Perhaps we OPP posters haven't been on the same page vis-a-vis standing armies, state militias and the 2nd amendment.

I'll introduce the thread by explaining that a very real fear, in fact the major motivation for the Constitutional Convention, is that the Confederacy of States would devolve into the same kind of factious warring states so typical of European history. They were already beginning to show signs of that tendency.

The Federalist 28 was Hamilton's argument for ratification in the face of the healthy doubts and concerns, at that time, of a standing army.

Here are the major points of his argument:

"It may safely by received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."

"They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty."

"When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation through the medium of their governments to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations."

Publius (the author of the Federalist Papers) was more concerned with the disintegration and anarchy resulting from a weak central government, as history had taught them. Central government had to exercise some control over State forces to prevent State's warring against each other or against the "head". One firewall preventing the despotism contingent on a standing army was that Congress could only appropriate funds for 2 years; another was the assumption that the member States would more likely encroach on the "head" than the opposite. This, I think, has been proven not to be true, thanks in part to the 16th amendment--the federal income tax.

So the Constitution provides for the Central Government to raise and support land and naval armies, but at the same time, left grounds for States to keep a Militia, (now known as the National Guard, a French term, in honor of LaFayette); the States could appoint the Officers, and undertake their training.

Thus my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State--I wonder if the Constitution would have been ratified without that stipulation.

I have more to share, but we can all mull this info over.

The entire area held by IS is approx. 100 miles by 500 miles.
Eighteen "old fashioned"nukes dropped at 50 or so mile intervals would end the entire IS argument. No boots on the ground, no suffering of "collateral damage". Less cost, total vaporization of all in the drop zone. I know it sounds a bit inhumane, but consider the slow death of crucifiction, the full 3-5 seconds of pain due to beheading compared to instant vaporization. We would be doing them a favor. Controversial? Absolutely, but consider Japan has not invaded, or even thought about invading for 70+ years.

I am not familiar with the liberal doctrine. Could you send me a copy of it? Are there conservative and extremist doctrines also?
I am totally against socialized living anywhere. It hasn’t ever worked and it is against human nature.
I supported Obama twice because there was no reasonable choice. I have never been a staunch supporter of anyone except Jesus and me, in that order.
I don’t know what you mean by liberal propaganda. I posted the definition of liberal from the dictionary and several people tried to tell me that the dictionary is liberal. I guess propaganda is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
It is possible that one of us is unbalanced and/or biased politically.
I am sorry you see me as aggressive rather than assertive. I think that may be my style and I kinda like it that way.
I think you got your snapshot of me when you failed to remove the lens cover.
Your thumb nail diagnosis of my mental condition is amusing. It is good when you can unbunch you panties before offering a diagnosis.

I can not speak to how you view yourself, but I will share with you that there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive. You view yourself as strong, a good trait. In many to most of your posts I view you as aggressive with possible anger issues. This may not be an accurate snapshot of you, but that is how you have portrayed yourself time after time. Therefore, rather than seeing you as strong, either in opinion or belief, I simply see an insecure individual that is aggressive, often angry, and most of the time condescending to those who disagree and often alienate those that could find themselves supportive of any of your assertions.
You say you have a college degree and I don’t have any evidence that is not so. However, I do have to cut you a lot of slack, because you think like a hod carrier and claim to be a college grad. What college was it and when? Just asking.

I am out of personal attacks and I assume you are also, so I am up to any topic you are willing and able to pursue.

Doofus Gowdy called together his first public meeting on the Benghazi , Benghazi, attack. He claims it will be bipartisan but still will spend his $3.7 million allocation slowly as to stretch the process out to the 2016 election.

Benghazi probe opens in Clinton’s shadow

By Martin Matishak - 09/17/14 05:04 PM EDT
Hillary Clinton and the 2016 contest for the White House hung like a shadow over the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s inaugural hearing on Wednesday, even as the panel’s GOP chairman insisted it would rise above politics.

In his opening statement, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) rejected arguments that it is time to “move on" from Benghazi, forcefully arguing that there are serious unanswered questions about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.


