Trump wins again. As always.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rules-favor-trump-over-fate-consumer-watchdog-220921917--finance.html

Moore. This is as flat a denial is one can make.

"It seems that in the political arena, to say that something is not true is simply not good enough. So let me be clear. I have never provided alcohol to minors, and I have never engaged in sexual misconduct".

How soon we forget this lesson:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/inmate-rape-conviction-overturned-days-after-killed.html

And this one:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/08/04/30-years-later-key-figures-reflect-on-mcmartin-child-abuse-case/

Well, guess we can forgive not recalling this lesson 33 years later.

I don't know if he was involved or not. When I was 31, I dated a 18YO girl. We met at a HS handball court where I was rehabbing my knee after surgery and she was trying out for the senior handball tourney. Played a few games together, I gave her some pointers, she worked me out pretty good on the knee. We dated for about 3 weeks until her parents found out, and that was the end of that.

I'm prepared to be PROVEN wrong. But - until then, anyone - Dem or Rep get my support based on what can be shown of their actions and not what a teen girl said about something supposedly happened 35-40 years ago. Did he sit on a court bench where a girl sat, and keep her company? Maybe. Can it be proved? Not anymore, but sounds plausable, he was a DA so it's possible.  Past that, I've heard women tell some real stories based on nothing more than an idle imagination.

Willing to eat every word I've written - when he confesses, or there is independent proof. Aside from that, this is all political backstabbing. And shame on both sides for engaging in slanderous behavior. That has become the stock in trade of politics. Unless or until I see some spooge with a DNA report and a blue dress, all of them can just go get bent.

I've come to a few conclusions.

1) Govt, can only be a crutch. It cannot be the ultimate, and complete solution.
2) Self-worth and self-motivation are needed to fix sociological issues.
3) Those attributes need to be instilled at an age well before early teens. From K-5 are the most crucial years of development.
4) The natural family unit, no matter the color of the people in it is the best case for early child development. (this is in complete contravention of 'it takes a village')
5) Hard work are both four letter words, but they pay off in the long run. (ask me how I know).
6) Of all the nations on the planet, the US is by FAR the best case and best place to advance from nothing to wealth and happiness. We are the penultimate location for a rags-to-riches/fame potential. (ask me how I know) (see 95% of NFL minorities)
7) Too many people are whining about the minutia of every day life. Which tells me that all their Maslowian needs have been met, and some are actually spending their free time finding ways to be insulted/upset/denigrated. Wait for some real damage before opening the pie hole and complaining.
8 ) If one wants to help others, then help them directly. A persons time is far and away the most precious resource. Go somewhere, do something, with some people. If you help them even a little it's moving the needle in the right direction.
9) Never, ever call LEO unless there is imminent peril that one cannot handle by themselves(like spouse abuse). LEO is rarely a solution for anything and often makes simple problems worse, or more complex.
10) If someone else called LEO a) affirm a defense; "I didn't do whatever you are investigating" b) Say the word "I want a lawyer". Then stop talking to anyone, including cell mates, CO/guards, police, DA, etc. They are not your friend.

I will call these the 10 commandments. So let it be written, so let it be done.

I know little about Ho, but I have no doubt he was good to some people in order to get his grassroots following.

It does make Johnson look like a douchebag, which he was.

Respectfully disagree on Ho. He was a opportunist and manipulator of his people, just like all totalitarians of the past. He read the 'little red book'. He read Das Kapital, and he was able to focus his vilification of the French colonialists at first, and the 'Imperialist' Americans second. Not that I don't blame a dictator for wanting foreign powers out of the country, but looked at from the perspective of what the French took from VN, and what they gave back - anyone of a modern standard of culture would agree that VN was getting very good cultural advancement for the colonial 'master'.

Saigon of the 50s was one of those 'Paris of the SE Asia' kind of places. They had French language schools, art and history, they had a very nice orchestra, museums, boulevard living, etc. All the trappings of western civ, which so many want, except the fascist dictators who want everyone to be living in a mud hut, growing rice and corn, and providing sustenance to the rest of the proletariat. This is elitism of the worst kind, and Ho was a master of manipulating the people against those who were trying to get VN up to some modern standard of living.

My uncle(older than my father) lived in Saigon in the mid-50s and he said it was an Asian paradise. Much like Beirut of the 60s. Artists, musicians, painters, were common in Saigon after WWII. And now, it's a shithole, all thanks to uncle Ho.

Show me a law, regulation, or even taboo that requires standing during the National Anthem, and I’ll happily concede. Otherwise, why try stomping on someone’s rights to free speech? Even if it might be the same gesture a fellow veteran makes toward the memory of a fallen comrade?

