Article I Section 8 Clause 11

28 Aug

Syria1-b“Congress shall have Power . . . to declare war . . . .”–Article I.8.11 The Constitution of the United States.

So I’m wondering . . .  if Congress doesn’t expressly declare a war, but the United States government nevertheless attacks Syria, would that attack still constitute an act of war–or would it actually be an act of terrorism?

Are all undeclared wars acts of terrorism?


Tags: , , , , ,

42 responses to “Article I Section 8 Clause 11

  1. Christian Gains

    August 28, 2013 at 3:10 PM

    Well, recent History is replete with “undeclared Wars”, (Vietnam & Afghanistan, not the least of which).

    But, Al, you’ve GOT to get with it! You’re quoting merely a “piece of paper”, that MANY believe is no longer pertinent to these times and their needs. That’s WHY we have “Policing Actions” (fostered by the much more sophisticated & “up to date” organization — (the U.N.).

    This is because, in this modern day, we have developed a MUCH MORE sophisticated means of slaughtering…er…eradicating opponents.

    We NOW, simply gather several Nation States leaders together (in a room, or, on the phone), and determine how many, and what, each Nation will send to “Police” the bad guys streets.

    It’s MUCH MORE clinical, MUCH LESS dangerous, and no muss, nor fuss, about legalities…and who’ll pay.

    This way, EACH Nation has less obligation, and the “Police Action” COST far less! AND, (as in BOTH above mentioned cases), the Action brings in LOSTS of orders for merchandise and equipment, and THAT way, fills the coffers of the producers, (who, bless their souls), are soooo willing to “pitch in for the security of our people”!

    SO Al, you just HAVE GOT to see how much more erudite and modern “Police Actions” ARE, and, how much more Politically correct, and viable they are…no ONE people are to blame (except, of course, those nasty people trying to force their ideas on their own people — how DARE they! And, imagine, without even a word to US! Without OUR permission…such arrogance!) — and we’re SIMPLY assisting the weak of that Nation to be freer…And, OF COURSE, ALL the Nations involved will GLADLY help the weak & poor rebuild…we’ll even send in the IMF to reassess their outdated economic methods, and bring them into the Central Bank fold…as in the Philippines and Hungary!

    So, no, we no longer need Nations that stick to OLD, WORN OUT beliefs and methods that DECLARE WAR! How antiquated! How barbaric! No, no AL, you’re MUCH TOO far behind…hurry & catch up!.

    • SovereignMary

      April 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM

      Christian Gains – The U.S. Constitution is just as pertinent and relevant today as on the day it was conceived and written as this nation’s Only Supreme Rule of Law. Therefore … all of those who swear a sacred oath, covenant and contract to stay within its confines, limitations and fully adhere to honor it should fully do what they have sworn to do. What they have sworn to do is honor, uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution.
      All wars that the U.S. government has involved itself in that have not been DECLARED WAR by the U.S. Congress (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11) have been unjust and unlawful wars.

      • Christian Gains

        April 7, 2014 at 5:51 PM

        Mary, thanks! I was being cynical…I DEEPLY BELIEVE in the veracity, and SOVEREIGNTY of the Constitution. But the multitude of voices raised against us has become deafening & the disrespect SOOOO many heap upon our Founding documents, that, I sometimes wonder where the defenders are. Glad you’re out there dear…And, please forgive my lapse into cynicism…

  2. tony rukab

    August 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM


    • Christian Gains

      August 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM

      Oh my! Tony! You’re SOOOOOOOO right on! (I WAS thinking of something sarcastic to respond with, but, NO! Let’s DO tony, just keep it simple, for those simpletons in the District of Clowns! They don’t have enough intelligence to grasp the finesse of sarcasm…)

  3. Asadrew

    August 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    The short answer Al is, “No,” even though, if we consider what has led up to this war would change the answer to, “Yes.”

    Here is why I say that. I took a class in college on “War and Peace.” We had to read the articles of peer reviewed professors seeking to distinguish “terrorism” from “war.” The deciding factors had to do with the “target.”

    The articles defined “war” as being forces engaged in killing official (uniformed) government forces, covering “civil war” as well as foreign invasion “war.” The “target” was “government” forces. The Algerian resistance against the French occupation was given as an example. Where the resistance targeted “uniformed” police rather than military personnel and installations. Was that “terror” or “war”? The conclusion was, “No,” because the uniformed police represented the “official” occupying “forces” regulated to continue their domination of the nation.

    The consensus was that “terror” is distinguished from “war” when forces belonging to an organization or “ideology” target “civilians” to instill “fear,” and subsequent compliance by both the government and civilians. “Terror” seeks not to overcome oppositional “forces” directly, but through civilian “mob appeal” who plead with their “government” to make the “terror” stop by surrender. By that definition, the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of “terrorism,” even if it was “approved” by the “government” or congress.

