speech wasn’t about just protecting the speech we all like, but protecting the crap we don’t like. What’s next, say something bad about Islam and get thrown in jail? Deride Jihadist’s in a private email and get fired from your job?

            The old man was a bigot and will die a bigot. His generation was full of bigots, our generation and newer ones will be less and less likely to be that way, as long as nothing happens that changes the current path we are on. Skin color don’t matter, we all bleed red. 🙂

          • I don’t agree it’s over or we have ignored what Kareem stated. He was able to buy off people to get away with discrimination. Who/how/where & does anything need to be done to prevent this? I would advocated transparency & making it public.

            Another point, he was illegally wiretapped. A criminal act. I would expect charges to be filed & her hand slapped, but not for it to be ignored/allowed.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” Got a lot of respect for his comments ”

        Indeed. He makes some excellent points. Mr. Jabbar understands the true nature of evil. Discerning the difference gives him wisdom.

        ” He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then? ”

        It’s not such a big deal when people are trying to find a home, but it makes for good bread and circuses? What does that say?

        ” The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it. ”

        When something like this comes up, people see it as an opportunity for entertainment, social castration, banishment and ridicule rather than an opportunity to learn something. It is more akin to a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy on one of their own wounded.

        Why not see it as an opportunity to learn and grow? Instead of identifying the root issue and trying to resolve it, we would rather just bash them. We attach our ego to social norms. We conform in order to gain acceptance into the herd, and when these things come to light, we reaffirm our position by declaring them unacceptable.

        How can we use it to free his mind, and to free other minds?

        ” Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. ”

        The devaluing of someone’s rights is a devaluing of rights as a whole, including your own. We don’t mind that his private conversation was leaked, but would sure not like it if it happens to us?

        How many times have you been faced with an issue that you hadn’t resolved, and vented or said things you don’t really mean or out of ignorance and/or have since come to terms with? Is this not typical human behavior? Why do we not look at ourselves like we do people like Mr. Sterling?

        Why would she do that to him? It wasn’t to try and help anything. It was a viscous attack…Evil.

        And society devours it like pigs at a trough. We make equal fools of ourselves as those we ridicule.

  16. Just A Citizen says:


    Good afternoon Sir. Hope things are battened down and warming.

    Spousal Unit Leader and I were trying to figure out this BLM effort to use “navigable rivers” to lay claim to private land along the Red River boundary.

    We could not figure out what is really going on here. Navigable Rivers are normally under State jurisdiction anyway. Unless the Feds are trying to lay claim to some Prior Water Right that predates Statehood. Very unlikely given Texas history but it might apply to the Oklahoma side of the line.

    Navigable status has nothing to do with land ownership adjacent to said waters and the public ownership or access rights are also dependent upon state laws. In Colorado, for example, adjoining owners can fence across streams to prevent others from moving along the stream. In Montana and Idaho that is strictly forbidden as the PUBLIC has access to the stream bottom and banks below the ordinary high water mark.

    Got any other information on this land grab that might enlighten the situation??

    • No sir…they are using navigable waters as a pretext….it will not fly at all. We have drawn the line….and unlike Obama…..we really have a line. Come and Take It…….I can promise you this…..as we have ignored Federal judges before….we will again,, No Federal Judge in Washington DC is going to tell Texas what to do. The BLM has suddenly grown silent because the the Governor, the AG, and the local law enforcement, unlike the Bundy situation in Nevada, have all joined against the Government. The power of the Texas government is behind the individual….he will not have to fight it alone. We simply are not scared of the Federal Government. ….so…..Come and Take It !!!!……

      A little history on the river boundary…..when floods come or flash flooding occurs, sometimes the river banks change….what was in Oklahoma once could be in Texas now and vice versa…..So, Texas and Oklahoma got together and forged an agreement on what happens when changes occur….since the changes redraw some of the border, we sent our agreement to Congress and they ratified it. There is a Federal Judge in Washington DC that claims that he has jurisdiction over that of Congress. We all know that to be bull dookey….SO…………the BLM wants to manage the changing boundaries….and since the land is privately owned with recorded deeds, they could not claim public domain…..so their pretext is through EPA on navigable waters…….the EPA regulations try to claim jurisdiction over all navigable waters and has defined such as even small creeks and streams….so, the BLM,,,,,in its inevitable wit ( cough cough) has decided that since the border changes so much at times, that they wish to claim it through imminent domain.

      Imminent domain in Texas flies like a fart in a whirlwind…..it does not, SO………good luck BLM,,,,,,Come and Take It….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You have offered pretty much the same thing as before. Still isn’t matching up with my experiences.

        EPA does claim some regulatory authority for Navigable Rivers under the Clean Water Act.

        However, that has nothing to do with OWNERSHIP of the land around the river. So I don’t understand what they are up to trying to link their authority under Clean Water with TAKING private land along the river just because it changes State location from time to time.

        Are they trying to claim that private ownership is contributing to the changing channel and thus resulting in stream degradation??

        What is the TAKING supposed to be for? There has to be a Public Benefit defined. Usually for Highway ROW, parks, airports, etc, etc.

        Do you have some link that could get me more detailed information??

        The changing ownership and Govt jurisdiction due to changes in river channels is not unique to Texas and Oklahoma, by the way. All I am aware of have similar agreements in place although they are located within a single state.

        Why did Congress have to sign off on the agreement? Did the two states agree to use the river as the State line regardless of its course?

        • Why did Congress have to sign off on the agreement? Did the two states agree to use the river as the State line regardless of its course?


          As to the other, let me find a link for you…I think I know where it is….however, I am just repeating what the rep from BLM was saying. Changing boundary lines requires BLM oversight regardless of whom owns the land….they are stating that they can take the land.

  17. For JAC:

    Boundaries of land abutting water are determined by erosion, accretion or evulsion, since rivers constantly change course, Patterson told Breitbart Texas. Since the land is privately owned, by farmers and ranchers who cultivate it and pay taxes on it, and since Texas receives royalties from the mineral rights, it makes sense that no one can manage the property better than its vested owners.

    If the federal government wants to wrestle control, it will have to conduct a thorough, lengthy and expensive survey to prove its case, and battle Texas in court, Patterson said. He also wondered about the government’s sudden interest in the Red River area, after more than 100 years of neglect.

    “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy,” Abbott, the attorney general, wrote on his agency’s website. “Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

  18. For JAC: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field Office responded to Breitbart Texas about the so-called Red River “land grab” by emphasizing that parcels in question are already held in the public domain and BLM-managed. The Bureau claims it is not they who are declaring the ownership but that settled case law long declared it to be government land.

    BLM Public Relations Specialist Paul McGuire agreed to a one-on-one telephone interview with Breitbart Texas after reading the original report published earlier this week. In contrast with the interview with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, McGuire expressed much more confidence about the ownership of the land and indicated little, if any, ambiguity about how or why the land should be under federal control.

