Jefferson3000
Expert Expediter
Protest for what? Stop traffic for what?
BTW, it's not my opinion anyways. This "petition" was in fact SPAM.
Stop! Read! Sign! Pass It On!!
- Thread starter ConfusedMuse
- Start date
Protest for what? Stop traffic for what?
BTW, it's not my opinion anyways. This "petition" was in fact SPAM.
I like Spam. It's what I ate for dinner.
Like I said, those that help create a movement do all the work and those that simply sit on their hands still benefit from those willing to do the job. Just like the Welfare system. Socialism at its best.
All those truckers willing to take a stand to create a change do not do it in vain. Their message is loud and clear.
All those truckers willing to take a stand to create a change do not do it in vain. Their message is loud and clear.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I said “He needs to be impeached for one and only one reason - he did not close the borders which is one of the purposes of his office and the federal government. Iraq, Oil and other things don't count, the border does. But because an open border is mainly a democratic thing, they won't impeach him for it.”
First stop thinking emotionally, I said B O R D E R not border patrol. If you read anything about our immigration policies and the changes that have been made since 1965, you would understand exactly what I am saying. I will let you figure it out what exactly is going on and why.
By the way, this opinion comes from constitutional scholars, not Huffington post.
I said “Clinton being booted? Come on, he was impeached but he was not removed - why?
Hint - it wasn't because of Monica. ”
You don’t understand the process at all or think for yourself. Impeached does not lead to an automatic removal.
I said “Give up?
He lied under oath, a real crime and really serious crime. ”
There you go again, not understanding what the process or who declares war. Lying to the people? Get real, so did every president since Lincoln.
The congress is at fault for the war and that leads me to the very people who voted for congress who gave them the power – they hold the ultimate responsibility. Democrats and Republicans alike are at fault in congress for the actual war and you should actually be complaining about congress prolonging the war by being a road block to actual solutions in Iraq.
The bigger problem is what people want to do to change the way things have worked since the start of the country, which will put us on the same footings as France.
I said"Also not to beat up on Clinton, his term in office was over.
The bigger problem is that the integrity of the office was damaged and no one seems to care that if there is an uncontrolled event, like a sex scandal, it opens us, the citizens, to a possibility of real serious problems with our security ."
It is obvious to me that you don’t understand the actually the division between someone who holds important secrets in a leadership position and a congressman. The people at the top level of government, those who we entrust with our safety and command our troops have to be held at a higher standard than the congress. Congress acts slowly on issues, the president and staff acts quickly on issue – see the difference. What I am driving at is that there is a strict need to keep someone from the fray of sex scandals and other things that can not only be distracting but lead to breach of security through Blackmail. I know you don’t understand that point so I would just say you don’t get it.
Go learn about what happened in the CIA and what they have been trying to do to stem the problem of spying within their walls.
I said “When I said people are stupid, the one thing I can point to is this idea what happened is a private thing, it is not at all, he works for us and he has to answer to us. Learn about blackmail and crimes based on blackmail.”
Bush?
Clinton?
Hillary?
Who answered to no one?
Oh I remember someone in 1993 who was trying to tackle healthcare problems; she had secret meetings and excluded insurance companies and drug companies from the meetings. She was not elected and didn’t answer to anyone. Amazing she got away with it.
What power are you referring to?
The power of the vote?
I tell people VOTE, I tell them to look at the candidates, go to the League of Women Voters and read about them, look at their track record but don’t fall for the BS they talk about. Be above the emotional BS, and always remember that government needs to get out of the way, not get more involved.
The power of engagement?
Well in fact I am engaged, right now as I type, last night when I was invited to participate in a conference forum on political issues with VETs which was really interesting because the other invites were an Iraqi soldier who wanted to learn more about our country and was in Baghdad. The other day when I explained to my niece what Obama stood for and who he is friends with, which turned her off about Obama but also got her interested in learning more about the history of the 60’s.
I don’t go out and ‘protest’, I don’t complain and fall behind people like Shehan and Moore, I am not a leftists but a classic liberal. The truth is I find protesting a waste of energy that can be used in other places, I find Shehan and her crowd a bunch of anti-American idiots and Moore (who I have met) as a greedy sad excuse of a liar, and I find most of the BS that is going around about the present administration a waste of our time because there is little one can do about it because the people DON’T want to take the time to learn how to take emotion out of a conversation and how the system works. Stupid, yes.
My further work includes non-profit work that I talk about but don’t identify.
The truth is until the 60’s and the protest movement, people actually cared about other people. There was participation in helping people that took energy and some fortitude but since the society changed in the 60’s, there has been less and less actual participation. Just image if the 10,000 people who protest the war would take the time to help out someone else, what change that would make – that alone would make one less step toward government intervention and take one step back to where you want to go. I don’t expect you to understand that at all but maybe one day you will understand it.
Oh and last night I was up till 4 talking to one of the friends of my Iraqi vet friend about her problems, a lot similar than what I have so there is a connection and I think I helped her a lot. I take helping people seriously because I look around and see all this wasted effort in protesting and complaining where nothing is done to teach people or show them how to make real changes. First you have to reach out to them to get them to listen, helping is one way of doing that - see the connection?
Just to add this from another post, you said “Your opinion is very effective. What is it that you do to help a cause? Have you stopped traffic lately? Did you get arrested for protesting? What then?”
Read my statement above carefully.
I said “Also just for the record, these online petitions mean nothing because there are no way to actually confirm who signs it or if they are a voter.”
No, I didn’t contradict myself; you don’t know what a petition really is.
Read this carefully
Almost all the petitions on the internet lack everything that gives the petition some substance when presented as a legitimate petition. Some lack one of two important things, one is a safe guard to prevent erroneous signatures from being gathered (which include repeat signatures) and the other is a lack of voter verification (which is very important). The last time I surveyed the hundreds of petition sites, there was not one that has both, truthfully because it costs a lot of money to put together the system that provides both and it is hard to setup and administer to be a good petition. I worked on this for a while and ran out of money, I will not go into the details of my petition project other than I know what it takes to have a real effective petition (there are a lot of details to it). There are rules on the state and federal level about electronic petitions but nothing uniformed and nothing that is really effective at all. Unless you want to give to the project, I won't share any more info.
If you want to make a change, do it right. If you want to have the people who you elect hear you, play by THEIR rules and DO IT RIGHT.
I said ”I want to know why isn't these sites complaining abut the FCC move to digital TV and the money being spent on the conversion? There is no need to restrict poor people from obtaining TV, is there?”
No, freedoms are important but I can’t change anything over night. This is one example of a congress trying to fix something that they caused. They have a voucher system that is a selection process. There are a lot of people who don’t know about the change over, there are a lot of reasons not to change over to complete digital TV but the congress approved money without understanding we lack a real communications infrastructure in the country, which analog TV filled a gap. This is about money; they sell off the space so to make money and ignore the needs of the people.
My freedoms as an adult have been limited under the Carter and Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. My freedoms as a citizen has been damaged under Lincoln and abridged under FDR and Wilson more than Bush ever dreamed. Kennedy and Johnson started the downfall of the country and it was completed by Carter.
I can’t keep what I earn, I don’t have true freedom of speech and because of a liberal supreme court, I don’t own property anymore, I rent it.
First stop thinking emotionally, I said B O R D E R not border patrol. If you read anything about our immigration policies and the changes that have been made since 1965, you would understand exactly what I am saying. I will let you figure it out what exactly is going on and why.
By the way, this opinion comes from constitutional scholars, not Huffington post.
I said “Clinton being booted? Come on, he was impeached but he was not removed - why?
Hint - it wasn't because of Monica. ”
You don’t understand the process at all or think for yourself. Impeached does not lead to an automatic removal.
I said “Give up?
He lied under oath, a real crime and really serious crime. ”
There you go again, not understanding what the process or who declares war. Lying to the people? Get real, so did every president since Lincoln.
The congress is at fault for the war and that leads me to the very people who voted for congress who gave them the power – they hold the ultimate responsibility. Democrats and Republicans alike are at fault in congress for the actual war and you should actually be complaining about congress prolonging the war by being a road block to actual solutions in Iraq.
The bigger problem is what people want to do to change the way things have worked since the start of the country, which will put us on the same footings as France.
I said"Also not to beat up on Clinton, his term in office was over.
The bigger problem is that the integrity of the office was damaged and no one seems to care that if there is an uncontrolled event, like a sex scandal, it opens us, the citizens, to a possibility of real serious problems with our security ."
It is obvious to me that you don’t understand the actually the division between someone who holds important secrets in a leadership position and a congressman. The people at the top level of government, those who we entrust with our safety and command our troops have to be held at a higher standard than the congress. Congress acts slowly on issues, the president and staff acts quickly on issue – see the difference. What I am driving at is that there is a strict need to keep someone from the fray of sex scandals and other things that can not only be distracting but lead to breach of security through Blackmail. I know you don’t understand that point so I would just say you don’t get it.
Go learn about what happened in the CIA and what they have been trying to do to stem the problem of spying within their walls.
I said “When I said people are stupid, the one thing I can point to is this idea what happened is a private thing, it is not at all, he works for us and he has to answer to us. Learn about blackmail and crimes based on blackmail.”
Bush?
Clinton?
Hillary?
Who answered to no one?
Oh I remember someone in 1993 who was trying to tackle healthcare problems; she had secret meetings and excluded insurance companies and drug companies from the meetings. She was not elected and didn’t answer to anyone. Amazing she got away with it.
What power are you referring to?
The power of the vote?
I tell people VOTE, I tell them to look at the candidates, go to the League of Women Voters and read about them, look at their track record but don’t fall for the BS they talk about. Be above the emotional BS, and always remember that government needs to get out of the way, not get more involved.
The power of engagement?
Well in fact I am engaged, right now as I type, last night when I was invited to participate in a conference forum on political issues with VETs which was really interesting because the other invites were an Iraqi soldier who wanted to learn more about our country and was in Baghdad. The other day when I explained to my niece what Obama stood for and who he is friends with, which turned her off about Obama but also got her interested in learning more about the history of the 60’s.
I don’t go out and ‘protest’, I don’t complain and fall behind people like Shehan and Moore, I am not a leftists but a classic liberal. The truth is I find protesting a waste of energy that can be used in other places, I find Shehan and her crowd a bunch of anti-American idiots and Moore (who I have met) as a greedy sad excuse of a liar, and I find most of the BS that is going around about the present administration a waste of our time because there is little one can do about it because the people DON’T want to take the time to learn how to take emotion out of a conversation and how the system works. Stupid, yes.
My further work includes non-profit work that I talk about but don’t identify.
The truth is until the 60’s and the protest movement, people actually cared about other people. There was participation in helping people that took energy and some fortitude but since the society changed in the 60’s, there has been less and less actual participation. Just image if the 10,000 people who protest the war would take the time to help out someone else, what change that would make – that alone would make one less step toward government intervention and take one step back to where you want to go. I don’t expect you to understand that at all but maybe one day you will understand it.
Oh and last night I was up till 4 talking to one of the friends of my Iraqi vet friend about her problems, a lot similar than what I have so there is a connection and I think I helped her a lot. I take helping people seriously because I look around and see all this wasted effort in protesting and complaining where nothing is done to teach people or show them how to make real changes. First you have to reach out to them to get them to listen, helping is one way of doing that - see the connection?
Just to add this from another post, you said “Your opinion is very effective. What is it that you do to help a cause? Have you stopped traffic lately? Did you get arrested for protesting? What then?”
Read my statement above carefully.
I said “Also just for the record, these online petitions mean nothing because there are no way to actually confirm who signs it or if they are a voter.”
No, I didn’t contradict myself; you don’t know what a petition really is.
