Tad Stoermer points out something I have been talking about for a while.
In the spirit of Mather Byles: I would rather have an official greeter than a tyrant. The loyalists were the real resistance of the Independence period. British North America exists--it's called CANADA.
And right now I want to thank them for aiding the Iranians in crippling the United States.
Because of morons like these who cannot understand that energy independence is a necessity to national security and defence they has caused them to aid and abet the enemy in crippling the United States.
No, you morons, "Green Energy" is not an off switch it's a necessity and it's something you should have been supporting for a long time now.
Fortunately, their treasonous ignorance is mitigated by the fact that they are complete and total dumbfucks.
They should have shut the fuck up and listened to more informed people.
It's not a "tree hugger thing".
It's a matter of national security.
But it's your party that has created this mess.
And it's time we took away your position of power.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the bullshit in Iran wasn't stopped before it happened. After all, a deployment that size is hard to hide.
It also doesn't take too much brainpower to see that this was not well thought out to begin with.
But, this confirms it.
There are a few reasons that I voted Green in 2016 with the major one being there is no way I would vote for Hillary Clinton: even if ranked choice voting as involved. There would have to be a lot of slots for other options before I would vote for her.
And I have three dogs who I would write in before I would vote for her.
No sexism. Unless the reason you wanted me to vote for her was that she was a woman. Both Kamala and Hillary are pretty bad choices.
I've gotten into them before, but this one needs to be hammered into your head if you think Hillary should have been an option:
Misogynistic, anti-semites for Jill Stein.
Yeah, right!
Can't forget 'Orrible 'Arris:
There are a lot of myths about gold, which just aren't true.
One is that you can't lose money on it, which isn't true. As Isaid, it's a commodity with all the associated risks and benefits of a commodity investment.
People in the US really don't like the costs associated with wars, yet they keep getting into them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the war for independence was basically paying for a previous war started by George Washington: La Conquête (or the French and Indian War).
I think I have mentioned that the War for Independence probably could have been nipped in the bud if the British had said: "No, we won't send troops and supplies until you cough up some money."
But, like Trump's Operation Epic Failure, the wars were started and then the bill shows up.
To be paid for by the average person. Here's Maryam again to explain how the fuel cost will hit the US.
Another nice thing would be if the US became the multiparty democracy with free and fair elections on a secret ballot that it spent the last Century saying it was and pushing it to the rest of the world.
I've got to admit that I'm surprised I would agree with Fiona Hill, but
Call it what it is. And don't forget to put Trump's name on the front of it since he like having things named after himself.
And it sort of puts the blame where it belongs.
"Sort of" since only Congress has the power to declare war, which should be clarified to mean any deployment of troops outside of US territory. Especially since this time has been a complete GMFU.
Let's start with something missing from last night's speech: regime change.
Maryam is Iranian and a good source of info and commentary on this fiasco. She confirms that Trump's decapitation has only led to more radical leadership.
Let's face it, this adventure was ill-advised and should have been stopped long before it happened. It is not in anyway a victory since it has totally messed up the world order for the worse.
Now, for that Downfall clip to translate last night's speech by the president.
This is a disaster.
From Rep. Jason Crow. Bio:
And from Col. Douglas Macgregor:
Can't forget Joe Kent:The more I listen to people, the more I think that Trump just charged ahead on this without thinking.
Damn, I wish this were up when all the statues were being torn down. I think my reaction was to sell the Civil War ones to the French since they look like the ones for the Franco-Prussian War.
"Sell your losers to our losers."
Then it needs to get a moral conscience. And I don't mean the hypocritical one it practises now.
It's been said that the early Christians practised socialism and christianity was a force in the European socialist movements.
I have to keep saying it:
You need to watch your back if you want to stand with Israel
Which is beginning to be more and more obvious after Trump dragged the US into an ill-prepared war.
But there's a reason for this: Trump sold out to Israel.
The Iranians were willing to make concession when Israel and the United States attacked it without provocation.
So much for "no more forever wars", "making America great again", or even "America First".
Trump sold out the US to Israel.
The upside of this will be that Israel will cease to be.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny.
I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).
The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process.
The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be immediate, actual, and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.
I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.
Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration to international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.
The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it.
It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars.
If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:
There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.
So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.
AI Overview
In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use.
Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense.
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional.
what is the british common law position on gun rights
In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920.
Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed:
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties.
Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones:
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns.
Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments:
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks.
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more
My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.
Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control.
Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.
There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.
And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.
There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.
This is a disaster for the United States.
It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country.
The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.