    “It’s not the BLM making any such claim as to the status of the land,” McGuire said. “That land was a matter that the courts adjudicated decades ago, going back to the 1920s in fact. The Supreme Court settled the matter as to where the public land in the Red River was. So, BLM is really just proceeding on those earlier court decisions.”

    Both McGuire and Patterson agreed about the unique set of political and historical circumstances that led to this situation of confusing and apparently conflicting laws regarding the property ownership and control of land along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. However, there is disagreement on a couple of major sticking points.

    Commissioner Patterson believes strongly that, as part of the planning process, a survey project must be completed to determine exactly where the boundaries are located, and, if they have moved, what the cause of the movement was as the cause relates directly to ownership changes. Patterson also questions why the BLM suddenly feels the need to manage land they have ignored for decades–if not centuries.

    ***** the problem with this is that the ranchers and farmers actually own the land with deeds of trust….as well as a sign off from Congress on control and ownership.

  19. Hey, anyone who lives in the area, you are all welcome to come … and save some animals. James is a “good friend of mine” … 🙂 http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2014/04/kenos-animal-shelter-fund-raiser-this.html

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Question for Buck, Concerning the Commerce clause. How does the Commerce Clause all this authority that has been claimed by courts and politicians occur when the Constitution itself was written to “Limit” the Central Government from having this “unlimited” power?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Commerce Clause GRANT all…..

    • It isn’t an unlimited power. It is a plenary power.

      The problem with a strict constructionalist’s approach is the definition of “Commerce”. Despite BF’s belief, it is more expansive than merely the activity of trading goods/services. We’ve been through this debate before.

      • Here goes Buck, pretending 1 word – Commerce – is so expansive that it dominates and overrules the entire rest of the Constitution on limits upon federal powers.

        It has never been a debate, Buck, since you have never provided your principles upon which you place your opinions. You are steadfast in avoiding this fundamental.

        All you have ever done is parrot opinions of others – empty, though, since you cannot support these comments at all, expecting that “well, a bunch of old guys in very strange and funny clothes says its ‘ok'” makes a irrefutable argument.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        OK, But I’m not considering the definition in mu approach to the question. The Clause is “between” certain entities. That means to me that an action between two parties must occur to invoke authority. Yet, it seems as though this Plenary power is effectively unlimited. which is not the purpose of the Article 1 Section 8.

      • ple·na·ry
        adjective: plenary

        unqualified; absolute.
        “crusaders were offered a plenary indulgence by the pope”
        synonyms: unconditional, unlimited, unrestricted, unqualified, absolute, sweeping, comprehensive;

        So-just what are these limits?

        • Yes, plenary….with respect to the regulation of Commerce. There must be some tie in (see, necessary and proper clause).

          • Necessary and Proper Clause

            Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”.

            Necessary and proper is the tie end-Proper, well, I would think one would determine what is proper by defining commerce. So Buck, tell me-do you believe that if a person grows a home garden for personal consumption -it suddenly becomes not only commerce but commerce between the states?

            • No I don’t — hey, look, we have here a LIMIT! 🙂

              • BAZINGA!!!

              • Yet, in the case above, your belief has been disregarded. If you grow your own, and consume it yourself, you remove yourself from the purchase of commercially grown goods, and therefore affect the commerce of such. Ergo, the Feds -under your bizarre rules of commerce – can dictate home gardens.

          • There is no “tie in”.

            One states that the Feds can make laws within the limits of the Constitution.

            But you argue the Commerce clause -which is a limit- is actually unlimited. You believe Commerce is more then…just commerce. You can’t really justify why you believe commerce is something other than commerce other than appealing to others that state the same empty declaration.

            • And you can’t really justify why you believe Commerce only applies to the activity of trade itself…

              Back in the late 17th century it was understood by many that the phrase “Commerce” meant something more than your narrow definition. You conveniently ignore this fact.

              • Nonsense.

                The understanding of “Commerce” in the 17th century was a concept of “trade” –

                It is the Statist ilk that wishes to extend the definition to encompass all human activity, including defecating.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Where are you getting such an argument?

                Commerce of that period was more RESTRICTED than even what BF is describing.

                The application of Commerce to pollution does not happen in the USA until 1968. In what is described as a “novel” interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

              • The Founding Fathers, as you well know, disagreed on pretty much everything. There were many different ideas as to meaning and interpretation floating around back then, just as there are now.

                Commerce was in fact understood by many to encompass not just the activity of trade itself, but also of regulating the channels and instrumentalities of trade.

              • So, now you are willing to accept an archaic definition!

              • “but also of regulating the channels and instrumentalities of trade”. Buck can you name me something, anything that cannot be an instumentality of trade?

              • Black Flag® says:


                You are getting good at this! 🙂

              • VH — definition of instrumentality from the feds:

                § 776.29 Instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce.
                (a) Typical examples. Instrumentalities and channels which serve as the media for the movement of goods and persons in interstate commerce or for interstate communications include railroads, highways, city streets; telephone, gas, electric and pipe line systems; radio and television broadcasting facilities; rivers, canals and other waterways; airports; railroad, bus, truck or steamship terminals; freight depots, bridges, ferries, bays, harbors, docks, wharves, piers; ships, vehicles and aircraft which are regularly used in interstate commerce.

                Does that help clarify?

              • Black Flag® says:


                Yep, everything under the sun and shade …..

              • That’s too bad-I looked up the dictionary meaning of the word


                the fact or quality of serving as an instrument or means to an end; agency.
                “a corporate body can act only through the instrumentality of human beings”
                a thing that serves as an instrument or means to an end.
                plural noun: instrumentalities

                A means to an end-seems to fix perfectly this idea that Congress has unlimited power to regulate everything.

  21. @ JAC and everyone wondering what the commerce clause can and cannot do.

    REMINDER TO ALL: Many rules and regulations are passed without the knowledge and understanding of HOW. I SUGGEST THAT ALL PEOPLE READ THE FEDERAL REGISTER. This is where these stupid regulations come in…..

    For example…..it does not take a law to expand the meaning of the Commerce Act or any EPA expansion. One a law is passed…..it can be expanded through publication.

    Case in point…..how many of you know that the Clean Water Act is about to be expanded yet again? It does not have to be expanded through Congress…..it can be expanded through committee and rules making and posted in the Federal Register.

    Case in point: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. Determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on Monday, April 21, 2014. The public comment period will be open for 91 days and will close on Monday, July 21, 2014.

    Now…read it very carefully…..I have. Understand that the EPA and the COE have released a “proposed rule” to “clarify”…………….which means…..this is how we, meaning the EPA and CoE are going to interpret the SCOTUS ruling. Once they devise THEIR meaning of the SCOTUS…it is published and open for comment and then it becomes a rule. THAT is how it is done.