Maybe the reason late night talk show hosts and other celebrities are getting you fellas so worked up is because they are pointing out not only the hypocrisy of your belief structure, but the utter stupidity of it.

You don't really have a strong grasp of the term 'rights' it would appear. Same goes for 'belief structure'.

Not that I'm a believer or anything, but the Judeo-christian, northern European 'belief structure', combined with the limited powers of govt(or said another way, the extensible rights of man) made the US what it is today. We went from a new beginning to the most powerful nation on the planet(by far) in less than 200 years.

You're welcome. In fact - we are so sure of our rights and belief structure that we can't and won't stop small-minded people, with totalitarian ideas in their heads from spewing any kind of alternate universe, up is down, black is white, work is freedom, liberty is regulation gobbledygook from kooks like YOU.

I've been avoiding the situation on POW/MIA returns because it's complex, and also dynamic. In the front lines of the Marines the position has always been we leave no Marine behind, even the corpses are taken home. That's a long standing tradition, and it serves us well up to the company, or perhaps the battalion level. Promotes esprit-de-corp knowing that your buddies are there for you come hell or high water. The Army, navy and air farce don't really have a policy except that the normal combat dynamic of unit cohesion. You're all in this together, and I guess on the Navy would be the ship commander is responsible for all the men on the boat being watched out for up until sinking.

As for the history with POWs, things get pretty murky. Vietnam didn't help much with so many men held for so many years by the NVA. Also, there was a fair amount of media presence with the POWs in Vietnam, keeping their images, and lives in the front of the public. With the Bergdahl situation, we had a one-off with very little guidance on how to proceed. Of course, the media swayed one way or the other depending on the bias involved. We also didn't know if he was a deserter, or an actual POW.

Given his last public statement about his fellow soldiers, and the immediate ranks above him, if I were in his unit, I wouldn't expend any time in going after him. I suspect at the company level which is an O-2/3 level, there was a lot of hand wringing going on. No one liked him, no one really supported him, but he's still wearing the same camo as everyone else. So - that's why there was some effort expended to go find and recover him. Having said that, it's a presumption that the guy that is missing is trying to BE found, and has not gone rogue(or native). There's also significant info showing that Bergdahl was going native by learning the language(Pashtun) and also spending his personal time with the local population, and not with his squad mates. I can tell you right now, this does not engender much support from those charged with supporting the unit, and will cause some bad feelings among many fellow soldiers. It's one thing to go after some local tail, and find a willing bedmate, that kind of stuff is expected. But - when a soldier starts taking on the culture and the common traits of the local population, that they are trying to solve their terrorist problem, this drives a big wedge between the guy who just won't toe the line.

Here we are, a guy who has little or no respect for his immediate supervisors, doesn't like or hang out with his squad mates, spends most of his time with the locals, is learning the local language and for the most part shows all indications that he prefers the locals POV over that of his commanders. Let's suppose, just to give him the benefit of the doubt - that all of his sergeants, LTs, and other manages in his outfit were as bad as he says they were. Lets say he was right, and they were all wrong and it was a slack outfit, and everyone around him was useless, and he was the only one who had his shit stacked and stapled. Lets just go with that. Ya know what? it - does - not - matter! You signed up, you took your training, you were assigned to a company/squad. You make the best of it, because you are IN THE ARMY. Almost every private thinks almost every Lt is a jackass. It's the nature of the beast, but I don't care if you are a Rhodes scholar as an army private, if the Lt says jump you say 'yes sir! How high sir?!' The value of a PVTs opinion on the military command or management structure around him is worth the dried spit from a diseased camel.

Finally, this guy who's no ones choice for a squad mate is missing.  No one knows if he walked off, or was taken, or what, he just disappears into the cold, dark night of Afghanistan. We have to presume he didn't leave on his own. We have to presume he's been taken, and is in some kind of bad situation. Sadly, the battalion cmd and the CO of the company have to send out patrols, and search for him. Or his body. We have to. It's what we do.

Then, to make things worse, he shows up on TV. In the media, sitting around, drinking tea, chatting with his hosts/kidnappers, and now - no one from the battalion/Army group on down knows what to do. They throw up their hands, call the Army CinC. the call goes something like this: CinC: "WTF! is going on out there! You lost a man, and he shows up on Afghan TV! How the hell did this happen, and what are you doing about it!" Company CO/batt XO/Adjutant: "Sir, he was on guard duty, and the relief went out he was just - gone. All his equipment, rifle, everything was just gone. No shots fired, nothing at the post, just Bergdahl missing. And Sir - turns out Bergdahl was kind of a shitbird. He was going native, and spending a lot of time with the locals, learning the language, and didn't bond at all with his squad. We suspect he walked away from his post." CinC: " I don't give a SHIT what kind of asswipe he is! Go - find - his - ass, and get him back to Leavinworth. I do not want to see him on TV again!" CO/Adj: "Yes sir! We will re-double our effort to get him back sir. I will advise you when we have him in hand." CinC: "Get on it mister, or I WILL have some nuts on my desk asap."

