Report: Trump Campaign Paying For Trump Jr. Legal Fees — Is There A Potential Conflict?

TP-45-logo_(revised)Today, Chris Wallace (who continues to make a strong case that he is the best interviewer in news today) crossed swords with President Donald Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow on who is paying his fees to represent the President.  Sekulow said that he does not know since he bills the law firm of Marc E. Kasowitz.  The question was legitimate and the answer does not resolve concerns.  It is common to confirm the source of fees to confirm that there is no conflict of interest or other concerns raised by such fee payment. However, there is another report that confirms one source of fees . . . for Donald Trump Jr.


According to various media outlets, President Donald Trump’s campaign made a $50,000 payment last month to the attorney representing Donald Trump Jr. The payment, dated June 27, was made to the Law Offices of Alan Futerfas, for “Legal consulting.”  Other records show payment to the law firm of Jones Day, which represented Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

The controversy over fees will likely grow if there continues to be this lack of transparency.



The story about Donald Jr. does raise an interesting legal issue.  There is an obvious potential conflict with the campaign to the extent that the campaign did not sign off on meeting with someone who said that they were Russian government lawyers bringing information directly from the Russian government to influence the presidential election.  Donald Trump Jr. did not hold any formal position with the campaign that I know of, but, more importantly, the payment of the fees suggests that his actions with regard to the Russian lawyers was attributable to some extent to the campaign.  Of course, the involvement of Paul Manafort in the meeting did encompass a campaign official. There is no indication that Manafort’s fees are being covered by the campaign.

It is certainly legal to use campaign funds to pay for legal services, which has been interpreted broadly in the past. However, that does not answer questions over the appearance of legal and political conflicts of interest.

405 thoughts on “Report: Trump Campaign Paying For Trump Jr. Legal Fees — Is There A Potential Conflict?”

  1. Berlitz offers courses in basic English, too. I suggest you take a course. Unfortunately it will do nothing about your poor grasp of issues. For that you need courses in history and critical thinking, but I suspect you would fail at all of them becaise you would assume you’re smarter than the teacher and would argue with him or her every step of the way and never learn anything. Not an unusual situation when a student comes in with a supercilious, know it all and argumentative attitude.

  2. I was invited to writr for the Wall Street Journal among other conservative papers. Is that conservative enough for you?

    1. Louise – I have a classmate who actually wrote for the WSJ and he is as liberal as they come.

      1. It has nothing to do woth ho w liberal or conservative a writer is, it has to do with the editors. The editors of a consevative paper are not going to let the reporters take a liberal stance. That goes against the agenda of the paper. The reporter’s material would not be published without heavy editing. If too much editing is required, the reporter would be let go. You don’t seem to know how news organizations work. If a reporter can’t write in the style of the paper he won’t last long. There are conservative and liberal ways to present a story. Any writer worth his salt can write it either way. Most reorters are liberal because most intelligent people are politically liberal, you can’t get away from that fact of life. If it weren’t for reporters being able to present a story with a conservative bent there would be no conservative newspapers. It’s a lot like acting. If an actor can’t make himself into a villian, and says, “I’m too nice a guy to act like a bad guy,” how long do you think he’d last?

        1. Louise – neutral observers consider the news section of the WSJ to be liberal and editorial staff to be conservative. As I said, you would be a perfect fit.

          1. Nearly all reporters are liberal. It’s true of the WSJ as well as any news organization, not just the WSJ. Yes, of course I would have fit right in, but if I couldn’t have written from a conservative viewpoint, I would be fired. This is a fact of life for all news organizations. If a reporter can’t or refuses to write from the perspective of the paper he will be let go. This is true of liberal news sources, as well. If a reporter with conservative views won’t write from a liberal perspectve he would be let go. If you hired someone to renovate your house, let’s say, and the contractor insisted on doing it his way instead of yours, how long would he last? Would you just roll over and play dead?

            1. Louise – prove to me that you can write from a conservative perspective.

              1. Do you really expect me to write an article for you to prove what I can do? I have often written from a conservative perspective. You’ll have to take my word for it or drop the issue. Are you saying you could not write an artcle from a liberal perspective? If so, you are a poor writer indeed.

                1. Louise – I can be neutral or conservative, but I cannot be a hypocrite and be a liberal.

              2. Paul Schulte,..
                You and others might be interested in Will Rahn’s Nov. 10, 2016 article “The unbearable smugness of the Press”.
                It helps explain why trust in journalism is at an all-time low.
                Some of the comments made here also explain why “nournalists” are not held in high esteem ( by others; they hold themselves in the highest esteem).

                  1. Distrust of the press is only among right wingers. They distrust anything that criticizes the right wing. They apparently don’t even trust their own mouthpieces, Fox News, Breitbart, the Washington Times, the National Review and other conservative news sources, since they lump them in with the mainstream media. Where they get their news from is anyone’s guess. Maybe from the White House or their favorite bar.

                    1. Louise – I find the National Enquirer to have the most neutral reporting. You could never work for them.

                    2. Louise – you are not neutral enough to work for them. Has nothing to do with salt or its worth. BTW, salt is very cheap.

                    3. You obviously do not see the bias in reporting and media coverage. Does it concern you that the brother of a top Obama administration official (Ben Rhodes) was also the president of CBS News (David Rhodes)? Or that CBS dropped Sharyl Attkisson, one of its top investigative reporters, for covering the administration’s scandals (Benghazi, Fast & Furious) too aggressively? Does it concern you that a former Clinton official (George Stephanopoulos) is posing as a “journalist” on TV while “objectively” interviewing Hillary Clinton and her pals?

                      Do you believe Barack Obama had a “scandal-free” eight years? Recall how “journalists” allowed Obama to make that false claim in interviews and never challenged the Baby Jesus Messiah Obama. The media dutifully repeated Obama’s false talking point over and over till it stuck in the weak minds of the masses. “Obama ran a scandal-free administration for eight years and was the BEST president we’ve EVER had.” Didn’t you hear the “newz”??

                    4. Three Categories ‘reporters’ who since the days of Tom Clancy’s famous description, “Why should I trust you. You are a reporter” have not been trusted among the middle of the road moderates and the Republicans along with a growing number of the moderate left.

                      How do we know that;. They voted with us against the Socialist foreign ideology.

                      Second there is a small, very small number of journalists who report facts not fiction and friction. It’s a difference in moral values or in one case a distinct lack of any sort of values.

                      Finally there is rather large number of propagandists of which Louise is one whose only brief is to act as programmers of The Collective in support of the The Party and its classless societies ruling class.

                      I will stay in the moderate center who have no party representation or label except self governing USA Citizen of our Representative Constitutional Republic which IS NOT a democracy but does have as it’s initial foundation democratic principles and a short but necessary form as a representative democracy. That ceases at the point where direct control is ceded to delegates and the indirect control begins.

                      None of which is present in the modern day Socialist Party.of the left. .

                      In so far as the propagandiss are concerned, left, right or center I let the facts placed before us with proper sourcing and citing. speak for themselves. and …one last thing I don’t support self confessed supporters of the use of a Gestapo and and it’s dependence on fascism a phenomena found only to the left.

                      Especially one who rejected the social contract and citizenship in our country in favor of their version of Marxist Leninism and it’s offspring National Socialism.

                      But does it exist. If they reject the social contract with the USA and it’s Representative Republic it’ s another way of saying I reject citizenzhip. So why then are they allowed to meddle in our business? It was there choice well as much as a Collective is allowed to choose.

    2. Did they offer to provide someone literate enough to spell in basic English. So suppose your current story is true? What issue, what date what topic?

      1. Actually it was the only part that was in context. The rest was crumbs on the table cloth. What you said and what you claimed without any backup are two different things. Therefore one can only give credence to the facts in evidence. Sorry, over your programmer’s head but then it still serves the purpose of demonstrating the left wing propaganda machine mmmm not at work but needing a lube job.

        Not my fault.. They were YOUR words.

        Ten to one she bites on that before midnight. west coast time.

  3. Couple of additions The USA did not recognize dual citizenship until well after WWII. England did but it’s customary to pick one primary allegiance and his was of course British. Especially for people seeking high office. So half right he was of an American mother but half wrong he was not born in the USA. My own certificate of citizenship funnily enough states natural citizen since (birthdate). and does not use the world naturalized.

    Winston was born in Blenheim Palace in England. His mother’s citizenship was vague but he policy was marry a foreigner and move to his country lose your citizenship.

    the following may help “Prior to 1934, U.S. citizen mothers could not transmit U.S. citizenship to children born abroad; only U.S. citizen fathers could do that. In 1994, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act, which added INA 301(h) (8 USC 1401(h)) which granted citizenship to people born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother before 1934:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

    This section was specified to apply retroactively to the date of the person’s birth. Winston Churchill was not a (non-honorary) U.S. citizen according to the law at the time of his life, but is considered to have been a U.S. citizen from birth according to current law.

    and one lst comment. Winston Churchill’s opinion of socialism stated quite clearly. “It will work but will require a Gestapo.”

    1. M. Aarethun: “Winston Churchill’s opinion of socialism stated quite clearly. “It will work but will require a Gestapo.”

      It does. We know that from experience.

      1. Then a shame for you Obama failed to finish creating the protective echelon and now it’s under the control of the US military who repudiated him.

        Do you know why Obama , who was encouraged to declare martial law on multiple occasions by the left, refused to do so? Because the military would then be handed the authority to enforce their oath of office which gives their primary loyalty to the Constitution not to those who ignored it.

        He never got around to creating that schutz staffel (german for protective echelon) but he left the laws intact. Damn forgetful. Forgot most of those folks are former or present miitary. No more probable cause for the duration. ‘suspicion of supporting terrorism’ with civil rights suspeded. Whose going to protect you. Snowflakes? Antifa? Step right this way Miss it’s your turn.

        Outside the miracle of the bagel continues every morning exept for the firing squads and planes shuttling to Guantanamo or somewhere.

        Did you know that place in Utah now can capture every key stroke on every computer including those I’m typing right now.

        Why didn’t he use martial law?

        My guess is he didn’t want to be the first one handcuffed.

        What makes you so special?

        (To the best of my knowledge no such plan exists in or out of the military, the law enforcement community, and in the Department of Homeland Security. Yet like a good Tom Clancy novel it’s based entirely on real capabilties and probabilities.)

        Ballots Not Bullets


  4. My god, is this all you idiots have to think about? You all keep swapping spit while the various government jurisdictions are stealing the wealth of the nation and middle class with over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees and a $3.9 trillion annual Federal budget. It was only $314 billion in 1950. Just think about how much this is adjusted for inflation and how much our fiat currency has devalued over that same time.

    1. HskipRob,…
      Over the 67 year period you mention, the federal budget increased by about 13×.
      Going back 67 years from your starting point, the federal budget increased from under one $Billion to 314 $Billion.
      Well over 300 times.
      The erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power caused by inflation was probably far greater in the 1950-2017 period than it was in in the preceding 67 year period of 1883-1950.
      I’m not understating the potential problems of a $20 federal debt, and future annual deficits that are likely
      to be well over a half $Trillion.
      But historically, especially over the 67 year time frame you cited, there’s no clear link between the size of the federal budget and the rate of inflation.

    2. Yes, and it will continue to decline while Rrump is the putative president and Republicans are in the majooity in Congress. Congress is in charge of money and budgets. Why have they allowed the budget to rise every year? Ask the Republicans in Congress–the “conservative” party, the party in the majority the party now in the White House. .

      1. Louise,…
        We’ve been over some of this territory before.
        Bush 43 roughly doubled the federal debt from c. $5 Trillion to c. $10 Trillion, and Obama roughly doubled it again from $10 Trillion to $20 Trillion.
        The explosion of the federal has happened when Presidents from either party have been in the White House, and when Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.
        There was virtually no discussion the debt or deficits in the 2016 debates.
        So going forward, it seems inevitable that $500 Billion to One $Trillion annual deficits will be a fixture.