    I have warned people on here repeatedly about reading the Federal Register. All rule changes MUST be published and this is how they do it. Ever seen a Federal Register? Literally thousands of rules are made on the basis of interpretations of laws by agencies….if they are not protested and the hearings are held……THEY BECOME CHANGES. It is very easy to take a SCOTUS ruling and interpret it administratively and then make a rule USING a court decision as basis.

    Here is how it further works…….once an interpretation goes through a public hearing and a rule is passed…..SCOTUS has no control over the interpretation of the new rule. All none justices can sit in their little pretty robes and laugh about how a ruling is interpreted but they are powerless to intervene in administration rule making. It would take another law suit to wind its way through the courts on THAT SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION. Even then, the SCOTUS can throw it back.

    This is how rules are made folks………pretty simple. The Government knows that no one except very few will read a Federal Register much less show up in Washington DC for the open hearings. If you have never been to one….you should try it. But do not go there expecting to be heard. You will not be heard unless you follow UNPUBLISHED rules on how to be heard.

    It is a rigged system and the lawyers did it. Sorry BUCK…..not necessarily meaning you but your ilk. Decisions and rules are deliberately written for misinterpretation……….thus….allowing expansion.

    @ JAC…..the EPA has jurisdiction over what they define as navigable waters. Read the expansion rules currently being considered……it says that even a spring that would not even float a toy boat will be considered navigable IF it connects to a stream that connects to a river that connects to commerce bearing waterways

    • “Decisions and rules are deliberately written for misinterpretation……….thus….allowing expansion.”

      Colonel, I would just change one word of this sentence to read: “Decisions and rules are deliberately written [open] for interpretation….thus…allowing expansion”. And there you have it with respect to the constitution as well!

      Hope you’re doing well this fine foggy morning…

      • Teflon Prez, teflon rules..nothing sticks. Why bother with rules then if we can make them mean whatever we want them to mean? Not beating on you Buck, just a general statement.

        • NOw you have it Anita………now, take the position of the lawyers…..when an interpretation is made…….the only thing a lawyer will say is……..yes, I can see where they got that interpretation…….in law class ( I am giving up some info here )…..I was once told by my instructor…..” to write a contract that covers every conceivable in or out would stretch around the world three times…..and then still be “OPEN” for interpretation.”

          So, in the context of the Commerce Clause….it is not how it was written to begin with…it is how it has been interpreted through time and how the RULE CHANGES evolved in the interpretation.

      • HIya Buckster….all is well down here….loading our weapons, sharpening knives, eating fajitas, and drinking Margueritas…..

        Fair enough to the the word “OPEN”….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mornin Colonel, I’m aware of the rule change on the Clean water Act, which is nothing more than a land grab in my opinion. However, these are the types of actions that the feds are making that get them in trouble with the people, like the Nevada incident. I have also read cases where land is somehow considered wetlands because the water don’t soak in fast enough after a heavy rain. At this point, the Alphabet agencies are really not providing any proper service to the people, but just the opposite.

      Buck, My apologies as I didn’t offer a “Mornin” to ya, so Mornin 🙂 Speaking of the Nevada incident, where in the Constitution do the Feds get the authority to protect animals such as the Desert Tortoise and the Snail Darter?

      • Want to really blow your mind? Read the rules on “storm water runoff” and the pollutants it carries….that has been expanded, through the Federal Register, to the broad interpretation that if there is a storm that occurs 10 miles from you and the runoff crosses your land, you are responsible for the pollutants even if it did not occur on your land. Figure that one.

    • @JAC, et al

      As a ranching family, we have been through this before. The EPA wanting to inspect streams and creeks on your property to test for pollutants…..and, through the Federal Register, the EPA expanded their meaning of pollutants to include “wild life fecies that enters streams, lakes and waterways. The EPA actually interprets that a land owner must be responsible for bears shitting in the woods or fish peeing in the water,

      There is only one way to fight them and that is at the main gate. You have to do what we do….a standoff at the gate. The property owner MUST FORCE THE EPA to go to a judge to get a warrant……and it has to be a local judge. To secure a warrant, the EPA MUST have reasonable proof that pollution is occurring. Not suspicion but proof.

      Now, also published in the Fed Reg three years ago was a rule expanding the BLM…and that expansion includes the EPA…..meaning…..if the EPA has jurisdiction so does the BLM under the same rule. So, a navigable river ( which is hardly navigable even by rubber boat ) can be interpreted as to public use, therefore, the BLM claims oversight,. And it matters not to the BLM or the Federal Government if you have owned the land with deed and paid all the taxes.

      So, let’s take the Red River for example. It runs into the Sabine which empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Because the Sabine empties into the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico is “navigable”, the rule extension takes the Sabine and Red and considers them navigable. Consequently, they claim jurisdiction. Now, since the Gulf of Mexico and shoreline in Texas is in the “Defense Zone”, it is interpreted that the BLM has control since the public has access. Using thins analogy and the obscure meaning of the word navigable, the public should have access to “all waters that connect to public use areas”….this is their pretext.

      So, you have to do what we do….stand at the gate and refuse entry. When one small person fights and then another and another,…it will draw attention. The ranchers in TExas have the full force of the State of Texas behind them individually…..to mean that State money and the State AG will help fight the fight. Unlike Bundy, who does not have that kind of backing….we, Texans, are a bunch of “independent bastards” ***** and we will fight as a State.

      ******a label put on Texans by Eric Holder.

      • All that to mean…….” COME AND TAKE IT”.

      • What happens if I take a leak in the Red River? Will the EPA claim the right to navigate that stream & regulate it’s use? “mr. obama, can i go to the bathroom, pretty please?”

        • Well, if you take a leak in the Red….you will have to walk around to find the water….and it would be welcome….but…..if you leak into the Red….remember that you have the State of Texas covering your six…..( do NOT take that any further).

  22. The Federal Register (the daily newspaper of the Federal government) is a legal newspaper published every business day by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    Reading the Federal Register may be vital to you and your customers:

    If you need to know about the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government
    If your business is regulated by a Federal agency
    If you are an attorney practicing before a regulatory agency
    If your organization attends public hearings or meetings or applies for grants
    If you are concerned with Government actions that affect the environment, health care, financial services, exports, education, or other major public policy issues

    ************** READ THAT LAST SENTENCE.

  23. Where is the Federal Register available?

    To read or purchase copies of the Federal Register:

    Visit GPO’s FDsys, for free online access to Federal Register publications

    Visit any Federal Depository Library, http://www.gpo.gov/libraries/, for reference copies of Federal Register publications

    Visit GPO’s Electronic Bookstore, http://bookstore.gpo.gov

    Purchase by phone or fax:

    Telephone 202-512-1800, M-F, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Fax orders and inquiries to 202-512-2250 (anytime)

    Purchase by mail:

    Superintendent of Documents
    P.O. Box 371954
    Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

    Each issue of the Federal Register is organized into four categories:

    Presidential Documents, including Executive orders and proclamations
    Rules and Regulations, including policy statements and interpretations of rules
    Proposed Rules, including petitions for rule making and other advance proposals
    Notices, including scheduled hearings and meetings open to the public, grant applications, and administrative orders

    Documents published in the Federal Register as rules and proposed rules include citations to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to refer readers to the CFR parts affected. The CFR contains the complete and official text of agency regulations organized into fifty titles covering broad subject areas. The CFR is updated and published once a year in print, fiche and on-line formats.

