Open Mic Anew

Happy Saturday!  Don’t forget, move your clocks AHEAD tonight!




  1. d13thecolonel says:

    March 7, 2015 at 10:10 am (Edit)

    This following quote was attached to a renewal application of my auto liability insurance.

    ” To comply with regulatory guidance as provided by the United States Department of Justice and to aid in the prevention of money laundering, you are requested to provide your occupational information”.

    Then came a long list of questions wanting to know the jobs you held and/or currently hold, along with salary information and bank account numbers of checking and savings accounts, any annuities and retirement pay you are receiving.

    I immediately called my insurance company to inquire what the deal was and I was told that it was a new Federal regulation. Then I was informed that it was necessary to fill this out online as the questions must be answered before any insurance cards coud be mailed or E-mailed. Then I was informed that my insurance company feels that this is unconstitutional and no ones business and said…all the form requires is an entry. So, I entered ZERO in each space just to fill the field and it went through.

    There was a comment section to which I wrote……for all financial information requested, I defer to the IRS.

    Interesting, huh?

    • Thanks for the heads up, I’m planning my responses as we speak. Under Jobs, putting “Genius- I know a Nazi when I see one” 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        No G, you don’t.

        Stop confusing Nazi with everyone who is power hungry or an authoritarian, or even fascist.

        • Nazi, Commie, Progressive, Marxist, Socialist are all pretty much the same to me. Nazi just provides more of a sting. At least I’m doing something. I’m calling them out, the name matters not one whit. You will just go vote for the next “authoritarian”.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            The name absolutely matters. You are not calling anyone out by throwing Nazi at them.

            You are simply name calling. And using a name that ENDS discussion and worse yet, destroys the credibility of your own arguments.

            • I wasn’t intending to have a discussion by placing that on a piece of paper in answer to a f-ing question that is none of the Fascist Nazi Progressive Socialist Marxist Communist Dictator’s f-ing business. Is that better 😀

  2. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would IMPROVE our representation in the House. That is it would eliminate the situation where ONE Congressman is representing a million people. Which of course makes representation pretty much impossible.

    “After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

    Now the quiz.

    How many states must ratify this amendment for it to become law??

    Answer: 27

    Question: Why only 27?

    Answer: Because 11 have already voted to ratify it.

    Anyone remember when this was passed by Congress?

    • Question? What is the point of another Amendment when the asshats don’t follow the one’s we already have?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        They follow this one G, so your negativity is not applicable.

        • It is you who wrote that it’s “proposed”, which means it’s not in effect yet. Then you ask “How many states must ratify this amendment for it to become law?? The correct answer is 38. The fact that 11 have already done so is irrelevant.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            As of the day I asked “how many” the answer is 27.

            How many were needed to ratify it when it was passed by Congress??

    • displacedokie says:

      I read somewhere where the founders originally planned to have a representative for every 30,000 people. If I remember correctly they figured it was such a no brained to keep the scale small that they didn’t think it even needed to be specifically set.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The 30,000 part is true. But there was much disagreement about how “self evident” keeping the ratio small would be in the future.

        • displacedokie says:

          Even though the thought of 10,000 congress critters is kind of terrifying, it seems like it would be preferable to the system we have now. Nowadays there’s no way your representative can be influenced by anything other than national PACs or large corporate donors. At least then they would be influenced by local political groups and crooked local rich people, lol.
          Also, I think it might be harder to organize 10,000 people than it is to organize 500….so whatever makes it harder for them to screw things up, the better.
          Obviously, they would figure out how to organize anyway, authoritarians are really good at “dotting i’s and crossing t’s”, but anything that slows them down can’t be a bad thing right.

          Plus with 10,000 reps, we’d get the added bonus of congress looking like the galactic senate chamber from Star Wars. 🙂

  3. Any greenie on here….please answer if you can.

    I am reading the recycle rules for Fort Worth….

    Card board egg cartons that are stamped on the top “made from 100% recycled material”………..cannot be recycled. Empty paint cans can be recycled, empty aerosol cans without the nozzle can be recycled but products made from recycled products cannot be recycled. Soft plastic bags with a recycle stamp on it cannot be recycled…..but drink cans with a recycle stamp can be recycled.

    So, if the intention of the greenies is to recycle everything possible to prevent over burdened land fills…..why in the hell can’t a product that has been recycled 100% from recycled materials….be recycled again?

    • displacedokie says:

      I was reading something the other day about recycling. It was about how something are more more recyclable than others- how cans can basically be recycled an infinite number of times and how other stuff can only be turned into one thing before that thing is no longer recyclable. I suspect this is the reason behind the seemingly goofy rules. See it didn’t even take a greenie to answer 🙂

      • Any plastic can be used as fuel although if it is a chlorinated plastic that may not be wise.

    • If I remember correctly, as paper is recycled, the fibers get broken down smaller and smaller. If you have used even quality recycled paper towels or napkins, they tend to be crap and fall apart requiring you to use twice as many. I would assume the same with other paper products. Going back some 50 years into High School chemistry here but plastics tend to lose elasticity after a while. The chemists out there could probably give a better up to date answer. .

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    More on the Constitution, this time a deeper look at the meaning of “privileges and immunities”. Why you ask? Well because some Supreme Court justices quite some time ago decided to conflate “liberty” with “privileges and immunities”. As explained in one of Mr. Natelson’s works, they were not the same to those who constructed the Declaration and the Constitution.

    Privileges and immunities were similar if not the same in affect. They denoted benefits granted by Govt that “did not exist among the population” under “natural” or “common law”.

    Thus “voting” was a privilege since under natural law there is nothing to vote for. Following is part of the summary Mr. Natelson provides before diving into the legal stuff.

    “Thus, we have seen that Americans in the constitutional era, like
    their British forebears, thought of “privileges and immunities” as
    legal benefits granted to citizens or groups by official grace. They
    represented a very different juristic category from natural rights.
    Natural rights, to the extent their exercise did not harm others,
    were inalienable. But local law determined who enjoyed which
    privileges or immunities. Local law extended some privileges to all
    citizens if specified procedural conditions were met. As just noted,
    examples of privileges incident to citizenship included land tenure,
    access to judicial benefits such as the writ of habeas corpus, and,
    depending on the state, economic privileges such as licenses or….”

    Now apply this definition to “marriage” that is a Govt issued “marriage license”. What “privilege” does this convey in reality and affect? I maintain none at all. Under the common law everyone is free to marry. The grant is only for a marriage license and the “recognition” by Govt or your married status. So the only thing granted that is different for everyone else is the Govt “recognition”. There is not further substance granted.

    However, the “recognition” acts like a special key which unlocks other “privileges”. BUT, without other laws creating them, this magic key unlocks nothing but thin air.

    Thus, my claim that it is the other “privileges” granted to those “married”, such as tax laws, that are subject to challenge under the Constitution. Not the States definition of marriage, nor the issuance of a “License” or “Certificate”.

    This would also support the concept of Govt issuing “Civil Union” certificates to act as the “magic key” instead of a marriage license. This is only needed to “ease the burden” of citizenship as it allows certain “automatic” privileges, eliminating the need for people to act positively to secure their “privileges”. Such as automatic “community property” statutes.

    Then again, perhaps those wanting such a union could simply form a “legal partnership”.

    This approach would be far more consistent with maintaining the core meaning of the Constitution while providing possible redress of grievances which may change with time.

    It does not resolve the issue, however, of WHO gets to define rights and liberties and WHO gets to distinguish these from “privileges and immunities”. I submit that if it is not the people who are supposedly “self governing” then why should that authority be vested in a handful of “wizards in black robes”?

    • I’ve been thinking about this since last night-I looked at the fact that the States acting together have the right to the process of Amendments to overrule the actions of individual states using a large majority of the states to do so. So why doesn’t the process work the same on the state level? If the State Courts rule something is un-constitutional than the state legislature can accept the ruling or overrule it, if they can, by the state amendment process. Why are Federal Courts involved in issues that are Constitutionally supposed to be controlled by the state?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        In my opinion the why has two primary parts.

        One is the 14th amendment, which is the legacy of slavery. A nation which would no longer tolerate a true Federalist Republic as constructed because that arrangement had failed to address slavery. It was the Nationalization of certain privileges and immunities, and rights which had previously been State purview. It sets the stage, but did not completely destroy States rights immediately. Because those that wrote it and those that ruled on it, still had memory of the meaning of our Republican form of Govt. So they struggled with finding some balance by taking on the “identification” of which “rights” or “privileges” were Federal and those which were truly State. Think of the historical State authority over health insurance along with “marriage”.

        Second was the socialist and progressive philosophies that gradually took over the academic bastions of knowledge. This is evidenced in the changing of definitions and new “legal doctrine” that fit with the more “nationalistic” approach to Government. So the 14th opens the door and the “progressive/nationalists/Statists” came pouring through.

        Our journey down Wikipedia lane should have revealed to you a distinct change in the nature of Supreme Court rulings and rationale after the 14th amendment is passed. This is slow at first, evidenced by the failure of the Court to uphold full rights for Blacks in ALL STATES. But it really takes off around the Wilson to FDR period. It seems like it is moving faster now but I think that is just the culmination of the change in legal philosophies that were implemented during that period. Now that they have taken hold, we see a greater number of challenges in areas traditionally left to the States.