"Some question the need for this committee. I respect your right to disagree, but the mark of a professional, indeed the mark of character, is to do a good job even if you do not think the task should have been assigned in the first place," he said at the top of what is Congress's eighth investigation into the deadly assault.

Democrats, who at one point had threatened to boycott the Benghazi investigation, said they hoped Republicans honored their promise for a nonpartisan investigation.

"I sincerely hope the select committee will stay on the course of constructive reform and keep this goal as our North Star," Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat, said in his opening statement.

But the difficulty of keeping partisanship at bay was highlighted by comments from Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), a former chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who at one point charged that Clinton interfered with the Independent Accountability Review Board that reviewed what went wrong in Benghazi.

Jordan noted that one of the panel’s leaders, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, admitted in a previous congressional hearing that he was reporting back to senior staff at the State Department.

“He gives a heads-up to the very person he's supposed to be investigating,” Jordan said. "So of course this thing wasn't independent."

Gowdy made similar claims about the review board last year, saying "there's no objectivity" to it because the leaders were appointed by Clinton.

Clinton was secretary of State at the time of the Benghazi attack, and Republicans have repeatedly attacked her handling of the episode and questioned why warnings from Libya about a deteriorating security situation were ignored.

Democrats have portrayed the GOP’s Benghazi panel as a “political stunt” aimed at generating negative publicity for Clinton, the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2016.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor with a methodical style, on Wednesday made a concerted effort to keep the hearing focused on the security failures in Benghazi.

The other members of the panel followed suit, with the exception of Jordan, who was the only Republican to bring up Clinton during the more than hour-long hearing.

Jordan chided the State Department for not implementing the No. 1 recommendation from a best practices panel, which was the appointment of an Undersecretary for Diplomatic Security to prevent another Benghazi.

“I mean, talk about the arrogance of the State Department,” he said.

Jordan’s questioning prompted the hearing’s only partisan flap, as Cummings inquired why he didn’t direct his question to Greg Starr, State’s assistant secretary for diplomatic security.

Jordan replied that Cummings could use his own time to question Starr.

Gowdy repeatedly tried to show that the nearly three-hour hearing was above politics, at one point crediting a Democrat on the 12-member panel, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), for coming up with the subject of the session.

He also praised Cummings for asking for another public hearing in December for an update on State’s implementation of the review board’s suggestions, calling it a “wonderful” idea.

With the panel meeting only for the first time and lawmakers set to leave town to campaign for reelection, it was clear Wednesday that the probe could extend well past this year — and possibly into the presidential year of 2016.

Gowdy said keeping the investigation on track would be a challenge.

“You can disagree and still treat an issue with respect,” Gowdy told The Hill after the hearing.

However, “it’s tough in this town to keep politics out.”

“That’s the challenge: to have this inquiry in such a way people respect the process," he said.

Schiff expressed concerns that the panel would struggle to keep partisanship at arm’s length and that the committee “could take on a life of its own and be a committee in search of a mission.”

He predicted there would be “enormous pressure” on Gowdy to deliver “something sensational” to satisfy Republicans who have long suspected an administration-wide cover-up of Benghazi.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) struck a cautious note about the panel’s future, saying its members would take the investigation “one step at a time.”
— This story was first posted at 10:46 a.m. and has been updated.

Of course the repuglican TPers on the committee have already violated Doofus Gowdy's rules.
----------------------------------------------------
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), though, charged that Clinton tampered with the Independent Accountability Review Board that studied what went wrong in Benghazi.

He also lambasted the State Department for not implementing a key recommendation from a best practices board to boost security.

“I mean, talk about the arrogance of the State Department,” he said.

Name is Ken/kenal
I am a semi retired welding engineer and I a Jewish, and proud of it!! What is this speel about jews being blind. I have my beliefs,
and I plan on sticking to them until I pass on to the next dimension and I resent any pompus ass christian telling me that I have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven, that is a bunch of crap. In my religeon we are taught to respect others beliefs. If u want to pick on some group that deserves damnation try the Islamic idiots how want to I even see us all dead because we dont' believe in the scum pot they call their god.

IF I ACCIDENTLY STUMBLED ON A SITE OF CHRISTIAN ZEALOTS, LET ME KNOW AND I WILL GLADY PART COMPANY WITH U