    However, the U.S. has employed “terrorism” against the Syrian people, up to this point. It just didn’t work. So, now the U.S. “government” is going to use all out war to accomplish its goals.

    If you at the facts of what our government has already done to the Syrian people, it is even more evident that we “have been” engaged in “terror” in Syria, even though, if we now shift to the “target” being the Syrian government.

    For example, it appears the back story of Benghazi and the CIA activities of our Ambassador to supply arms to the “rebels,” identified explicitly as branches of “Al Qaeda,” which George Bush had established as “terrorists,” stating, “You are either on our side or the side of the terrorists” even if countries supported them, then no doubt we have been engaging as terrorists to the Syrian people.

    Another, would be the gas attacks that happened previously. These were identified as being a false flag of the “rebels” not the Assad government. (See Storm Clouds Gathering for documentation.) So for us, or U.S., to continue to support the “rebels” who used gas against both government and civilians makes everything Kerry said bounce back onto his face as the source of the “terror.”

    Another, would be the video of the “rebel” leader cutting the hear out of his Syrian victim and eating it. That video was made and published for no other reason than to strike terror in the Syrian population. Since we back those forces, we have sponsored “terrorism.”

    The same is true for the attacks the “rebels” have made on Christian churches. ( As well as, massacres of entire Christian villages and communities. (

    I could multiply examples, but these are enough to prove the U.S. has funded, armed, and trained the “terrorism” occurring in Syria up to this point.

    Whether “Congress” approves of the war or Obama declares it from his “Executive” position, as long as they “target” uniformed government forces and installations, it would not qualify as “terrorism” according to the consensus of official definitions of “terrorism.”

    • Adask

      August 28, 2013 at 4:57 PM

      Thanks for your extensive and informative answer. It makes some sense.

      But a couple of facts remain.

      First, I stand to be corrected but, so far as I know, Congress always made a formal declaration of war as a preliminary statement for all of our apparent “wars” up to and including WWII. Since WWII, most–maybe all–“wars” have been conducted without express declarations of war.

      Just imagine that Congress had exercised its power to declare war in relation to Viet Nam and Iraq. There’s a good chance that Congress would’ve refused to “declare” those wars. If so, those wars might not have taken place. 50,000 Americans might not have been killed in Viet Nam and God only knows how many would not have been wounded, maimed or psychologically damaged. If Congress had debated whether or not to declare war in Iraq, we might not have become entangled for over 8 years in Iraq and thereby spent hundreds of billions of dollars, 4,000 American lives and 100,000 to 1 million Iraqi lives based on the pretext of eliminating Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn’t actually exist).

      If Congress would insist on its right (and I’d say, “duty”) to alone declare war, we’d certainly engage in fewer wars. I see that as a good thing.

      Second, the principle casualties of most modern wars are civilians. For example, while the US lost 4,000+ servicemen in Iraq, the Iraqi’s lost somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million of its people. The vast majority of Iraqi deaths were among civilians.

      According to Wikipedia,

      “World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population. The higher figure of 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled from 38 to 55 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.”

      Thus, out of the millions people killed in WWII the percentage who were civilians ranged somewhere between 56% and 70%.

      My point is that modern warfare kills far more civilians than military personnel. Insofar as modern warfare kills more civilians than soldiers, by your definition of terrorism as being based on civilian targets, modern warfare is inherently terroristic.

      • Asadrew

        August 28, 2013 at 7:01 PM

        Ha! Agreed! I like your position that it would be “a good thing” and a “duty” if Congress had the say, instead of one man. One man, with one interest, is easier to be manipulated than 435 representatives with the multiple interests of the People that elected them. I totally agree with your perspective and conclusion of civilians paying the price. Well said.

      • Christian Gains

        April 7, 2014 at 6:18 PM

        AL, I agree 110% with you.

        BTW, here’s a couple of interesting “FACTOIDS”:

        #1]The description of “combat” that is termed “Terror” was first utilized by the Assyrians, (during the time of Isaiah). They would enter a Country, and take a city, and annihilate EVERY LIVING BEING & CREATURE except for one man or boy. Then they would send that person to the King, with this message: “Either surrender and pay tribute, or we will level your Country, as we have this City”! (interesting that Assyria was the one to coin that “TOTAL TERROR WAR” terminology, eh?)

        #2] The first instance, in modern history, of terming a “fighter” a “TERRORIST” was in 1948(+ -) when Manachem Begin was first termed a “TERRORIST” by International Papers. Interestingly…it was an Israeli who earned that title.

        What’s my point?

        We SHOULD be able to learn an AWFUL LOT about what NOT to do, by studying the Arab & Israeli choices and actions and tactics. Which, (interestingly enough), the Constitution GREATLY ASSISTS us in avoiding their mistakes, and, in balancing the moral ethical standards.