        While folks like Buck and Mathius view this as good, because it creates UNIFORM Rights among all states, it also centralizes power in the hands of a few folks who have little accountability to the people. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to reprimand a Justice or Congressman who is elected by POPULAR vote of an entire nation, let alone an entire state.

        • Why were Federal Courts established according to the Constitution? What was their original purpose? .

          • Just A Citizen says:


            To resolve disputes in law at the Federal level and to deal with disputes between States and citizens of one state vs another State.

            Natelson claims it was understood that the Supreme court would also deal with ruling on question of constitutionality, as was presumed in the first case where SCOTUS claimed this authority. It was “inferred” due to historical precedence of the legal system.

            Jefferson, if you recall argued strongly to the contrary. Claiming no authority was given by the Constitution. But then not much authority is discussed relative to the Courts in that section.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I have to leave for most of the remainder of the day. Fire away with questions, just don’t feel ignored if I don’t respond until this evening or tomorrow.

            Anita………… I am headed to Sandpoint, Idaho for the day. One of the places I suggested you move to. 🙂

            • I’m jealous! Take pics and post them. Safe travels.

            • Have a good time 🙂

            • I’ve got one more question-How do the people in a state-get rid of a State Constitutional Amendment?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                By passing a new amendment that eliminates the first.

                See the two Federal Amendments on prohibition as an example.

              • Sorry I didn’t ask the question to well-what is the process-the legislature has to pass it by a large majority of votes or the people have to vote by a large majority through a referendum or what?

              • One more question, and if you get tired of me asking questions I could look up myself-just say so 🙂

                All Federal Judges are appointed I believe-I know local judges are voted on but what about state judges are they appointed by the governor?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Going to the bottom for new answers.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        More detail. The same does hold at the state level. The State courts can be overturned by State amendments. Interestingly, this happens more often than at the Federal level. Interesting in I think it supports the idea of “closer ties to the people”.

        You have identified the problem perfectly. WHAT is within the States realm vs what is the Federal.

        Obviously, those pushing for greater Federal control have been winning this debate for decades. Ironically these are the same people crying about the benefits of diversity. Yet they wish to make us all comply to the same laws in the same manner as THEY DEEM CORRECT.

        Which is also why I call many supposed “conservatives” as left wing. Those who wish to dictate National standards of morality via LAW are not better than those trying to eliminate local control over those same issues.

    • I think we could agree that this would basically nullify the 10th Amendment if ruled in favor of gay marriage, yes? I remember when Ohio had this Amendment voted on the gay marriage lost, convincingly. I do not agree that the Wizards should be deciding this matter, but, what I think don’t matter because they have already decided too do so. On subjects like this, those that are not “guaranteed Rights”, should be voted on by the people. A National Referendum that will solve the problem. If needed, another vote can be taken in 10 years or so. This will never happen, our current corrupt government would never cede their power.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Imagine the 10th as a bucket full of water.

        The 14th kicked over the bucket but not all the water spilled instantly.

        The last of the water is now running out.

        To claim that “this” legal action would negate the 10th is like saying that the last of the water is responsible for the bucket being knocked over.

        I am not as positive as you that SCOTUS will hear any cases on Gay Marriage. As it stands now they can refuse to hear any case, effectively imposing the District and Circuit court opinions on the people.

        Unless I missed it, there has not been a Circuit court of appeals issue a contradictory ruling to the notion that marriage laws excluding gay marriage are in violation of due process under the 14th Amendment.

        • SCOTUS have already said they will hear the case brought by several States, including Ohio. I heard that just this week.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            They will find in favor of the lower courts. Gay marriage will become the law of the land.

            Some will cite current “acceptance” among the population and the time is right for “social change”.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Oh, and they will construct some convoluted argument trying to claim they did not open the door to other manifestations. It will not work.

  5. Anybody have any thoughts on HSBC’s decision to close all 7 of their gold vaults in the UK? This seems like an odd move. Where is the gold going? Is there any gold to begin with? Are the investors in the Spyder Gold Trust (GLD) just screwed? Lots of talk going on about this, not one answer.

  6. “He’s obviously not in there to get a woman, so I don’t see how it’s a problem,” argued one woman.”

    Actually, you have no idea why HE is there-a man walks in and says I identify as a woman and is given an open invitation to the woman’s dressing room. He could be a peaking tom who has suddenly discovered he doesn’t have to sneak around and peak through windows anymore-just go to the local gym and get an eye full without worrying about going to jail. Or maybe he’s an exhibitionist-come on in change clothes force woman to see your naked body because obviously you don’t have to have actually changed your outward appearance into a woman to be allowed in the WOMAN’s dressing room. Or he could even be a pedophile getting an eyeful of children who happen to go there. Truth is no one knows what this man’s motives are.

    • More proof that minority rights supersede majority rights.

    • You raise an interesting point. Over the past few years we have been inundated on TV with shows on channels like Discovery about things like sex change. There are guys married for 20 years who go for the conversion and then stay with their wives! The very concept of someone going through a sex change to become a lesbian puzzles me to say the least. Something else is definitely going on in their heads.

  7. What type of dictator is Hitler considered these days? When I went through school, Hitler was a Fascist Dictator. Stalin and Mao were Communist Dictators. I would like to make correct statements about Obama’s actions, as I’m not alone in my thinking.

    As Erich Pratt of GOA said – this is another end-run around Congress, which as the previous essay I posted yesterday outlines – is now an actual dictatorship by Obama’s own admission. We have become a Fascist State – almost identical to how Benito Mussolini established his Socialist Utopia and foisted it upon his countrymen while commandeering absolute rule for himself.

    No one is stopping him. Not the complicit traitors in the GOP leadership, not the complaint judiciary or anyone whom the Founders put as a check on absolute power.

    We are on our own, considered enemies by this government.

    • displacedokie says:

      As a LEO, I can tell you that virtually none of us are really concerned with any particular type of ammo. So I find this bulldookie about him caring about the safety of us police, who apparently “act stupidly” all the time, rather insulting.
      Like the military, we are supposed to uphold and protect the costitution. We wouldn’t cosider violating the constitution to protect soldiers, so why would we do it to protect LEOs? That’s my $0.02 on the matter.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Lets get something perfectly straight.

      Obama is NOT a dictator. Even if you want him or he wants to be one.

      Like it or not, most of his actions are within the laws we have. He is not the first to push the limits of Executive Power nor to ignore Congress.

      Although cries of Tyrant and Dictator were thrown at those as well. Starting with John Adams.

      As for the stupid statement about protecting the Second Amendment by banning ammo.

      Remember: “We have to destroy capitalism in order to save capitalism”??

      Mr. Obama is not the first and will not be the last. And it will only get worse if people keep sending the same spineless weasels to Congress. That includes pretty much the whole Dem party and at least half the Rep. party.

      Those who think not voting will fix this are clueless. Imagine a Congress and POTUS elected by the handful of oligarchs who want to run everything. Because the rest of us decided to sit the game out.

      • I agree with everything you said here Except Obama isn’t a dictator-Obama embodies the meaning of being a dictator-America simply isn’t a dictatorship, at least not yet.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Like I said, even if he wanted to be one……………

          Personally, I don’t think he would be all that upset if given that kind of power. I hold out the possibility that I could be wrong but I think those running the Democratic Party today would love to have TOTAL CONTROL without opposition. They would just like to have it covered by sanctity of elections.

          Of course the same could be said of some on the Republican Party side. The only difference would be the R’s claiming the power to “restore” the Constitution while the D’s would be claiming the Final Reformation of America.

          • If I recall, Hitler and Mussolini were both elected to office before eventually just taking over. All that needs to happen is a trigger event and “POOF”!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Both of their Governments had provisions that allowed that to happen.

              Our Congress would have to sign off on it. Like the Govt’s of Italy and Germany did when they made each defector Chancellors for life.

              • Agreed. Just a week or so ago I was hit by a paid shill on the NM. I called it/he/she out as soon as the attack hit a certain level of learned techniques used by these people, which those techniques are widely available. One such technique is to “Link Bomb” somebody. This basically sends an unknowing commenter searching and wasting lots of energy and time debunking each “Link”. Keep your eyes open for stuff like this, it’s going to get much worse. Google is setting up some sort of program that will likely push alternative media to the cellar of their search engine, of whom I have already dumped. The slow subjugation and control of information is hitting overdrive. It’s no longer “conspiracy theory”, it’s a NASCAR race. I’ve already posted about the “black interrogation site” the Chicago police use (until they have been outed). There is only two things keeping US from becoming the next Dictatorship, the information available and the 2nd Amendment. Both of which have taken a hit very recently.

              • Our congress would have to have the cojones to actually do something if, for example, the Pres declared a national emergency and martial law.

                Think back to September 12, 2001. Now, I personally think that there was no way in hell, that Bush could have pulled it off but if I think of a President Gore well then, it is not such a stretch is it? Shut down ALL the information and then direct certain stories with a certain twist. Hey, Geraldo would eat it up!