          1. Neither Bush 43 nor Obama nor any president before or since has raised the debt. It is Congress–the only branch of government that has control of the US budget. All a president can do is pressure the Congressional members if his own party to spend or not spend (mostly it’s to spend to support his own programs) and to either sign or veto budgets. No president has made it a point to veto overblown budgets, including budgets that come from his own party in Congress. But it isn’t presidents who are mostly to blame–it’s whichever party is in the majority in Congress. Congress is 100% in charge of spending and budgets. Blame them, not presidents.

            1. It’s a mistake to totally ignore a President’s role in the budget process.
              The President sends a budget proposal to Congress; he is more likely to get something closer to what he proposed if he has control of at least one branch of Congress.
              There have been numerous “budget battles” between the executive and legislative branches, including those resulting in “government shutdowns”.
              Even IF you complete disregard the President’s role on shaping the budget, you’re left with the fact that both Republican and Democratic Congresses have approved budgets with large deficits.

              1. I have not denied that. But you are the one who claimed presidents raise the debt.

              2. Yes, it’s a mistake to totally ignore it but it’s a bigger mistake to claim presidents are responsible for the rise in debt. They are by and large not responsible. Don’t try to get Congress off the hook. The debt has very little to do with who’s in the White House except for how mich pressure a president puts on members of his own party and how those members capitulate and ignore their power to control the debt.

                1. One reason budget deficits are broken down by administration ( in addition to the reasons I mentioned) is that it’s a 4-8 year cycle, vs. the 2 year Congressional election cycle.
                  It’s easier to track by administration, which typically don’t change hands as frequently.

                  1. You’d do better to track the various Congresses. To identfy them by who is President when a vote is taken is a disservice to the population and tries to absolve Congress of raising the debt.

                    1. A few days ago you asked how much debt Obama “inherited” from Bush; you didn’t ask “how much debt did the 111th Congress inherit from the 110th”

                2. I’m not trying to get Congress “off the hook”….my point is that you shouldn’t ignore the role and influence of a President in the budget process.

                  1. I might have made that mistake, yes. It was probably in response to someone claiming that a Democratic president raised.the budget nore than anyone else.

                    1. Did you mean Democrat President as in member ot the party or Democratic as in practicing Democratic principles or did you mean as a member of a working Democracy?

                    2. A member of a working democracy–in other words a member of the Democratic party. Republicans have shown that they are not in favor of a working democracy. They do everything they can to undermine it.

                    3. KIller question. How can you be part of something that does not exist? If you think it does refer me to the exact part of the Constitution that says it does exist.

                      Democracy stops when citizen control stops. What you may be referring to is going from grass root s democracy…a caucaus of the whole. and through their own preferred method they select people to be the government. Mayor, Precinct Chair, County Commissioner etc. You have then left a Democracy and become a Representative Democracy at best but only if you kept control. For the right to veto by vote of the whole, an initiative to force a change or a recall.

                      The system without those features but only with periodic elections leaves the idea of a Democracy even faster. As does those who give up control of their voting procedures. Once that point is reached the ‘at best’ representative democracy becomes a Representative Republic in our case one with a Constitutioin we now have a Representative Constitutional Republic. but when you the citizen lose control it becomes a Consitutional Republic IF there other controls in place. If Not….ce’est la vie.

                      That is where we are now. 17th and 18th Amendments served to take away control by citizens by controlling their money and the other by removing that one single higher level of control the State Government. The next step was banning recall on the local delegates to the federal government.

                      Your democracy no longer worth of a capital D has been left far far behind. The last occurence is the Money as Free Speech approved by the Supreme court when it was 5-4 supposedlly conservative whatever that means these days.

                      Obama took it a step further by ignoring the law and doing what he pleased. Technicaly that ‘s called an autocracy. We didn’t get quite that far. when Nov 8th reversed the slide to the left…we. hope. If not we’ll have to do a better job next time with our superior voting block numbers and figure out how to defeat both the left and the right wing of the left.

                      With good joss they will continue to do the job for us but in any case the distance back to a democracy is so far you would need a 500 horse power engine under the hood to get with range. Only upon arrival to find out it still doesn’t exist except on voting day which is the day recalls and initiatives are on the ballot.

                      Key to validating your belief. Find one. Remember anything with delegated authority is invalid.

                      However you could start from scratch and try to come up with a Constitutional Democracy. Same restriction apply once iyou cross that line its’ something else. but no longer a democracy.

                    4. Gee, here I thought we WERE a representative democracy, a republic.

                      “A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter” – not the private concern or property of the rulers – and where offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited. It is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.”

              3. Which I did not deny. There are some members of Congress who have refused to vote on bloated budgets. You can find out who they are online. They deserve your compliments.

              4. Let’s take that a step further and clear up another misconception. That of government shutting down. Completely false. Government never shuts down. The last time there was a temporary 40% layoff but 60% of the Executive branch kept working. Among them all the military. All the intelligence services, all the law enforcement services, All the essential services from IRS through medicare to social security, None of the federal courts, and certainly not the congress they were to busy posturing for TV.

                What you did see was the 40% at best of non-essentials temporarily laid off in a government slow down.

                The whole thing is a scare story concocted to spook some people all of the time especially the elderly and done so by the very people they should be afraid of. Congress being the primary perpetrators.

                But if you want to know how to cut the budget send the same one’s home permanently. and start with any political appointees.

                Another myth is becoming all too common the myth of living in a democracy and our democratic way of life. We dont’ and such a place in this country doesn’t exist.

                We live in a Representative Constitutional Republic with a very small beginning part based on democratic principles at the very grass roots levels. BUT once the first Mayor or County Commissioner is elected the clock is ticking and the democracy idea stops when the citizens give up control. For most States that is immediately.

                For some states that have one form or anotheer of initiative and most importantly recall democracy stops at the point it’s declared invalid by law. That point for those with the most control stops when they vote for a Senator or Representative to be their delegate to the Federal Congress. Once seated they are untouchable except for elections. The system some want to replace with polling.

                All of the above used to be taught in schools who now almost nationally without exception spout the democracy cRap.

                That system started to unravel and checks/balances dismantled with Woodrow Wilson’s 16th and 17th Amendments. It reached it’s zenith last year with a defacto one party system of government which still needs dismantling. down to some form multiple parties and reinstatement of training citizens in being what the founders called ‘self governing citizens as the ultimate source of power.’

                Now the leftwingnuts can have their futile turn because that last previous sentence is exactly what happended to your precious one party non existent democracy.

                Republicans AND Democrats are not necessary. but can in proper firm be useful. First one would have to see the left change their name honestly to the Socialist Party and then explain how tht squares with the social contract to the USA?

                A bit closer to the true center the Republicans would have change their names to the Constitutional Republic Party and include those democratic principles ignored by the Socialst left.

                Whee is the true center? In a Constitutional Republic where else would you find The Constitution which was written as a living document and constains everything needed to meet that requirement…..except ignoring it is not one of those methods. Neither is rejecting the social contract and holdingalle giance to a foriegn Euro-Aristocratic feudal society that were rejected between 1776 and 1787.

                Welcome to the USA. We’re back in business again. Excuse the mess. We’ve got a lot clean up to do and we had to bring in someone to carry out the trash and garbage.

                    1. ah yes i wasn’t sure but since you are departing thought it was time to make that effort.

                1. M. Aarethun: “Republicans AND Democrats are not necessary. but can in proper firm be useful. First one would have to see the left change their name honestly to the Socialist Party and then explain how tht squares with the social contract to the USA?

                  “A bit closer to the true center the Republicans would have change their names to the Constitutional Republic Party and include those democratic principles ignored by the Socialst left.”

                  You’re on the right track but a few corrections are needed.

                  Republicans AND Democrats are not necessary. but can in proper firm be useful. First one would have to see the left change their name honestly to the Party of the People and then explain how tht squares with the social contract to the USA?

                  A bit closer to the far right the Republicans would have change their names to the Fascist Party and include those dictatorial principles ignored by the left.

                  1. No the Fascist Party as an entity was a direct offshoot of the Italian Socialist Party. It’s leader Il Duce Benito Mussollini was Chief of the Italian Socialist Party which affiliated with the Russian Communist Party. Il Duce was personally acquained with Lenin during that time. small ”f’ fascist or fascism is a method of political control ‘ as in ‘ complete controlled by and all means available. The classic error you make is not recognizing both parties changed in character and composition.

                    The Democrats went from the Slavery Party to the Jim Crow Laws Party to the Progressive Party and also became the anti civil rights party the last evidence of that was Dec 31st 2015 with the extension of the apprehension procedures of the Patriot Act to include with Suspicion of Terrorist Activity ‘suspicion of support’ of Terroist Activity. which did not exclude US Citizens who are used to ‘probable cause.’

                    Their leader Mr. Obama openly stated he wished to build the DHS into a force equal to or greater than the US Military who stayed with their Oath of Office. Then went on to describe a classic Schutzstaffel. or Protective Echelon.

                    The vehicle used to pass that change and extension was the funding act it went in as an earmark during reconciliation. Senate vote 85 to 15.

                    The Democrats had the assistance of what we now call Republicans In Name Only. who are the right wing OF the left. both factions agreeing that Government should be superior toit ‘s citizens. As for dictator the acts many or multiple of Mr. Obama by directly ignoring the Constitution were the acts of a Dictator.

                    Didn’t act on that part? They rolled in that mudbath on a regular basis. and in doing so violated their Oath of Office… Obama’s excuse each time was ‘the courts have never visited that portion of the Constitution yet.” In direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

                    Have a nice day….. you lose again. All of that were yet another set of reasons we countered with a superior vote total and put ‘ the lottery ticket candidate’ in as a preference to a known progressive socialst marxist leninist. That would be Clinton. Besides she was and is a victimizer of women and so was is her husband and by extension her supporters.

                    it’s also an explanation of why the left stil lthinks they are power or something…that seems to be changing .i noticed this time around all their ‘top’ leaders stayed a long way away from anything controversial.

                    Remember all those victimized women came to the debates and sat in the front row staring pointedly at Clinton they wee out for revenge for sure and a ‘hell hath no fury etc.” Paybacks came on Nov 9th.

                    1. Ok, if you are going to nitpick, the Republican Party should be called the fascistic party, one run exactly like the Fascist Party, but not connected to the Italian Fascist Party. It is a mirror image of it, but not directly connected to it. It’s its own fascist party.

                      Happy now?

                    2. Louise Hudson – fascists are socialists. Therefore they are more likely to be members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

        1. Tnash, you wrote:

          We’ve been over some of this territory before.
          Bush 43 roughly doubled the federal debt from c. $5 Trillion to c. $10 Trillion, and Obama roughly doubled it again from $10 Trillion to $20 Trillion.

          –Obama didn’t add one cent to the federal debt. The President has NO control over spending–Congress has 100% control.

          The explosion of the federal has happened when Presidents from either party have been in the White House, and when Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

          –yes, and when Republicans were in control the debt rose just as quickly as when Democrats were in control. If Republicans are so fiscslly responsible, why does this happen when Republicans are in control? Especislly when they are in control of Congress when a Republican is in the White House?

          There was virtually no discussion the debt or deficits in the 2016 debates.
          So going forward, it seems inevitable that $500 Billion to One $Trillion annual deficits will be a fixture.