        And, under the Obama regime, (and several before it), Article 1, section 8, clause 11 is no longer a valid necessity for entering war…and…if usage, or the lack thereof, determines the validity of said Article, section, and clause, then these last several Regimes have clearly voided the Constitution, and “We the People” have sat back and acquiesced to it…Just a rather disturbing thought…

    • NDT

      August 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM

      “The articles defined “war” as being forces engaged in killing official (uniformed) government forces, covering “civil war” as well as foreign invasion “war.””

      Did the articles give any reason for this definition?

      • Adask

        August 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM

        If “war” is defined only as the killing of official/uniformed government forces, then if I (without a uniform) shot a government officer, I could be accused of waging a “war” against the government. But if the uniformed government agents shot at me (again, without any uniform or government office), that attack on a civilian would not be defined as an act of war.

        Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares that “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them . . . .” If we consider the inequality in the previous definition of “war” (shooting at government officers = war; government officers shooting at civilians does not), then in light of Article 3 Section 3, Clause 1 those who shoot at government officers may be guilty of treason, while those government officers who shoot at civilians might not.

      • Asadrew

        August 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM

        The articles I read were intending to distinguish, war from rebellion, revolution,terrorism, and simple crime, to name a few relevant categories. You left out the qualifier of “forces belonging to an organization or ‘ideology’.” I may not have put that up where it belonged as a presumption of terms applying to every party mentioned. My bad. I’m concerned about having posts (TLTR) or “too long to read.”

        So, if I may continue in response to your question. Oppositional forces belonging to an “organization or ideology” different than the “state’s” organization and ideology is one that distinguishes a criminal from rebels, revolutionists, and terrorists. The “reason” they differ from a “criminal” is they “identify” themselves by flag or uniform. A “criminal” is presumed to recognize the legitimacy of the state’s organization and ideology. They attempt to “blend” in with the population and do not identify themselves by flag or uniform. They identify themselves as belonging to the state, but are violating its “rule of law” for personal gain or profit. “Rebels,” “Terrorists,” and “Revolutionists,” disagree with the state’s organization and ideology and distinguish, if not renounce, their identification with the state.

        “War” in some “articles” (understand the authors did not all agree) was defined as “oppositional forces with a differing organization and ideology engaging in uniformed conflict against another state.” A “state” being defined with four ingredients by U.N. law, 1. They must have an undisputed geographical boundary. 2. They must have People (not necessarily “in” the boundary). 3. The People must be “organized” by some rule of law as an “ideology.” 4. They must be recognized by at least one other preexisting state. The “identity” by uniform or flag representing an “Organized ideology” being required on both sides to qualify as the general definition of “war.” Hence, a “spy” or group of “spies” do not have the protections of a “prisoner of war” according the Geneva Convention, because they did not identify themselves by uniform or flag. They could be treated like common “criminals” of the state. “False Flag” operations, done by a state, rebels, or revolutionists, differ nothing in function from unidentified “spies.” They have no “prisoner of war” protections because they had a “false” identity (uniform or flag) and may be treated like common criminals of the state that captures them.

        “Rebels” were defined as People or a person, who is a member of the “state,” but opposes the state’s organization and ideology, but does not have a “better” idea of how to do it. They just don’t like how it’s being done, so they target the state and its official representatives. “States” whose officials have subverted the original/recognized “rule of law” will call the People “rebels” who are attempting to return the state to its original “rule of law.” But that is a trick and misuse of the term. Actually, the subversive officials are the “rebels” if not “revolutionists.” They just have control of the institutions of the state to conduct their treason and subversion of the original/recognized state.

        “Revolutionists” also oppose the state’s organization and ideology, but believe they have a “better” idea of how to do it to “replace” the current state system. They also target the state and its official representatives.

        “Terrorists” can fall into all categories of state, rebel, and revolutionist, because the only thing that distinguishes them is the target: civilians, rather than the state and its official uniformed/flagged representatives. Internationally speaking, a person isn’t a “terrorist” who does not represent an “ideology” different from the state and who does not “identify” themselves as being in opposition to the state they are “terrorizing.” If those criteria are not met, they are just criminals, taking hostages, killing civilians, hijacking planes, blowing up buildings, etc. for personal gain or profit.