                Why do I think Gore could have pulled it off? Look at the Florida thing. There was no way in hell that stupid story should have gone on as long as it did and I always wondered how it was possible for the media to conveniently and continuously ignore that the Democrats ONLY wanted to recount three counties! It ain’t the first time either. As a dumb 13 year old I was a big JFK supporter in ’60, yet, even then, maybe because of something my old man might have said, I was pretty sure that Chicago and Texas were probably stolen. A fair and impartial press would have run with that. My Dad more or less implied after the assassination that the “goes around comes around” rule was in play.

              • I guess the worst part I found was when they go on line and use your name so that if someone googles you you wind up mentioned or “quoted” on some interesting sites.

      • Obama has been careful to fashion his actions in such a way as to say they are legal. It is a typical lawyer trick to find every possible loophole and ambiguity in the law and interpret in your favor. What he is doing is incrementalism. It is the old tale of how do you capture a herd of wild hogs. First you put out the bait, then you build a pen one side at a time over a period of weeks. Finally, you close the gate. We are slowly being acclimated to dictatorial rule. Another clue is we have now seemed to have entered a dynasty period. We had it in the past with the Tafts and Kennedys but they did not succeed. Now we have the Clintons and the Bushs.

      • JAC, You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. While technically we are not a dictatorship, as of yet, the direction is most certainly pointing in that direction. Hopefully, this country will find it’s way out of the mess that this and past administrations have caused. While there is another Prez election scheduled, the final 2 choices will not likely be what the people need, but yet another Statist/Fascist, pretend Conservative/Statist or whatever silly name it will end up being. It would not surprise me one bit to see Hillary end up planted in the office, if of course we have an election first. When that day comes and passes, then at least the ruling elite class can rule via the legitimacy of those who voted. Regardless who wins, I see the further subjugation of the average person continuing, at a faster pace even then. But who knows, maybe this Fascist dictator wannabe (LMAO) will get us in a nuclear war and that prediction of only having less than 70 million of a population by 2015 will come true 🙂

    • Most folks see politics as a line left, right. I have always felt more comfortable, since college in the ’60’s, actually thinking of it as a circle, a clock face imposed. Us libertarian right wingers back in the day were at 11:55. The SDS kids were at 12:05. The Commies and Fascists were on either side of half past. The Dems and Republicans (traditional) at the time were at quarter of and quarter after but have since fallen closer to the half hour mark. Does that help?

  8. Just A Citizen says:


    The procedures for amending State Constitutions differ by State. Some allow Citizen referendum, remember the California Gay Marriage amendment was a Citizen referendum, while others only use the Legislature.

    The thresholds for adoption vary as well. So you have to look at each state’s rules.

    The same goes for State judges. Not all are elected and many cannot run with an affiliated party. Montana has strict rules on campaigning that prohibit any appearance of “political affiliation” as well as contributions to campaigns.

    In Idaho and Montana there will be a ballot choice for State level judges and Supreme Court every so many years. The question is “Do you wish to retain” or “Not retain” so and so.

    If NOT retain wins the seat is then filled by another election or temp. appointment.

    But in the two I understand best, there is a mechanism for voters to throw out a bad judge.

    Now I raise your attention to a recent series of articles on “left leaning” web sites arguing how BAD it is to elect judges. Why do you think they would want to make them all “appointed” instead of elected??? Of course they claim that elections make judges beholding to campaign contributors, but as I noted Montana has kind of addressed that conflict.

    • Yes we had a referendum here to block gay marriage. The first effort was a simple ballot measure (law). It was shot down by the courts as in violation of the CA Constitution. Then it was reintroduced as an amendment. That held for a little while until a gay judge declared it unconstitutional. After which the Gov. and AG refused to defend it. Then a citizens group took up the defense. They were shot down for lack of standing. Conclusion: The citizens do not have standing to defend a citizen initiated and backed amendment. So much for our 1st amendment right of petition.

  9. @Anita, Looks like my Dolphins will be signing DT Suh from the lions. Big loss for the Lions, big gain for the Fins. I still don’t like his dirty play, but it seems it will be worth plenty. Fin’s need some nasty on that defense.

    • Son told me that this morning. Thought of you immediately. Have fun with him. He’s a handful off the field too.

      • I follow the NFL quite a lot, haven’t heard one negative thing about Suh off the field. I still don’t like his history on the field, a view into the future maybe? Hope not, he is a great talent.

  10. The Left Wing NYT, trying ever so hard to “get even” for Omama’s French failure! LMAO.

  11. Interesting……I wonder why the New York Times cropped George and Laura Bush out of the photograph walking with Obama and Eric Holder on the anniversary Selma march?

    And then, since the Department of Justice ( please read the investigation ) determined that the Ferguson incident was built on a lie. The lad’s hands were NOT in the air and he was NOT saying don’t shoot, he was walking towards the officer and the officer was saying halt, and there were no entry bullet wounds in the back………no criminal charges being filed and no findings of civil rights violatons………………………………why is Feerguson still a talking point?

    • When are the same people who were on the bridge going to remind people that the incident was an act of the state. Whether or not it was based on bigotry is moot, because the same state players could do it again, for different reasons. As far as Feerguson, it’s a lot to do with there revenue making mentality, which ends up hurting people the most in crime ridden areas of the city, who happen to be black.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Going to comment on this Fraternity issue which is back in the news thanks to the SAE video at Oklahoma.

    First a disclosure: I am a member/alum of the SAE fraternity.

    My comment goes to how various issues are handled relative to Greek life as opposed to regular folks. Namely that an entire “HOUSE” is penalized regardless of who is individually responsible.

    Now there is no doubt that some issues go to the leadership of the house which is suspended or kicked off campus. But often it is only a few members, such as the alleged sexual misconduct, which gets the house expelled from a University.

    My complaint here is the increased tendency of condemning entire groups, basically stereotyping or even worse PROFILING, instead of those directly responsible and those in charge of supervision.

    Notice the OU incident does not include any investigation to see if there is “racism” being accepted by all the members or if the chanting on the bus was the result of something else.

    We find this group castigation obnoxious in other matters but I wonder if this reaction on campuses does not help solidify it as “acceptable” in later generations. Those calling to “tear down this house” certainly are willing to hang anyone due to association. Wonder how they react when someone classifies ALL BLACKS as BANGERS?

    For those who do not know, there is not some supervisory third party watching over everything at a Frat. house. There were for Sororities, when I was in school, but generally not for the Fraternities. So in essence you have a boarding house with young people from age 18 to whatever, living together. Participating in fraternity functions but also just living their lives as they would in any boarding or apt building. One or more of the “adult” members are listed as the supervisors. Our house used the cook on the University paperwork. We had to fire him because he drank to much but never replaced him. So one of the members over 21 was listed as the “house mother”.

    At my school all the Greek houses were OFF campus but they had to have official “recognitions” to participate in campus activities as “official greek organizations”.

    During my time at Univ. waling into a Sorority was like walking into Grandma’s living room. Nice furniture, flowers, pictures, relatively quiet most of the time.

    All the Frat houses I entered were more Animal House than Blair House, if you catch my drift. They all smelled of young men reeking of hormones and sweat from horseplay and other such activities. Oh and the smell of stale beer………..always the smell of stale beer.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Just for the fun of it, and to show that the drunken bums who live in Frat houses can eventually grow up……………. on second thought, maybe they really don’t. They just get more sophisticated….lol.

    • displacedokie says:

      As a graduate of Oklahoma, I am pretty irritated, no miffed,… pissed, by this whole deal. The idiots just got crap all over my school’s name, so I hope any of them that participated are given the boot…I have little tolerance for people who crap on institutions that I’m proud to belong to….I feel pretty much the same way about bad cops, who crap on my badge…westboro douches that crap on my religion, etc..

      • I am pretty much horrified by the actions of some of these college students. But I do not believe that their whole lives should be ruined because of it. Our world has gotten crazy-a stupid action like this can literally ruin your life-they are being expelled from school-does anyone think they are better off without an education. I don’t look at college age students as children but I also don’t look at them as adults either-so lets not throw them away at such an early age-Most people grow and change with time and experience.

        And quite frankly, I have read and seen things just as bad and just as racist that are simply ignored when done by black students. But people want to make an example of white students when they do the same stupid things.

        I couldn’t help but wonder when the DOJ pointed out about 7 or 8 racist comments made by white Ferguson policemen-just how many racist comments made by black Ferguson policemen were simply ignored as unimportant.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    The National Memo has an article criticizing Republicans for putting Iran on notice that Congress has a role in approving any treaty arrangement with the USA. Letting them know that if Congress doesn’t approve of the agreement it should be viewed as temporary.

    They should have said Null and Void, but even this has the left wringing their hands. In this article we get a peak at perhaps why Mr. Obama thinks the way he does when it comes to Constitutional Scholarship. From within the article:

    “Ironically, as Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith points out, the Senate Republicans’ Schoolhouse Rock-style effort to educate Iran on the Constitution actually misstates the Senate’s role in the treaty process. Contrary to the letter’s claim, the Senate does not ratify treaties; instead, it gives its advice and consent to the president, who may then proceed with ratification.”

    See what the esteem professor did there? The Senate only has an “advise and consent” role but does not ratify. He implies the President may proceed with ratification once the Senate has issued its advice. What if they do not grant consent?? Looks to me like the professor is saying consent is not needed. Wonder how long before this new theory is applied to SCOTUS and other appointments.