          –yes, it will be, because Republicans, who bill themselves as the fiscally responsible party, continue to allow the debt to rise to gargantuan proportions even when they are in control pf Congress and the White House. They aren’t one whit better than Democrats who are always blamed by Republicans for the rising debt. If they are so responsible let them demonstrate how to lower the debt when they are in control of Congress, the White House and budgets. Republicans love to call Democrats the tax and spend party. But Republicans are the borrow and spend party, and there is no end in sight. They are as fiscally irresponsible as they claim Democrats are. Put the blame where it belongs and learn a thing or two about who increases the debt. It’s never the President except by the pressure he puts on his own party.


          1. Louise,
            If you think this trend will somehow be reversed if and when Democrats regain control of the Senate and/ or House, you’re living in a partisan fantasy world.

            1. No, I make no predictions. Both parties overspend–but on different things. What annoys me is when Republicans claim to be the fiscally responsible party and that Democrats are responsible for the rise in budgets and debt . Both are equally to blame. Neither is fiscally responsible. Each think their own programs are superior to the opposition’s and worth the money spent on them. My point is that presidents don’t control spending so it’s useless to claim that any president was at fault for a rise in the debt. Put the blame where it belongs–squarely on Congress.

              1. Congress passs all legislation.
                But your “logic”, a President has nothing to do with ANY legislation since Congress ultimately passes it.
                On the budget and other legislative matters, the President isn’t a passive bystander….at least, so far.

                  1. When it comes to how much influence a president has, Congress members are in control, not the president. Congress members allow the President to control them. Every Cngress member who votes for a bloated budget is individually to blame. Find out whose pocket each Congressional member is in. You can be sure that every one that votes for a bloated budget is in someone,s pocket.

                    I am unable to put in an apostrophe from my iPad.

                1. Only because Congress members refuse to stand up to the president.

                  1. Prior to the Great Society expansion of entitlement programs in the mid-1960s, entitlement spending was one third of the federal budget.
                    It’s now over two thirds of the budget, leaving less that a third for infrastructure, defense, etc.
                    Which ares do you want Congress to cut?

                    1. The military budget would be a good place to start. But neither side has the fortitude to suggest it. What would you cut?

                    2. I wrote an extended reply in answer to your question of what I would cut.
                      It did not post, and I don’t have the time to retype it….especially not knowing if it’ll post or disappaer.

                    3. First you save it. Then you delete the empty space then start over. Put one third or one half in the new one and see if it goes through. If not delete and use a lesser quantity. If iit does send it and add the second half of the second and third thirds to descending Reply buttons. Mark them one of two and two of two etc. as needed. A bit tedious bit sometime necessary. Like the one I did yesterday or day before? It was meant primarily for the moderate centrists who read but don’t participate and then they pass it on. Thus the unknown to each other cell’s spread and pretty soon you’ve got a bunch of self governing citrizens networking with no need for a party or party HQ. Not to slight anyone here because it’s also for you. Well except for the RoboClones.

                  2. They are called ‘congressionals’ gender neutral and certainly not the illiterate congress persons which is more sexist than what it purports to replace

                    You cannot split the two parties when a great many congressionals in the Republican Party are left of center and fully support ‘government over citizens and or people.’ The definitions of the left however from their day to day changing fictionary are part of the propaganda of the left and not useful as compared to definitions from a standard pre-PC dictionary. In the leftist liberal version the term conservative is a one size fits all term used to denote their political opposition regardless while liberal is one of many many terms used to describe the left. also useless except to the daily and ever changing various veresion of The Truth that serves The Party and guides The Collective.

                    A much more valid method is Left = Government over Citizens,

                    Center in our Representative Constitutional Republic is The Constitution which does not mention the world Democracy *

                    Right = Citizens over Government and government as temporary employees,**

                    (*The system is based at it’s grass roots level on democratic principles before quickly transisitioning thrugh representative democracy into representative Republic. Democracy is left behind as soon as control is past from the citizens to representatives or delegates and lasts for any length of time only in states with initiative and recall. The term representative democracy is quickly rejected by the left in their version more so than other points of view)

                    (**supplanting the empty space vacated by the notion of “Rulers By Divine Right and replaced with rule by the ideal of self governing citizens who in their entirety are the ultimate source of power.)

                    A much more useful and accurate description on the horizontal axis.

                    Vertical axis which the left right system sought to replace was God, King, Country, citizens (those with some form of involvement) and the remainder (those with no franchise) with God, Franchised Citizen, Country Government as employees currently Citizens, Family, followed by local, State and federal government in descending order

                    By placing the horizontal over the vertical and adjusting in slide rule fashion the point where the two cross is the current state of things.

                    This does not use leftist definitions for example National Socialism is located in it’s proper place next to and as an off shoot of International Socialism together at the left end of the horizontal axis.

                    Any self governing citizen can construct their own version and be far far more accurate than the version of the left which, for one main examples has the center of the left as an unchanging fixed point.

                    Those who are not self governing but part of one form or another of a Collective do not have that privilege but are stuck with and by the curious ability of the left to remain as a fixed point while redefining itself daily.

                    In any case not useful and rejected by cognizant thinker who use rational reasoning and objective analysis.

                    Thus the system that recognizes only two versions, ours/theirs, liberals/conservatives, and fails to recognize a major component at all much less attempt to represent them ends up with the question? How could them happen we had specified we were ahead by 50 points.

                    In realistic terms they split 60% of the legal vote with their version of the right, skipped the notion of God entirely, and held a losing plurality which isn’t used at the federal level. The remaining and largest block at 40% chose to reject the candidate of the left socialist autocrat and their equally curious secular theocracy mish mash in favor of what was then called a ‘lottery ticket’ candidate (unknown qualities) as more preferred than any of the standard politicians.

                    They had and execute a direct attack on three targets in order of priority, Clinton, the Sociaist non Democratic left and their supporters with the ranks of those supposedly but not really on the right.

                    Accompilshing two out of three and part of goal three.

                    A neat trick for something that according to the left does not exist.

                    But standard strategy and tactics for those who don’t have their face in the mud and their Donkey acting as a breathing apparatus.

                    With Clinton politcally destroyed to the point of wandering around begging to part of something the Socialists are now Target #1 and the their right wing of the left aka RINOs are Target #2.

                    Don’t mind us after all we don’t exist …..even with the largest voting block. Pesky little details

                    So how does the propaganda arm like it’s new home waaaaaayyyyyy over there on the left having had to cede the center to Fox/AP?

                    Just rubbing it in. Elections have consequences.and the Second Act is yet to come.

                    Final tally. 55% for the lottery candidate and 45% to the Socialists

                    oh yes…and popularity poll? At this point having no real purpose after 241 years does it really matter – or something?

                2. I never said a president has nothing to do with budgets. He has nothing to do with them directly, but puts the screws on members of his own party to vote his way. Members of a president’s party seldom want to contradict him. That’s why I was surprised to see Republicans refusing to vote for the latest version of Trumped up care. It’s always amazing to see Republicans stand on their own two feet for any reason.

              2. Republicans aren’t because of the RINO faction which makes them a part of the left. The left is not because it has no sense of responsibility about anything connected to our Representative Constitutional Republic. Put them both together find the same thing The Government Party.

          2. Simple. The controlling portion of the Repubicans aka Republicans in name only worked for the controlling portions of the Democrats aka Socialist as their yippy yappy cave on command lapdogs. in something called the Government Party – meaning Government Controls Population. What went wrong? A citizens revolt which turned out 40% of votes cast while the other two Government Party factions split 60%.

            The revolt more properly a counter revolution was and IS made up of many diverse factions including many who had not registered or if registered had not votes. 80% of the combat arms of the military were involved active, reserve, former and retired.

            Then too the Democrats and Republicans helped out increase those numbers. GOP selected Trump then turned their back on him. He won that campaign. The GOP had little if anything to do with it at the federal level. Libertarians took a slice, Greens took a slice and many that should have voted stayed home mostly on the left.

            The left ran an inexcusably poor and arrogant operation with the worst candidate they could find now has left that same group in charge.

            Except their Trump Card not to make a pun but seriously were that Government Party lap dog connection that some are trying to break free from.

            Look ahead. See any polls talking about that 40% that kicked ass until their were no names left to take?

            Last time Taget One was Clinton. Target Two was the former Democrat Party or DINOs and Socialism . Target Three was and is the RINOs.

            Two out of three isn’t bad but now Clinton is waiting for the garbage truck and of no further danger to the Republic. Just an exposed joke. That means remnants of the scattered, shattered, splintered, leadersless – unless you count Bernie – left are number one for targets of opportunity. And the RINOs especially those who are still waiting for their puppy chow are second on the list.

            Lot of fresh replacements out there for the mid terms and more for 2020. Listening to these newly programmed supporters it’s readily apparent the left hasn’t changed one bit.

            Guess what. Neither have the moderate centrists that showed how to control 40% of the vote using NO party.

            The only question is how long will the left including the RINOs play stupid in heavy traffic?

            My guess? At least two more election cycles. And ths health care garbage offering is all the proof I need to see who to target in the midterms. Not Warren or Pelosi or Schumer. They are too valuable as monumental screw ups. Just a few of the others. here and there.

            How’s your golf slang? The Big Dogs when it comes to percentage of votes are ready to Bark.

            That plain enough? And there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

      2. One can always tell the shift change due to the sudden and pronounced changed in grammatical errors. Methinks the programmer is also a machine. As I explained before to the lucid readers one cannot possibly ad hominem a non hominem or even a humanoid or an anthropormorphic. The former would have to check it’s data banks and latter would no doubt quibble ‘Where’s the tail?” Now back to the programmer. No possibilities of a MENSA card on evening shift.

            1. I had no intention od “doing anything about it.” You are free to be as illogical as you wish. Be my guest. i won’t try to stop you. Go ahead make a fool of yourself. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I don’t know where you got the idea that it does.

              1. Trying to decipher your WSJ level of literacy. Somehow I really doubt that story unless it was one of the WSJ janitors.

      3. Good thing I read it twice. but putative when one glances quickly reads differently in spanish and then another word that needs explanation majooity meaning
        Mar 31, 2016 – 40 posts – ‎11 authors
        People call persians majoosis regardless of the fact if they are muslim just based on the fact that they are persian . The issue with this is you are …

        also having to do with ‘fire eaters’ and the twelvers portion of the Muslim ”

        I would question not only your skills in English but recommend stay away from the other foreign languages as well.

        It’s not our job to worry about what you thought you said but your job to ensure clear, precise, and accurate posting the or what part is quite evident.

        1. Michael Aarethun is a grade A ass. Is that clear and unambigious enough for you?

          1. And you did it with four hours to spare? Ah well Mother Gumpitis gotta go I have a new Kindle book to peruse and since there is NOTHING else happening….

            1. Putative is not considered a foreign word. I’m not surprised you didn’t know that,

              1. Dumb ass Isaid it reminded me of a similar foreign word which mmmmm reminds me of your current political state. Putative means the position Hillary usurped until the time she lost her mind.when Trump steamed past 270 heading for 300 plus. That was even more embarasada than the beating Gore took. . So what did the other foreign word mean or have to do with anything except it did have political meaning in it’s home country? .

            2. No idea what that question is supposed to mean, and no doubt you don’t either. Many foreign words have made their way into English as they have into most languages. Latin, German French, Spanish, Italian, Greek some Scandinavian words and others from more more obscure languages. . By the way you write I susoect this is yet another thing you never knew or understood.

              1. Like all true liberals you are turning into a duck (ing a straightforward truthful response) three quacks for you quack quack quack. If you had said, ” I can’t spell.” The agony of looking stupid would be over Instead? You made the collective look foolish and illiterate. So? That means your days as a programmer may be numbered and Louisie Robo Clone could be retired from the roster of names for mechanical responses. Easy to spot the left never admits ‘failure’ even though that is the end result in a boringly repetitive manner. . Thus the hook is rebaited. and the rebate coupon expired

                Radical Responses bitesthe dust once again.