    Federal agencies are required to publish notices of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to enable citizens to participate in the decision making process of the Government. This notice and comment procedure is simple.

    A proposed rule published in the Federal Register notifies the public of a pending regulation.
    Any person or organization may comment on it directly, either in writing, or orally at a hearing. Many agencies also accept comments online or via e-mail. The comment period varies, but it usually is 30, 60, or 90 days. For each notice, the Federal Register gives detailed instructions on how, when, and where a viewpoint may be expressed. In addition, agencies must list the name and telephone number of a person to contact for further information.
    When agencies publish final regulations in the Federal Register, they must address the significant issues raised in comments and discuss any changes made in response to them. Agencies also may use the notice and comment process to stay in contact with constituents and to solicit their views on various policy and program issues.

  24. Down here Anita………you are referring to intent, I believe. The founding fathers may have had the intention to limiting government….( which is what I believe ) but I come down on the side of conservative….

    Buck is correct in that interpretation is a hydra…..many heads…..and each unto its own.

    • Our resident barrister is feeling spunky today…..ebb and flow….signifies like waves crashing on the shore…they come..they go….with nothing definitive….therein…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….lies the problem.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The problem with his comment is that there is MOSTLY flow and only the occasional “ebb”.

        • Oh…..ummm…..you will notify me when you see the ebb? I have yet to encounter any.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The recent ruling that the Commerce Clause does NOT give Congress the authority to FORCE us to purchase Health Insurance. Small Ebb.

            Then it rules that Congress can FINE us for not buying said Insurance. More Flow, effectively negating the Ebb.

  25. It looks like the Bundy Standoff did one thing others failed to do, get the media/public attention. Everyone else went quietly…


    • This is true…..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Actually all of that was in the national media spotlight when it happened. It created much stir and anxiety along with many, many promises by Congressmen to fix the situation.

      Nothing of significance happened. SCOTUS undermined the lower court by deciding that criminal and civil charges could not me made against the Govt officials who acted in “conspiracy”.

      So the behavior continues, checked only by the personal honor or integrity of the officials in charge. Thus you get the BLM acting out under this Administration much like it acted under Clinton and under Carter.

      Every time a solution was pursued the DEMOCRATS in Congress tied to the Greens have torpedoed it.

      Once again I would like to offer that Helen Chenoweth was perhaps the most Honorable Politician I ever met. Probably because she was NOT a professional politician.

  26. Anybody watching the Benghazi hearings? Very interesting.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Navigable Waters
    Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.

    Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The distinction is particularly important in the case of so-called navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal government can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. It also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams. Generally a state or private property owner who is inconvenienced by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws of Eminent Domain would apply, which may lead to compensation for the landowner.

    The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.

    In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms. One area of this regulation covers matters of transportation and commerce: for example, rules governing the licensing of ships and the dumping of waste. A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled by federal law. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation’s navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A third area of regulation involves Workers’ Compensation claims. The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901–950). The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States.

    The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A quick note on the EPA changes involving water. This fits in very nicely with Agenda 21 and the beginnings of getting people away from water.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    COMMERCE from the Free Dictionary.

    Commerce Clause
    The provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states and with foreign countries and Indian tribes.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

    Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

    Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.

    The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between the groups of those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor. That disparity was the source of constant economic battles among the states. The exercise by Congress of its regulatory power has increased steadily with the growth and expansion of industry and means of transportation.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    I suggest you read the following for a good idea of how Federal Power has expanded beyond COMMERCE under that provision of Section 8.

    Buck, the framers did not have disagreement on what constituted commerce. Where there was difference was AFTER the ratification when it came to what constituted appropriate authority in “regulating” such commerce. Such as WHO had authority to license boats traveling on the major rivers or their version of the “interstate highway”.

    I will agree that the Power grabbing began soon after ratification. What the concept of WHAT constituted Commerce and the reason for that provision was not debated much at all.

    They were trying to stop the trade wars between States caused by State imposed Tariffs. They were not trying to control or regulate PRIVATE trade between people of different states.

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    per your comment:

    “The Founding Fathers, as you well know, disagreed on pretty much everything. There were many different ideas as to meaning and interpretation floating around back then, just as there are now.

    Commerce was in fact understood by many to encompass not just the activity of trade itself, but also of regulating the channels and instrumentalities of trade.”

    I disagree strongly. I think you are mixing up the concepts of what is Commerce and what “authority” exists relative to regulating said commerce.

    For interstate commerce to exist there had to be TRADE.

    What power existed relative to regulating said TRADE was the point of disagreement. Not what constituted commerce.

    There is no way in hell that the framers would have viewed the clear air or clean water act as having anything to do with commerce. As I said, the only connection to regulating interstate commerce for water pollution would be if that pollution actually impeded interstate commerce. Such as creating blockages in transport or creating undo burden on carriers in one state over the other, thus giving favor to one state over the other.

    There is no way they would have viewed interfering in the legal rights between employer and employee as authorized under the Commerce Clause.

    It seems you want to dismiss the power grab as nothing but evidence of historical disagreements. Yet those disagreements did not exist to the degree you claim. Your rationalization ignores all that was written by those pushing for ratification in order to allay the fears of those pushing for its rejection.

  31. New old topic….


    Key line:

    Adelman even notes the sheer difficulty of committing in-person voter fraud, throwing water on the claim that this could ever be common. “To commit voter-impersonation fraud,” he says, “a person would need to know the name of another person who is registered at a particular polling place, know the address of that person, know that the person has not yet voted, and also know that no one at the polls will realize that the impersonator is not the individual being impersonated.” He ends with a note that sounds like sarcasm, “Given that a person would have to be insane to commit voter-impersonation fraud, [the law] cannot be deemed a reasonable response to a potential problem.”

    Get to it!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Very simple. Who the hell is the judge to decide what the People feel is reasonable?

      The ONLY issue should be whether such rules ACTUALLY cause harm or impede rights of others. The charges of such an impact are based on nothing but SPECULATION by groups funding “studies” conducted by those sympathetic to stopping voter ID laws.

      WHY?? The States are granting FREE ID’s in response to these laws. So where is this supposed burden??

      And, once again I remind you that I witnessed just such a fraud. It went unchallenged and ignored by the County Clerk and Secretary of State. Both of whom happened to be in the party that was in power.

      Most people registered in a precinct are NOT KNOWN by those working at the polling place.

