Trump decided to join Bluesky, the leftist version of Twitter, and give them something to chew on .
The Dept. of State and Dept. of War did the same thing as well.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...eo-of-greatest-hits/

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/statu...l1979327784993591435

I'm waiting for the barrage of Tomahawk missiles that takes out every cartel head in Latin America at the same time.

Like Michael Corleone on baptism day.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Yes. And yet: Trump has broken no law; has not ignored a single one of the multiple stupid judicial rulings against his administration; and is fighting back with every resource available.

Blowing up boats in international waters is 100% a violation of several international and US laws. I hate drugs as much as anyone but this is a dangerous game they are playing here.

I care zero about international law, but please tell me specifically which US law is being violated by lethal interdiction of drug boats? Because the JAGs working for commanders executing these strikes disagree with you, so please be precise in describing exactly how the entire chain of command is acting illegally.

Posse Comitatus Act for starters. Just because they changed the designation of cartels doesn't change the fact that this is a law enforcement action, and while maybe not on US soil it's supporting civilian law enforcement actions.

Or quite simply, this violates the US Constitution. There used to be a standard that Congress had to declare and/or authorize acts of war against other nations. Anytime we're dropping bombs on people we run the risk of a wide spread war that the people don't want, therefore their direct representatives should have to vote for or against. This was true with the Obama drone strikes. This was true with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This is true now.

In classic Trump 2.0 fashion, they're stretching the interpretation of the law and using the "Well, it doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY we can't do this, so we're gonna do it anyway and let the courts figure it out months from now." And oh, the courts just ran out of money so that might not even happen. Almost seems like it is by design.

I will finish with this - it's a slippery slope when you support the flaunting of the laws/rules when you happen to agree with the end result. You lose the high ground when the next admin takes over and starts doing things you don't agree with, e.g. - "we're designating foreign ammunition manufacturers as terrorist organizations since bullets are killing thousands of Americans, we have authorized the destruction of foreign ammunition facilities and have seized shipments that bring harmful products into our country." You think it's far fetched but they'll be using the exact same legal interpretation.

quote:

Ummmm...not to be argumentative but how is this not the same as the "Guns kill blah blah blah" argument?

Americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms by our Constitution. There is no amendment which guarantees foreign entities the right to be able to smuggle narcotics into our country.

quote:

n classic Trump 2.0 fashion, they're stretching the interpretation of the law and using the "Well, it doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY we can't do this, so we're gonna do it anyway and let the courts figure it out months from now."

Isn't that how every single law works?

quote:

In classic Trump 2.0 fashion, they're stretching the interpretation of the law

This whole post is idiotic. We’re blowing up drug runners and you’re over here wringing your hands about what the next guy’s gonna do. Get real.

The blatant importation of a deadly illegal substance that addicts Americans, kills them and devastates families is tantamount to an act of war against the US. Especially from a foreign government or country that either cant, or wont take action to stop it from happening.
Sinking the vessels that carry the dope should have been done years ago and should continue.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Trump decided to join Bluesky, the leftist version of Twitter, and give them something to chew on .
The Dept. of State and Dept. of War did the same thing as well.

I liked the Pres. Trump as creepy posthumous Jimmy Dean sunshine segment.
Now do President Trump as wake up in bed with creepy Burger King for No Kings Day.
That ought burn the lib's tails.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
The blatant importation of a deadly illegal substance that addicts Americans, kills them and devastates families is tantamount to an act of war against the US. Especially from a foreign government or country that either cant, or wont take action to stop it from happening.
Sinking the vessels that carry the dope should have been done years ago and should continue.

China is waging war on the U.S. by shipping Fentanyl ingredients to the cartels. China is the source, and they know what they are doing. That's one reason for the tariffs.

We need to prove the connection and then sanction China heavily.

That outfit would be some master level trolling
https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/s.../1979579965843857417

The Administration announced the next Proxy War meeting with Russian President Putin, which will be held in Budapest, Hungary (instead of Alaska like last time). A nasty HuffPo reporter tried to score points off White House Spokesbabe Karoline Leavitt, insinuating that President Trump was taking orders from Putin or something similarly deranged. This delightful exchange ensued:

HUFFPO: Who picked Budapest?

PRESS SECRETARY: Your mother.

On the way home, the scalded reporter thought up a comeback and texted it to the Press Secretary. It didn’t go well either.