                1. Like all true conservatives, you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about. No one in his right mind should trust anything a right winger says, because as we have learned from the current presidential administration, conservatives will lie at the drop of a hat and even when they are not lying outright, they will strangle the truth to the point of death. You are no exception.

                  1. what’s a conservative? You repeat the same error common to those who pimpt for the left in thinking their defintion hafe any merit or appication in our country. The left is not the center of anythng but the left. In a Constiutional Repubic the center is the Constitution and our rather larger voting bloc formed mostly of those neither Republican nor Democrat or any variation are in that same center. Too bad your Collective programmer insists on living in the past and promoting stupid is as stupid does. Not our problem. Hey programmer on duty? Did you ever find any basis for the wild claim of some ‘democracy?’ Never mind it’s a duck question. Notice the fast tsunami to the left and the constant drip drip drip of lost adherents to the THE CENTER? Never mind it’s another duck question. Stay fat, dumb and stupid. My kind of target. .

                    1. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Right wingers prevaricate, hedge, fence, shilly shally, lie and spew garbage wherever they go. Just look at Trump and his toadies. They are the personification of misinformation and outright lies. You are one of them.

                    2. Quack Quack Quack. Sucks to be programmed and used to be you. Of course you could break free and provide your own opinion IF you had that ability.” Registered Independent and listed as Constitutional Centrist. which is a coalition of self governing citizens. We took more votes than either of your parties did too! 40% versus your splitting 60% But… good enough for a menshevik …which is Russian for a minority group or ….losers. Comrade? Ah yes the extra three million from the popularity poll? My oh my have you ever done anything to file and support an Amendment to Our Constiution in Our Country. Of course not. After rejedting the social contract and taking allegiane to a foreign ideology what business would you have in OUR Country and it’s poltical system? Whn that question is answered you will be what? IIegals?

                    3. That didn’t take long but well trained Collective has no other option. I need an emoji of a duck that will be my project for today. A fish followed by a hook and a duck.

                    4. Happy to make your day more pleasurable since it serves no other purpose.

                    5. You can’t possibly know that. You make it up, just like your hero, the empty-headed Trump. I’m sure your days are full of meaning–to a Trump toady.

                    6. Louise – ad hominem attacks just mean you are losing the argument. At this point you are losing big time.

                    7. But your personal attacks are not ad hominems, righr? . More Trumpian logic. Funny how that works.

                    8. Ad hominem does not and cannot exist when used against a Collective which is an entity. When a post with assertions and premises is made but the ‘author’ refuses to provide any facts in evidence but a series of evasive etc. noithings there is real doubt that post was authored by an individual. When sources are cited as unamed etc.they are likewise suspect..

                      Until there are facts in evidence provided one can freely assume there are hominems involved. Such is the case before us.

                      Citing souirces such as NYT or WaPo clearly excludes the charge of ad hominem both are the same as or part of The Collective.

                      Add to that one of the main rules of the foreign ideology being represented states and I’ll use one of the most recent and well known luminaries as facts in evidence,, Anything said or done that supports the pary IS the truth,’ That aame rule has guided all such political efforts from Marx to Hitler to Stalin prmarily to Lenin and on up to the present day ‘progressive liberals.’

                      The meaning is today’s truth may be changed later today, tomorrow or at other time it serves The Party.

                      I submit that the ‘timely and curious’ appearance of “Louise’ may not and probably does not refer to an individual human being. The comments of course do not evidence a free and independent thinker but a more machine like version of someone’s opinion multiplied by the number of machine parts involved.

                      At present any claims of ad hominem is not crying in soup but simply a lack of three in one oil.

                  2. Louise – Trump is not a conservative, which is why it took conseratives so long to come to his table. Some never have, like George Will. I held out for a long time but he was the lesser of evils so to speak. And to be honest, Satan could have run against Hillary and I would have voted for him. He isn’t near a sore loser.

                    1. Paul Schulte wrote: Trump is not a conservative, which is why it took conseratives so long to come to his table. Some never have, like George Will. I held out for a long time but he was the lesser of evils so to speak. And to be honest, Satan could have run against Hillary and I would have voted for him. He isn’t near a sore loser.

                      Where would you place him on the liberal-conservative continuum? Or what woukd you call his political stance?

                      I would have voted for Satan over the ignorant Trump. So would other rational people. Hillary couldn’t possibly be worse than Trump, the ignorant ass.

                    2. Louise – I remember ALL the Hillary scandals and how she danced around them. She was like the Teflon Don, you knew he did the crime, you just couldn’t convict him of it. Hopefully, her time will come. She lost a lot of Bernie supporters, even though Bernie did the speaking tours for her (but according to Podesta, they had something on him).

                      Regardless, Trump is not a conservative.

                    3. I know he isn’t a conservative. He’s a complete ass. Some conservatives have at least half a brain. Trump obviously doesn’t, nor do his toadies.

                    4. Louise – if this is how you worked as a journalist I hope you never got off the obit desk. You have issues.

                    5. Nothing compared to you. I was a lead reporter and I weote editorials. I had plenty of respect from readers and editors and had regular invitations to join the staff of other papers.

                    6. Louise – I do not doubt that every liberal paper in America wanted you.

                    7. No need for that extreme Paul. we are running a daily 90F to 80F nights while waiting the annual eventual clockwise curve of Mother Natures fines ITCZ offierings.

                      Come to think of it the Repubicans having selected Trump at it’s grass roots level rejected him at their leadership level .. Evidence of some kind of disconnect but the real disconnect was the entire left group from RINO to DINO not only disconnecting from reality …one has to wonder if they ever did have a reality or this mystic other world version is still in play since Plato etc. invented it. Perhaps their habit of ending statements with question marks and ‘or something’ is fitting. How many scattered parts does that mmmm no longer a party but a loose confederation or coalition or something have at present?

                      Enjoy the weather or head to the mountains!

                    8. Michael Aarethun – I am planning a trip to Utah the end of this week, first of next. Taking some friends who have never seen Bryce or Zion. Hoping to see a show at the Utah Shakespeare Festival while we are there. Won’t be cooler, but it will be out of town. 🙂 Monsoon has hit.

                    9. Have you visited the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland Oregon. Just over the border on I-5 and they have a full size replica Globe Theatre.? Eugene for all it’s failings (U of O. ) hosts an annual Bach Festival

                    10. Michael Aerethun – I have been to the Globe in San Diego, but not Ashland. Had a former classmate who worked there every season, very fine actor. Also did the outdoor theatre there, which is next to the large cat pens of the zoo, so you can hear them growl and roar during the show. Saw a fine production of The Miser.
                      The one in Utah is doing a long lost early play of Shakespeare. The provenance is very, very, very shaky.

    3. hskiprob,

      Why don’t you comment on the $696.5 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) recently passed by a House vote of 344-81?

      Only $75 billion is for war funding — as a country, we’re obviously chilling out!

      1. Well you might look at the non funded retirement program which is, by the way, in arrears. That was done I’m sure to keep the need for pay raises down. and the rate of strong armed involuntary donations up. But….as in all such scams the chickens always come home to roost. you should note that it took 30 years for the retirement pay to double and less for most of the benefits to be ‘reneged.’

          1. Of course. but then the Government Party AKA Democrats with their RINO faction are the war monger party that started the whole thing over againa nd come to think of it have done so from 1900 to present day.

            That’s what you get when you vote for war mongers. Care to examine the statistics again. Since WWII the death ration of US Service Personnel has been 18 in wars started by a Democrat in the Oval Office to ONE if GOP was holding that seat. Go back to WWI the ration is well over 200 to one. This last go round ended up with bush accounting for 6,000 and then after Obama declared victory and a pull out the next six to eight thousand were all his.

            Which party passed into law The War Powers Act? Democrats. Which Party refused to comply each time without fail. The Democrats. Which Presidents complied? Bush Ia nd Bush II. Which President did not ask for a renewal of vote of conficdence but guaranteed over the horizon disengagement. Obama. etcl etc etc. How many have asked for the War Powers Act to be done over again? None that I know of it’s the same war from 2002.

            Except it isn’t being directly handled by someone who went eight years with no military experience and is being handled by one who knows enough to set the ground rules and let the professionals do their job.

            IF you like, being a newbie and all, I’l do the whole list of American Dead war by war by war big and small and see how you like the letter D popping up the vast majority of the time. and right behind that the casuality list .. Chill Out? Hell I just through gas on the fire. .

          2. You are right in one respect. The same bill passed in Decmember 2015 contained a hidden nugget that extend and broadened the use of ‘suspicion of’ to replace ‘probable cause.’ 85 Senators voted yes in their hurry to get home for New Years or something. A bit later Obama went on TV and did a smirkfest on how he had gotten rid of civil rights. It’s stil in effect all it takes is adding the words in support of or commission of terrorism. Undefined as is the exclusion of US Citizens.

        1. You also might be more aware of sarcasm, as in:

          “Only $75 billion is for war funding — as a country, we’re obviously chilling out!”

      2. “Defense” spending and “war” spending are exactly the same thing. Why separate them out? “Defense” is a euphemism for “war”. Every penny put into “defense” is actually for war preparations, one way or another. Why not call a spade a spade instead of dancing around an issue?

        1. Louise Hudson – it used to be the Department of War before it became the DoD. I am sure you could convince them to change the name again.

          1. Paul, it may have been the Department of War, but defense and war are seperate entities. If you read the classics and have a good memory then you might remember the Peloponesian war. First there were negotiations by ambassadors backed up by the two most powerful entities in the area. Then the Athenians sent a squadron of Triremes. The question is how many should they send. Too many meant war. Too few meant defeat and just enough might lead to a negotiated settlement. Thus a strong army is not just a war army, it’s hard power placing one in a posisition to better negotiate their self interest. (Note I am not saying drawing conclusions that one party was right and the other wrong, rather demonstrating the link between war and peace.)

                1. You are no soldier. A defense is a hasty or temporary ambush that also serves some other purpose such as resupply. When that is done it is abandoned. The way to hold terrain is remove the opposition permanently. and then advance to the next ‘real estate’ of interest. If it has no tactical nor stategic meaning dont bother. .

                  1. Michael A. You can say what you wish even though your idea has been proven wrong throughout the ages.

                    Take note how during the great wars Switzerland, because of its natural defense, was left alone as was the United States due to its natural borders, two oceans. “A good defense is also a way to avoid warfare.” doesn’t mean that an offensive ability should be neglected. The statement only means what it says.

                    1. The question was how many drops have you made? These question is where are your references? I have an idea you didn’t quite make it through draft processing or worse don’t understand what signing that card at 18 really means. Much less any experience. but I’ll settle for how many drops?

                      By drops I’m not referring to falling snowflakes.

                    2. The number of drops one makes doesn’t correllate with intellect. I’m not interested in your personal history unless it pertains to special training related to the conversation at hand.

                    3. “But you passed quacking?” he said innocently and…appropos of nothing whatsoever.

                    4. “But you passed quacking?”

                      Michael I can’t make out the context of what you are saying or who you are saying it to. I assume you agree with my basic points and hopefully you are arguing with another individual.

              1. I think you may be confusing warfare with nation state building by the international banking (BIS members) cartel Paul. Most of the world operates their defense systems on less than 1/5 our costs or are our citizens just being screwed worse than others countries are by their military industrial complexes? War is a racket Paul and don’t argue with me.

                1. Whatever it’s called, defense, war, nation building, or some other euphemism, its budgets are bloated beyond reason and they will continue to be bloated, especially with a Republican warmonger Congress and a Republican warmonger administration.