      • Asadrew

        August 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM

        I had to look back through my class syllabus to find the “articles.” I believe the list is too long to include them all, but here are a relevant few:

        1. Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists
        Author: Charles Tilly
        Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium (Mar., 2004),
        pp. 5-13
        Published by: American Sociological Association
        Stable URL:

        Author: BOAZ GANOR
        Source: Police Practice and Research, 2002, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 287–304
        The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism,
        P.O. Box 167, Herzlia, 46150, Israel

        3. The Full Weight of the State’: The Logic of Random State-Sanctioned Violence
        Author: Francisco Herreros
        Source: 2006 Journal of Peace Research,
        vol. 43, no. 6, 2006, pp. 671–689
        Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
        and New Delhi)
        DOI 10.1177/0022343306069189
        The online version of this article can be found at:

      • Asadrew

        August 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM

        One further distinction of “rebels” vs. “revolutionists” is the criteria that “rebels” are usually not opposed to “everything” the state is organized around ideologically. There is usually one or two things “rebels” are opposed to and rebelling against. Rebels just want those things the oppose to be removed from the state’s organization and ideology.

        “Revolutionists” don’t just oppose one or two things the state is organized around ideologically, like “rebels.” “Revolutionists” are usually opposed to “everything” the state is organized around ideologically, and they have an alternative “replacement” of a “new” state organization and ideology.

  4. Asadrew

    August 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Sorry for the missing words and misspelling of the word “heart” the “rebel” cut out and ate, not “hear.”

  5. Martens

    August 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM


    For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a “Declaration of War” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated “Declaration(s) of War” must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Bush said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war,” in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

    If the neocons in DC were honest, or at least consistent, they would intervene for Syria and against Al Qaeda, not vice versa.

    • Asadrew

      August 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM

      Agreed Marteas.

  6. Arcofcovnt

    August 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    Me arc,
    Me simpleton
    Me think powerful Nations just
    Stand back while bad guy
    Go and gets good good from
    Monkey people homeland
    Then divide the bananas /resources
    That’s why big Nations don’t really go after U.S..
    The hand in cookie jar yuuumm ymmm
    War or Terror both acts kill lives …and both are cut from same cloth!!!!

    • Adask

      August 28, 2013 at 4:10 PM

      Well said!

    • Asadrew

      August 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      I hear you. In my religion we ask the question, “Is it a word or a function?” We are supposed identify by “function” and not be deceived by “words.” When “war” and “terrorism” function by “both acts killing lives” then there is functionally no difference, but a “word.”

      The “college” course I was taught in seemed to “quibble” a lot over “words.” You and Joseph like to keep it “simple.” That’s one good way to not be deceived by words. Good points.

      • Asadrew

        August 30, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        One more point. I didn’t come up with this crap on my own. Nor do I necessarily agree with it. I’m just relaying how the “educated” professionals think. One class I took on “political science” was taught by the U.N. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. So it was valuable to learn how they think on that level, how they define their terms they use with US. Maybe that’s valuable to you, maybe not. I’m just trying to help stabilize the definitions of terms, “war” and “terrorism” as used by officials to US, the People, lest we develop “personal” definitions no one else will recognize collectively.

        How “state’s” are coming up with these definitions is what is important to bring clarity to the discussion, in my opinion. It is the “use” and “misuse” of terms and expressions that obfuscates the issue to the point we can’t make sense out it. Which I believe to some degree is intentional by the powers that be. The reason is it renders us ineffective because we cannot reach consensus if we don’t understand each other, let alone the language of the state.

        I agree with you, as I believe Benjamin Franklin said, “There is no good war, and there is no bad peace.”

  7. Jetlag

    August 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    “Are all undeclared wars acts of terrorism?”

    No, some of them are acts of sedition.

  8. Joseph LAmarca

    August 28, 2013 at 4:36 PM


    Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:07:19 +0000 To:

  9. Charles Torello

    August 28, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    The single greatest concept that you have taught me, Alfred, is that words define reality. Their power can make light seem darkness, and vice versa. And what is a word but its definition? And if you control the definition of words, you control their meanings, and thus reality.

    Unfortunately, the precise definitions of words, and the very subtle yet powerful implications of those definitions, can be tedious to consider. Most Americans don’t want to so consider the definitions of words. This requires effort. It requires dictionaries. Thus words not so arduously defined can befuddle those who do not think so critically into accepting concepts they would not otherwise accept.

    All the atrocities of the existence of mankind boil down to making evil seem good. After all, most people, who want to consider themselves moral and good, would never exalt and declare evil as good unless they thought so because of the ambiguity of words.

    That is why Mankind must read the Bible. The notions of good and evil are very clearly defined therein. That which promotes death, that which promotes destroying beings made in the image and likeness of God, MUST be enormously questioned.

    But what’s on TV?

    • Adask

      August 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM

      Hey Charles, I’m surprised. I always thought that the single greatest concept that I’d ever taught you was the need to use a knife and a fork to eat your meals. See, I learn something new every day.
      (For those of you who don’t know, Charles is a friend of mine, and the son of a friend of mine. Charles’ dad and I have lunch together once or twice each week. Charles was twice All-American lineman for the Rice University football team. He’s a big boy and you don’t want to get between Charles and his next meal. Charles has recently finished writing a book about the UTA Longhorn football team.)