HUFFPO: Do you think that was funny?

PRESS SECRETARY: It’s funny to me that you actually consider yourself a journalist. You are a far-left hack who nobody takes seriously, including your colleagues in the media, they just don’t tell you that to your face. Stop texting me your disingenuous, biased, and bullshit questions.

Priceless.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry...6217e4b0ee732e24eb66

That’s hilarious! Karoline is a gem.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
Posse Comitatus Act for starters. Just because they changed the designation of cartels doesn't change the fact that this is a law enforcement action, and while maybe not on US soil it's supporting civilian law enforcement actions.

Or quite simply, this violates the US Constitution. There used to be a standard that Congress had to declare and/or authorize acts of war against other nations. Anytime we're dropping bombs on people we run the risk of a wide spread war that the people don't want, therefore their direct representatives should have to vote for or against. This was true with the Obama drone strikes. This was true with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This is true now.

In classic Trump 2.0 fashion, they're stretching the interpretation of the law and using the "Well, it doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY we can't do this, so we're gonna do it anyway and let the courts figure it out months from now." And oh, the courts just ran out of money so that might not even happen. Almost seems like it is by design.

I will finish with this - it's a slippery slope when you support the flaunting of the laws/rules when you happen to agree with the end result. You lose the high ground when the next admin takes over and starts doing things you don't agree with, e.g. - "we're designating foreign ammunition manufacturers as terrorist organizations since bullets are killing thousands of Americans, we have authorized the destruction of foreign ammunition facilities and have seized shipments that bring harmful products into our country." You think it's far fetched but they'll be using the exact same legal interpretation.

Jeff, I can’t possibly disagree with you more. I’ll start by saying thank you for the thoughtful reply, however, you asserting something does not make it the only interpretation. For example, your statement the posse comitatus act is being violated assumes interdicting narco-terrorists is a specified law enforcement function. The Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t say so, and do you think when they passed that act in the late 1800s (I think) they would have considered fighting criminals armed to military equivalent levels based 1200 miles away a matter for police or military to handle? The answer is obvious. So no, Trump isn’t violating posse comitatus explicitly, he’s violating your assumptions about it and recent precedent.

You sound like Rand Paul, who has completely lost the narrative of how to protect the country NOW because he’s worried about a hypothetical threat in the future. Trump, and the military chain of command doing these strikes, are aggressively interpreting laws in a way which allows them to ACT rather than prevaricate and impotently await congressional permission (which will never happen). We’ll deal with future implications if they arise.

Did you know the entire Iraq and Afghan war was fought using the AUMF? Have you read the post 9/11 AUMF? I won’t distract the conversation, but my point is whatever precedent you're concerned about passed us decades ago.

Your talk about slippery slope and maintaining the high ground is so totally off target of our modern context. The government as designed doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Trump is maneuvering in this environment to protect us from foreign bad actors without overtly violating laws… and again, lawyers in DOJ and DOD backed his play. You would have us do nothing except vector DEA onto these boats (since that's been so successful) while we await congress to agree on and approve permission that meets your threshold of clarity. Except congress is closed and can’t even pass a budget; do you see how silly that perspective sounds?

I was deeply involved with the “Obama drone strikes” you reference (which weren’t all drones FYI, that was the media narrative). My unit regularly had CODELs visit and it was very informative: everyone in congress knew what we were doing, knew the risks and safety measures in place, recognized the importance in principal, and no one asked us to stop. No one ever said they’d iron out the legal authorities. It turns out if you want something different you have to vote for it, and I voted for Trump to do exactly this: boldly solve problems without being an actual dictator. And he’s crushing it! Your accusation against him implicates everyone else, including the pilots shooting targets who take oaths to follow lawful orders. I reject your logic and find your perspective totally unconvincing.

"I will finish with this - it's a slippery slope when you support the flaunting of the laws/rules when you happen to agree with the end result. You lose the high ground when the next admin takes over and starts doing things you don't agree with, e.g. - "we're designating foreign ammunition manufacturers as terrorist organizations since bullets are killing thousands of Americans, we have authorized the destruction of foreign ammunition facilities and have seized shipments that bring harmful products into our country." You think it's far fetched but [i]they'll be using the exact same legal interpretation."