      • Please re-remind me — what specifically did you witness occur?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Phony signatures for two voters. Others claimed to have seen more as I was only there for an hour.

          • Was it reported? What happened? How do you know they were phony? Need much more information here…

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The signatures were grossly different.

              Yes it was reported. Along with numerous others.

              It was declared it could not be proven and was therefore NOT INVESTIGATED.

              I offer this not to declare this a major influence in this case. Only that it does happen and others have found examples. So these “rulings” are not based on existence but on “probability of magnitude” that such ID fraud exists.

              That it exists at all is enough because we are talking about local, county and state elections, not just POTUS.

              Ironically the arguments against ID are also based on “predictions” of “probability of magnitudes”.

              The arguments about large disenfranchisement simply do not pass the smell test.

              Now with that said, there is much fraud in our system but it comes in numerous forms and is practiced by all sides. Remember, once a person is registered it becomes easy to vote and very hard to challenge that vote.

              As I have said before, I see greater RISK associated with same day registration, mail in ballots and motor voting. But it ALL adds up.

              Then of course there is the whole issue of redistricting. Not just Districts for Congress but precincts within those districts.

              • I agree with you in one sense — the real issue with voter fraud is not the one or two minor incidents of in-person fraud, but systematic institutional fraud. For instance, issues with voting machines, voter access, and yes, I’ll say it, voter ID laws designed to place an additional burden on a citizen’s right to vote. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yet somehow, dead people vote, 108% of one district in Philly voted for Obama and one lady people have been caught voting more than once. One needs an ID for just about everything these days, as far as I’m concerned voter ID should be the law and computer voting should be outlawed and replaced with paper ballots counted by real people at least 3 times.

      • Sedgewick says:

        Computers are efficient, but are vulnerable to fraud.

        If, in addition to a computer vote, each voter were assigned carbon copied ballots, it could significantly reduce the potential for fraud. Have one copy for the voter to keep in their personal records, one copy that goes to the original ballot box, and another that goes to a third party for a separate count. Maybe even have another that goes directly into a storage vault.

        The computer count simply tells us in a timely manner.

        Two independent ballot counts keeps it honest. If there is ever a doubt, another set of ballots can be pulled out of storage. If all else fails, people can reaffirm their vote with the receipt in their files at home.

        Make it redundant similar to a cashier’s check complete with water marks and serial numbers, etc. …and requiring clear intent with boxes to check along with writing out the candidate’s name. Require proof of citizenship to acquire one.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          While the computer vote would give quick results, official results should come from paper votes counted, as much as 3 times.

          In addition, if one is totally dependent on welfare for existence and fit to work, no votes for them, period. This wouldn’t count those receiving “some” assistance on a temporary basis, but on total assistance. Can’t find a job, let’s spend that money they need to survive on and move them to where the work is, train them and give them 6 months to get their own place to live. This total assistance crap is BS and should not be allowed to continue.

          • “In addition, if one is totally dependent on welfare for existence and fit to work, no votes for them, period.”

            Not that tired argument again….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              YEP, just like that old tired disenfranchise argument 🙂 Too lazy to work, too lazy to vote too!

            • Black Flag® says:

              It is not a “tired argument” – it is absolutely a valid argument.

              When those that merely consume can dictate their demands to those that produce, the consequence ALWAYS will end in endless increasing consumption demands meeting ever decreasing production – leading to ultimate disaster.

        • gmanfortruth says:


          Whoops, that was Ohio. Snopes, by the way, is a Left Wing funded rag with zero credibility.

          • In that case, I’m really not sure how I can convince you that your claim is blatantly false….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              My memory was mistaken, LOL, it was 108% of eligible voters were “registered”. That is still unimportant to the point. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            It has nothing to do with the true point of my comment, voter fraud exists. ID requirements will help, not eliminate. Newer rules on absentee ballots are needed as well, limited to military overseas, those that are disabled and maybe the elderly (maybe). 😀

            • It has everything to do with your comment — you argue that voter fraud exists and then use a fake “fact” to prove your point.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Is your position that voter fraud doesn’t exist?

              • My position is that voter fraud of the type that voter ID laws would seek to stop is not prevalent in sufficient numbers to overcome the undue burden and potential for disenfranchisement they also carry.

                Is your position that voter ID laws carry no such burden whatsoever?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, I think the disenfranchisement argument is utter hogwash. While I agree that getting a drivers license that expire are a burden, it is a requirement to drive legally on public roads. Driving is not a right, neither is voting.

              • Actually voting is a right. It is the cornerstone for our system of government. A bit different from driving I’d say.

              • Black Flag® says:

                There is no such “right” as voting. Period.

                It is a grant given to one set of people, and refused to others. Thus, IT IS NOT A RIGHT.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Odd, if one is not a citizen, can’t vote. If one is in jail, can’t vote. I can think of other things but for brevity, I disagree, voting is a privilege, one that can be removed by government writ. Having fair elections is the cornerstone of this form of government, one that has been perverted by two criminal cartels called political parties. Now that the elections have been monopolized, elections occur, far from fair and far from getting representation by the people.

                No problems Buckster, we can disagree on this all day, it will change nothing. I don’t vote in Federal Elections anyway, useless in my book. Besides, it has changed from being represented to being ruled, I don’t consent to that at all 🙂

              • Your not making any sense here G — it is a right afforded to citizens. There must be a substantial interest at stake to strip an individual of this right (hence constitutional amendments prohibiting the “right to vote” being denied due to race/sex/age (if over 18). If one is in jail, they have been found guilty of a crime and are therefore deemed to have forfeited their right.

  32. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    On the subject of the Federal Register – they update the dang thing WEEKLY. Basically they propose and promulgate (finalize) so many new regulations so often that they HAVE to update the sucker on a weekly basis.

    That means that each week about 20% of the @#%! you did last week (that was legal) is no longer legal by the time you do it again this week. The following week, that remaining 80% will shrink by about 20% again. By the end of another decade, your “freedom” will be so infinitesimal that you won’t even realize that you have it anymore.

    By the way – GLOBAL sea ice is 1,000,000 square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL as of 4/30/14 (just the opposite of what the warmunists predicted). In fact, the place in Antarctica where the warmunists predicted the most rapid melting is precisely the specific area that (by percentage) has over double the “normal” amount of sea ice currently.

    I personally find that hilarious.

  33. Just A Citizen says:


    Sir, I have found the following regarding the changing boundaries of Navigable Waters caused by normal channel changes. I find it odd that they delineated a difference between slow and rapid changes. But note that the example refers to sandbars not pieces of land that were NOT within the original channel.

    329.13 Geographic Limits: Shifting boundaries.
    Permanent changes of the shoreline configuration result in similar alterations of the boundaries of the navigable waters of the United States. Thus, gradual changes which are due to natural causes and are perceptible only over some period of time constitute changes in the bed of a waterbody which also change the shoreline boundaries of the navigable waters of the United States. However, an area will remain “navigable in law,” even though no longer covered with water, whenever the change has occurred suddenly, or was caused by artificial forces intended to produce that change. For example, shifting sand bars within a river or estuary remain part of the navigable water of the United States, regardless that they may be dry at a particular point in time.