                  1. OK Genius its put up or shut up time. Get an almanac such as Time puts out annually. Easier to the following. List all the wars from World War I on that were started with a Democrat in the White House. Then add the number of US Service personnel killed. Keep a running total of how many you come with. The kill ratio is, and i just checked this for accuracy not over 200 to one as I had SWAG’d but 183 to one.

                    The one as you will find making the list with R for Republican in that example is the other half of the ratio.Wars or conflicts or police actions – doesn’t matter to a solider – with a Republican starting the war.

                    Now pay attention to all of the same after WWII to present and it’s 18 to one. Same party has one for every 18 that get killed in a war started by the Democrats.

                    Answer the following?

                    Which party enacted war powers Act?

                    Which party has refused to honor it?

                    Which party has fulfilled that requirement? Twice.

                    The second time it was used which President piggy backed on the WPA of the previous president?

                    answers are D, D, R, and D.

                    Which party falsely manufactured a reason that led to Vietnam?

                    Stop there because your side has killed more of our soldiers and not incidentally more of the other side and allies and hello? You just got trapped again.

                    Want to know how to keep a liberal in suspense?

                    You lose.

                    Objectivism wins over subjectivism every time.

                    1. Which party attacked Iraq?

                      What would the Republicans have done after Pearl Harbor? Run and hide like they always do? Democratic administrarions have to pick up the pieces caused by Republican shilly-shallying. It never ends.

                      But Republicans will continue to bloat the “defense” bidget, just in case they again leave the Democrats holding the bag after their incompetence makes war inevitable. They just manage to get out of town before the Republican sh-t hits the fan.

                    2. Louise Hudson – some 31 countries attacked Iraq (in Kuwait) after sanctions didn’t work.

                    3. I was talking about the auS attack on Iraq after the WTC bombing, which was known to be caused by Saudis. So Bush decided to attack Iraq instead and make friends with Saudi Arabia–the country his oil interests were involved with. I wonder of North Korea attacked us while we have a Republican administrarion. Will they pull a W and attack Mongolia or, even better, South Korea? ?

                    4. Louise Hudson – for someone who had a Mensa card it seems you never read any history. N. Korea invaded S. Korea under Truman and has been rattling sabres with every new President since. This time they seem to have weapons of mass destruction that could at least hit Japan or Hawaii.

                    5. Oh, ok, I thought we were speaking logically and reasonably, My bad.

                    6. Louise Hudson – that was both logical and reasonable. You do not want to see me when I am unreasonable.

                    7. allan – I have not forgotten EMP, however Un talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?

                2. HSkipRob – war is not a racket. The manufacture of weapons is. The USA is the largest arms supplier in the world, which I didn’t know until I read a book called the Arms Merchants. It was a fascinating read.


                  1. Used to be the Russians and Chinese. There’s enough of their stuff out their they don’t need to make so much anymore. the runner ups are Czechs,, Germans, French, Swedes and Swiss.

                  2. Racket? It’s not a game of thimblerig. Companies manufacture weapons, other countries purchase and receive them. Where’s the scam?

                3. So you are saying the Democrat Party all these years has been culpable of RICO? And don’t argue with me about the war monger party or you get embarrassed even worse than before.

                  Actuall you meade sense. except for one caveat. Most of the world attempts to keep to their own business until they are attacked. As for your ratio. one battalion size unit special operations can tie up ten division under the right, meaning prepared, circumstances. Greece and Yugoslavia WWII

                  But i do like yhour characterization of the War Monger Party it fit them perfectly.

                  1. Michael A. “Most of the world attempts to keep to their own business until they are attacked.”

                    It might only take one nation to create a world war. The numbers of border skirmishes around the world is quite high so I don’t know how you draw such a conclusion.

                    1. “Experience. How many drops do you have?”

                      It sounds like you are using the number of parachute jumps you have made into enemy territory. That is not hard to accumulate during war and is accumulated by many kids age 18 to their 20’s that are uneducated, but skilled in what they do.

                      You cannot rely upon your own experience. When the army trains officers one of the first things they do is look for academic abiltiy. Our Master Sergeant might have more experience in the field than that First Lieutenant who then my climb in the officer ranks, but eventually that Lieutenant will have a more complete picture of the war.

                      I take note that you didn’t contest anything I said.

                    2. Michael A. “Most of the world attempts to keep to their own business until they are attacked.”

                      Like North Korea? It only takes one.

                    3. Second reason Tonkin Gulf Resolution. A fabrication that led to the Vietnam War.

                4. Appropriately funding for our defense is a political racket. We may need more money or we may need less money, I can’t say, but I do know we need less politics involvement in such decisions.

                  1. I noticed the oh so very experienced ducked the question an turned off the reply function. Quack Quack Quack. Watch the snowflakes fall and melt. So nice of you to piss on those your party sent to the vast majority of all those wars Hudson. and selected ONE which had the support of the Congress under the War Powers Act only to find your kind lining up shoulder to shoulder wit the opposition YOUR PARTY sent our soldiers out fo fight. We need a change all right. No one can vote nor run for office especially one with the power to start war unless they are combat arms combat veterans. It’s too important to be left to the candyasses. ought to make political points with our blood.

                    Up yours War Mongers .

                    You own that title and the stink fits you rather well.

                    1. M. Aarethun: “We may need more money or we may need less money, I can’t say, but I do know we need less politics involvement in such decisions.”

                      How do you propose getting money from the government without political involvement?

                  2. Michael the email indicated this reply was to me, but I don’t think so. Probably you should have responded to the last post with a reply that lay above the person you were replying to and perhaps it would have been helpful to use the name at the beginning of your post since the number of respondents is so long. If I am wrong let me know.

                    1. You’re right, it’s best to use the name of the person you are respondong to. The program often messes up the order of responses.

    4. The dollar is worth about 3 cents of the value of the 1933 dollar. we lost 20% or so in 2008 to the cycle of economic repression . we lost things like probably cause and due process. No one listened not even after the rather large wake up call they got on November 9th.

      Yes you are correct. The question is what to do about it? Nice to see someone is awake here and there.

  5. “The most under covered story of Russia Gate is the interconnection between the Clinton campaign, an unregistered foreign agent of Russia headquartered in DC (Fusion GPS), and the Christopher Steele Orbis dossier. This connection has raised the question of whether Kremlin prepared the dossier as part of a disinformation campaign to sow chaos in the US political system. If ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, Russia Gate is turned on its head as collusion between Clinton operatives (not Trump’s) and Russian intelligence. Russia Gate becomes Hillary Gate.”

    1. And it still won’t matter ….collusion is not a crime. HOWEVER….there are those pesky felony chargess still be investigated.. again.

    2. Disinformation has been a game all politicals parties have played the entire history of government. Knowbody really knows what is in the best interest of the majority. Nobody knows if public education is in the best interest of the majority or if a standing army is better than a well-regulated militia. Politicians guess and supply erroneous reasons in an attempt to persuade the majority into giving them their tax dollars. 90% of the legislation is about providing benefits to special interests at the expense of the majority.

      How is that we now have the greatest wealth and wage disparity and the largest Federal Budget in U.S. history. 100,00,000 Americans are now living at or near the poverty line. Politics should be defined as the art of disinformation, hence why we jest “How do you tell when a politician is lying; their lips are moving.”

      Think of it from an individual perspective. Is it possible for me to know what is in your best interest? of course not. If an individual cannot know what is in another individual’s best interest, how can they possibly know what is in the majorities best interest? So what do the politicians do? They hire consulting firms, at tax payers expense, to make them sound knowledgeable and come up with a least a reasonable rationale or set of reasons for taxing people the money rightfully belongs to and redistributing it to those it doesn’t. So in truth, we are guessing at what is in the best interest of the majority and stealing through taxation from people to do it, with the political system taking a cut of the action for administrating and enforcing it. With that said the guesses are almost always wrong and a host of economists and philosophers have been saying this for centuries. In economics, they are called “interventions” into the marketplace which distort supply and demand. Are there any guesses from the peanut gallery as to why there is so much conflict in our political system today?

      What did Jefferson say? “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them other wise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

      “A republic madam, If you can keep it” is what Franklin said after the signing of the Constitution.

      I have analyzed this contention for many years now and I sadly have come to the conclusion, it is not possible. I think that once you legalize the required force and coercion to tax, it is impossible to restrain the agents of the nation state and once that door is opened, it cannot be closed.

      The most civil society that we can formulate is that of the Celts from about 600 to 1600 AD.
      From Murray Rothbard’s book, “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto“; “The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient Ireland—an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice. . . . There was no trace of State-administered justice.”

      The Celts were overthrown by the Monarchs of Europe, the Vatican, and their bankers. The bankers are still alive and well with their headquarters at the Bank of International Settlement in Basil Switzerland, which is the clearing house of all it central bank members and where they meet every two months. We have slowly tempered the churches with Freedom of religion enactments, but they are still a constant threat and the Monarchs like Saudi Arabia are still a huge threat to the liberties of their Citizens. I think we can beat them.

      1. Well skiprob despite most of your comment being drivel (no one can know anyone else’s best interests and the accompanying fallacy of composition … please) you did put your finger on the fatal flaw of libertarianism. The free spirits are so independent they can’t protect themselves in their own lands from a determined invader. In effect, they are the social contract’s version of independent contractors seeking all the benefits and enduring none of its self-preserving controls. It’s a recipe for disaster as you — and history — are fast to tell us.

        1. Ah mespo727272, I see you’re still at it. Ideologically protecting the status quo despite its history of horrible results and consequences. Hell, let’s just reinstate a debtors prison, slavery and indentured servantcy again for all those deadbeats who could not pay their mortgage payments and were foreclosed on.

          Shouldn’t we at least aim at the right target or are you willing to accept the socialist/fascist financial and regulatory chains placed on society as an excuse for not trying to achieve another age of enlightenment and civil society? You don’t really expect the people of our world not to fight back against those that oppress others for financial and political gain. We beat the monarchs why can we not beat the financial oligarchs?

          Perhaps you are waiting for WWIII, another credit collapse like in 2008 or another rearing of the Great Recession, as it appears is coming to light as many economists suggested it would. Change is slow but it will occur. It will either improve or deteriorate. If we keep doing the same thing, what has recent history taught us? We are both going broke and our society is deteriorating from a macro and socio-economic standpoint.

          If you are suggesting that the status quo (Keynesian economics) is a viable long term solution you have your friggin head in the sand. You don’t really think Donald Trump and the Republicans are going to Make America Great Again, do you? Or that the social policies of the Democrats are really working for the good of the majority. How can a political system dominated by the wealthiest of special interest do what is in the best interest of the majority? We are not saying we should jump ship and fire everyone in government tomorrow, but that we should aim at the target and chart a course of limited government and the protection of individual rights because it is what has worked best for the majority. Or do you just like seeing the masses oppressed with a plethora of taxes and regulatory fees that is both bankrupting the majority while enriching the ruling class? Are you one of those who believes the world is overpopulated and it needs a good cleansing now and then?

      2. By saying nobody aren’t you referring to everybody…except yourself. Might want to watch the syntax although in the end I agreed it was from a different viewpoint. War is not a term paper assignment and the ability to wage war should not be left to those unqualified. However you are way ahead of who ever was in third or fourth place and never made round first base.

        Your comment on Celts is a prelude as was the Greek Experience which eventually led to the democratic principles and after that the idea of a republic and after that the shocking idea that individual citizens wer e cdapable of self government.

        Philosophically from 350 BC or so to 1965 AD although the practical application started in 1776 to 1787.
        Now that iidea, self governing citizen is something worth fighting for. as we proved last November.8th. Howevfer the idea of dying for a Carter,LBJ, Wilsonl, Clinton, Obama or Warren Pelosi is not only not worth fighting for it’s not a requirement.