    But lets get dirty. The ACTUAL wording in the Constitution reads:

    “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;….”

    So how is it that the Senator’s letter is misleading when it clearly states that the Advice and CONSENT requires 2/3 of the Senators present to concur?

    Kind of like the Second Amendment debate with these Scholars! What part of the word CONSENT do they not understand?

    But do notice that last part……………..”of the Senators present”. This means that 2/3 of a Quorum could provide the Consent needed. Something to be aware of when people like Harry Reid are in charge and do not officially “adjourn” the Senate during the Holiday season. He just needs to call back enough for a Quorum, and get 2/3 to vote the way he wants. The only thing preventing such an underhanded move would be Senate Rules, but it is not the Constitution itself.

    • I can see something like this happening, only to end up in the SCOTUS. The “of the Senators present” could mean a meeting with three Senators in the Whitehouse the way the Progressives think.

    • Hmmmm, Although I believe that the republicans had a perfect right as members of Congress to have the PM of Israel talk to them or anyone else they choose to address the Congress. I’m thinking sending a letter to another Country when the President is in negotiations with them a step too far.

      • Dunno, he has stepped so far out of bounds are you surprised that they follo9w? Fire with fire? Putting him on notice he is in for a fight?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I thought it was a bad step as well, until I saw the Iranian ministers response. He lectured Congress on “The world is not America” and if some future President breaks the agreement he would be violating “International Law”.

        Is this a slip of what the plan is by the Iranians with or without Mr. Obama recognizing it? Mr. O. signs the deal, ignores Congress and suddenly we are subject International Law, which is in contradiction to our own law. It would be consistent with the “globalist” views which I think reflect Mr. Obama’s thinking.

        So given his response it may well have been right for the Senators to have sent the letter. Although they should had said “it will have no legal affect in the USA” instead of saying future POTUS could change it. Their letter admitted Mr. Obama could sign the deal and they could do nothing to keep it from being implemented until a “future President” came along.

        I also think Mr. Obama’s response about the Senate aligning themselves with “hardliners” while holding a smirking smile on his face was equally bad taste. But then I have come to expect it of him. Never pass up a chance to score political points for the media.

        From a purely Political standpoint the letter was a STUPID move. Whether justified or not it allows the white house and dems to portray the R’s as “undermining” the President by breaking long held traditions. They need to recognize that the Press is not going to hold POTUS to the same standard and start thinking more strategically.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

      Winston Churchill


    None of this should surprise anyone after the Agent Orange fiasco.

    There’s another story brewing about a VA employee sending out some really stupid emails, keep a look out for that.

  15. Interesting fact for those left leaning that claim there is no problem with fraud…..there are 6.5 million active social security cards (meaning money going out) over the age of………………………..112. No, there is no fraud.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Where is the DOJ? Why are they not all over the Univ. of Oklahoma for their blatant racism.

    While their president rails against the Fraternity nobody is watching his obvious racist polices.

    Otherwise how could this University only have 1400 +/- Black Students. Guessing about 75 of those are in the football program alone. That is only 4.5% of the total university enrollment.

    If Statistics prove racism then UofO is certainly guilty.

  17. Just A Citizen says:
  18. Just A Citizen says:

    In case any readers here still don’t get how this works.

    I made a comment this morning about Mr. Obama’s snarky comment that the R’s were aligning themselves with the hardliners in Iran.

    Now look at comments made by Democrats in the Senate. You will see the same comment coming from all kinds of DEM talking head and politicians. Debate via TALKING POINTS.

    And the SHEEP are staring at the sun.

    “I don’t believe the Republican leadership was thinking clearly,” [Sen. Dick] Durbin said. “Though many cannot accept it, here in this chamber, [President Obama] is the president of the United States, and he deserves our respect.”
    [Sen. Debbie] Stabenow called the letter “shocking, dangerous, and deeply troubling.”

    “When war hangs in the balance, and specifically nuclear war hangs in the balance, should members of the United States Senate be in the position of publicly undermining the United States president?” she asked. “It is shocking, dangerous, and deeply troubling to me that 47 members of this body decided … to stand on the side of the ayatollahs and the most extreme voices in Iran.”

    Now why did not the reporters follow up with: Wait a minute Senator. The President and Iran have told us they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon and that they are years away from this technology. So how could it be that “nuclear war hangs in the balance”???

    And since Congress is the one that must declare war, why shouldn’t Congress be involved in the discussions about war? Why should Congress just sit back and let the President unilaterally and without any discussion with Congress, cut deals that undermine our long term peace??

    • More propaganda brainwashing that the sheople are falling for. Remember, it has been stated in the past, during this administration, that an election should be cancelled (this was 2010 I think, it’s been awhile). There was very little hoopla over the remarks, but there was some agreement. All it takes is one major event and we could find ourselves in a dictatorship, even for a short time (6 months) as outlined in certain Executive Orders.

    • Obviously, we could write a book to justify why the republicans have the right to send this letter. Why Obama has brought it on his self. I’ll even post an article of one man’s opinion doing so:

      { As a side bar-Kennedy did this-wow -now that I would use words like traitor and sedition to describe.}

      But still these types of negotiations are in the Presidents job description. And the Republicans have the ability to stop him without resorting to these types of steps. The majority simply refuse to use them. So they’re left with taking steps like this one-so we’re hearing arguments about traitors and sedition instead of talking about the actual negotiations. Of course the arguments themselves, as usual are taken to the point of the ridiculous.

      If the republicans were in the minority I might agree with this move-but they aren’t.

      • One part of the authors story is very wrong and admitted so. Assad did not use chemical weapons on his own people. In fact, is was the Rebels who used it. Propaganda, my dear, nothing but propaganda.

      • OH, notice the timing of this ? With all the Hillary email stuff going on, it couldn’t come at a better time for the Left Wing brainwashers.

      • Then again maybe I’m wrong-if the President has made it clear that he has every intention of going around Congress-I don’t see why they don’t have the right to go around him-Still think in the end it was a stupid move. But now I think it was justified. Everything I’d read about this claimed that Obama was going to reach an agreement and then bring it to Congress but this clearly points out that his intention all along was to again expand his powers and ignore Congress.

        • VH…he can make any deal he wants…..until it is ratified… carries no weight. AND…..all Congress has to do…not fund it.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            ROTFLMAO………….. my sides are aching.

            Congress not funding it??? Good lord, that was a funny one.

            I suppose it is true that the rabbits could stand together and gang up on the coyote, instead of running around squealing and hiding in the brush. Reality Check!!!!

            It would be interesting thought, to see the Dems maintain their LOCKSTEP with Potus if he pushes the issue.

          • Unfortunately, I thought that was what “our boys” McConnell and Bohner were supposed to do with DHS. Ain’t got the cojones.


    I’m not sure all the hoopla over this issue was needed, the market would have just replaced the M855 with a new bullet type that would be just as effective and possibly better. Then again, by just not painting the tips green and changing the designation would have been just as effective. Beta test maybe? I’m not quite sure that the ATF has the authority to “BAN” anything. The whole “ban” issue, on a number of different products makes my question the authority of the Feds to ban anything WITHOUT an Amendment. It’s seem’s prohibition should be proof enough. Then again, the Constitution seems to be magically changing every year.

  20. JAC made the argument that the left wants more of a nation state where we all follow the same laws-I noticed with Bucks comments that he supported the idea that a vast majority gets to make the decision on matters we the people disagree on. His main point seemed to be that it had to be a large majority. But If he looks at the situation-a vast majority isn’t making these decisions when the Federal Court systems overturns a State Court system-the decision is just being moved to another group of judges. I have no reason to believe that the Federal Courts are anymore right than the lower courts on these issues-and as I said the only majority that is involved in making these decisions is at the state level. So by allowing the Federal courts to pick and choose what they have purview over is in reality taking the voice of the people completely out of the discussion. And since it is so difficult to pass an amendment at the Federal level-the Federal courts have the very real ability to control us-We the Citizens- on so many levels. If we are going to be controlled at some level anyway-why would anyone concede that control to a few men in robes.

    • You are already being controlled. Just look around and open your eyes. It’s all in plain sight.

    • Couple of things to think about. When I (and others) say that they are all on the same team, ask yourself a question. Did both Obamacare and Obama’s amnesty garbage get funded by the new Republican controlled Congress? What happen to all the fear mongering leading up to the last Republican cave in?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      You are understanding why I call them WIZARDS IN BLACK ROBES.

      The threat of “Tyranny of the Court” was a concern raised by the “anti-federalists” during the ratification debates.

      They saw the open ended authority provided by the Constitution and the assumption the SCOTUS would rule over the Constitutions as a GRAVE THREAT TO LIBERTY.

      However, this usurpation is still OUR FAULT. As in the larger population. We don’t pay attention, we don’t care, we vote for rock stars and those that make us feel comfortable. We have lost perspective about how important the Constitution is and the role of States Rights in preventing tyranny.

      I think you have a much greater appreciation of the task at hand now. It is a monstrous effort, one that will take a long time of focused and determined effort. One that most of us on SUFA will not see completed. But one that will absolutely fail if WE do nothing towards the effort.