  34. Just A Citizen says:


    If I want to challenge a law in the court for causing me undo harm, by impeding my rights, I have to wait for actual harm to occur in order to have standing.

    So why is it these judges are willing to rule on voter ID without any REAL harm shown to ACTUALLY have existed?

    Why is STANDING waived in these cases?? They were not waived under the challenges to the Gay Marriage issue.

    • From my understanding these challenges to voter ID laws are facial challenges — the law is being challenged as unconstitutional on its face. No harm needs to be shown, especially since if the election is had and an individual is harmed as a result of the law, no redress can be had.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        A good case for why STRICT Immigration restrictions should be imposed.


        • Black Flag® says:


          The confusion always is between politics and economics.

          It makes absolutely no sense to prevent people from moving to wherever they want, in their best interests. In the search for that “best interest”, the consequence is ALWAYS an improvement of the economic lives of everyone else.

          But if you apply politics – that is, the ignorant have the same political power as the intelligent (ie: “democracy”), any and ALL systems fail.

          The argument is merely “we don’t need no one who votes against capitalism” is really an argument of “democracy sucks economically”.

          This does not suddenly mean that borders should have walls.

          It means -in truth- politics should never be a part of the economy.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Yes, but it is. Thus the need to maintain the Culture of Freedom and Capitalism.

            As you accurately pointed out several times, most of the issues dissolve if we abolish the welfare state.

            But we cannot.

            So we must no allow our Culture of Work Ethic to be overrun by those who wish Free Cookies.

            • Black Flag® says:

              Arguing for more Statist intervention to fix a problem of Statist intervention will only lead to worse and worse problems.

              Let go.
              If your claim is true, it will bankrupt the State. Joy!
              If your claim is not true, it will make you rich. Joy!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I doubt that a single case of actual impact can be proven. It all amounts to ME CLAIMING the policy impacted me. Despite the fact some Get out the Vote guy/gal showed up at my door to make sure I was registered. Somehow they couldn’t get me to the local office to get a picture ID.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    OMG………….talk about “it depends on what the definition of is, is”!!!

    Any bets the author attended law school and probably majored in Poly Sci somewhere along the way?

    And then we wonder why Integrity is shrinking in not only the Govt but our general population.


    • Rice went on national TV right after our ally the president of Libya had stated it was a terrorist attack and contradicted him claiming it was a video. That undiplomatic act of virtually calling an ally a liar, in a sane world should have gotten her fired. Instead she was promoted. How anyone can even think that this was not a political move is beyond comprehension.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    Buck, down here 🙂

    OK, let’s role with voting as being a Right, as it’s written. You contend that voter ID is a burden to some that may harm them in the way they can’t exercise the Right to Vote. Using your argument on voter ID, shouldn’t the same be applied to the Right to Keep and Bare Arms? In other words, you would also agree that concealed carry permits would then be no different than requiring a voter ID, a source of disenfranchisement and a burden that should not be allowed. Correct?

    • If only there wasn’t that pesky reference to militias….but I’m not going down that rabbit hole again!

      Note that nowhere do I say there can’t be reasonable restrictions on rights, just that there is an inherent balancing act.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We the people are the militia,. The Scotus has already ruled, regardless a right is a right, if IID is required for one, then it is acceptable for all. You can’t go into that rabbit hole because it destroys the disenfranchisement argument .

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, laws should be equally applied to all, if a middle aged poor guy that lives in Philly will be harmed because he can’t vote because he has no ID, he will be equally harmed (maybe physically) if he is also denied the purchase of a firearm for his protection because of no ID. Which one is worse, the same guy who can’t vote or the one who can’t defend himself? Both are poor and live in crime infested, very dangerous neighborhoods. Which one should not need an ID?

          • Now you’re choosing to ignore the balancing act part of the equation….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              No. I’m applying law as it’s supposed to be, equally applied. What balancing act part of the equation are you speaking of?

              • As I mentioned — substantial government interest, undue burden, etc.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                substantial government interest? What the hell does that have to do with laws being equally applied? I think your playing silly word games so you can step away from the facts my friend 🙂 LMAO

          • Black Flag® says:


            The laws are NEVER applied equally. The Power operates above the law, hence, there is never an equality of law.

            The “equality of law” is used against the People to create division. “He has ‘this thing’ and I don’t … we need a law!” – plays into the hands of Power to increase itself at everyone else’s cost.

      • Black Flag® says:


        There is no such thing as a “reasonable restriction on a right” – that that exists, IT AIN’T A RIGHT.

        Rights exist as an action that can be taken WITHOUT CONSIDERATION upon the desires or demands or wishes of anyone else. THAT IS A RIGHT.

        If you think a Right can be restricted, it ain’t a Right, it is a GRANT.

        (I’m shocked a lawyer doesn’t understand this)

      • That is why I called you above on accepting “archaic” language. Besides, I’m on a new toot! Who in their right mind would think that the founders would have to pass an amendment to guarantee the military the right to “keep and bear arms”? So stupid, it’s simple. Except for people with time on their hands or those with a rabbinical flair who like arguing the finer points of anything to death, this simple question should end the discussion. Again, just for the hell of it, “Who would think the founders were so stupid as to pass a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the Army the right to keep and bear arms”.

    • Black Flag® says:

      There is no such thing as a “Right to Vote”. The right simply does not exist.

      There is a “Government privilege offered to some, but not all, to vote”

      It there was a “Right to vote” then Russians could vote in America – but they can’t, so it ain’t a “Right”.

      Whatever government decides about voting is merely a government privilege – to be granted or removed upon a whim.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I went along with Buck based on the written words in the Constitution. I had a reason. It was to show the absurdity of the disenfranchisement argument. Claiming ID’s are such a thing and burden people from exercising their “voting” rights while ignoring that the same requirement (ID) plus a government background check to exercise one’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms (just purchasing at a dealer) shows that the argument is pure fairy tale with no basis of fact. If those on the Left do not argue equally for our Rights, then they care not one wit about any of them. Hypocrisy flies in the face of honesty. As a lawyer, Buck should have seen this coming a mile away (from me). 🙂

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    There is probably only one way to cause change in Congress in the shorter term.

    It requires ACTIVE ACTION and a strong will.

    We the People must make life absolutely so miserable for these Cretans that they decide to resign or not run again. That includes harassing the hell out of them and ridiculing them wherever they go. Including their friends and associates.

    Of course this means WITHOUT VIOLENCE. Only when the families and friends of these ass hats can’t stand the heat will the devil’s minions leave the kitchen.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The same goes for Federal Agency heads who are establishing these egregious policies.