Read this carefully
Almost all the petitions on the internet lack everything that gives the petition some substance when presented as a legitimate petition. Some lack one of two important things, one is a safe guard to prevent erroneous signatures from being gathered (which include repeat signatures) and the other is a lack of voter verification (which is very important). The last time I surveyed the hundreds of petition sites, there was not one that has both, truthfully because it costs a lot of money to put together the system that provides both and it is hard to setup and administer to be a good petition. I worked on this for a while and ran out of money, I will not go into the details of my petition project other than I know what it takes to have a real effective petition (there are a lot of details to it). There are rules on the state and federal level about electronic petitions but nothing uniformed and nothing that is really effective at all. Unless you want to give to the project, I won't share any more info.
If you want to make a change, do it right. If you want to have the people who you elect hear you, play by THEIR rules and DO IT RIGHT.
I said ”I want to know why isn't these sites complaining abut the FCC move to digital TV and the money being spent on the conversion? There is no need to restrict poor people from obtaining TV, is there?”
No, freedoms are important but I can’t change anything over night. This is one example of a congress trying to fix something that they caused. They have a voucher system that is a selection process. There are a lot of people who don’t know about the change over, there are a lot of reasons not to change over to complete digital TV but the congress approved money without understanding we lack a real communications infrastructure in the country, which analog TV filled a gap. This is about money; they sell off the space so to make money and ignore the needs of the people.
My freedoms as an adult have been limited under the Carter and Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. My freedoms as a citizen has been damaged under Lincoln and abridged under FDR and Wilson more than Bush ever dreamed. Kennedy and Johnson started the downfall of the country and it was completed by Carter.
I can’t keep what I earn, I don’t have true freedom of speech and because of a liberal supreme court, I don’t own property anymore, I rent it.
Jefferson3000
Expert Expediter
Originally Posted by ratwell71
((((I am glad you said that because although Bush did not lie under oath he lied to the population about his reasons for declaring war.))))
-------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone happen to catch the article on the news recently about the man who interrogated Saddam Hussein? One of things that came out concerning weapons of mass destruction was that Saddam had deliberately set up decoys to look like missile and centrifuge facilities. The reason for the ruse was that he wanted Iran, their biggest threat, to believe that he had nuclear weapons. So what the Pentagon had pictures of were really there, but they were only decoys that had been set up for other purposes. A scarecrow of sorts for the Iranians. Let's give credit for one thing: Bush and Powell never made this stuff up.
The fact about Saddam remains that he did indeed kill the Kurds through biological and chemical weapons. It was a testing ground for them, in case they needed them to fend off Iran.
((((I am glad you said that because although Bush did not lie under oath he lied to the population about his reasons for declaring war.))))
-------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone happen to catch the article on the news recently about the man who interrogated Saddam Hussein? One of things that came out concerning weapons of mass destruction was that Saddam had deliberately set up decoys to look like missile and centrifuge facilities. The reason for the ruse was that he wanted Iran, their biggest threat, to believe that he had nuclear weapons. So what the Pentagon had pictures of were really there, but they were only decoys that had been set up for other purposes. A scarecrow of sorts for the Iranians. Let's give credit for one thing: Bush and Powell never made this stuff up.
The fact about Saddam remains that he did indeed kill the Kurds through biological and chemical weapons. It was a testing ground for them, in case they needed them to fend off Iran.
Originally Posted by ratwell71
((((I am glad you said that because although Bush did not lie under oath he lied to the population about his reasons for declaring war.))))
-------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone happen to catch the article on the news recently about the man who interrogated Saddam Hussein? One of things that came out concerning weapons of mass destruction was that Saddam had deliberately set up decoys to look like missile and centrifuge facilities. The reason for the ruse was that he wanted Iran, their biggest threat, to believe that he had nuclear weapons. So what the Pentagon had pictures of were really there, but they were only decoys that had been set up for other purposes. A scarecrow of sorts for the Iranians. Let's give credit for one thing: Bush and Powell never made this stuff up.
The fact about Saddam remains that he did indeed kill the Kurds through biological and chemical weapons. It was a testing ground for them, in case they needed them to fend off Iran.
Actually, Powell was against invading Iraq. There are alot of people dieing all over the world because of their leaders. We are not invading them.