      • To bring this conversation back to it’s beginnings-I was always a little confused by your statement, I don’t remember your exact words but it was basically that the states didn’t have to follow the bill of rights-I see now that you weren’t saying the courts didn’t have to adhere to the bill of rights but that the Federal Courts couldn’t take away states rights based on the bill of rights. But it’s obviously a big problem that the left’s definition of states rights is that the states have the right to ignore people’s rights. Instead of it being seen as the opposite-the Federal is actually taking away the States rights and the rights of the people who live there.

  21. JAC,, Seahawks just traded for the Saint’s TE Jimmy Graham. They give up starting center and first round pick. This is a WOW moment.

    Anita, Lions trade for ravens DL Hiloti Ngata, details forthcoming/.

    • Rams trade QB Bradford to Eagles for QB Foles.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        That is a bigger wow to me. I wonder what was wrong with the Seahawks center. The record shows the offense stalls when he is not on the field.

        The Seahawks need another quality Tight End. Apparently theirs is not recovering well or I don’t see them making this trade.

        Which reminds me, had the Hawks had a Tight End in the Super Bowl they would have put up far more points.

        Now if they can find a couple world class speedsters for receiver.

        • Actually, this hurts Jimmy Grahams fantasy value, the Hawks don’t pass that much. It will help IF they can get a burner WR. Had they had graham in the SB, they would have won, IMHO. Looks like Saints plan on running more, which is not a surprise. Brees is getting older.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Actually the Hawks are not as one sided to the run as you would think. 525 run plays to 454 passing plays.

            Notice that their TE was tied with Wilson for pts scored, at 18 before he was injured.

            With a top tier TE the field goal kicker shouldn’t be the highest scoring player on the team next year, 134 points. Kind of tells the story of their problem in the red zone.

            • They will be better, no doubt. Wilson’s fantasy stock went up, for sure. Big trade for sure. Also surprised at the Rams – Eagles trade. Geez, the Eagles have traded or let go all their top end talent, should be interesting to watch how Chip Kelly rebuilds it. If the Dolphins get Suh signed, they may have the best D-Line in the league (questionably). One weakness fixed, now the fins need a Linebacker and some more O-line depth. I feel they go WR early in draft, depending on how things flow.

              p.s. I like talking football, less stressful 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                As I said, the Rams trading away Bradford was a bigger surprise.

                Their young guy did well but the Rams went from contender to nothing but struggle after Bradford went down.

                If they get a QB fix they will give the NFC west a run for their money, including the Hawks.

              • Foles could do that, he’s a tough kid. I’m thinking they draft a QB to sit and learn for a year or two. In the mean time, the Rams will give fits and may make the playoffs. Bradfords injuries are an example of how good teams go down when an injury occurs. Every team faces that. If Wilson goes down, the Hawks don’t make the big game. The Patriots, Broncos and Saints need to start looking ahead with QB’s, The Hawks need to get a future replacement for Beast Mode and add a premier receiver.

                I’m a Dolphins fan, but follow all teams for fantasy season. Fun stuff that Fantasy ! Profitable last year too.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Perhaps the Eagles are going to use Bradford to get a better position in the draft to get Mariotta.

                The Hawks have a super speedster at receiver. He got hurt just before the playoffs. He would have made a big difference in the SB as well. But they need one more in that class, with great hands.

              • Perhaps. The Hawks are loaded and should go into the season as odds on favorites. SB losers don’t always fare well the next year, history has shown as of late. One injury to the right person and “poof”, season falls apart. Watch out for the Cardinals, Palmer was undefeated as a starter last season. The 49ers look to be a less than 8-8 team. The Rams could win 9, but I’m not sold on them yet. Like the Titans of old, competitive, but not really a contender. I see the Hawks and cardinals fighting for the division, with the Hawks being the favorite.

  22. Favorite line “I can’t say whether I’m a liberal or conservative,” he says. “There’s a lot less conflict at the state and local level. People are not just toeing a hard line or refusing to work together.”

    And makes perfect sense-voting on the local level is much more likely to actually speak to the views of the citizens living there. And the reps. voting in the legislature actually have to live under the laws they pass-unlike in Washington where they don’t actually live in the real world.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The sad part of the article was the overwhelming belief by all that SOMETHING needs to be done BY GOVT. It makes it sound like increased value of local/state is ONLY DUE TO the gridlock in D.C..

      Shows you how much more work is needed to get people to stop looking for Govt to address everything they FEEL is wrong.

  23. I guess it’s good that he is acknowledging that Hillary was wrong. Although he still can’t just say she shouldn’t be President. But is he kidding-he must be living in another political world to say this:

    “when the 1990s tactics of deflection, deception, and victimization are far less effective.”

  24. 7yr old writes letter to Michelle Obama about the lunch menu changes at his school:

    “Thank you for trying to make my school lunch better, but you have ruined Taco Tuesday. Please bring back the old taco shell. I miss them. Also, the pizza is terrible. If you would like to try the new tacos, I will buy you lunch,”

    White House nutrition director responds:

    …Eschmeyer admits the clock is ticking on the Obama administration and they’re doing as much as they can as quickly as they can.

    “For me, I think the challenge is, especially now with 21 months left in this administration, what can we move the needle on for the most important issues, in the quickest and most powerful way, that creates a healthier America,” she says.

    Punchline from commenter:

    Well, little Timmy has a note from his doctor that says he can’t be exposed to sweat from people that have eaten peanuts. Sally is three months pregnant (don’t judge!) and also has a note. Bobby was suspended for eating a bologna sandwich in the shape of a cannon, while Billy was suspended for just eating a bologna sandwich. Lisa is on in-school suspension for bringing a butter knife to school to put cream cheese on her bagel. Paul was sent home for wearing a t-shirt with an offensive American flag on it, and most of the rest of the student body is on lockdown because a stranger walked by the front of the school. Also, the gym teacher was suspended for sending naked photos to two students (but don’t worry, the union is fighting to get him back in his job!).

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    You won’t find this story on the left wing blogs or news sites.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Comment on Hillary’s big show yesterday. The substance was all BS so I’m not going there.

    Based on watching her head and eye movements, and the inflection you would have thought she was speaking in a gym or stadium with people sitting all around and above her.

    They were only sitting in a half circle “at or below” eye level”.

    Very strange mannerism for someone so “ready for primetime”.

    Lousy poker player, she has a big tell when she is spinning the audience.

    V.H. did you notice her physical appearance yesterday? Not the disheveled Sec. of State anymore. Back to the “fashionable” grandmamma.

    • I noticed the mannerisms myself. When a person won’t make eye contact with her audience, there is a problem. Me thinks she should see some charges for violating the Federal Records Act, under her own admission that she deleted some 30,000 emails. Funny how she said many were to Bill, all the while Bill was saying he may have gotten about 2 from her. I find it very strange they aren’t on the same page, or maybe Bill don’t want her to be president.

    • Here’s a good one for you JAC, wouldn’t it be neat if because of all of this stuff Hillary has gotten in to, that the next Democrat running for Prez would be Elizabeth Warren and, get this, her running mate would be …….Barak Obama! Shortly after taking office, Warren would take ill and resign ( or suddenly die). ROFLMAO at this one 😀

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Article XII, last sentence:

        “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

        Article XII was declared ratified September 25, 1804.

        Does that put your fears to rest??

        • Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment[edit]

          There is a point of contention regarding the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.”

          While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear whether a two-term president could later serve as Vice President. Some argue[13] that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession. Others contend[14][15] that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election, and thus a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president. The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus the courts have never been required to make a judgment regarding the matter.

          No, that doesn’t put it to rest and it wouldn’t be beyond the scope of actions to which Obama has already undertaken. For several reason’s, I wouldn’t put this past him or the Democrats. It wouldn’t see the SCOTUS till after the fact and if elected. By then, the SCOTUS could have a different look.

          • While this is but a conspiracy theory, Prior to Obamacare I didn’t think the Feds had the power to for us to purchase a free market product, but I am apparently wrong.

          • The 22nd Amendment states that a person can’t be ELECTED to the office. That doesn’t mean ineligibility to me, it just means he/she can run for the office. This would be a crazy issue if it were to happen.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Candidates must be certified as eligible in order to be placed on ballots. Mr. Obama cannot hold the office of VP, therefore he cannot be eligible to run for the office.

              • Could you, with a straight face, go before the Supreme Court and argue that the 12th Amendment was intended to cover term limits? Let’s not talk to strongly about “being certified as eligible” when it comes to Obama, look how long it took to get a fake birth certificate released 🙂 The 12th has zero to do with term limit’s. It would have stopped a person from becoming Speaker of the House, based on the parameters and requirements of eligibility. None of these parameters the 12th mentions involves term limits, because when it was written, there were none.

            • Interestingly fun. 🙂 Today your taking the same position that the Left would have taken if we were discussing Bush and I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I really don’t see this happening. But it is interesting to think about, especially the way the Constitution has been interpreted over the last couple decades.

              @Buck, what do you think?

    • Well, now that you mention it-I never really thought about her trying to look like a disheveled Sec. of State-I thought she was improving her appearance to look younger when she ran for President-but I did notice that she appeared older at her press conference-less makeup-lighter lipstick and her hair pulled away from her face. 🙂

  27. A few NFL updates for anyone who cares 🙂

    Hoyer signs with Texans, who trade Fitzpatrick to Jets. Lions say Fairley is a goner. Suh still expected to sign with Miami by end of day.