    • “That includes harassing the hell out of them and ridiculing them wherever they go. Including their friends and associates.”

      This is ok, yet somehow my organization of a boycott against a company is not…care to explain that one?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        1. I am stooping to using your tactics?


        2. Harassing them to create “discomfort” is not the same as trying to impose Economic Harm?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        One other difference. A SIGNIFICANT difference.

        Your boycott was not over something done to you or to your friends. You wanted your friends to boycott because you simply don’t like XYZ company or the attitudes of its owners.

        The Politicians, on the other hand, directly Impact my life and the lives of others.

        So if WE choose to harass, that is to coerce the politician, we are engaging in Self Defense or Retaliation for a coercive act first made against us.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Wouldn’t change a damn thing.

      The only people elected are the ones already vetted by the Power. It NEVER MATTERS WHO SITS IN THE BIG CHAIR, because that person already has been tailored to operate within the status quo.

      Small fringe differences are magnified to be fundamental, but they never are – it is a shroud offered to the people to believe “this time, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT”, but it never is.

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    Funny one for the day: Putin attacked Ukraine, Obama, not to be outdone, attacked Nevada 😀

  39. gmanfortruth says:
  40. Buck…down here, sir…..I will say it……VOTER ID LAWS POSE NO BURDEN UPON ANY CITIZENRY AND VOTER FRAUD IS ALIVE AND WELL and in some states, like Houston ,Texas for instance, voter fraud did get a person elected to a local race.

    I will also say this…..ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, ALIENS,,,,,whatever the hell you want to call them……….try and do vote with counterfeit IDs. That is why Texas will continue to have voter picture ID with verifiable addresses…..No PO boxes, no General Delivery…..VERIFIABLE…..it was amazing how many Hispanics did not show up to vote……If they were legal….they would have been there. SO, my intrepid friend…..Picture ID’s pose no threat to minorities, the poor, or the downtrodden. The only threat picture ID’s carry is to the one that wishes to vote fraudulently. I am armed with facts and figures……and this last time, in 84 precincts watched by Veterans….pictures. We even took pictures of license plates…..you would be amazed how many people are registered at one home…..and using that address as a legal address that is NOT family nor Next of Kin…..

  41. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/05/01/Rep-Chaffetz-Unloads-On-Hillary-State-Department-Leaving-Americans-To-Die-In-Benghazi

    Col., the General is speaking very carefully. I would like to hear your take on what he is not saying.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    If the individual States begin to reaffirm the Declaration of Independence into State law, How many States will it take for the Feds to begin to get nervous?

  43. gmanfortruth says:
  44. Good morning,T Ray…….My take…….hmmmmmm. The General was selecting his words very carefully for two reasons. (1) To make sure that he was clear on WHO was in charge and that as his role as deputy commander, he did not have authority to order field units into the conflict without direct authority from the White House…AND….that the military is trained “to ride to the sound of the guns” and he was making sure that everyone understood that the military NEVER AT ANY TIME had any authority to move assets……even when they were in place. That is WHEN and not if they were in place.

    What I found particularly disturbing was the slant from, the democratic side that was inferring that even if the WH ordered a response, there was no response to give. This is total and complete bull shit. Assets were in place….including a marine contingent at Tripoli. The direct order for non intervention was clearly political.

    The other matter is the fact that the Democratic side was taking great pains to separate Hillary Clinton from this….and trying to deflect the issue to the military. A scapegoat, if you will. The State Department is the one that is responsible for security of Embassies. Period, paragraph, end of sentence. The State Department, under Hillary Clinton, made the decision to PULL THE SECURITY from Benghazi…despite the repeated warnings that the extremist Islam COALITION was going to move against Benghazi. It was known, it was anticipated by intelligence, it was confirmed by other intelligence agencies, and it was watched on satellite as it unfolded.

    Bottom line…….it was an election year. There was to be no terrorist activity in the minds of the Administration…..it is MY CONSIDERED PROFESSIONAL opinion that Benghazi was sacrificed for political gain. That, by the way, is the same opinion that the General was trying to get people to read between the lines. Benghazi could have been saved…but to do so would have been an admission that an organized extremist COALITION was on the move in an election year.

    The decisions that were made at Benghazi were NOT lower level decisions and there is no plausible denial that can legitimately be offered here. NONE.

    • Thank you Col. I read the General the same way. He clearly was unhappy with the situation but could not act nor could he really state his opinion. His silence said it for him.

  45. Hohoho!
    Charlie’s gang is muddled in mud!
    The gang that bemoans profit can’t survive without profit!

    Get a load of this.

    May Day! May Day! Without Profits, Communism Is Doomed

    Lawrence & Wishart, a profit-seeking leftist publisher of the collected works of Marx and Engels, is threatening legal action against Marxists.org, a website run by a remnant of the last remaining English-speaking Marxists.

    Marxists.org posts English-language translations of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other bourgeois members of the Inevitable Wave of the Future. These are free. That’s the problem. Lawrence & Wishart find it hard to compete against “free.”

    Half a century ago, when I was writing Marx’s Religion of Revolution, I used at least one of the books published by Lawrence & Wishart. Most of the time, I used Progress Publishers editions. Progress Publishers, International Publishers, and Lawrence & Wishart got their translations from the Soviet Union, which subsidized the publication of books by Marx and Engels. This was a Marxist slave society’s efforts to keep the tiny world of Communist publishing alive in capitalist nations. I mean, how else were a tiny band of English-speaking Communists expected to make a decent living without relying on the Gulag archipelago to help them keep the flame burning in the West?

    As a scholar, I had mixed feelings about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was nice to see Lenin’s legacy goes the way of all flesh. But without the secret police to keep the faith alive in the USSR, the translation subsidies would cease. That was why the Marx-Engels Collected Works isn’t complete. The Communist revolution went belly-up too early. The Communists should at least have had the courtesy to wait to shut down the whole experiment until after the Collected Works were complete. Sure, a hundred million people died — maybe 130 million, depending on the accuracy of Mao’s records — in the experiment, but there weren’t that many volumes left to translate, were there? (Yes, as it turned out: at least 70.) They should have hung on a little longer. They owed it to the academic world.

    So, Marxists.org posted some of Lawrence & Wishart’s USSR-funded translations online for free. Free! I mean, what kind of anti-capitalism is that? Anti-capitalism requires profits to persevere. Anyone who thinks that the proletarian revolution will come, despite some minor setbacks since 1991, is in a retirement home. His walker and his catheter are in good working order, but his eyes aren’t what they used to be. So, with the prospects of Communist growing dim, the publishers of Soviet-subsidized translations figured that they would have to make the copyright system work for them.

    Lawrence & Wishart has found a way. It is going to license its material to an outfit that will digitize it and sell it to tax-funded university libraries. Why do libraries need to buy this, when it’s already digitized and online? Because it will soon be taken down. Why? Because libraries are supposedly willing to pay for it.