        Military service serves one master and one master only. ‘support and defend the Constitution……’ that is it that is all

        This last time we stressed ballots not bullets. The hard choice is when an Obama openly states he’s going to turn us and DHS especially into a Schutzstaffel. Along with Neapalitano’s ill timed remark that id exactl what lead to the counter revolution of November 8th. It was a drop I am so happy not to have missed.

        Always stay registered with Zappa U. The cost is is time and an open mind. and …what the hey if you juatr want to get laid no need to go to University….any gathering of Democratic Socialists offers a much better chance of success. . it’s the lack of morals.

    3. Oh, yes, it was the Democrats’ fault that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election. There ihas never been a criticism of Republicans where a Republican doesn’t blame it in the Democrats. Happens every time. No doubt it was the Democrats’ fault that Nixon’s henchmen burglarized Democratic headquarters. The Democrats must have invited them in,

      1. there you go again. No facts, no evidence and worse no crime Stupid is as stupid does the last refuge of the loser lobby.

        Can’t anwer your other question. No reply button. Other than ‘I don’t’ propose anything. Not my department. I deal with counter insurgencies.

        And people who thing collusion some kind of crime ….or something Did you use an extra ‘u’ in your penchant for misspelling?

  6. Zzzzzz ZZZZZzzzzz ZZZZZzzzzz.

    (Please wake me up when the Leftists’ obsession with indulging in stupidity and ultrasubcretinesque behavior abates.)

    1. Ralph Adamo. We’ll wake you as soon as the right’s obsession with indulging in stupidity and ultrasubcretinesque behavior abates. It looks as if you’ll will be asleep for a very long time, maybe forever.

      1. And which one of The Collectives programmers wrote that bit of nonsense for you comrade RoboClonette?

        1. Michael Aarethun: And which one of The Collectives programmers wrote that bit of nonsense for you comrade RoboClonette?

          Just because they write for you because you can’t express your own opinions doesn’t mean they write for everyone else. If you want to see real nonsense, read your own posts sometime.

          1. Well put comrade Carville will be happy to hear one of his standard meaningless comebacks is still being parroted. Part of Radical Reasoning… Never answer with facts only with .nothing. Have you not graduated to Radical Reasoning?

            Among other things it teaches the wannabe liberal to speak about something three times and if you get away with it unchallenged you may quote yourself as ‘widely, published and discussed.’ Follow up.. but if you were challenged or had no facts you can just pretend otherwise.

            You quote facts never produced saying ‘I’ve already provided them.’

            You can refute reason and facts by claiming the opposite even though you haven’t.

            Recommended is “You know what I mean or meant.

            or ‘it’s common knowledge that……….’

            OR you can claim an ad hominem attack. That one rarely works because programmed clones are machines and one must be at least humanoid to get away with the claim.

            1. There is nothing to be gained in treying to discuss anything with a fool. I’m abandoning this ridiculous topic and your inane responses.

      1. He,s in gor an even longer sleep, possibly an eternal one, if he waits for the right wing’s obsession with indulging in stupidity and ultrasubcretinesque behavior to abate.

          1. It’s not spelling that’s my problem but typing on this %#~<?! iPad keyboard. I'm a good typist on a regular keyboard, but this Hunt and Peck system defeats me. I never see the errors until I've hit "send", then it's too late.

  7. Fake news networks need to be exterminated . We don’t need any more analyses on fake news shows .

      1. Yes, and mother of all fake news , CNN along with NBC , MSNBC , NYT WA Piss , cbs , pbs …

        1. Warnicke and anyone else who claims fake news. Point to the news that the mainstream press has been shown to have deliberately made up. Some of it must have been proven to be fake by now. I am not speaking of opinion, but hard news. For all the accusations of “fake news” you should be able to come up with say five unassailabe instances of news that was deliberately and unequivocslly made up rather than real news you don’t like because it puts your politics in a bad light, which is what “fake news” usually is.

          1. Louise, there are many instances of fake news coming out of the lamestream media. I and many others have been aware of this for some 10 to 15 years and longer. A lot more than Just five. There are enough recent retractions alone but there are not many people who actually keep track of them. The most recent one I read was three different instances when the NY Times reported that all the U.S. security agencies believed there was Russian hacking in the recent election. They retracted that story. The fact was that 3 agencies only believed there was Russian hacking. Not only that, none of them stated if they thought it was the Russian government or just criminal hackers doing what criminal do. What we do know is that Seth Rich who was obviously murdered hacked the DNC and got the email to wikileaks, which is not being reported by the lame stream media. I wonder why that is?

            1. In fact it has been reported widely in the mainstream media. I suspect that if they don’t say what you want them to say it counts in your opinion as not being reported.

              1. Louise, I think we’re on the same side to some extent but I don’t really care what the lamestream media say anymore. It is obvious, they cannot be trusted, other than to spin the truth with their various methods we should all be aware of. This Russian issue and its coverage is just adorable to watch and read and of course meaningless for those who know how to discern truth from fiction.

                I think that they are trying to cover up, or really distract the general public from some really foul play, like the murder of Seth Rich and others, peto/pizzagate, corruption within the military industrial corruption and even drug dealings in the middle east. The heroin and synthetic heroin are now both in huge supply here, their use at epidemic levels and many people believe much of it is from the Middle East, especially Afghanistan and Iraq. No one wants to believe the American deep state is involved, but there is tons of evidence.

                However, there is no one to prosecute and I don’t blame them for not. Being a whistle blower has enough retaliatory history to scare any prosecutor into picking on the weaker prey. It is however interesting that more and more people are blowing the whistle despite the potential blowback.

                I understand that at one time the Citizens themselves could prosecute government officials but the system has obviously closed that little loophole. My Attorney calls our government a confiscatory cartel but it is obviously as much a protection racket for many of the confiscators.

                It surely is a foul odored swamp if you are willing to open your eyes and look deep enough.

                1. Where so you get your news uf you refuse to read the mainstream media?

            2. Any news source can be wrong or misled.That doesn’t mean the item was made up. Legitimate news sources issue retractions when they discover they were wrong. It’s too bad “conservative” news sources like Faux News are reluctant to do that.

          2. Defintelly not college material . but obviously qualified for student loan.

  8. But then it turned out there was a DNC Russian conspiracy or collusion, he got the FBI investigation going on the Clintons again, If Mueller doesn’t get off the dime they’ll just go the straight FBI to Justice to Court to jail routine.

  9. Turley should read the op-ed in today’s TNYT by Lisa Bennett about when speech causes physical harm.

    1. Are you getting paid for every paper they sell? What garbage yellow journalism muck raking rag. Fit for the left but not for decent people. I see you ducked another question. quack quack quack.

      1. False, false, false and false again.

        As I stated before, you are certainly full of it.

        1. Quack Quack Quack. One day when you least expect it. heh heh heh.

        1. David Benson – I used to take your opinion on videos, but have since changed. There are some young (for me) video commentators I would probably follow, if I knew how.

          1. I usually have other ways to acquire information and also relieve boredom.

            1. “I usually have other ways to acquire information and also relieve boredom.”

              Better be careful. The latter is a sin. 😉

      1. That is a wretched and pointless video, which does not address the point.

        The more fool you.

  10. The people who count the most are the one’s in the largest voting bloc. That’s not the shattered left nor the GOP with it’s right wing of the left faction. Lock and load!

  11. A reminder of why Independents and vets who are tired of pointless wars would not vote for HRC

      1. Trump is doing more than sitting around with his thumb up his ass like OBama complaining we are his government’s greatest danger. You are speaking third person I am speaking first person. The screwers are the same as before, or were Democrat war mongers and there RINO buddies.
        And for the record that stupid remark is what got us together in a group to start a counter revolution against the third revolution. It was a pleasure to uphold our oath of office and be a main component of the coaltion that brought down the left. …and our powder is still dry.

        1. The vets have been continuously screwed, but my understanding is that he extended the Veterans Choice Act. Then in June he gave vets preference in federal grants to law enforcement agencies hiring and training veterans and expanded protection to VA whistleblowers and improved the process for firing and demoting employees.

          All of that though inadequate seems to be positive steps forward. Right?

          1. THe first day out he fired the two VA employees who promptly got the union to reinstate them dong the firing the wrong way and last I heard he was after them, and the union, which is as it should be. No doubt another round with the courts but this goverenment union crap has gone on along enough and most aren’t worthe more than three per cent of an imitation dime.

          2. THe first day out he fired the two VA employees who promptly got the union to reinstate them doing the firing the wrong way and last I heard he was after them, and the union, which is as it should be. No doubt another round with the courts but this government union crap has gone on along enough and most aren’t worth more than three per cent of an imitation dime. Right now they are probably doinng DEA undercover agents for the drugs sales. tha’ts for places like Phoenix AZ. Tucson seem to be the opposite. Most people seem to forget those facilities are run by the US Government not one individual.

          1. Obama wanted single payer. It was the Republicans who wouldn’t stand for it. Democrats did the best they could under overwhelming opposition from the right. You can thank the Republicans that we don’t have singke payer like the civilized world has,

          2. Kinda looks like Obummer failed The Party by not going full tilt for there real goal of The Party controlling everything by any means possible. So you may be right putting it that way.. If you dont recognize that description is the definition of fascism.

  12. Just like we did with the Democrats, just give the Trump administration some long reigns and time. Keep an eye on a group called Judicial Watch. It’s a legal group and the stuff they are uncovering is really good stuff. They have a lot on the Seth Rich Case and have issued a FOIA to Trump’s cabinet already.

    1. Chris Wallace the guy who asked trump what he would do if he loses but never bothered to ask Clinton the same question and this is the guy that JT likes , what a big surprise .

      1. Pray tell, if you averaged all MSM news what was Trump’s likelihood of winning, expressed as a percent, what do you think is the number? Me thinks about 20%. Further………..

        Wallace asked Trump that question because Trump had expressed a belief that the election was rigged against him. Conversely, convinced she was Jesus Jr. Obama and would win, there was no such grumbling from HRC. (This may also ‘splain why Queen HRC never visited WI and other prior blue States turned Red in 2016. It does not forgive her stupidity and arrogance.)

        That was all pre-election. Now post-election, the candidates swapped behavior: HRC claims Russian conspiracy, while Trump claims, “Who, me?”

      2. Trump was the one saying the left was rigging the election. That’s why Wallace asked the question. The Democrats didn’t say the ekection was being rigged by the right. As it turned out the election was completely rigged, possibly with help from the Russians, which is why Trump appeared to win. If the Democrats had rigged it Hillary would have won handily. As it turned out she received more than 3 million more votes than Trump did,

        1. Louise Hudson – Hillary got 3 million more vote only because of CA. Once CA secedes Hillary will never be elected, Waters. Pelosi and Fienstein will be out of Congress. I going to CA to vote for secession.

            1. Ynot – I would just show them my Mensa card, it would get me in. You have to stop these ad hominem attacks.

          1. So California is not part of the United States and its votes should be ignored? Then let’s also ignore the votes from the redneck states.

            California should secede. If it were a country it woukd be the sixth kargest economy in the world and the rest of the United States would go bankrupt. I live in California and I’d vote for seccession in a heartbeat. It would end the drain on the state’s economy in supporting the redneck states.

            1. Rather twisted in a sophomoric way. Let me try with easy words. California gets x number of electoral college votes . 55 I seem to recall. All 55 went to Hillary Clinton. In the national popularity poll which has no relation with electing the two federal jobs except in some states choosing electoral college members California had an excess of 3 million votes over in the national popularity poll contest. So all there votes that counted were in fact counted. Those that didn’t count didn’t count.