We have to have a vested interest before we invade, and helping the Iraqi people wasn't that interest.
Last edited:
Beltway Right Wrong - Only Congress Can Declare War
By Sam Francis
Very graciously for the Emperor of the New World Order, President Bush has stated that he will consult Congress before going to war against Iraq and even promises to listen to people who don't want to go to war at all.
But, as he remarked last week, after the consulting, the listening and the "debate," then
"I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies."
In other words, Mr. Bush thinks he has the right to initiate a full-scale war against a foreign nation.
He's not the only one. Bruce Fein, a legal columnist for the Washington Times and a charter member of the neo-conservative Zionist war party yelling for us and them to fight, agrees.
Some people, writes Mr. Fein in a recent column, actually imagine that just because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war, that means only the Congress can declare war. How silly of some people. "The constitutional criticism," he snorts, "is unconvincing." [Washington Times, Warring under the Constitution, Bruce Fein, August 20, 2002]
But Mr. Fein's case (and in general the case for presidential war powers that neo-conservatives make) rests on some very dubious reasoning and even more dubious facts. "The Founding Fathers," he assures us, "held no pronounced prejudice against executive declarations of war."
Really? This is what James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," had to say about it in his "Political Observations" of 1795:
"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies.... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."
In Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention he quotes Elbridge Gerry as remarking "Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war," while George Mason of Virginia "was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it."
Mr. Fein also claims the Framers "were skeptical of handcuffing national security powers with legally enforceable constitutional constraints," and to support that claim he quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 23 that "[War] powers ought to exist without limitation, etc."
This passage is grotesquely torn from context. Hamilton was not talking about the power to initiate war but merely the authority
"to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, etc."
Mr. Fein also quotes the philosopher John Locke on the powers of the executive (which has nothing to do with constitutional powers) and cites Lincoln's justifications of his "extra-constitutional" (i.e., illegal) actions in the Civil War.
Whatever the merits of Lincoln's policies, their rationale was the "emergency" the republic faced if laws were not violated to preserve it. That excuse doesn't apply to the current war. No one claims that Iraq is contemplating a war against us or that we face any "emergency" that justifies suspension of the laws and Constitution.
Finally, Mr. Fein points to a long series of executive-authorized military actions without congressional authorization as precedents.
Again, the argument is without merit. Citing the unconstitutional actions of previous presidents does nothing to justify unconstitutional action today. You might as well cite Bill Clinton's perjury to justify lying by President Bush. Secondly, none of the executive actions Mr. Fein cites was a full-scale war; almost all were rescue operations intended to meet emergencies (e.g., McKinley's dispatch of troops to rescue the besieged Americans in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion; President Ford's rescue of the S.S. Mayaguez in Cambodia in 1975).
Military rescue operations are one thing; war -- especially against a nation that has done nothing to attack us -- is quite another.
In the end, it's Mr. Fein who's "unconvincing" in his case for virtually unrestricted executive war powers, and his phony arguments and fake facts are typical of the arguments the neo-conservative war lobby is mounting.
So far neither the president nor his "intellectual allies" in the Beltway Right have shown us any compelling reason to go to war at all - let alone that the president has the constitutional power to start one.
By Sam Francis
Very graciously for the Emperor of the New World Order, President Bush has stated that he will consult Congress before going to war against Iraq and even promises to listen to people who don't want to go to war at all.
But, as he remarked last week, after the consulting, the listening and the "debate," then
"I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies."
In other words, Mr. Bush thinks he has the right to initiate a full-scale war against a foreign nation.
He's not the only one. Bruce Fein, a legal columnist for the Washington Times and a charter member of the neo-conservative Zionist war party yelling for us and them to fight, agrees.
Some people, writes Mr. Fein in a recent column, actually imagine that just because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war, that means only the Congress can declare war. How silly of some people. "The constitutional criticism," he snorts, "is unconvincing." [Washington Times, Warring under the Constitution, Bruce Fein, August 20, 2002]
But Mr. Fein's case (and in general the case for presidential war powers that neo-conservatives make) rests on some very dubious reasoning and even more dubious facts. "The Founding Fathers," he assures us, "held no pronounced prejudice against executive declarations of war."
Really? This is what James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," had to say about it in his "Political Observations" of 1795:
"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies.... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."
In Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention he quotes Elbridge Gerry as remarking "Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war," while George Mason of Virginia "was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it."
Mr. Fein also claims the Framers "were skeptical of handcuffing national security powers with legally enforceable constitutional constraints," and to support that claim he quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 23 that "[War] powers ought to exist without limitation, etc."
This passage is grotesquely torn from context. Hamilton was not talking about the power to initiate war but merely the authority
"to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, etc."
Mr. Fein also quotes the philosopher John Locke on the powers of the executive (which has nothing to do with constitutional powers) and cites Lincoln's justifications of his "extra-constitutional" (i.e., illegal) actions in the Civil War.
Whatever the merits of Lincoln's policies, their rationale was the "emergency" the republic faced if laws were not violated to preserve it. That excuse doesn't apply to the current war. No one claims that Iraq is contemplating a war against us or that we face any "emergency" that justifies suspension of the laws and Constitution.
Finally, Mr. Fein points to a long series of executive-authorized military actions without congressional authorization as precedents.
Again, the argument is without merit. Citing the unconstitutional actions of previous presidents does nothing to justify unconstitutional action today. You might as well cite Bill Clinton's perjury to justify lying by President Bush. Secondly, none of the executive actions Mr. Fein cites was a full-scale war; almost all were rescue operations intended to meet emergencies (e.g., McKinley's dispatch of troops to rescue the besieged Americans in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion; President Ford's rescue of the S.S. Mayaguez in Cambodia in 1975).
Military rescue operations are one thing; war -- especially against a nation that has done nothing to attack us -- is quite another.
In the end, it's Mr. Fein who's "unconvincing" in his case for virtually unrestricted executive war powers, and his phony arguments and fake facts are typical of the arguments the neo-conservative war lobby is mounting.
So far neither the president nor his "intellectual allies" in the Beltway Right have shown us any compelling reason to go to war at all - let alone that the president has the constitutional power to start one.
Why Won't Congress Declare War?
Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.
It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations 25 times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s willingness to consult some legislative leaders about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American people.
Already the administration has sought to gain favor with the UN by pledging hundreds of millions of tax dollars to UNESCO. UNESCO is the anti-American "educational" arm of the UN, an organization from which President Reagan heroically removed us in 1984. Now we find ourselves rejoining the agency to soften UN resistance to our plans in Iraq.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.
Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.
It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations 25 times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s willingness to consult some legislative leaders about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American people.
Already the administration has sought to gain favor with the UN by pledging hundreds of millions of tax dollars to UNESCO. UNESCO is the anti-American "educational" arm of the UN, an organization from which President Reagan heroically removed us in 1984. Now we find ourselves rejoining the agency to soften UN resistance to our plans in Iraq.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.
The point is that we have had presidents deploy troops without a formal declaration of war. You have war if you deploy. Period.
Our Constitution is not meant to be taken out of context. We can add to it by amending it but let us not read what we want to read into it.
Our Constitution is not meant to be taken out of context. We can add to it by amending it but let us not read what we want to read into it.
Yes, we have. Do you have any idea how many times that has happened in the history of the United States? I'm guessing no.
Congress has declared war, officially, in five different wars against 10 different nations (Germany twice), all five times at the request of the president (War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American-War, WWI and WWII). There have been many times when the Congress has given explicit approval for extended military conflicts that fell short of a declaration of war, tho. There have also been dozens of times the president has committed troops without any permission from Congress at all, in a few cases over the explicit objections of Congress. (The War Powers Act addresses that very issue, to limit what the president can and cannot do).
The Congress actually formally declaring war has many implications beyond the simple, formal declaration. Treaties are affected, not to mention diplomatic missions. Domestic operations take on a whole new face, as well. Formal Congressional "Authorized Use of Military Force" declarations (legislations) have their own implications, true enough, but are usually less damaging to treaties and diplomatic relations, and we can generally go about about daily lives domestically.
You might want to rethink that. The US has many interests around the world that must be defended, and policies that must be enforced, and they can be carried out under deployment without a formal declaration of war.
Context of what? Today? When it was written? Of what context do you speak?
Well, you're reading into it precisely what you want. What is a "formal declaration of war?", anyway? The Constitution merely states that Congress shall the power to declare war, but it makes no mention of what form the Congressional legislative phrasing must take. "Declaration of War" does not exist in the Constitution.
Here's some context for ya... If A equals B, and if C approves of A, then C must approve of B.
In other words, if Congress has given explicit formal approval for the President to deploy (A), and if you deploy(A) you have war(B), then the only conclusion that can be reached is that by Congress giving explicit, formal, permission to deploy(A), then they are also formally declaring war(B), since deploy and war mean the same thing.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Ratwell,
Understand a very important point that I am trying to make, it takes a lot of people talking about ONE issue to effect change.
Like the trucker 'strike' the message makes no sense (according to a senate staffer I know who was asked to monitor the events). Her point was simple, there was not a clear message about anything that made sense except the problem of fuel and then there was not one specific issue that could be actually shown to laypeople why they should care. She listed ten different reasons she was given when she talked to the truckers in Washington and even though these were important, she was frank that some were unrealistic. She also added it p*ssed a lot of people off.
In the past there is only one issue that ever got changed with constant protests, Civil Rights and that was only because they had one message and one issue they were driving at.
The Vietnam war was prolonged because of protests, the riots of Watts, Cambridge, Detroit were a catalyst for action through fear that are in some ways considered protests, the LA riots of '92 brought more division and a fix by throwing money at it and that event to many is a form of protest.
The other issue I think you miss is the diplomatic issues as Turtle mentioned. We live in a complicated world and regardless what you or others thinks, our government is fighting for us in many ways you can't imagine. Iraq is an UN issue more than it is a US issue and to understand the entire picture of what is really going on you got to look at the UN and what they have done in the past 30 years. But many want to make it out as a US only thing because it is really easy to understand it.
I have an article written by John Bolton that really puts in perspective what the problems with the UN are and why they don't really like us. He is one of the few diplomats who can clarify the complexity of the problems and regardless if you hate him or not, he was pushing for real reforms in the UN.
Here is the link to that article
Understand a very important point that I am trying to make, it takes a lot of people talking about ONE issue to effect change.
Like the trucker 'strike' the message makes no sense (according to a senate staffer I know who was asked to monitor the events). Her point was simple, there was not a clear message about anything that made sense except the problem of fuel and then there was not one specific issue that could be actually shown to laypeople why they should care. She listed ten different reasons she was given when she talked to the truckers in Washington and even though these were important, she was frank that some were unrealistic. She also added it p*ssed a lot of people off.
In the past there is only one issue that ever got changed with constant protests, Civil Rights and that was only because they had one message and one issue they were driving at.
The Vietnam war was prolonged because of protests, the riots of Watts, Cambridge, Detroit were a catalyst for action through fear that are in some ways considered protests, the LA riots of '92 brought more division and a fix by throwing money at it and that event to many is a form of protest.
The other issue I think you miss is the diplomatic issues as Turtle mentioned. We live in a complicated world and regardless what you or others thinks, our government is fighting for us in many ways you can't imagine. Iraq is an UN issue more than it is a US issue and to understand the entire picture of what is really going on you got to look at the UN and what they have done in the past 30 years. But many want to make it out as a US only thing because it is really easy to understand it.
I have an article written by John Bolton that really puts in perspective what the problems with the UN are and why they don't really like us. He is one of the few diplomats who can clarify the complexity of the problems and regardless if you hate him or not, he was pushing for real reforms in the UN.
Here is the link to that article
"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs ... we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country... we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
John Danforth
"Americans just want us to... not be concerned if they can be constitutionally justified... Why, if we had to do that we could not pass most of the laws we enact around here."
Sen. John Glenn
"Let us remember that revolutions do not always establish freedom. Our own free institutions were not the offspring of our revolution. They existed before."
Millard Fillmore
greg334
Veteran Expediter
TO THE MODS – CAN WE MOVE THIS TO THE SOAP BOX?
Ratwell
Here are a couple things;
First the feminist movement happened a long time before the 20’s, like in the 18th century. The real momentum in this country and in England happened in the mid to late 19th century and grew to the point that the government leaders were influenced by their wives to make changed here and in other countries. Because of the war and the work that women did, it allowed the people to open up their minds more and fall behind the support that was needed to make the gains, which in the ‘20’s gave a world wide push into the movement with legal recognition in most countries and the right to vote on the federal level in our (and forced harmonizing the laws for the states). The modern feminist movement however was borne out of the ‘50’s campus movement and led to the second wave feminist of the ‘60s. This in turn has given rides to the radical feminism like Catharine MacKinnon who is as much as a nut case as one can be.
Second the problem is that she, the senate staffer is not the problem, the message has to be carried to a cross section of people, meaning the public to gain any momentum behind the cause in order for the senator to become involved – it is politics. Her point is it was difficult to pin point where a senator can help and get people behind the cause unless there is a focus on one issue. I know this from things I was involved with; you can’t sit down with a 15 minute conversation with a person who can’t focus for more than 5 minutes at a time to tell them there is a problem to be fixed with two dozen issues to talk about – it causes nothing but the guy on the other end of the conversation to feel that it was a waste of his time.
The problem with trucking is simple, read my post in the soap box.
Ratwell
Here are a couple things;
First the feminist movement happened a long time before the 20’s, like in the 18th century. The real momentum in this country and in England happened in the mid to late 19th century and grew to the point that the government leaders were influenced by their wives to make changed here and in other countries. Because of the war and the work that women did, it allowed the people to open up their minds more and fall behind the support that was needed to make the gains, which in the ‘20’s gave a world wide push into the movement with legal recognition in most countries and the right to vote on the federal level in our (and forced harmonizing the laws for the states). The modern feminist movement however was borne out of the ‘50’s campus movement and led to the second wave feminist of the ‘60s. This in turn has given rides to the radical feminism like Catharine MacKinnon who is as much as a nut case as one can be.
Second the problem is that she, the senate staffer is not the problem, the message has to be carried to a cross section of people, meaning the public to gain any momentum behind the cause in order for the senator to become involved – it is politics. Her point is it was difficult to pin point where a senator can help and get people behind the cause unless there is a focus on one issue. I know this from things I was involved with; you can’t sit down with a 15 minute conversation with a person who can’t focus for more than 5 minutes at a time to tell them there is a problem to be fixed with two dozen issues to talk about – it causes nothing but the guy on the other end of the conversation to feel that it was a waste of his time.
The problem with trucking is simple, read my post in the soap box.
((((Thanks for adding one more movement. It looks like you corrected your last post here with this post. Or should I quote you about what you said in your last post about the "only movement, etc., etc....Greg said, In the past there is only one issue that ever got changed with constant protests, Civil Rights and that was only because they had one message and one issue they were driving at. Read the amendments to the Constitution.))))
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OK after conferring with my source, you are right – there are only two that actually were helped by consistent protests.
BUT my source wanted me to add two important things that they reminded me of; there is a huge difference in the acts of people like Pankhurst who actually helped move Women’s suffragette ahead and what people consider as a form of formable protesting. The problem today is there is little commitment to a cause or movement as there was in the early part of the 20th century.
The other is a comparison of the two movements, excluding all others; there is a marked difference between a movement based on Gender and one base on Race. Because Women were already in many levels of society, there was a lot of wrangling behind the scenes and a lot was done because a lot of women who supported women’s suffragette were of great influence during that time, which was opposite in the civil rights movement.
By the way I don’t have to ‘read’ the amendments, I did my time in a constitutional studies class.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; (((((or to prevent the people from petitioning))))), in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."
Samuel Adams, "Father of the American Revolution."
Samuel Adams, "Father of the American Revolution."