    Of course, these expensive translations will not do any good for professors. So we are told by Professor Jonathan Sperber, who teaches history at the taxpayer-funded University of Missouri. That is because real scholars must read German to know what Marx and Engels wrote, at least when they wrote in German. Translations are for the rabble. Amateurs. Non-tenure-track adjunct professors. In short, losers. He said this: serious scholars of Marx and Engels ought to be using the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, which is “by far the most scholarly edition and prints all the material in the original language in which it was written.” (By the way, it is nowhere near complete. It is projected at 120 volumes.) Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe has screened out amateurs. If you cannot read it in German, you cannot know the truth. But of course this truth was supposed to lead to a worldwide revolution. It is hard to organize a worldwide revolution if you have to read German. It kind of limits the market.

    Dr. Sperber added that Lawrence & Wishart’s decision will make it harder “for people at small colleges without good libraries, or who have no academic affiliation, and would like to study some of the less well-known and less easily accessible parts of Marx and Engels’s oeuvre.” (http://chronicle.com/article/Readers-of-MarxEngels/146251/) Note: for Dr. Sperber, it’s not fashionable to speak of the works of Marx and Engels. We must speak of the oeurve of Marx and Engels.

    He commiserates with Lawrence & Wishart. “Publishers in general have a hard enough time these days earning enough on books to keep publishing them. Small left-wing publishing houses find it more difficult than most.” They always have.

    So, it’s hard times in Commieland. The realities of free publishing online, where the People — or what’s left of them — can get their quota of Holy Writ, are these: a copyright-holding, profit-seeking firm is trying to make a few bucks by selling the Word as Revealed.

    Without profits, Communism is doomed.

    The cash nexus still rules.

    It’s not easy being a Commie.

  46. Interesting the argument on voter ID and its impact on the poor and minorities.

    Did you know that to apply for and receive SNAP ( food stamps) you must present in person, the following:

    Documents needed when applying for SNAP/Food Stamps: BRING COPIES!

    -Proof of identify-photo ID/proof of citizenship
    -Proof of residency and shelter costs-rental agreement or mortgage statement, utility bills (i.e. electric, gas, or oil), property taxes, and property insurance.
    -Proof of income-4 recent paystubs, SS, SSI, SSD, pension etc.
    -Budget Sheet

    Oh, and if you are over 60, add to this list the following:

    If you are 60 years or more or disabled: Proof of Medicare premiums, monthly medical expenses, co-pays, and prescriptions.

    Argument #1….it seems to this stupid retired old Colonel who knows nothing, that if proof of citizenship, picture ID, proof of residency, proof of property taxes, recent paystubs with SSN is required for government assistance……why not voting?

    Did you know that when applying for Social Security, you need the following:


    All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies or notarized copies of documents. We also cannot accept a receipt showing you applied for the document.

    Get a certified copy of a document showing a birth, marriage or divorce that took place in the U.S.
    We can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your name, identifying information (date of birth or age) and preferably a recent photograph. For example, as proof of identity Social Security must see your:

    U.S. driver’s license;
    State-issued nondriver identification card; or
    U.S. passport.

    If you do not have one of these specific documents or you cannot get a replacement for one of them within 10 days, we will ask to see other documents, including:

    Employee ID card;
    School ID card;
    Health insurance card (not a Medicare card); or
    U.S. military ID card.


    We may use one document for two purposes. For example, we may use your U.S. passport as proof of both citizenship and identity. However, you must provide at least two separate documents.

    Argument #2.. MY my………all of these documents require picture ID. So why is it, again, that a picture ID to vote is disenfranchising?

    Applying for Welfare payments and benefits:

    You will need to provide proof of your household’s circumstances. These are the kinds of things you should bring:
    Proof of your identity such as driver’s license with picture, library card, voter’s registration
    Social Security cards for all persons applying, US Passport, or Military ID.
    Proof of residence for all persons applying (homeless persons need only a mailing address)
    (You must live in the county where the application is made.)
    Names and proof of age of all persons applying
    Proof of shelter costs; copies of rent or mortgage payments, insurance, tax receipts, utility bills listed in your legal name
    Proof of income such as pay stubs, award letters or other documents showing amount received
    Information about resources such as cash on hand, money in checking/savings accounts, real estate, motor vehicles, etc.
    Depending on the program you are applying for and your individual circumstances you may need to provide additional information to establish your eligibility. Your will be advised what additional information is needed. If you are having trouble getting information you need, the worker at the welfare office can assist you with this. Always provide complete and honest information.

    Argument #3: Tell me again, why picture voter ID is disenfranchising when the welfare office requires picture ID along with a host of corroborating identification.

    Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, and most others require photo ID to open checking accounts and accept direct deposit from Federal Governmental agencies. All Texas banks require picture ID for same.

    To apply for US PAssport:

    You Must Apply in Person If:

    You are applying for your first U.S. passport; or
    You are under age 16; or
    Your previous U.S. passport was issued when you were under age 16; or
    Your previous U.S. passport was lost, stolen, or damaged; or
    Your previous U.S. passport was issued more than 15 years ago; or

    Your name has changed since your U.S. passport was issued and you are unable to legally document your name change.

    Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

    Previously issued, undamaged, and fully valid U.S. Passport (5 year for minors or 10 years for adults)
    *Certified U.S. birth certificate (must meet all of the following requirements):
    issued by the City, County, or State of birth
    Lists bearer’s full name, date of birth, and place of birth
    Lists parent(s) full names
    Has date filed with registrar’s office (must be within one year of birth)
    Has registrar’s signature
    Has embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar
    Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
    Naturalization Certificate
    Certificate of Citizenship

    Argument #4…. To obtain a consular report of birth abroad, picture ID is required. To Obtain a naturalization Certificate, picture ID is required. To Obtain a Certificate of Citizenship, picture ID is required. So, tell me where the disenfranchisement is?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Argument #5 Why is it disenfranchising to require an ID to vote, but NOT disenfranchising to require an ID to legally purchase a gun at Walmarts (or any gunshop)?

      • It is also profiling and discriminatory. The old, the handicapped, the infirm should all be able to mail order guns. It’s only fair!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Voter ID law struck down in Wisconsin, ruled UnConstitutional and discriminatory. All this after the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. I have zero faith in anything judges do any more. Just as corrupt as the Feds

    • The asterisk by US birth certificate is interesting. Certain birth certificates are not accepted. My late friend could not use his Hudson County NJ Birth Certificate (1946) for passport, Social Security or Drivers License. The system had been so badly compromised as to make them worthless. So, here again, tell me about how there is no voter fraud.


  47. If Bloomberg bought this, ran it as a commercial during prime time, Guns would be banned tomorrow afternoon at 3PM. We are our own worst enemies, even the cops.


  48. New post up, sorry, work can sure get in your way sometimes….

%d bloggers like this: