What they actually teach in school now is shocking. Describing what passes for social studies now would be a hell of a good investigative series in and of itself, except that nobody would believe it.
Personnel is policy. Maybe we should stop hiring graduates of schools of education all together--hire Veterans only--take a page from Heinlein, give it a decade and see what a difference that would make.
My favorites are his YAs, including Podkayne and the Rolling Stones; and The Door Into Summer. His blockbuster novels like Stranger in a Strange Land etc. seem like the babblings of a dirty old man (even allowing for the culture of the time), and all the characters speak exactly the same.
Veterans can make great teachers, but the ones I’ve known have been shocked by the disorder and disrespect that is the norm in many schools. If they can adjust, though, they are an asset!
Well, obviously that was only because Reagan was also a nazi fascist that did whatever he wanted and the judges (who were also nazi fascists) let him do whatever he wanted. Clearly, orange man bad.
Hank Johnson wonders if stationing more Naval assets on Guam might tip the island over...
Less is more. We need fewer voters, like maybe 1/3-1/2 of the current voting public. Less diversity. Fewer 'congressional caucuses'.
True across all systems of government. What happened to the DOGE discoveries? How about 1//10 of the federal bench? 1/20th of the federal work force? 1/20th of the flag officer billets across DOW. Same with state, county, city.
Less, less, less. I would support a TDY to Argentina to see how it's done, that would be federal money well spent.
The Tom Cruise movie where he plays a pilot flying drugs for a cartel is called “American Made” (2017). In this film, Cruise stars as Barry Seal, a real-life pilot who is recruited by the CIA in the late 1970s and 1980s and becomes involved with the Medellín Cartel, flying cocaine into the United States while also working covertly for the CIA. The movie is based on true events tied to the Iran-Contra Affair and follows how Seal balances secret government work, drug smuggling, and escalating danger as both law enforcement and criminal elements close in.
Ah yes, anyone remember Iran-Contra? Colonel Oliver North ring a bell? Oh but according to David French, the US military has NEVER been involved in the drug wars!
I miss the old War on Drugs even though was just a turf war for CIA slush funds
Then they got serious and enabled Big Pharma taking down the DEA for the OxyContin War With Drugs
Now, The safer use, the legal super weed the fentanyl all of them are chemical weapons
IMHOP it seems the rot still runs deep in US intelligence, FBI etc. and doesn’t that bode poorly for interdiction? Sure hope not and want to hear more messaging versus demand and setting in motion policies with proven utility relative to the drug users. Houston has a working model meanwhile California and Canada congratulate themselves running programs that failed out in the 20th century in Europe and HAVE been replaced with approaches that work
Thanks for sharing the full text of Judge Green's decision. Even though the judge dismissed the case, it's worth noting that she did it in a remarkably tepid way. She "declined" to get involved, out of concern that she might interfere with the Congress's legislative functions. She expressed not a single word of concern about interfering with the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, she failed in any way to define what kinds of Presidential actions are not subject to judicial oversight. Thus, sadly, this precedent would be meaningless to present-day judicial tyrants like Boasberg.
Yeah, kind of idiotic. She didn't even acknowledge that the Constitution clearly vests the power to declare war in the Executive, not Congress. And that even if it did invest it with Congress, the "power to declare war" is totally different than the power to *start* a war.
Paul: thanks for the reply. The power to DECLARE war is in fact vested in the Congress: Article I, Section 8, clause 11. But the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the United States has always used armed force in various situations that fall short of a declared war. Although it is a legitimate complaint against the American ruling class that no armed conflict since WWII has actually been a Congressionally-declared war. But that's a whole other story.
I apologize for my sarcasm. Thank you for your considered reply.
One of the principles of "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution (and legislation) is that the words were included because they (a) mean something and (b) are articulating an actual power granted to or withheld from the government.
If the president's position as the Commander in Chief means he can carry the nation into war without Congressional authorization it renders Article I, Section 8, clause 11 meaningless.
To the Founders, participating in armed conflict and declaring war were not the same things. We can and should forcibly resist invasion, suppress insurrections, destroy pirates, etc., without declaring war. But there are situations were a declaration of war is desirable, and even when it's necessary. The Founders were very concerned that the US should abide by "the Law of Nations," and many of them had read the treatise of Emer de Vattel on the subject (published in 1758). They were also concerned that the People as a whole should have a voice in major conflicts, through a Congressional declaration of war. One of the principles of Constitutional interpretation (I prefer Justice Scalia's term, "original understanding," to "original intent") is that we assume no words in the text are superfluous. America would be in a much better place right now if Congress had thought through an actual declaration of war after 9/11--starting with the question, "Against whom??" Instead, they passed an ambiguous "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which did not conform to the Law of Nations. The Founders would have been appalled.
"... We can and should forcibly resist invasion, suppress insurrections, destroy pirates, etc., without declaring war."
I agree. However, none of those things describes what we're doing to Venezuela right now.
We agree on original intent (or as you prefer, original meaning).
I also agree that things would have been much better if Bush had asked Congress to *declare war* rather than what they did. As we see, what the AUMF allows is for the Executive to designate any potential enemy as "a terrorist organization" and go to war with them.
It's easy to forget (because the MSM didn't talk about it, ever, as I recall) that the Panamanian government declared war on the United States on January 15. On January 16 they attacked four US service members, killing one and seriously wounding another. The next day they detained a US Navy SEAL and his wife who had witnessed the attack of the previous day. The beat the SEAL (putting him in the hospital for two weeks) and threatened to rape his wife. (Source: Wikipedia)
That day, Bush ordered the invasion to launch on January 20.
I'm old enough to remember the Grenada affair and how Reagan handled it. IIRC, war was never declared - declaration of war is what congress decides. If a president isn't declaring war, no need to consult congress.
I would also add that I've watched Trump for over 45 yrs - have seen him through numerous interviews. He always does things legally. As president he has always done things legally and always makes sure he's doing it according to our constitution and laws. Dem lawmakers are idiots who don't even know our own laws or our constitution.
See Congressman Hank Johnson who was worried that "Guam might tip over" when he heard about the planned military buildup in Guam.
Yeah but Chris, Cocaine is awesome....so raiding the cartels then was GOOD, Fentanyl is very very Bad....so obviously Trump is also very very Bad. See? It's so simple! It's also possible David French never saw Clear and Present Danger: We sent Willem Dafoe and Harrison Ford down there, and it totally got Donald Moffat impeached. Those were wild times!
This is an example of why Matt Taibbi's Racket is doing timelines for various issues! The MSM sometimes/frequently/all-the-time neglects to provide this important context with stories they want to mold.
These people would invite aliens to earth and assume they're benevolent.
"Oh lookie! The Orcs are coming, Sire!"
"What should we do?"
"Don't be silly, let them in you raaaaaacist! ".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUrAMxmO_A
Lolol. You always have the perfect stuff.
Its almost as if you do this for a living....:)
That is such a great movie!
I just hope during the Trump White House remodel, they don't get rid of the Kennedy Room.
Ha!Ha! That was actually a movie? I guess I missed this one! 😱🤪
Complete with Tom Jones!
Oh I love Tom Jones. I’ve seen him twice in concert, and he was older.
Hoping ICE can deport them before it gets that kinetic!
🤣😂
A sense of humor is a survival mechanism - thank you.
LOL.
Boasburg looks like a orc. Or a hemorrhoid on an orca ass.
Lolol. That gave me a chuckle!
And here I was, thinking he must be related to Lurch!
Lurch was much better looking!
As a fellow Ted Cassidy/Lurch fan since childhood, I felt I should share this in case you hadn't seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAUY_ewptw
Thank-you! I had never seen this or heard the song. I can guarantee my parents did not let that show on their TV. 🤨😉😊😋
Chris, once again, thank you for your sharing of history with us. 👍
The solution to much of this would be to teach American history in school.
That's crazy talk
What they actually teach in school now is shocking. Describing what passes for social studies now would be a hell of a good investigative series in and of itself, except that nobody would believe it.
Personnel is policy. Maybe we should stop hiring graduates of schools of education all together--hire Veterans only--take a page from Heinlein, give it a decade and see what a difference that would make.
bsn
At least the veterans stories would be interesting.
Read Starship Troopers if you haven’t. It is a great read, the movie is an abomination.
IMHO, Heilein at his best.
Podkayne of Mars was Heinlein at his best, but, point taken.
Just added to my wishlist on Audible. Thanks. Have a great evening.
bsn
My favorites are his YAs, including Podkayne and the Rolling Stones; and The Door Into Summer. His blockbuster novels like Stranger in a Strange Land etc. seem like the babblings of a dirty old man (even allowing for the culture of the time), and all the characters speak exactly the same.
Veterans can make great teachers, but the ones I’ve known have been shocked by the disorder and disrespect that is the norm in many schools. If they can adjust, though, they are an asset!
Mostly a throw away comment more about the utter failure of public education. The difference between ‘training’ and ‘educating’ is nuanced at best.
The idea of an EdD is preposterous, and likely coincides with the precipitous drop in reading comprehension and math capability.
But what do I know? Just talking shit with my thumbs…
bsn
Well, obviously that was only because Reagan was also a nazi fascist that did whatever he wanted and the judges (who were also nazi fascists) let him do whatever he wanted. Clearly, orange man bad.
As the forefathers of logic have stated:
P implies Q, P, therefore orange man bad
If only the nightly news of our childhoods existed to share the same news with everyone!
JOHN CHANCELLOR, WE SUMMON YOU
Walter Cronkite, please.
Y’all aren’t old enough to remember uncle Walter lying his face off?
I sure do. One of television’s biggest frauds.
I was a little kid. I liked his voice.
As I was reading this, thinking to myself, "Is John Conyers truly this dumb? Are people truly made this stupid?"
...and then I remembered this brilliance on display:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/S3TJaI0BsIs
Hank Johnson wonders if stationing more Naval assets on Guam might tip the island over...
Less is more. We need fewer voters, like maybe 1/3-1/2 of the current voting public. Less diversity. Fewer 'congressional caucuses'.
True across all systems of government. What happened to the DOGE discoveries? How about 1//10 of the federal bench? 1/20th of the federal work force? 1/20th of the flag officer billets across DOW. Same with state, county, city.
Less, less, less. I would support a TDY to Argentina to see how it's done, that would be federal money well spent.
bsn
All they have is lawfare.
Greedy, unAmerican F/ckers.
Oh, its the FAKE NEWS showing their total ignorance again on all things Trump. Grifters all.
The Tom Cruise movie where he plays a pilot flying drugs for a cartel is called “American Made” (2017). In this film, Cruise stars as Barry Seal, a real-life pilot who is recruited by the CIA in the late 1970s and 1980s and becomes involved with the Medellín Cartel, flying cocaine into the United States while also working covertly for the CIA. The movie is based on true events tied to the Iran-Contra Affair and follows how Seal balances secret government work, drug smuggling, and escalating danger as both law enforcement and criminal elements close in.
Ah yes, anyone remember Iran-Contra? Colonel Oliver North ring a bell? Oh but according to David French, the US military has NEVER been involved in the drug wars!
Only we old bastards.
I miss the old War on Drugs even though was just a turf war for CIA slush funds
Then they got serious and enabled Big Pharma taking down the DEA for the OxyContin War With Drugs
Now, The safer use, the legal super weed the fentanyl all of them are chemical weapons
IMHOP it seems the rot still runs deep in US intelligence, FBI etc. and doesn’t that bode poorly for interdiction? Sure hope not and want to hear more messaging versus demand and setting in motion policies with proven utility relative to the drug users. Houston has a working model meanwhile California and Canada congratulate themselves running programs that failed out in the 20th century in Europe and HAVE been replaced with approaches that work
End the war on Americans!
Thanks for sharing the full text of Judge Green's decision. Even though the judge dismissed the case, it's worth noting that she did it in a remarkably tepid way. She "declined" to get involved, out of concern that she might interfere with the Congress's legislative functions. She expressed not a single word of concern about interfering with the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, she failed in any way to define what kinds of Presidential actions are not subject to judicial oversight. Thus, sadly, this precedent would be meaningless to present-day judicial tyrants like Boasberg.
Yeah, kind of idiotic. She didn't even acknowledge that the Constitution clearly vests the power to declare war in the Executive, not Congress. And that even if it did invest it with Congress, the "power to declare war" is totally different than the power to *start* a war.
Obviously.
What a dope!
Paul: thanks for the reply. The power to DECLARE war is in fact vested in the Congress: Article I, Section 8, clause 11. But the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the United States has always used armed force in various situations that fall short of a declared war. Although it is a legitimate complaint against the American ruling class that no armed conflict since WWII has actually been a Congressionally-declared war. But that's a whole other story.
I apologize for my sarcasm. Thank you for your considered reply.
One of the principles of "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution (and legislation) is that the words were included because they (a) mean something and (b) are articulating an actual power granted to or withheld from the government.
If the president's position as the Commander in Chief means he can carry the nation into war without Congressional authorization it renders Article I, Section 8, clause 11 meaningless.
Paul:
To the Founders, participating in armed conflict and declaring war were not the same things. We can and should forcibly resist invasion, suppress insurrections, destroy pirates, etc., without declaring war. But there are situations were a declaration of war is desirable, and even when it's necessary. The Founders were very concerned that the US should abide by "the Law of Nations," and many of them had read the treatise of Emer de Vattel on the subject (published in 1758). They were also concerned that the People as a whole should have a voice in major conflicts, through a Congressional declaration of war. One of the principles of Constitutional interpretation (I prefer Justice Scalia's term, "original understanding," to "original intent") is that we assume no words in the text are superfluous. America would be in a much better place right now if Congress had thought through an actual declaration of war after 9/11--starting with the question, "Against whom??" Instead, they passed an ambiguous "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which did not conform to the Law of Nations. The Founders would have been appalled.
"... We can and should forcibly resist invasion, suppress insurrections, destroy pirates, etc., without declaring war."
I agree. However, none of those things describes what we're doing to Venezuela right now.
We agree on original intent (or as you prefer, original meaning).
I also agree that things would have been much better if Bush had asked Congress to *declare war* rather than what they did. As we see, what the AUMF allows is for the Executive to designate any potential enemy as "a terrorist organization" and go to war with them.
Didn’t we overthrow Norega in Panama. That was fun.
Operation Just [be]Cause.
It's easy to forget (because the MSM didn't talk about it, ever, as I recall) that the Panamanian government declared war on the United States on January 15. On January 16 they attacked four US service members, killing one and seriously wounding another. The next day they detained a US Navy SEAL and his wife who had witnessed the attack of the previous day. The beat the SEAL (putting him in the hospital for two weeks) and threatened to rape his wife. (Source: Wikipedia)
That day, Bush ordered the invasion to launch on January 20.
I'm old enough to remember the Grenada affair and how Reagan handled it. IIRC, war was never declared - declaration of war is what congress decides. If a president isn't declaring war, no need to consult congress.
I would also add that I've watched Trump for over 45 yrs - have seen him through numerous interviews. He always does things legally. As president he has always done things legally and always makes sure he's doing it according to our constitution and laws. Dem lawmakers are idiots who don't even know our own laws or our constitution.
See Congressman Hank Johnson who was worried that "Guam might tip over" when he heard about the planned military buildup in Guam.
Yeah but Chris, Cocaine is awesome....so raiding the cartels then was GOOD, Fentanyl is very very Bad....so obviously Trump is also very very Bad. See? It's so simple! It's also possible David French never saw Clear and Present Danger: We sent Willem Dafoe and Harrison Ford down there, and it totally got Donald Moffat impeached. Those were wild times!
Excellent addendum. Thanks!
This all is so good.
Thanks!
Just upgraded to founding.
Keep up the great work!!!
Much appreciated!
This is an example of why Matt Taibbi's Racket is doing timelines for various issues! The MSM sometimes/frequently/all-the-time neglects to provide this important context with stories they want to mold.