After that, Bergdahl is once again seen on TV, breaking bread with the locals, and he's not busted up, not behind bars, looking scared but healthy and then CNN gets wind under their sails, and the whole things blows up right out of the Army, and into the political arena. Now, all rules are gone. Is he a deserter? We think so, but we can't assume. That means we have to make effort to get him back. How much effort? Well, now that the locals have indicated he's a POW/kidnapped, we have to assume he didn't walk away(or did walk away, and was got by the wrong side), and we have to negotiate to get him back. Since it's out of the Army now, and in the hands of pols, there are no rules anymore.

All I can say at this point is that I would have listened to what they wanted for him, and done the exact opposite. 'Oh, you want these four terrorists we have locked up? Well, here we go then - they have just been tried, convicted, and are being executed in 7 days. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.' No release in 7 days, then four less terrorists in the world, and we lose one marginal private. Sounds like a good bargain for me. I don't give a wet dribbly shit if the turdhole comes back whole, or in pieces. We get a four for one on the deal, and I can sell that in Peoria. Other people - other decisions. But remember, this is from a veteran of both Army and Marines. Although being a CW, I never had any command authority, except a couple of crew chiefs. I can tell you, if one of my crew chiefs had EVER done something like Bergdahl, he would get a nightly blanket party/code red until shaping up(google it).

YMMV

TL-DR: Never give the fedguv an inch.

In defense of the NRA and their rigid position on right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA recently joined with some liberal organizations to support a ban on the 'bump stock' accessory. A stand on which I am vehemently against. We all know the operative statement in the 2nd Amendment; 'shall not be infringed' and how the interpretation of that statement has stood the test of time and liberals trying to diminish, and restrict that natural right over the years.

Allow me now to introduce the 1968 supreme court decision in Terry v Ohio. The end of the Warran court had seen the Republicans lose power as the Democrats took over in 1965-6. There was an air of 'civil rights' flowing at the time, and the court was ready to move into the debate with it's cert of the Terry v Ohio case. Without going into details, the police viewed a man as 'suspicious' behavior, and on that basis and no other the police stopped, searched, and seized pistols from Terry and another man they considered an accomplice to a crime. However, there was no crime in progress when Terry was searched. He was convicted of carrying a weapon concealed, and he appealed. The state of OH court did review his case and found for the state(shocking, right?), so he appealed to the SCOTUS.

The court took the case, so that they may investigate the limits and authorities of the 4th amendment protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure. The central questions were - 1. Was Terry entitled to complete privacy and freedom of movement and freedom from search? - 2. Once determined that a seizure(of person, so that you cannot walk or run away) is lawful, is a search reasonable?

The answer comes from a careful wording of the investigative nature of policing. Here is the wording from the court: "In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion." I will highlight the two operant piece of the puzzle here: Specific and articulable facts (this will become very important later) must be present, and if those specific and articulable facts were presented to a court for a warrant, that in the totality of the facts, a court would have typically issued an invasive warrant to search the person(Terry).

I consider this a rather torturous and deprecating reasoning. First and obvious, the cop on the beat has only a rudimentary understanding of the rights provided under the constitution as it applies to citizens in comparison to even the greenest, and most junior of judges, who at the very least have studied sufficient law to pass a state bar exam, and are members in good standing of the bar, as well as servants of the constitution. The cop on the beat MAY be a 30 year veteran of the streets, but he may also be a '90 day wonder', fresh out of cop training and who has just been imbued by the SCOTUS with the power to make major civil rights decisions as an ad-hoc 'judge, jury and executioner'[sic]

Second, the cop on the beat is incentivized, and biased toward finding of enforcement arrests, and will in all cases except maybe Andy of Mayberry, be seen and judged by his contemporaries and peers on his number of arrests, and keeping the peace, rather than protection of the rights of citizens.

Now we have a 'reasonable' search in the eyes of the cop, and not the court. At this point, what can be searched, and how invasive can the search be conducted? Warren specifically found comfort in the wording of the state of OH ruling and came up with this: "The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." It must be made clear, the search is for the protection of the officer, and the public around him/her, and is NOT an authority to search for evidentiary purposes, and as will be important later, for contraband, or other papers or personal effects.

Fast Forward to all the cases spawned by the Terry v OH. Further advancing the lawfullness of warrantless searches. Most all of which move the line ever away from individual liberty and privacy, and toward a controlled and monitored society where any cop, at any time, anywhere, for any reason gets to point to a/the citizen(s) and state; "He/she/they are acting suspiciously, and I can articulate that to a specific position such that I will now stop and frisk them under the authority of the Terry v OH(and subsequent) cases."