    • NDT

      August 29, 2013 at 7:50 PM

      “if you control the definition of words, you control their meanings, and thus reality.”

      The way in which the popular meanings of words change over time can sometimes be enlightening. Words like corruption, nice, and person, for example.

  10. Yartap

    August 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM


    Let me put my two cents in. In 1945 the United States joined as a Charter member to the United Nations (UN). The UN stands as a “Treaty” among the member nations.

    Why has the United States Congress never issued a Declaration of War after WWII? The UN Charter (Treaty) requires all Declarations of War be approved by the UN General Council. Thus, Congress can “Declare” and the UN has to “Approve” for the Declaration to be valid. I hope everyone knows this.

    If the US had been a member of the UN before WWII, then Congress’s Declaration would had to have been approved by the UN. Further, the Korean “Conflict” (not War) was not in the name of the US (even though our government wanted it to stop the spread of communism), but rather, was under the name of the United Nations as a police action. As every other “conflict” after.

    So, instead of looking into the Constitution about Declarations of War, rather, look in the Constitution about Treaties. They can be dangerous things which we know can take a nation’s sovereignty away.

    This system the US is under gives rise and understanding to why the US uses Al-CIA-da, I mean Al Qaeda, and false flag events to create UN approval for its warring around the world.

    But Al, here may be the good news. In order for the US to attack Syria, it must get UN approval and it cannot attack until the UN makes a determination about the poison gas use which will take weeks. If there were to attack, then it would be a violation of International Law and the UN Charter. And even if the UN finds in favor of the US’s wishes, Russia is there with absolute veto power for authorization.

    Obama even knows how the UN works. “His (so called) authorization” in the use of force in Libya was under a writ of the United Nations Security Council resolution about Libyan’s protection.

    Butttt, you know, those crazy Americans could set off WWIII! Think about that. Now – who will sanction and remove the US? Will we break our UN treaty and violate International Law? We’ll see.


    Yes, the courts would say that authorization is just like a declaration, but it doesn’t want to disclose the full reason or facts due to the United Nations. They just have to keep those little secret facts (above) from the public. You know – that one world thing. Even George Bush crossed all his t’s and dotted all his i’s for UN approval or authorization as the courts would say.

    • Yartap

      August 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM

      Martin, and to All,

      I apologize and stand for self correction.

      Both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan War was not authorized by the UN. It was that the US interpreted, used and applied the UN Charter to exclude any nation state, which would come under the Charter. In order to go around/comply with the Charter, the US had to place themselves in a collision with other nations in a “defensive” posture against a non-state threat (terrorist) and against any claimed nation (Afghanistan and Iraq) who supported the terrorist. Remember: Colin Powell tried to get a UN resolution for the War on Terrorism.

      • Asadrew

        August 30, 2013 at 3:18 PM

        Well stated Yartap.

  11. Christian Gains

    August 28, 2013 at 9:13 PM

    VERY WELL STATED Charles! You & AL are VERY correct that “a Words’ definition is it’s meaning. Al, I spent some time with a friend of yours,several times actually. (He’s how I found [or rather, CAME to your site). He explained to me your discovery of the importance of changes of definitions of words, when dealing with the IRS & Tax Law. Charles has certainly (correctly) simplified the explain that Mike gave me, but I think it important to bring out Charles’ OTHER pertinent point: “Unfortunately, the precise definitions of words and the very subtle yet powerful implications of those definitions — This requires effort. It requires dictionaries. THUS words not so arduously defined can befuddle…”.


    #1] “IGNORANCE IS THE MOTHER OF STUPIDITY” (think about you’re own mistakes), weren’t MANY of them [if not MOST] made, due to either, ignorance of the likely or potential consequences, OR rebellion / disregard of the council you’d received?

    #2] LAZINESS, {and this is subject to refining definition: Lack of initiative to determine real meaning; lack of critical thinking; lack of desire to learn [due to a number of realities: fear of the truth; desire for maintaining the status quo; lack of education; lack of “free time” for study]…

    Milton Baxley, (a HIGHLY RESPECTED LAWYER in Gainsville Fl.), once explained to me, the VERY PRINCIPLE you AL found! That the LAW is difficult for the “lay” person to understand because of the changes in modern definitions from archaic definitions. Now, let’s look at these present National Policy developments: What words are being bandied about, in relation to the U.S. present activities, concerning Syria.

    Allow me to further simplify things: there is a STRONG rumor/INTEL dump, that B.O. has “assured” Al Assad that he is “safe”, that the U.S. “response” will be a “clinical hit”, and will, in “no way” “endanger” Pres. Al Assad. BUT! The “Lamestream Media” [an ESPECIALLY new definition word], is stating that it is “determined” that the Al Assad “Government” “executed” the “ChemWar” “attack”.

