Mitt Romney touting Mark Kirk with jobs and economy message (RINO ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 2010-09-24 | Lynn Sweet

[Maelstorm]

No he doesn’t support open borders. He supports the right of states like Arizona to enforce immigration policy.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=124363

Mike Labno is the real deal. Check out his facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/labno4senate#!

This isn’t just about defeating Kirk. We have in Labno a Tea Party candidate that can win against the 3 liberals running if he gets some support from the so called “kick the establishment’s butt conservatives”.

Celebrating in Nov with Kirk winning is like have a Tea Party celebration cake with a turd on top. We can do better.

Labno is a not a radical, he is not a libertarian nut or anarchist nor is he a pacifist.

He is a construction foreman, an auto-mechanic, Volunteer, Chicago Guardian Angels,Member/Volunteer Saint Mary of Gostyn Church, Voluntary Member World Security Bureau which helps victims of domestic abuse.

Mike is the Real Deal. Even though I don’t agree with him 100% there is nothing that stands out as something that would disqualify him. He is a actually a breath of fresh air compared to the staleness that has dominated the Republican party prior to this year.

I’ve heard all the arguments about stopping Alexi. They are empty. We don’t have to take the non choice given to us.
The man who receives 100% rating from NARAL and supports abortion up till the last trimester with no restrictions.
The man who gets an F on the 2nd amendment and received the endorsement of Anti-gun groups over the Democrat.
The man who voted for the fiscally liberal Tarp, Cap and Trade, Obama’s additional $192B. He is a mixed bag on fiscal policy and holds some positions that aren’t so bad but there can be no doubt he is liberal in the worst kind of way that is why he isn’t debating. He didn’t debate once in the primary race and now he wants a rubberstamp from conservatives to move up to the Senate. Even Mike Castle in many ways wasn’t as liberal as Mark Kirk.

[mnehring]

Congress NEVER declared war as required in Article I, Section 8, clause 11; period.

Article 1, Section 8 gives three ways to authorize to use the military. 1- clause 11 as you cited in a declaration of war. 2- clause 15, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. & 3- clause 10, to punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.

Clauses 10 & 15 are important because the current wars we are in fall under 'offenses against he laws of nations' instead of wars against a specific state. The laws of nations accounts for issues such as breach of treaties (which, according to the Constitution, are to be considered high law of the land and honored), attacks in international waters (see Jefferson's actions as an example), etc. In other words, it covers threats to the Nation's security that may not directly come from a nation in which one can declare war against. The Iraq war had several standpoints in this- one, the breach of treaties. Two, attacks on our interests, such as shooting at planes in no-fly zones, that were there due to a treaty they signed. Three, support for international terrorist organizations that do not operate specifically under a national banner. Et. Al. I could keep going if you like. The old elementary school level Ron Paul excuse that the 'authorization to use force' wasn't Constitutional is horse-hockey and is playing with the Constitution in the same way Fred Phelps uses the Bible. Just twisting it to justify a pre-conceived belief.