I strongly doubt there will be midterm or presidential elections at this point as Trump, with the backing of the DOJ and Supreme Court, will hold the Democrats responsible for their steal of 2020 and attempted steal in 2024 and it will take time to prosecute everyone responsible. You cannot hold an election against an opponent that committed massive fraud on a national level that completely undermined the integrity of the electoral process. One of the big reasons I voted for Trump is he promised to expose and punish those who stole 2020 and I expect him to deliver on that promise.

quote:

I strongly doubt there will be midterm or presidential elections at this point as Trump, with the backing of the DOJ and Supreme Court, will hold the Democrats responsible for their steal of 2020 and attempted steal in 2024 and it will take time to prosecute everyone responsible.

Huh? No one in the federal gov't. has the power to cancel elections. They are run by the states. And none of them will be canceling elections, no matter what Trump or anyone at the federal level says.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I strongly doubt there will be midterm or presidential elections at this point....

Is this sarcasm?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:

quote:

I strongly doubt there will be midterm or presidential elections at this point as Trump, with the backing of the DOJ and Supreme Court, will hold the Democrats responsible for their steal of 2020 and attempted steal in 2024 and it will take time to prosecute everyone responsible.

Huh? No one in the federal gov't. has the power to cancel elections. They are run by the states. And none of them will be canceling elections, no matter what Trump or anyone at the federal level says.

Ok, if you are competing in Olympic wrestling and you have a mountain of evidence that your opponent is using anabolic steroids... should the match go on?

There must be SOMETHING that can be done to stop another 2020.

2020 occurred due to Covid and harvested plus fake ballots. It would be nearly impossible to pull it off again, too many laws in to many states would need to be changed.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

Or quite simply, this violates the US Constitution. There used to be a standard that Congress had to declare and/or authorize acts of war against other nations. Anytime we're dropping bombs on people we run the risk of a wide spread war that the people don't want, therefore their direct representatives should have to vote for or against. This was true with the Obama drone strikes. This was true with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This is true now.

Military action is not necessarily war, but it also not law enforcement when dealing with combatants. e.g. we have many times used lethal military force against foreigners either on the high seas or within foreign countries without a Congressional declaration of war. There is no Constitutional nor federal law requirement that Congress pre-approve every military action. This is true back to the earliest days of the country.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

Posse Comitatus Act...

Applies to use of the MILITARY to enforce laws DOMESTICALLY.

It does not apply to INTEL AGENCIES or the USCG, and does not apply in international waters.

For your consideration:


https://freedomsfoundry.com/20...st-barbary-war-1801/



Freedom's Foundry
A blog for plain talk about our Nation's Founding and the lessons it teaches.

Presidential War Powers and the First Barbary War (1801)
Posted on September 7, 2013



"Without a Navy capable of protecting our ships, the United States was forced into a treaty with the Sultan of each State. We paid up to $1 million to each as part of their protection racket. All but Tripoli observed their treaty. Tripoli accepted the tribute but continued their piracy.

Seeing the need for defense against France and the Barbary States, President John Adams built up the Navy and by 1798 Congress was able to authorize Adams to protect our merchant ships against French privateers.

Then, as one of its last acts before Jefferson took office as President, Congress passed a law authorizing six ships “officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct…in the event of a declaration of war by the Barbary powers to protect our commerce and chastise their insolence…”

Immediately upon Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded the next year’s ransom. Jefferson refused and the Pasha declared war on us.

Jefferson sent a naval force only sufficient to defend our merchant vessels. As he expressed in that May letter to Congress, he did not have the power to take action against Tripoli itself, stating further, “…this important function [is] confided by the Constitution in the Legislature exclusively…”

While Congress did not vote a formal declaration of war, it did authorize Jefferson “to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.” Thus empowered, Jefferson ordered the attack on Tripoli and we prevailed.

Even for a strict act of self-defense, Jefferson relied on Congress to provide legislative authorization. He knew as did Congress (and John Adams, who waited for Congressional authorization to send ships against French privateers) that a President cannot exceed even a “line of defense.” emphasis mine
______________________________________________

Over the years, Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have inched past the “line of defense” going so far as to wage war in all but name, yet we know what the Founders intended. As shown by Jefferson, the Founders knew how a President could use executive power to wage war in his own interests and, in the Constitution, they designed a clear safeguard against it.

Jefferson understood and obeyed the Constitutional limits to his war powers. But, if another President does not, it is up to Congress to enforce those limits. Not all Congresses have exercised this responsibility. Let’s hope that this one will."