    ALL of the words that I’ve placed in quotes, reveal what needs defining! — And now, place Joseph Gobbles’ advice, (given Hitler, while Hitler was dictating, {to Gobbles} the “Mein Kauph”[sp?]: “Tell a BIG ENOUGH LIE, LONG ENOUGH, and the masses will come to believe it” —

    — Hitler, (after the “Riechstaug fire bombing”), used a number of words: “We” have been “Attacked” by “subversive elements” in “our” “society”, and “we” MUST find the “solution”. (I’m paraphrasing, but I believe this principle will stand scrutiny). DEFINED CORRECTLY: “”WE — [the National Socialist Party NSP] — “have “BEEN” — [over the last several years] — “attacked” — [demeaned, and belittled, due to our lack of Political clout], — “by subversive elements” — [for several years Hitler, {and his spokes people}, had used that VERY SAME TERM to refer to Communists, and Jews] — and “we” [NSP] must “find a solution” — [DO WHAT IT TAKES to gain that clout & acceptance”! He was NOT SPEAKING TO THE GERMAN PEOPLE as a Nation, BUT RATHER, to his own people! Telling them WHY he was doing, WHAT he was having done!

    Al! You’ve FOUND the “HOLY GRAIL” of decoding what Politicians are ACTUALLY SAYING, and what LAWS actually say!

    Now, while this is not going to CHANGE the World, or bring about the end of the evil that has grasped and is choking our “body politic” [define it folks — hint: Toynbee], it MIGHT help a bit!


    • Adask

      August 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM

      Sometimes the Good LORD lets me see. I just report whatever I’ve seen. Your thanks are due to the Good LORD rather than to the reporter. I guarantee that every fresh idea or insight that the Good LORD lets me see are probably more exciting to me than to any of my readers.

      As I’ve said for a year or two, “Definitions are the law of the law.” I.e., it’s the meanings of the individual words that determine the meaning of any given law.

      Once you get into the definitions, the study becomes fascinating because it’s extremely rare for any word to have only one definition.

      The previous sentence has 22 words. If each word had just two possible definitions, the possible meanings of that single sentence could be 2 to the 22nd power. If I’m doing my math correctly, that’s over 4 million possible meanings for a single, 22-word sentence. The truth is that almost no sentence absolutely means anything. Instead, we grasp meanings based on a vague, unstated “agreement” to accept each other’s vaguely defined meanings.

      The implications are that if the court or government sent you a notice, and you looked up all the possible definitions for hear word in just a few key sentences, and then asked that the government precisely specify which definition that they absolutely intended when they used a particular word, the whole damn system could come crashing down.

      If’s hard to believe, but all verbal communication is more like a vague agreement than a precise expression of thought. When we communicate verbally, the fact that we do communicate is something of a mystery or perhaps even miracle.

      • Christian Gains

        August 29, 2013 at 12:30 AM

        Al…have you connected the Bible Concordance with your “definitions principal”?

        In other words…As the Bible Concordance points out the different possible meanings of a word, (everything is dependent upon the CONTEXT — that therefore defines the MEANING of ANY particular WORD used, or statement made)…Do you see what I’m saying?

        A gentleman, who is rather scholarly in Ancient Languages, (along the lines of J.R.R.Toilken or C.S. Lewis) has impressed upon me the SIGNIFICANCE of INTERPRETATION of Scriptural WORDS, based upon the CONTEXT of their use.

        As you’ll see, (by trying to gain insight into the meaning of a particular statement in Hebrew), you MUST approach the interpretation, by discovering, and determining the CONTEXT in which that statement was made. [There’s an interpretation reality here]

        For instance: What does the word “CHURCH” mean, [in CONTEXT, to the 1st Century Scribes?] — (as you’ll find, it means NOTHING!) Because???

        Because that WORD [Church — Kirk] didn’t even exist in the 1st Century A.D.!

        Try #1577 (Strongs), “EKKLESIA” — “a calling out…the Set aside ones”

        Another example: (Genisis 3:21 — “…unto Adam also, and unto his wife did the Lord God make COATS OF SKINS, and clothed them…” — BEWARE YOUR INTERPRETATION of that statement! — You MIGHT want to FIRST reread, and study, St. John 8:1 – 11, and then, ESPECIALLY, verse 12!

        WHAT EXACTLY is He referring to — As: “THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD”? Hmmmmm??? Check this with your concordance, AND, the CONTEXT of the circumstance, ….and then, with Gen.3:21….Were those, “animal skins”,…or…PHYSICAL SKINS????