    • Maclin signs with Chiefs, Dwayne Bowe to be released.

      • Looks like RB Ryan Mathews is heading to Philly.

      • TE Julius Thomas (Den) signs with Jacksonville.

      • Dolphins sign SUH and CB Brice McCain.

      • JAC:
        Gil Brandt ✔ @Gil_Brandt

        Best FBS records last 10 years:

        1. Boise St. 113-19 (.856)
        2. Ohio St. 109-21 (.838)
        3. Alabama 107-26 (.805)
        4. Oregon 106-26 (.802

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Check out Boise States Bowl record. There are four college teams with 1.000 bowl records, with La.-Lafayetter having played the most games, at 4-0.

          After that group BSU is number one in the nation over all, with a bowl stat of .667. Better than all the schools who are regularly listed as the power houses of college football. But they are 6-5 during the last ten years. Meaning that 5 of those 19 losses came in Bowl games. Two of the others were Nevada, on the missed field goal that cost them the Rose Bowl appearance, and a regular season loss to TCU, the year before they moved up with the “Big Boys”. Oh, and missed field goals again made the difference.

          Now just so D13 and Bamadad don’t get all worked up, I am NOT claiming BSU is in the same grade as the Big Boys. They can play them head to head but they don’t have to play the same level as often. There were a few years where the WAC was tough. One of which the WAC teams won all but one bowl game, all against higher level teams. But generally their conference is weaker than the majors.

          The difference is not in their starters, but in their depth. 80 scholarships go to every team. But BSU’s second team scholarships could not hold water to say Alabama, Texas, USC or Michigan State. Texas has been a good source of top tier players willing to try out the southern Idaho scene.

    • Tampa Bay DE Michael Johnson to be released. Will he become a Raider?

    • WR Andre Johnson goes to Colts

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    I got angry last night watching TV pundits ripping on the R’s for the Iran letter. While I agree it was bad form it doesn’t rise to the level of vitriol and rhetoric being tossed around. Hell it doesn’t even rise to the level of the primary accusation, that somehow this undermines the President’s ability to negotiate a deal that is good for the world.

    What got me upset was watching even people like Megyn Kelly and Greta jump on this stupid argument. Oh, and all the while ignoring past behavior by Dems that was equally “bad form”. Strange how the pundits are simply accepting the argument this was the “first” breach of protocol.

    So pundits, someone please explain just how this letter undermines the effort to get Iran to NOT PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Go ahead, I dare you, I double dare you to connect those dots.

    In reality all this howling is coming from those who have their head so far up Mr. O’s backside they would get a broken neck if he bent over.

  29. Folks, what can I say? The words of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham are not only chilling, they are tyrannical. Graham, speaking to a group of people gathered in New Hampsire, said that if he were president of the United States, he would not allow Congress to leave Congress until his demands were met and he would use the US military to ensure they could not leave town, a clear usurpation of power by the executive branch.


  30. Just A Citizen says:


    Looks like one of my old colleagues has become part of your Sparty family. Mark is good people and quite sharp.

    • Alrighty then. Any friend of JAC and friend of the Forest Service is welcome at MSU. He does have some splainin’ to do about his alma mater, tho. 😉

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I know I discussed this before but it deserves mentioning again. That is if you want to understand how it is people like Pelosi and Reid, and Boehner and McConnell become so powerful.

      Within the story is the biggest part of the reason:

      “Interestingly, all the money that was funneled by the big Democratic donor to Menendez came through a PAC controlled by…wait for it…Harry Reid. Reid’s PAC collected $700,000 of this “dirty money” then gave $600,000 to Menendez. So why isn’t Harry Reid being indicted?”

      People get “leadership” positions because they live in “safe states” and they can raise massive amounts of money. This money is then placed in their PAC or campaign funds. But since they are safe they hand this money out to others. They become the Godfather/Godmother of those needing help.

      This is why you see the Dems marching in lockstep. Between Pelosi, Reid and the DNC they are trapped by the money. The split in the Rep party is largely due to a divergence of this funding blackmail. It started with Delay and Demint who created separate funding mechanisms for “conservatives”. Then the Tea Party came along and upset the funding cart with more “outside” money.

      So if you look at the supposed RHINOS or “establishment” Republicans I am betting you find them primarily tied to the old money sources. Those radical “non-adults” won using other money and are thus not nearly as beholding.

      This of course shows not only part of the problem but how to go about fixing the system. And it has nothing to do with Corporate donations or Super PACS. It has everything to do with WHO is in control of them. When the controllers are Politicians you get this DYNASTY building behavior. The Oligarchs are not really big business but big politics.

  31. @Buck. OK is doing what we had agreed on about the marriage issue, notice the arguments never end:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The proposal does create one legal issue. Who defines “common law” and which applications for a “common law affidavit” will be accepted? Will Polygamy suddenly become recognized via “affidavit”?

      I like the approach but these holes need filled.

      As for the rebuttal, you are dead on. The argument is full out fallacious. The Feds NEVER ask for proof of marriage for most benefits, like tax deductions. They may ask “when” were you married.

      Only once have I ever had to produce a marriage license in over 30 years. And that was just recently in order to prove I qualified for the survivor benefit on my wife’s retirement. Obviously an affidavit of common law marriage would work in that situation.

  32. Shooting cops in Ferguson Mo now. How long before Martial Law is called for? This makes me think that something that is a local matter can explode into a National matter, which cannot end well. Concern level is about 3 of 10 and rising.

    • They believe it’s a handgun, at 100 to 125 yards? Really? That’s pushing my non-belief meter.

    • This is NOT a local matter. The shootings are outside….even the Ferguson police know this. And….hats off to anyone,,,,,,ANYONE that is shooting a pistol at 100-125 yards.

      Much like a one iron in golf….even GOD cannot hit a one iron….and even GOD cannot hit a policeman at 100 yards with any type of store bought pistol.

      I am a damned good shot…..and have several pistols…..I would be surprised if I could kick up the dust at the feet of anyone at 125 yards…..Even Clint Eastwood with his 44 mag.aint doing that.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Hmmmmmmmmmm………………… I can hit a one iron, and a two iron.

        In fact I used them for years because I could not get my Driver or 3 wood to work properly.

        Funny thing is that once I did get them to work the One and Two now shoot crooked. Think I need a new bag because something in there is affecting my club’s ability to perform.

        • Well, you have to watch polar vortex’s and black holes very carefully. Their effect on 1 irons is mystical. I can hit a 1 iron…I am just unsure how far and where it will go….rumor has it that solar flares affect the flight trajectory of a 2 iron as well.

          But, there is an axiom in the golfing world……that once the drivers and three woods start working, the 1 and 2 irons get pretty jealous and if you do not get them out of your bag quickly, there will be a coup and then all of a sudden you will start s******g ( I never say the “S” word), the 7 iron and the yips appear on the putter. Then you start changing your putting stance and you start talking to yourself….when all you had to do was take the 1 and 2 iron out of your bag.

          NOw, some people have graduated to the hybrids…..I have not….I am old school…..I still even use a BullsEye brass putter….and have real woods and not metals. BUt I play with the pro taylor made irons and just recently bought the Burner Taylor Made driver….To my surprise, I can hit it pretty well….and STRAIGHT !!! And I can still use the proper vernacular when things go awry….it is never my fault….it is those clubs sometimes have a mind of their own…..not to mention the golf ball……it seems that I got my hands on some of those German made golf balls….you know the kind…..the hookinfukers.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Well that would explain it, the jealousy thing I never considered.

            I know those german balls well and their cousins the S…..kers.

            Taylor Made………..metal shaft. The woods are metal but old school size. Others are amazed I can hit a ball on “such a small head”. Same clubs for over 20 years. Would love to have a good set of Persimmon woods though.

            Been tempted to try the “Burner”. But I usually can’t hit the oversized heads.

            • Does it matter the brand on the Persimmons?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                No. More concerned with fitting my hand speed and swing. Of course expense is an issue as well. Last time I found a good driver it was over a thousand.

                Although something to be said for just having them to show off.

                Got some ideas do you? Perhaps a little swat and follow “testing grounds”???

    • Great point-“In every other shooting, the left goes looking for the toxic politics that animated the shooting, and tries to connect it with a politician’s words; here, they’re aghast that anyone would be so gauche to do that.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      It is infuriating watching the lefts reaction to this issue. “Nothing here” is the summary.

      Besides Patraeus, why not ask all the other Govt officials who have had their careers torpedoed or ended due to much less violations of these document laws? And yes, they are out there if someone wants to find them. Several during this Administration. Along with “communicating with the Press without first getting White House clearance”.


      Federal employees are allowed a small amount of tolerance to make calls on Govt time with Govt devices. This entail “emergencies” in the family. But when “cell phones” came along the rules got tighter because no longer in there a need to use the Govt provided phone.

      Interesting side note. For years I have been trying to convince Spousal Unit Leader that Hillary was not the great WOMAN leader she thought. Of all the things to cause her to give up on Hillary, this is the issue. This morning she proclaimed that she has no use for people in leadership who think they are above the rules. Hillary just lost one vote for sure.

      Wonder how many others will start to realize this conflict? We will see the Dem media operatives working feverishly to make sure this does not grow legs. Watch them contort and twist themselves into pretzels.