              In the end President Trump received 55% of the vote that counted the electoral college votes. Clinton received 45%. Unlike the states which can allow plurality wins the federal rules are more stringent. 50% plus one of the electoral college votes are required IF it’s a tie it goes to Congress and California then gets one vote in the first attempt which is conducted by the Representatives. If that is a tie each state gets one vote in the Senate.

              Had all of Californias votes ended up producing a tie since they still only have 55 there influence would drop one of 435 and as we know GOP owned 33 states. If that had been a tie California would get 1 vote while the GOP had 52 plus 1. For that vote the 60 business doesn’t exist.

              Like it or not the system has been in place 241 years so why hasn’t it been changed?

              Attempts have been made 700 plus times. NONE of those attempts made it out of Congress much less got the required amount of States for a Constitutional Amendment.

              So is the national popularity vote worth anything?

              Only if those 3 million has moved to the nearest states and registered an address and asked for an absentee ballot and not all states are same day register and vote states. For many it’s a six month deal.

              Which is as it should be.

              Next comment is who controls the Senate. Well it could be the 25 states with the least population plus one from another state. 51 votes.

              1. In an actual democracy the popular vote wouod nmean a lot more than it does under our convoluted system. No matter how you look at it, 3 million more VOTERS voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. The system won’t change until a Republican wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote. Then you can be sure the Republicans will be Taking to the streets to change the system. In a democracy–even a democratic republic–states should not vote–people should. People should decide on the president, not some convoluted system that gives more power to small states. On person, one vote is how it should be. Instead we have one person, sometimes less than one vote, sometimes five or 10 votes, depending on where he or she lives. This might have been worthwhile in the days when people could not easily get to the polls. It is now an anachronism, but I don’t expect it to change until a Republican gets burned by it.

                1. and the other side will take the other side and block the change ya da ya day just like they have been doing for 241 years. and the other version of that is the 60 vote cloture So other than telling us you don’t have a thing to tell us any thing else you want to not tell us? Why yes?

                  My guess. You are a party hack following The Party line to help hold The Collective under control. Not only that you don’t pay attention and you insist on blaming your own right wing for what your own left wing is doing or…not doing. How many social promotion gold stars did you take home to Mommy?

                  My how the standards have dropped.

                  How’s your nose? Don’t forget tomorrow!

                  1. Is it really the other side that blocks the popular vote from becomming the deciding factor? I don’t think so. It is the individual states that determine whether the vote is proportionate or not. We are a union of states where the federal government has usurped a lot of power, but this is one power the federal government has been unable to usurp. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment.

                    1. Of the 700 plus attempts to change the electoral college to the popular vote NONE came from the States themselves not one. All were filed in the US Congress and all failed in the US Congress. It did not matter which party was in power. Theories are fine but subjective is beaten out by objective every time. The facts rule. Including the last penny ante attempt made by a California Senator if I rememember right. It was filed and and forgotten like all the others. It’s a token useful only for a line in a speech someday somewhere.

                    2. I can’t imagine that there were 700 attempts to change the electoral system. But if Congress keeps turning them down, they must find the system advantageous to themselves. We know all too well that they would never vote for something the people want over their own preferences. I wonder why they don’t suggest an electoral system for Congressional seats if it’s such a good system.

                    3. OK sit back it’s high school civics. Checks and balances. Representatives were more plentiful coming from districts, voted for directly, allowed at a younger age. Senators were selected to represent the States by the State governments in turn directly elected by the entire state. Age requirement was older and meant to balance youth with experience. and more calm deliberation. The representatives to the federal government were the direct pipeline to Washington DC from each district. The route of the citizens.

                      The senators were the State Governments direct route to the the federal government and the indirect route from the people. The design was such that no one group could easily overpower another and to further that they had individual responsibilities. for example the Senate only approved nominations and confirmed judical appoinments and treaties. The Reps had to inititiate any funding and all budgets.

                      Both together could over ride a Presidential veto. Back then any State Attorney General could straight to the Justice Deparment and any Governor straight to the President. Most important any portion of our living since birth Constitution could be amended by a. passage of an amendment bill by the Congress signed by the President and presented to the States OR by any of the States in a convention, or partially adjusted by the Supreme Court who could also be over ruled by the States though their Senators enacting a new law with the Reps and the Presidential signature

                      It was very hard to do on purpose. no one wanted a tyrant group bringing back another monarchial dictatorship or any other kind.

                      The key to dismantling the system lay in two amendments. 16th income tax and 17th direct vote for Senators, AND in ignoring the 9th and 10th. . powers not granted. the dicatorship route is routinely tested the last by Mr. Obama whose excuse was…the courts haven’t visited that area of the Constitution yet. Why? there was no need. With out granting the power the President was powerless. Wilson, FDR , Truman, proved them wrong LBJ as well as the ‘foreign ideology of a ‘divine power of Kings’ or version thereof gnawed away ….until Nov 8th of 2016.

                      But in all that time the country has NEVER been a democracy. but has and is enduring the spectacle of a mobocracy. despite warrnings going back to the early Greek philosophers. Socrates, Aristotle and even Plato chief among them.

                      (I believe what we have here is a high school student trying to impress the teacher or perhaps a school teacher in a summer school class of some sort but it has been valuable as a demonstration of the intentional failure of the education system.)

                    4. Michael the question is whether Congress can do that without a Constitutional Amendment. If that is needed then it is either the states or the amendment that will decide. The states don’t want to give up that authority.

                      On what basis were those 700 attempts made? Constitutional change or other? Would those other attempts have passed Constitutional muster? This is where theory trumps unrelated and unconstitutional facts.

                    5. I think it’s telling that not one state uses anything like an electoral system to elect theitrown members of Congress or their Governor–or in fact any elected office. They use a popular vote method, even though there are towns and counties in the state that are,p much less populated than others, therefore having less power in government. Why don’t they use an electoral system for their own elections if they think the system is so good and fair? In fact every election in the United States from Governor to dog catcher is done on a popular vote system except for the president, who has very little influence over state affairs anyway.

                    6. Phil Schulte:Louise Hudson – read your Constitution.

                      What makes you think I haven’t and that i don’t understand every word of it? I simply disagree with the wisdom of the electoral system, especially in this day and age. Are we as citizens not supposed to crtiticize the Constitution? It can be changed. It has a built-in method of change. The Founding Fathers expected it to be changed. Are you assuming the Constitution is an ironbound document that is never supposed to change, no matter what? As it was written, the Constitution allowed and supported slavery. Were the abolitionists wrong in wanting to change the Constitution? Had they never read it or did they not ubderstand it? I am suggesting an allowable change in the Constitution regarding the electoral system of electing a President. I have not suggested that we throw out the electoral system without a Constitutional amendment, though I would be pleased if that were possible. I’m willing to play by the rules. Maybe it’s you who needs to read the Constitution. It is not an immutable document and never has been immutable.

                2. Louise, You seem to be under the assumption that democracies have worked well throughout history. Firstly, they don’t usually last very long and secondly, they “never” do what is in the best interest of the majority. There are a bunch of reasons why so just google “why democracies fail” and you will get a plethora of info to read and digest.

                  Most libertarians already know this hence why the push for the protection of individual rights and property and restrained government.

                  Most ideological rhetoric and debate today is trying to balance the protection of the minority such as gay rights and women’s rights with the will of the majority. Example: What would happen if say Roe vs Wade was repealed? it would place it back in the jurisdiction of either the will of the majority and/or States rights and as we know, some States would end up with a prohibition on abortion.

                  FYI: The majority is often wrong when it comes to socioeconomics, because they are either ill or mal-informed, religiously or monetarily biased and/or just flat out lack the required skill and knowledge to make such social determinations. I have already argued that it is impossible to know what is in the best interest of the majority, so we are literally just guessing what social policies should be enacted. Based on the number of actual laws, I would say we are really wrong a lot.

                  1. So identify a governmental system that has worked well throughout history. Just one. The reason systems fail,is because they are always seen as detrimental to some people, and if those people can hold sway, they will cause the system to fail. In democracies people’s ideas are often voted against and their response is often to trash the system, as you are doing here. Sometimes they succeed, but no replacement system has been better. Someone’s ox is gore in every system. Please let us know what system is better, more “successful” and longer lasting than democracy in your experience. Also please explain how you decide when a governmental system is “successful”.

                    1. The reason we know you haven’t read much is evident in your answers. The term is hoisting oneself by one’s own petard. The easy part was reading your included public confession. But like all moral failings the only one that can absolve you is….yourself. There was no evidence of that either Remember any of the versions of Nuremberg Defense such as “But Mom! Dad! every one is doing it!” AKA I vas only chust following orders Mien Herr” is in fact not a defense but a plea of guilty coupled with request for clemency. .

                    2. I will ignore the insults. They show the level of your intellect perfectly.

                    3. Put it to rhyme
                      One line at a time
                      The couch potato vote
                      Is more than a joke.

                      Final tallies made
                      No saving face
                      Gore lost to Bush (and Clinton to Trump)
                      it wasn’t a race

                      One vote counted
                      A small small amount
                      Electoral won every time
                      Popular dead last in line

                      You could have amended
                      But never were tempted
                      There’s been enough time
                      To cry, moan and whine

                      The centuries and decades
                      Have passed in a flash
                      While you sat clueless
                      On your couch potato ass.

                      In the end did it matter
                      Not a jot not a whit
                      You learned to Ignore
                      Hard work’s such a bore

                      No matter the subject
                      You let it go by
                      With never a question.
                      What need of elections?

                      And old constitutions
                      The new subsitution
                      They’ll tell you what’s right
                      Three knocks in the night

                      They just took your house,
                      Your tv and sofa
                      All that’s left of your past
                      Is your couch potato ass.

                      copy right, Do not reprint without permission of Author.

                    4. Michael Aerethun – someone is actually laying claim to this poem? Is it you?

                    5. I drag this out as it is apropos for those who bitch and complain about the electoral college yet never get further on making change than a half hearted bill in one or the other house of Congress. The thought applies to a lot of other ‘someone needs to change this and change that’ but when it got to the point, the disgraceful point where a President could spit on The Constitution and act the little tin horn dictator and get away with it ignoring the rule of law at will I thought enough is enough I want something that IS exactly at their level And I wanted to show my contempt for their idea of participation

                      Yep sure did and it’s one of two i save for special occasions

                    6. What do you suggest anyone do, since you seem to have all the answers? What are you doing about it? Are you claimong yo be any more effective than anyone else? If so, let’s see you do something that works instead of complaining that no one else is doing anything.

                    7. Sucks to be stupid. I thought I laid out the plan of action WE used last year and are using NOW and will be using NEXT year rather well. but then sucks to be assigned the role of playing stupid in rush hour traffic. Hook, Line, Stinker.

                      Yuck yuck yuck.

                      Paul take care of the light work . Now about that question …about keeping a liberal in suspense I’ve moved that next Friday.

                      (six bits gets a dollar the fish is still on the hook three months from now.)

                  2. excellent summation. Full Democracies have more often than not turned into a ‘mobocracy’ most often fomented by those who suggest such a condition exists as a validation. HSR mentions the history. It goes back to the invention of democracy by the Greeks and caused the further move to the Republci system. Both of which applied only to those deemed ‘full citizens.’

                    The USA was he first to both combine the two concepts and is the oldest example of trying to tweak tha tsystem to it’s inteneded purpose. The idea that man can be self governing as an independent citizen and as group is the only source of, and the ultimate power.

                    The latest example of that was the out of nowhere arrival of enough votes to deny Clinton and company continued power.. A complete trashing of their foreign ideology will take more than one trip to the ballot box but the targets are already pretending it didn’t happen that way….and look for other reasons…that aren’t there.

                    It’s as close and as transparent as your neighbor down the street.

                    It takes nothing more than self governing citizens to step forward and say No to a return that which was rejected 1776 and confirmed 1787

                    1. In a democracy 51% of the population can enslave the other 49%. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic.