        Let me give you some hints:

        In John 8, He EXONERATED that woman…BUT yet! She was “caught in the very act”!?!

        And YET, He simply scolded her: “Go…and sin no more”???

        BUT! He remonstrated the Scribes & Pharisees to determine “He, that is without sin, among you,…”?

        WHAT PRINCIPLE of life was He demanding of them??? (Hint— go back to Abigail’s council to David…”[I Samuel 25:4 – 31] — especially verses 23 – 31, — [with emphasis on verses 28 – 31]…Which basically translates into: — “…when you are King, you do NOT want “innocent blood” on your hands” —

        WHY is “INNOCENT BLOOD” so important…AND, HOW exactly does this enter into the question of “What SKINS did the LORD GOD put on ADAM & EVE?? Were they “ANIMAL” or “GENETIC”???

        Now…Let me put this in CONTEXT of today:…”AH Massa is lokk’in at mak’in dat fella ova der (in da big see), do wat ah massa WANTS, but he (AH massa), don relize is dat dah man ova der aint got no provin guilt!!! So, ta kilt him, am kilt’in innocent blood!”

        You get my meaning?

        ANYTHING you hear, is not necessarily what was meant by the speaker…or what he thought MIGHT be necessary, for you to COMPREHEND the message given… BE AWARE! BEWARE! PREpare!

    • palani

      August 29, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      @ Christian


      I believe that IGNORANCE is a topic of Law that requires some review and there is more to it than your observation. A good source to review is Bouvier

      An associated maxim:
      Ignorantia excusatur, non juris sed facti. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.

      But what is ‘ignorance of law’? According to Bouvier

      ” Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.”

      The other type of ignorance is ‘ignorance of fact’. If you listen to the nightly news you are as ignorant of fact after watching it as when you started. You have been listening to hearsay and not fact. Ignorance of fact is not criminal. It just means you don’t really know for certain the events that happened. Bouvier takes the example of a man marrying a woman who is already married. If he was not aware of that fact then he is ignorant of her status. The maxim I gave points out that ignorance of a fact is not criminal as it is ‘excusable’. How could ignorance of a fact ever be criminal? There are many more facts abounding than you will ever know. That makes you (and I) ignorant of these facts.

      So the end result? When you make a system of government domestic to yourself then you have agreed to abide by all laws established by that government. These are the laws which it is your duty to understand. Your understanding of the laws of a foreign government become ignorance of facts, just more things you have no real duty to understand. The laws of Panama are not domestic to me and therefore I am ignorant of the laws of Panama. Certainly not criminal in my case.

      This begs the question as to what other governments I might consider to be foreign. Illinois comes to mind immediately. The District of Columbia? Certainly a distinct possibility.

      Chemical attacks in Syria? I certainly am ignorant as to 1) whether there were any such attacks, 2) should the fact be established that there were chemical attacks then who did it and 3) as I do not appear to have been injured by either (1) or (2) then I am ignorant as to why I should concern myself with the internal affairs of a foreign nation.

      • Christian Gains

        August 29, 2013 at 9:46 AM

        Thank you Palani! And, that explain is VERY HELPFUL.

        What I meant by my “Ignorance is the Mother of stupidity” would apply to mistakes, that come about, due to a person’s genuine ignorance of a way of doing something, or a reason for NOT doing something. It’s not sooo much dealing with LAW as with the process of learning.

        For instance, my youngest son, and his friend, (at ages 5 & 6), found a box of matches in the garage. They had seen some other kids using the matches as projectiles, (placing the match, with it’s head on the scratch side of the box, holding it perpendicular to the box with a finger of one hand, and with the finger of the other hand, striking the match, to cause the match to fly off, lit, away from you). But!

        #1] they were in a garage with an abundance of VERY dry sawdust, (as the carpenter had been doing some skill saw work), and

        #2] there were dry rags laying near the boys little fire game!

        Were they intending evil? No…they were simply IGNORANT of the potential consequences. As often is the case with children.

        There was no LAW involved, and they were too inexperienced in life to fully realize how dangerous their actions were…After my STERN correction tho, THEN they were knowledgeable of the LAW…=)

        Of course, the individuals we are discussing ARE Lawyers, and so, therefore, ARE responsible to KNOW…and so, cannot claim IGNORANCE as a defense.

  12. Michael

    August 28, 2013 at 10:38 PM

    Only a foolish nation, a foolish leadership and a foolish military declares war on another for to do so eliminates the maximum damage, the maximum humans killed, and the maximum shock and terror and chaos it creates, this is an act of real warfare waged upon another nation, and this is the way you go conquering to build an empire or to subdue an enemy. Hitler was the last one to try for empire by the use of full Military means. Hitler’s problem was he just made too many enemies to quickly and had to divide his forces on two fronts at the same time, the same that japan did when it had three fronts to contend with China, Asia, America and Pearl Harbour was Japans greatest Military mistake the same with Hitler attacking Russia while still contending with England.