Bam - we have slipped the slope of the 4th amendment, due to the carelessness of the SCOTUS in violating the standards on which the privacy amendment stands. In essence, 'reasonable' means whatever the cop on the beat says it means, and judicial review be damned. For the student of judicial expansion see the following cases: Michigan v long and Hiibel v 6th district court of NV. In a final massive contraction of the 4th amendment protection, we look no further than Heien v NC - which held that, notwithstanding that a stop by LEO has no basis in law, such that they had no reason at all to pull a car over, or stop someone on the street that they mistakenly believed were committing a crime, the search and seizure under Terry stop any evidence CAN be used in a court.

That's correct. If a cop thinks that you've committed a crime, even when they are wrong, and fruit from the mistaken tree is found, that mistake by the LEO and subsequent stop, search, and seizure - the fruit from that mistake is evidentiary valid. Finally, the 4th amendment as it pertains to the citizen in public exists no longer. Any cop, at any time, in any setting can conveniently argue that they 'thought' you were breaking the law, perform the search, and the evidence obtained can and will be used against you. Note that in the case of Heien v NC, the evidence found during the Terry stop had nothing to do with the safety of the officer, or nearby public, but was in fact - cocaine. Unless the cop snorted massive amounts of it, there was never any danger to the LEO or gen public, which was the limitation of the Warren statement back in 68 - which has long since been swept away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FF to April 2017. Terry was adjudicated about 50 years ago, and the slippery slope has taken hold, such that we are now hurtling along at breakneck speed to a Nazi Germany circa 1936. Of course, one of the literal cases after Terry now REQUIRES the citizen to identify themselves, just as it were in Berlin, 1932 - "halten zie. Ve vill haf your paperen bitte". 

Go here, and read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/06/georgia-sheriff-deputies-indicted-after-body-searches-of-900-high-school-students/

Finally, maybe, potentially we have reached a case where the Terry stop has expanded to such an extent that the police are now facing the bar of justice. But - really? Are they? To review, there were 40 LEO present and active in restricting the movement of people(the school was on 'lock-down', no in and no out). They were held incommunicado by theft of personal property(all phones). And many were minors, who the court has particularly held in the past to protect with greater care than the adult public. Two arrests, one facing misdemeanor charges? It's quite possible that none of them will serve a day in jail. Whereas if you or I, or any other member of the public had performed this, we would be facing decades in prison, and the prosecution would almost surely gain a conviction in the eyes of any competent jury.

1st amendment? 4th, 5th, 6th? Nonsense, the only thing at some point the 'crats will understand is a few hundred well armed PARENTS, storming the school, where their kids are held hostage. Where were the school authorities, in whose charge the kids was held? Why aren't they being prosecuted for failure to protect the minors? If they are still employed by the district, what message does that send to other schools? Hands off? Why do you think the cops took everyone's communication device away?

I await our prog to step up with the reasoning why we should expand the power of the state, and withdraw to even greater extent the inalienable rights of the public. Now you know why I NEED a bump-stock. If I had to rely on single shot, I might not get them all.

Disagree entirely. The first attempt at govt was the 'Articles of Confederation'. That was a watery, loose, group of rules that didn't bind the independent states to anything. It was a govt of convenience, and would be the model for the eventual Constitution of today. Never ratified completely, it wasn't strong enough to do anything for or with the independent states.

Further to this, the declaration of independence, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the specific powers granted to the legislature work to limit govt. It was designed and intended to limit govt. The central theme was always that the ultimate power was retained by the people. Hence, the 2nd amendment.

As for the 1st, it covers several rights lumped into one amendment. Speech, assembly, press, religion. he constitution was just barely powerful enough to get the job of running the states federal business and no more. They knew the Articles weren't enough to bridge the independence of the states. When the continental congress met, one of the biggest challenges was not stepping on the rights of Virginia, PA, MA, and the Carolinas. All of them had powerful, and well run central governors. None of them wanted to give up much power to the feds. The representatives had to make decisions on the fly, then take the construction back to their states for approval. There was no way that those states were going to give up authority to a central government. Which is why we didn't have a standing army, and we DID have a militia(citizen soldier) and a navy.

With the passage of time, and the expansion of the federal into every facet and minutia of our lives, it's very hard to think that the fed guv was intended to be limited. Just look at how small the duties of the exec are. Commander in chief, appointments to depts, clemency, foreign affairs/ambassadors, and judges(with advise and consent of course). The framers absolutely and positively did not want any form of imperialism. And yet - here we are, with an imperial president since 1936.