                    2. double excellent. somehow being under the thumb of Taxifornia does not appeal.

                  3. excellent summation. Full Democracies have more often than not turned into a ‘mobocracy’ most often fomented by those who suggest such a condition exists as a validation. HSR mentions the history. It goes back to the invention of democracy by the Greeks and caused the further move to the Republic system. Both of which applied only to those deemed ‘full citizens.’

                    The USA was he first to both combine the two concepts and is the oldest example of trying to tweak that system to it’s intended purpose. The idea that man can be self governing as an independent citizen and as a group is the only source of, and the ultimate power – thus replacing the notion of Divine Right of Kings…and First Ladies or Secretaries of State..

                    The latest example of that was the out of nowhere arrival of enough votes to deny Clinton and company continued power. Some 40% of the votes cast while the two parties split sixty. .

                    The main target was the left . but that includes what we call RINOs. A complete trashing of the foreign ideology will take more than one trip to the ballot box but the targets are already pretending it didn’t happen that way….and look for other reasons…that aren’t there. Good for them. We’ve already moved what’s left of the Socialists up to first place and the RINOs to second place. Wannabe Queen Kamala will have to wait her turn and ….wow she is the only one the left has that’s even close to able to become qualified. Minus a stint in the USMC.

                    How that happened? It’s as close and as transparent as your neighbor down the street.

                    It takes nothing more than self governing citizens to step forward and say No to a return to that which was rejected in 1776 and confirmed 1787.

                    Even then it applied only to ‘full citizens’ but that has changed significantly in two ways. Adding women.
                    Adding those old enough to be use in the countries military.

                    That one needs more tweaking. Starting with repealing the draft. As a 24 year veteran of combat arms I consistently ask why is it necessary? More trouble than it’s worth and it doesn’t produce voluntary citizen soldiers but involuntary conscripts. Hence the name Conscription. read about the fate of the present day crop who signed that card at age 18 and became instant volunteers. Women no. In the eyes of the law they are still considered babyfactories but may now truly volunteer to be cannon fodder. to use a gas on the fire term. Our military has already gone beyond being cannon fodder. Isn’t it time for women to get full citizenship too? Either that or repeal the draft.

                    1. Identify a system of governance that has been proven to be a better system for the majority of the population, have not failed and have lasted more than 200 years.

                      As Winaton Churchill is purported to have said, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

                    2. Winston, one of my favorites in history was from a quite different background but like the USA did not approve of a democracy but an enliightened form of his own Constitutional Parliament system. Although qualified to sit with the Lords he chose to run for office with the labor party but did not approve of socialism.

                      In any case Winston or not your comments still merit no meaning since the nation you slyly allude to our own is not and has not ever been a democracy. You cannot return to that which has never existed. Therefore there is no trend it was mooted in 1776 to 1787 and done so intentionally.

                      Now if you had said name a country that created a representative Constitutional Republic based on democratic principles for it’s foundation….but you didn’t which means somewhere along the line your education either ceased or you rejected reality. So you name the country that lasted over two hundred years as a democracy? No country which added layers using direct and indirect representative delegates fits the description.

                      So the answer is zero.

                      I’m sorry you interrupted your education so early. But then that is probably the last time personal choice was involved. Your lack of skill in the area of language either gives you away or points to a sub standard school system. Either way it’s nice to have the demonstration

                      Winnie by the way had a working vocabulary of over 10,000 words speak, read, comprehend and write. He was famous for winning Shakespeare contests by making up his own quotes and to the best of my knowledge was never found out. But quite the young rake he and friends would sit on park benches and evaluate possibilities “Is this the face that sank a thousand ships?” then award anything from a rowboat to a battle fleet. For a rare insight by one who worked with him in cataloging his writings look for “Winston Churchill’s Trial.”

                      Most barely make it to the 2,000 word level which is the one week goal of Berlitz Total Immersion system. Winston Churchill personified the independent well educated self governing man our founders created but in the British mold. Unfortunately people like Woodrow Wilson came back from his ‘year abroad’ influenced by Professors from further to the East. But it’s time for regression to cease and be …rejected.

                    3. I didn’t inerrupt my education nearly as early as you did, and it shows. You are a fount if misinformation.

                    4. I think you are not entirely correct. Churchill could not have sat on the House of Lords except at the end of his career when Churchill could have obtained peerage from the Queen. That, I believe, would have affected his son, Randolph, in that Randolph would inherit the title and move to the House of Lords. Prime Ministers come from the House of Commons (by precedent) and I think Churchill wanted his son to have the ability of being Prime Minister. His son died only a few years after his, but his grandson I think went on to be a noted figure in the House of Commons.

                      Churchill was a family member of the Duke of Marlborough who I think was the brother of Churchill’s father (also Randolph). The uncle I believe held the peerage title entitling him to a seat on the House of Lords, but Churchill’s father served in the House of Commons.

                      This is quite confusing because of the names that change or duplicate one another and the fact that peerage could be hereditary or lifetime, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I am not sure if his father could have ever received peerage that would not have been passed onto him.

                      He did receive what I consider to be the greatest and most wonderful honor, something probably all of us have. He was given citizenship to the US (even though it was honorary). We should not squander that lucky fate of birth.

                    5. Today Churchill would be eligible for full Americsn citizenship automatically because his mother was an American citizen when he was born. there was no need for hos American citizenship to be honorary. He could even have been a US president.

                    6. He eventually attained peerage by blood line to a sequence of events but also was elevated Queen Elizabeth II. Thus the champion of the common citizen and foe of socialism including his own party for leaning in that direction continued and eventually his warnings came true. Moreso in England than in the USA that took a bit longer but the eventuality was the WWII generation realizing they had been incrementally hoaxed in to supporting politcally that which they had fought against.

                      It remained for my generation to put together and re-ignite a coalition that led to last November 8th and the counter revolution against those who had rejected the social contract with the United States of America and their Marxist Leninist based revolution.

                      It’s not over yet. Other than those who learn the meaning of self governing independent citizens through service in the military with it’s oath solely to the Constitution and their rejection of the left there is not much in the education system and next to not much in the daily propaganda barrage. It is up to us to ‘teach our children well.’ Or their children.

                      The showing at the polls last November was a welcome and measurable response. It continues but learning to identify false definitions and false history and correcting them when they are used is both a learning and an exercise in practical application. But then we have the ability to think, reason in a objective rational manner and a sense of independence and pride in self and country and our political system the bulk of the opposition is denied by their classless societies ruling class. We have the ability to be as the founders wished self governing citizens.

                      The rejectibles? Pity them but do not underestimate their real leaders. Nor their ability to drum up support be it antifa, BLM or full scale assaults in their propaganda machine.

                      Good sources for learning? At no charge. On the net at (one course is entirely about Churchill) and another is look for the campus section. Both have a plethora of references. Hillsdale out of Michigan maintains a learning center in Washington D.C.

                      For the left and it does help to undersand them better on Kindle look for “Don’t See The Elephant.” It’s the training manual for their activist agents. You can compare the differences. The author is George Lykoff who is also called Yoda and he’s a self styled party theoretician on behalf of George Soros and the Progressive movement.

                      Currently we are discussing and passing on mid term election strategies and tactics. and foiling the antics of the oppositions best which is being kind.

                    7. Michael, Correct me if I am wrong, but the Duke of Marlborough had offspring and his place in the House of Lords passed to his son which would mean Winston was excluded unless there was a break in lineage I am unaware of. Winston had the title of Sir, but I believe declined becoming the Duke of London (from Queen Elizabeth) because of his son’s political ambitions. It’s hard to remember things read decades ago so if you find a link where Churchill would have become the Duke of Marlborough, but declined, let me know where the break in lineage occurred.


                      That being the URL it had to do with the difference between an inherited peerage and a non inherited The first would put him in The House of Lords automatically The second allowed him and sons to be in the House of Commons where all the power resided. While his Grandfather was Duke of Marlborough Winston declined being made Duke of London for the reason stated I erred in thinking it was a side branch and accession came from a death with no heir. Lawrence of Arabia for example was son of peer but as the line went in the movie. “He never married my mother.” Not uncommon in Victorian England. However he was only half English his mother was from Brooklyn Kings County NY USA.

                      A fun movie to watch that mixes historical fact with comedic fiction on this subject is “King Ralph.”

                      Why was Winston Churchill never made a peer (lord)? Did he refuse it so he could stay in the Commons?

                      Many former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are made peers. It’s done to honor the people who have held the top job in the UK’s government. Margaret Thatcher was made a baroness, for example. It’s not something that even requires a great deal of success in the position – Jim Callaghan was made a baron even though he’s mostly remembered for a time period known as “the Winter of Discontent.” Most former PMs get offered either an earldom or a barony.

                      In 1955, on the occasion of his retirement, Queen Elizabeth II offered to make Winston Churchill the Duke of London. Remember, in the peerage of the United Kingdom, Dukes rank highest,[1] so this was a particular honor. It also would have been hereditary – non-hereditary life peerages were possible at the time, but pretty much unheard of.

                      It’s the hereditary bit that got Winston Churchill to decline the position. His son, Randolph Churchill, was the MP for Preston from 1940 to 1945, and while it was exceedingly unlikely that Randolph was going to make it back into office, it was still theoretically possible. Had Winston accepted the dukedom, however, he would have destroyed his son’s potential political career. By convention, the PM is a member of the House of Commons and has been since 1911 – and while it is “only” a convention, it is pretty much iron-bound. Upon Winston’s death, the dukedom would have gone to Randolph, who would have been forced out of the House of Commons into the mostly irrelevant House of Lords.

                      As it so happened, Randolph only outlived his father by three years and never made it back into the House of Commons, anyway. But lest you think the declining of the dukedom was pointless on those grounds, Randolph’s son – also named Winston – who would have been the third Duke of London, had a lengthy parliamentary career (entirely as a backbencher), from 1970 to 1997.

                      [1] It goes Duke/Duchess, Marquess/Marchioness, Earl/Countess, Viscount/Viscountess, Baron/Baroness

                      Danny Mertens
                      Both answers already given are for a large part true. Winston was vain enough to eye something more than the ‘sir’, but indeed he kn we that the House of Lords was totally insignificant and being a member of this House would prevent him from becoming again prime minister (which he did 10 years after WW2). The fact that his son would have inherited his peerage and as such would have been relegated to the HoL is less of an issue. Tony Benn also inherited his father’s peerage, but fought back in order to stay in the HoC. This resulted in the Peerage Act of 1963. Winston Churchill died in 1965, when this act was already in place.

        1. No reply box above, so this is out of sequence:
          Thanks for the tips, Michael A.
          But I find that WordPress/ Roadblock is not worth screwing with.
          Maybe on a desktop it’s OK, but on a tablet or IPhone it’s just to much of a hassle to mess with.
          And I rarely use a desktop, so this is my last post here.

            1. No stick around Clone Isaac is getting boring again and it’s only Tuesday. SMILE …that’s not a threat nor a promise it’s a fact jack.

                1. How does it feel to be led around by the nose? Just wondered. Do you know how to keep a Tweeter in Suspense?

                  1. I don”‘t know, it’s never happenedcto me. But you seem to know sll abput it. Why don’t you tell the rest of us what it’s like.

                    1. Kinda busy I’l see if I can get to it this weekend or next week.

          1. You will be missed. unlike the roboclonette One of the reasons refused to use cell radio phones for anything but telephones without wires.

            1. One can tell by your precise grasp of the language of our country. How long were you planning to visit? Berlitz offes one week courses. i have scheduled you for Tuesday. You meaning The Collective and it’s on duty programmer Nice talking to someone who so easily takes the bait.

Comments are closed.