    Today from the end of WW2 in 1945 onwards wars are fought by acts of terrorism by the both great and small and by all sides using any and all means available to achieve a favourable and acceptable outcome towards a future goal.

    Its the big nation preying and being used on the small for economic, and political control, and military action used as the last resort for stability within the region and when forced reconstruction of their corrupted economic dictatorial control is preferable over the wishes of the people of the nation.

    So what is the main aim of the ultimate power play elites. Simple’ ask anyone who’s knowledgeable, intelligent and understanding and he will tell you that everything is leading up to one prise the elites want and need to archive.

    He who comes and sits on the throne of Israel, rules the world and all nations there after, of course there is one final war he will have to win, and it will be against China’s 200 hundred million man army to which China has already achieved this.

    Remember he who laughs last laughs longest, and if you cant understand that, then you have no wisdom to understanding what so ever happening in the deceit of the leaders of today.

    • Anthony Clifton

      August 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM

      is Israel a company of Nations…or was G*D a liar when speaking with Abraham ?

      [Gen 49 & Deut 32 & Rev 7]

      if “Israel” is in fact a “Jewish” state {of Talmudic proselytes}…

      where are “our” blessings

      see Isaiah 3.

      These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would vouch at the judgment seat of God, having been formed on an acquaintance of thirty years…

      I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that “verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel.”

      -Thomas Jefferson, January 2, 1814

  13. Jetlag

    August 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM


    Your earlier comment explains a lot, paraphrased:

    Since joining the UN in 1945, all US declarations of war must be approved by the UN, an organization whose mission statement happens to be: the prevention of war. Therefore, no US declarations of war after 1945.

    Makes sense. Thanks.

    An intelligent contribution now and then is a pleasant break from the “situation hopeless, the bad guys (who sponsored this message) got you beat; so just roll over and die, America” line of nonsense.

  14. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    August 29, 2013 at 12:04 AM

    The “United States” is a Corporation:
    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
    Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    SECTION 9301- 9342

    9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

    UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15)(A), p. 564 ”United States” means –
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States

    The following is and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993:
    “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”

  15. Julie

    August 29, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    In a declared state of “National Emergency”, The constitution is temporarily set aside, dictatorial power is conferred upon the president, and martial law is put into effect. The US has been in a continuous decared state of national emergency since at least 1933. Longer than I have been alive.

  16. Peg-Powers

    August 29, 2013 at 2:08 PM

    In 1832 the 20-year contract between the USA and the international bankers was up for review and renewal and president Andrew Jackson said “NO” to their application. According to Jackson, the Second Bank of the United States (primarily owned and run by foreign interests) operated contrary to and subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. About half way through Jackson’s statement of denial (veto) are these words:

    “Instead of sending abroad the stock of the Bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient…..” etc.

    It appears to me that written within the Contract itself the two parties (USA & foreign bankers) agreed to an ONGOING EMERGENCY. For whatever reason, there must be a state of an ongoing emergency. That word “emergency” should be defined. Perhaps here is the origin of our present “emergency”. It would be enlightening to find and read these original Contracts/Agreements prior to the Civil War.

  17. Adask

    August 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    Christian, I agree that the meanings of most words depend on the “context” in which they are used. But frequently–not always, but frequently–how can that “context” be discovered except by the use of words?

    In other words, what is the “context” of the word “frequently” as used twice in the previous sentence? It seems to me that that “context,” at minimum, consists of the other 16 words in that sentence. Of course, you might say the actual “context” is not merely that 18-word sentence, but also includes my first 18-word sentence. Or maybe the “context” includes all of your previous remarks, or may even all of the previous remarks made by everyone who commented on this article. And then, of course, we could argue that the “context” for the meaning of “frequently” includes the original article, the Constitution of the United States, etc. etc.

    What is the limit of the “context” for my use of the word “frequently”? That question can only be answered by a mutual agreement between you and I and whoever is participating in this discussion.

    And how will out “agreement” be reached if not without some reliance on words? And what do all of the other words mean that are used to determine our “context”?

    All of which brings us back to power and mystery of words. Clearly, we can communicate–not always clearly or precisely–but we can use words to communicate. But how we manage to so without succumbing to the problems of multiple definitions is not easily explained.

    It seems that “words” may be excellent for describing the meaning of almost anything–other than words, themselves.

  18. Pat Fields

    September 1, 2013 at 1:48 AM

    Well, of course the Hamiltonian Imperialists argue that the Constitution doesn’t delineate what form or degree of expression comprises a ‘declaration’, which in today’s convoluted Civil Law presumptuousness may simply arise by failure to raise sufficient and timely objection.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s