      As for the R’s dealing with this, does anyone not understand what the Dem response will be? That it will be the same tired old accusations of “vast right wing conspiracy” and “hate Hillary syndrome”?? So if you know what the other side’s play is, and it hasn’t changed in 20 years, how is it you don’t have a good response? One that the press will pick up with a sound bite or talking point that resonates??

      One more thought. This could be most interesting if the “coronation” process of the DNC and Clinton machine is derailed. The Clinton Foundation funding and payments back to Bill and Hillary is the next shoe to fall. So if it is derailed, Buck and Mathius might have some actual “Progressive” choices in the Dem primary next year.

      We might actually get to see the split in the Dem party exposed to public debate for a change. Some more conservative Dem vs. E. Warren for example.

  33. Isn’t it amazing that the recall on the green 223 round has been recinded……

  34. @ JAC……don’t forget the effect of global warming on round ball….I am sure that if we were to contact Al Gore, he would quicklyinform us that the 1/1000th temperature variance will likely affect the flight and spin of your favorite Titleist. (100) of course.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      That is why I prefer the Balata………. old school is not affected by breezes up to 60 mph. 🙂

      OK, I have to admit I have not hit a Balata in several years. But you did figure me out, Titleist all the way. Can’t remember the number I used last two years but it was one of their newer balls with a much “softer” feel.

      I don’t like the high tech “hard balls”. Feels and sounds like hitting a rock, even on the screws.

      • Nope…..Balata all the way. I still hit the pro traj 100 Balata when it is 70 degrees or better. I hit the 90 compression black/red for a sfter feel when temps drop. Do not go with the new hot balls that are rejected by the PGA and USGA. for tournament play. But it is very hard to “back up” a non balata.

        As to Persimmon woods….they are available and I do have connections……Powerbilt Persimmons…..

        I just cant get used to the “clink” of a metal club…it is like the “clink” of a baseball ain’t Kosher.

        Bu the “whoosh…click” of a persimmon wood club…..ahhhhhhhhh.

        HOwever, I did hit that Burner pretty good….and they are light…..more club head speen at the bottom but you cannot over swing them…..or you will have that hookinfuker.

        • Sorry for all the mis-spelled words. My key board does not know how to spell correctly as yet.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          You have some secret stash of Pro Traj Balatas somewhere??

          Checked the bag, been using the new Pro V1. Tried the Pro V1x but it was to hard for my liking. The Pro V1 has a softer feel. Not balata but not a rock either.

  35. I think we have the dumbest politicians in the world. They all know the rules in fact some of them helped write the rules. They willy-nilly break those rules and then claim ignorance or some other lame excuse that a high school student can see through in a flash. I will take them at their word, ignorant. But what does that say about us who elected them?

    • But what does that say about us who elected them?

      It say’s a lot. How many times have you said “well, it’s the better of the two evils”? I admit that I had been saying that for years before I started actually digging into the disaster called American politics. AS a younger man, I didn’t vote on any particular political party, I usually read up on the candidates in the local paper (after seeing all the BS commercials).

      Maybe it’s me, but newspapers at the local level, back then , didn’t seem partisan. I used to enjoy when the big pullout section was put in the paper. It outlined the candidates and the issues, usually without opinion. Fast forward, we are given a choice, usually, of two candidates that seem worthy of one’s vote (the frontrunners). Then, of course, the local paper/TV pundit’s will say who the favorite is, which has an impact for many, because people like to win. Face it, most voters are low info voters who do little research and rely on commercials or simply vote on Party lines.

      Now, the real problem are the choices given. It’s usually decided which politicians will run for the party ticket. Even in the Primary’s, those running in the Primary’s are all “acceptable” with the Party leadership. If one or two aren’t, they stand little chance of winning. Then come election time, see above paragraph. I would say that in a vast majority of elections these days, it’s not the voter, it’s the choices the voter gets. Hence, the illusion of choice 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is not the actual “party leadership” who decides who runs in the primaries. Nor even who wins. The “leaders” of the party are diverse in their personal views and opinions of candidates like everyone else.

        As the process goes along they will RECRUIT and then gel around those who they think can win. So lets deal with the “how do they project the ability to win”?

        This is where the MONEY comes to play. And those who hand out the big bucks are NOT the same as the Party Leadership.

        Now in the past two POTUS cycles I think there is one place where the actual “leadership” has played a role. But it is not in directly deciding who is running. I believe, but have no direct proof, that certain people were encouraged to stay in the primaries to dilute the “conservative” vote, thus allowing McCain and then Romney to get the nomination.

        Remember back to the deal involving Huckabee that got McCain one of the Carolinas, knocking Romney out of what was looking like a sure win.

        The vast majority of people have no idea how all this party politics stuff works. So you see this rhetoric about “they” pick our candidates. They do not pick them. Well at least that has not been the case with the R’s in recent decades. The D’s are starting to look a little like an oligarchy but certainly not the R’s.

        But watch out. There is a growing chance that Hillary is not going to be the “presumed” candidate. She may well get knocked out by the next “rock star” pushing more “P” progressive ideas. What’s more Progressive that taxing people for moving away from your state?

        We cannot affect this messed up system if we do not identify it properly and then understand it. Blaming “party leaders” or a few powerful people is a gross oversimplification. It may be part of the problem, but it is not the only part of the problem. The Ron Paul people understood this and fought from within the system as best they could. They showed that such pressure can work if it can be sustained. Their problem was that when they got push back it coincided with Paul’s retirement.

        Idea: In those states allowing citizen initiatives and/or amendments start a campaign for “none of the above” that is binding. If None of the Above wins, then a new election must be held.

        Another option is to end ALL Political Party sanctions and grants by State laws. Prohibit the use of Party Affiliation on ballots for all offices, require multiple run offs with a full field of candidates, etc. etc.

        Expand the number of elected officials in the State legislatures to improve the ration of elected/electors.

        • All the options we talk about are great. The problem is, people are elected to a Federal government and are not doing what they are elected to do. The Republicans now have the majority of Congress, instead of action like it and doing things that they have the power to do, they instead act like wounded f-ing ducks about to have their heads squashed by King Obama. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think you have a clue about the level of corruption that has infected the Fed’s. If you do, then you most certainly do not have an answer to the problems.

          There are lots of things that can help, but they aren’t going to cut their own heads off, which means the problems will just continue, despite elections. We will just elect more people who will talk a big game, become millionaires, and then retire comfortably, while accomplishing nothing. Did I mention the wounded duck majority that recently got elected? The only way this establishment is going to get fixed is by complete removal. How that can be accomplished varies. They may collapse under their own weight soon, that would be the nicest way, except for the suffering the rest of the people will go through as a result.

          Basically, IMHO, we don’t have 100 damn years to play the election game to try to fix the unfixable. This nation won’t last 100 more years at the rate it is going. I’m not so sure it will last another 10. If you haven’t noticed, Obama has been screwing with a nuclear power, who don’t seem to take to much shit from little sissy boys like Obama. It’s not like we have the same military we had ten years ago either, Obama has made sure of that. Just Sayin 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Lets take some of your comments on directly.

            “All the options we talk about are great. The problem is, people are elected to a Federal government and are not doing what they are elected to do.” SAYS YOU BUT NOT THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THEM. YOU ARE GENERALIZING.

            “The Republicans now have the majority of Congress, instead of action like it and doing things that they have the power to do, they instead act like wounded f-ing ducks about to have their heads squashed by King Obama.” AGAIN GENERALIZING ALL REPUBLICANS AS THE SAME. DESPITE YEARS OF DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT THE DIFFERENT FACTIONS WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. AS I SAID BEFORE, YOUR COMPLAINT IS CAUSED BY THE FACT YOUR VIEWS ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY AT THIS TIME.

            ” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think you have a clue about the level of corruption that has infected the Fed’s. If you do, then you most certainly do not have an answer to the problems.” IT IS JUST YOU. I HAVE MANY IDEAS BUT THERE IS NO “ANSWER”. THERE ARE ONLY DIFFERING IDEAS, SOME OF WHICH WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER AND OTHERS MAY NOT. I CAN TELL YOU ONE IDEA THAT ABSOLUTELY WON’T FIX ANYTHING THOUGH. THAT IS THE NOTION THAT NOT VOTING WILL CHANGE ANYTHING.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Sorry JAC, not buying the excuses anymore. They had the power to defund amnesty proved that they are simply on the same team. They knew GD well that the DHS would not have laid off anyone except the non- essentials. So, with all due respect, BULLSHIT! Excuses are for losers,

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You once again show off your ignorance about what was possible and how things work.

                Go ahead and keep throwing around the generalizations and cynics view. Nothing will change.

                WHO had the power to defund the “amnesty”? Go ahead and tell me WHO.

                And how is it that those voting against the funding bill are on the same team as those voting for the funding bill? Go ahead and tell me HOW.

                Here is some insider baseball for you. Did you know that it was NOT the Tea Party Conservatives who picked the fight over the DHS funding bill? Did you know that these “conservatives” told the leadership that it was a LOSER and not worth fighting via the funding bill?

                Did you know it was the Leadership that made the argument and pushed to get everyone on the same page? That it was this same leadership who then bolted and stabbed the Conservatives in the back when the fight got heated and public?

                Now tell me, are they all on the same page? Why would the Leadership possibly pull a stunt like that? Who got egg on their face and ridiculed in the media? Who came out looking like “adults”? Same page my backside.

                Your argument amounts to accusing someone of making an excuse for not making the sun rise in the West, just because they said they would try to do that.

                Who DHS would have furloughed is irrelevant to the entire issue. It only matters to the media players. The FACT is that who got sent home was entirely up to Mr. Obama. Give the last time this happened who do you think he would have sent home?

                So with all due respect, your response is exactly what you claim of others. The sad part is that after years of reading the information provided here you would still make such shallow accusations against others.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                JAC, wake up dude. The only thing the low info voter, who are the majority of voters saw was wounded ducks who failed , it don’t matter WHO within the party did anything, the only thing is that they failed when they could have shown they were something other than just another corrupt political party.

                But let’s put things in a different perspective. Had the entire DHS been shut down (or whom ever Obama decided) and nothing happened, it would simply have shown the public how useless another expensive government agency is, can’t have thst , now can we?

                Do I think if the Tea Party types were in charge that things would be different? Yes. They NEVER will be, they have already been eaten by the powerful. You know them, those in charge you mentioned .

                Sorry, you can yell and go to name calling all you want, I’m used to it, just like the Lefty’s over at the NM. Your making great strides at promoting the problem, government.

  36. Now, as to the private accounts and missing emails……who gives a rat’s patootie……everybody do it. This administration has set a new low….we might as well follow it….the example has been set.

  37. Thought that I would mention another problem on the Texas border. The last 9 arrests were not Hispanic, Central, or South American in origin. They were Middle Eastern descent……I have warned before that the normal is not happening….it used to be people just looking for work…the majority of the border crossings now are criminal in origin and from around the world. And I am using the term MAJORITY.

    In addition, Obama’s order to not deport also extends to the criminal element. Even if we catch them in the act…..deportations are not allowed. AND this is Obama’s order.

    Oh, and I might mention that there is renewed vigor in prosecuting the media and border authorities for reporting the truth……This is a deliberate attempt by OBAMA himself to destroy the fabric of America. When you sanitize the news under threat of losing a license or going to jail……..that is a direct assault on American values.

    It is a damed war zone down here…….and it is being sanitized and hidden.

    • These are similar actions to some famous people from the past. This is but one piece of the puzzle leading to a dictatorship. I can’t think of another single thing that Obama’s actions would be for. I don’t see it as votes, he don’t care about anyone but himself.

    • D13, what would keep Texas from passing their own deportation law? Have it written so that if the Feds will NOT enforce our laws, then Texas will. Just a thought.

    • If you are seeing a majority of middle eastern descent, then there are potentially MILLIONS of them already in our country. And, thanks to our corrupt government, they have been placed all over the country. He (Obama) has his army in place and ready for attack. He has already divided the American people racially, sexually, religiously, etc. The American heartland will be in chaos, Putin will be able to take as much of Europe as he wants, Iran will be able to nuke Israel, and USA will not be able to stop any of it because we will be fighting for our lives and our own country here at home. I just can’t believe we let it happen!?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So what are you doing about it? Are you trying to do things that will have a positive affect, as you view it?

  38. Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University testified before the Senate Budget Committee. As usual, his testimony is shocking

    The U.S. has a $210 trillion “fiscal gap” and “may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff told members of the Senate Budget Committee in written and oral testimony on Feb. 25.
    “The first point I want to get across is that our nation is broke,” Kotlikoff testified. “Our nation’s broke, and it’s not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It’s broke today.

    “Indeed, it may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” he said.

    Kotlikoff has become skilled at producing sound bites. The media are always after sound bites.

    He is always focusing on the key statistic, which is not the on-budget annual deficit. He focuses on the unfunded liabilities of the federal government.


    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh, Professor. Please explain how the President was not breaking the law when he unilaterally normalized relations with Cuba. In direct violation of rightful laws passed by Congress preventing such normalization.

      Go ahead, and explain how the Presidents issuing work visas to ILLEGAL ALIENS in direct contradiction to rightful laws passed by Congress is NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

      Sometimes I wonder if dopes like this show up because somebody is paying them to create the appearance of “an opposing” viewpoint.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    More evidence of how our system got screwed up by LAWYERS. Here we have a “legal scholar”, notice the appeal to authority, claiming the R’s violated the Logan Act with their letter to Iran. Especially notice his convoluted thinking and how he has to twist the case in mid air to come to his conclusion. That being “well as Senators” they have special affect.

    “Vladeck said it could be argued that the letter’s signatories do wield official U.S. authority and are federal officers in their capacity as U.S. senators.

    But even if they don’t, Vladeck said a Logan Act prosecution would fall apart because of subsequent free federal free speech cases that have taken a dim view of attempts to criminalize speech.

    Peter Spiro, a constitutional law professor at Temple University, took the opposing track, arguing that the Republican letter is a case “that fits pretty neatly with the elements of a Logan Act violation.”

    “These guys are freelancing,” Spiro said. “For these purposes I don’t see them as private individuals except that because they are members of Congress it actually has greater potential to interfere with the successful undertaking of negotiations. It actually cuts the other way.” THIS IS THE TWISTING IN MID AIR TO WHICH I AM REFERRING.

    Spiro agreed with Vladeck that there’s no chance the senators would face prosecution, and said it’s becoming less and less likely the law will ever be used again.

    Part of that is because interactions between lawmakers, officials and private citizens with foreign officials have become increasingly common since the Logan Act’s 1799 inception.

    Remember the law’s lone indictment? It happened in 1803.”

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Example of the old Strawman, or False Premise, fallacy from the Condescending Jackass in Chief.

    “President Barack Obama said he’s “embarrassed” for the group of Republicans who sent a letter to Iran warning against a nuclear deal with the United States.

    “I’m embarrassed for them,” Obama told Vice. “For them to address a letter to the ayatollah — the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is: don’t deal with our president, because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement… That’s close to unprecedented.”

    And the media whore who got this interview didn’t have the INTELLIGENCE to challenge the accusation regarding what Mr. O claims was the “basic argument” vs. what the actual argument was.

    In fact, their fear is just the opposite of the one Mr. O is making here. They are afraid Mr. O WILL FOLLOW THROUGH on his agreement. They fear the agreement itself.

    This provides an opening for the R’s to make points with the public on this issue. But I’ll bet you the farm they don’t capitalize on it. Just start calling him Neville Obama, or Barack Chamberlin. Maybe then the asshat media will start to have to address the substance of the dispute.

    Yes, you are detecting a slightly “angry” tone this morning. Sorry about that.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Someone want to tell me again how the Republicans got a mandate to kill Mr. Obama’s amnesty?

    Got that? 14 states are intervening in the litigation against the other states.

    That is some mandate.

  42. Read this in a hurry-but it sounds like it would make for an interesting conversation.

  43. Just A Citizen says:


    noun, plural treaties.

    1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

    2. the formal document embodying such an international agreement.

    3. any agreement or compact

    Congress needs to ask through the appropriate committees to be kept abreast. This is the proper way for the President to keep from being embarrassed by the Senate rejecting his “agreement”. Then it needs to go to the Senate for advice and CONSENT.

    If Mr. Obama takes the agreement to the UN without Senate approval Congress needs to file IMPEACHMENT charges for the High Crime of failing to adhere to the Constitution. Of course this is politically suicidal given that the Dems will not stand up against their own.

    So then the Congress can put the UN on notice that the agreement has not binding affect unless it is approved by the Senate.

    Meanwhile the Republicans need to develop a media strategy and implement it, that gets the public to understand WHY this is so important. To refute the lies being told by the Dems at this point.

    • I’m taking this to mean that you agree that the Bill they are trying to pass is a mistake.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes. It will create an unnecessary distraction and create more embarrassments for no good reason.

        The R’s simply need to articulate the Constitutional requirements and WHY that is important.

        They need to call out the Dems for LYING about POTUS having authority to ignore the Senate.

        They could pass a “resolution” notifying the President of their objections and intent to ENFORCE the Constitution. I am not sure that non binding resolutions can be filibustered by Reid.

    • Don’t you just love how the democrats are describing going to the UN as a way to stop the obstructionist GOP-when what they would actually be doing is using the UN to usurp the power of the US Congress.

    • Also- the definition you provided of treaties seems to say pretty clearly that all agreements made by the President with Iran would qualify as treaties-no matter what the left calls them.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        So Kerry says that no matter what the letter by the Senators says, an agreement between the administration can not be overturned. BS. The Senate is definitely stating that they are to be advised to the proceedings and they maybe will and maybe not give consent. Even the threat of administration followers saying they’ll just go to the UN. Unfortunately for them the charter of the UN states that the Constitutional laws and treaty process of their members can not to be overridden. Since the signing of the UN charter by Truman there has been a growing propaganda drum being beaten that the UN treaties override any individual countries laws. That is a theory 1st put out by Dulles and repeated ad infinitum since then. Granted once consented upon by Congress, yes, it is law. To me, Congress by ignoring any agreement by any administration is “granting” consent. However, this is a case where Congress is not ignoring the proceedings and is demanding being advised of the proceedings.

%d bloggers like this: