Frum's Flimflam

Reading through David Frum's Unpatriotic Conservatives, a shabby indictment against those he lazily blankets as "paleoconservatives," I was reminded of a fascinating paper Jörg Guido Hülsmann of the Mises Institute delivered some years back entitled The Production of Signs and the Growth of the State.

"The most important class of signs are the words we use, in particular the words of the written language," explained Hülsmann. We come to understand "the fundamental facts of moral and political life: religion, liberty, love, hope, faith, property, justice, and all other purely intellectual things" through the configurations we create with letters of the alphabet.

How fragile then are those cherished concepts, and all the more so in the hands of a manipulator such as David Frum. Frum's style of debate is Kafkaesque.

Note how Frum dictates the terms of debate. He starts off by generously welcoming "questions" about the war on Iraq. But with the next breath Frum constricts the scope of discussion, making the acceptance of the "war on terror" a prerequisite.

By the by, the National Review's blog really showcases the essence of the "girlie-boys," to use Ann Coulter's coinage for this lot. Recall, the "boys with the bowties" dropped Coulter's syndicated column after September 11 when the firebrand columnist suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Considering that the neoconservatives at the NR advocate the two of Ann's moves, I've a strong suspicion as to what prompted the firing caprice.

Or more appropriately, Coulter's contention that converting Muslims to a religion of peace might do the trick. This was beyond the pale for the multicultists at the NR (who also regularly chide the Pope).

It's hard not to notice how similar the simpering on the NR's blogistan is to Mrs. Frum's infamous e-mail. Danielle Crittenden had done a mass mailing to her pals after her hubby had coined the axis of evil phrase, expressing her "hope you'll indulge my wifely pride."

Rod Dreher of NR exudes the same fake saccharine humility: "I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine," he blogs, "but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent essay." As Golda Meir once said, "Don't be humble. You're not that great."

In response to Jonah's whine that "paleos have been goading and mocking" him, not least by naming his mag the "Goldberg's Review," I suggest substituting the "Goldberg Variations."

Bach's monumental score for the keyboard ought to remind Jonah that the West that paleolibertarians and conservatives love and wish to peacefully restore is the civilization epitomized by the faith-inspired beauty of Bach. It's the West reflected in the poignancy and "deep pain" Pope John Paul II expresses these days with every fiber of his crippled frame. The picture of this righteous man, head clasped in hands, overcome with sorrow at the savagery unfolding, trumps the nasty specter of the American metropole at its most shameful, cheered by the "girlie-boys" at NR.

A testament to his manipulation of language is that the "facts" Frum marshals for each of the raps he draws up against paleos don't coincide with the accusations:

Frum's mode of argument is slightly more sophisticated than Michael Savage’s. Savage yelled that he'd demonstrate to his viewers "Why We Fight." If language means anything, then the reason we fight against Iraq must directly relate to an aggression Iraq has visited on us, at the very least.

Instead, Savage began screening and rescreening the attack on the Twin Towers, amidst hysterical yelps of, "This is Why We Fight." His frenzy incites the same in the recipient of the distorted message, thus subverting reason. Note how the signs Guido Hülsmann speaks of have been severed from what they signify – the message Savage conveys is that we fight Iraq because Saddam brought down the Twin Towers. On the facts, this is false.

The sophistry of the State's speechwriter is similar: As evidence that Pat Buchanan "espouses defeatism," Frum dredges Buchanan's observation that other than to use their might, Americans do not understand the conflicts and terrain they plunge into. This is an intelligent observation about American insularity and cultural chauvinism.

Frum affects a similar disconnect between the indictment and the evidence he advances against Toronto Sun foreign correspondent Eric Margolis. Margolis recommended non-aggressive ways in which Arabs might prevent war against Iraq. This Frum labels as a "yearning for defeat." If one respects the words used by the communicator – Margolis – and their meaning, rather than resort to conjecture, then what Margolis was saying was aimed at trying to peacefully thwart American aggression and prevent defeat for all involved.

As is evident from his tittle-tattle tome (and like his wife), Frum is a gossip. His essay is in keeping with this unfortunate character trait. He produces a series of vignettes designed to "prove" that paleos developed an ideology (which, in the case of paleolibertarians, is as old as the natural law), in order to compensate for alleged career failure.

So we discover that the delightful Paul Gottfried doesn't entertain his students and that paleos are among the more "fractious and quarrelsome folk in the conservative universe." (Frum fails to allow that non-conformists do tend to be "belligerent," the word my spouse uses for his wife.) To discredit paleoconservative or paleolibertarian ideas, however, one must tackle the ideas, not the personalities. Claiming that Paul Gottfried, a consistently engaging and interesting intellectual, didn't win a popularity contest with a bunch of 19-year-olds fails to tackle his ideas. Nor can he be refuted by the fact that he teaches at a small college. In order to be taken seriously, Frum must deal with the substance, not personalities or professional travails vis-à-vis the mainstream.

I can't speak for paleoconservatives, but paleolibertarians care first about the effects of the state on civil society. In the words of Lew Rockwell:

Everything flows from the passion for "the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization." What Frum calls our "obsessive denunciations of Martin Luther King," is borne of the understanding that "civil rights" legislation is inimical to property rights and freedom of association.

Perforce, Frum charges paleos with racism. And he mocks us for allegedly being incapable of reconciling our alleged belief in "the incorrigible inferiority of darker-skinned people," with our perception that "darker-skinned people are gaining advantage over whites."

While the strength of the paleolibertarian team comes from its enduring commitment to natural rights and justice, the strength of the Frum faction comes from its endorsement of the Almighty State. Yet, the State is conspicuously absent from Frum's silly screed.

Frum must certainly be aware that the State redistributes wealth from those who create it to those who consume it. Frum must also be aware that libertarians oppose this coercive distribution of wealth by the State. And even Frum must be cognizant of discernible trends in wealth creation and wealth consumption. Ditto where crime is concerned: Certain populations are more likely to be perpetrators, others more likely to be victims.

Are these observations racist? To the extent that it is a relevant variable in crime and welfare, paleos comment honestly about demographics.

Yes, certain segments of society are gaining at the expense of others, but there is nothing inexplicable here if one considers the entity whose bidding Frum does so effectively. The ousting of white males from positions of prominence is courtesy of State directive! Surely even David Frum knows that. The beef paleolibertarians have is with the State for seizing and redistributing private property, for prohibiting the rightful exercise of freedom of contract and freedom of association, and for making all-out self-defense impossible.

Jonah claims, incidentally, that David Frum is "libertarian on the economy." I don't know any libertarian who supports the pseudo-science of climate change and the concomitant advocated policies, which Frum apparently does. But if he has a libertarian streak, Frum must have heard of property rights. Why, then, is it a racist notion that productive Americans should not have to subsidize free riders? Frum heaps scorn on Buchanan for having said that "many Americans in the first country are getting weary of subsidizing and explaining away the deepening failure of the second."

Just as property rights are not a new paleo idea, but rather a little Lockean indulgence taken very seriously by the American founders, so too are paleo ideas on foreign policy and American adventurism, rooted in, to quote Felix Morley, the traditional American attitude of "opposition to what George Washington called ‘overgrown military establishments.’" Frum's attempt to cast paleo ideas as new and discontinuous is ignorant of the history of the ideas.

Equally revealing about the Frum framework is his aversion to objective truth. He says that "race and ethnicity are huge and unavoidable issues in modern life, and the liberal orthodoxies on the matter tend to be doctrinaire and hypocritical." Paleo refutation, however, he condemns because it too advances orthodoxies. Does it not occur to this doxy of the State that some "orthodoxies" may be true? Is it not possible that what Buchanan and Harvard economist George Borjas report about immigration is simply correct?

As I've written, and with reference to Borjas' work, it is true that since the 1965 immigration amendments, "the United States has been granting entry visas to persons who have relatives in the United States, with no regard to their skills or economic potential." "Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to require public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities." An influx of the unskilled is, moreover, responsible for the lowering of wages across the board, something that hurts poor Americans, especially blacks.

Since 1965, mass immigration has constituted the quintessential "swamping by the central state of an existing population for political ends," to quote paleolibertarian economist, Murray N. Rothbard. Those who laud the changing US, and want more of the same, ignore the fact that this radical transformation, good or bad, has been engineered by the State, to which Frum is in thrall.

Again, the State's speechwriter pries words from their meaning. This time Chronicles' Thomas Fleming catches static for asserting that we "would soon be a nation no longer stratified by class, but by race as well. Europeans and Orientals will compete, as groups, for the top positions, while the other groups will nurse their resentments on the weekly welfare checks they receive from the other half."

Why, pray, is this statement evidence of "racial animus"? Orientals and Europeans, if I am not mistaken, are the highest earners. They shoulder the tax burden. I would think that as a "libertarian on economics," Frum would be irate that, for being high achievers, certain people are denied equal treatment under the law.

Once again, Frum's appended slur doesn't jibe with the utterance of the slurred.

Frum's impoverished coda is full of journalistic jingoism about the epoch September 11 has unleashed. Paleos, spoilsports that they are, have failed to celebrate one of the most formidable consolidations of State power in recent American history. For this failure, David and the "girlie-boys" are going to turn their backboneless backs on us.

To Frum's "War is a great clarifier," we offer Ludwig von Mises' words: "War only destroys; it cannot create. War, carnage, destruction and devastation we have in common with the predatory beast of the jungle." A good synonym for neoconservative.

You still have nothing convincing or relevent to say and I doubt you ever will.

It would not matter what I had to say, per your own admission: "Needless to say, no effort on your part will convince me otherwise."

Therefore, for you to attempt to accurately judge whether what I said was convincing or not is itself highly suspect.

You're blinded by your obvious disdain for David Frum and that makes you intellectally dishonest.

I need only note that the above comes from the same individual who has engaged in documented acts of willful blindness on this thread, namely the inentional avoiding of post #27. Considering that you have failed to offer evidence of any comparable act on my part, it would seem that your physical documented blindness to the facts, themselves evidently stemming from an obvious adoration for David Frum, are of greater consequence to this thread than any alleged but as-of-yet-unspecified acts of the same that my dislike for his style of debate may or may not have brought about.

The more you say, the more you prove that point. And while you're at it, learn to control your emotions.

You should learn to repeat that one in the mirror. I have carefully laid out my case before you, only to see it responded to by an increasingly emotional ranter with increasingly little substance to offer. As of late, you have degraded into making unspecified and unsubstantiated allegations agains those who disagree with you, not to mention your willful ignorance and your blatant attempts to appeal to emotion as a substitute for debate.

And, as always, post #27 remains unanswered...

If you've read the stuff at Rockwell's site, it's anti-defense and much worse

Much worse? I'll agree with every point you said if you can find me one instance in the Constitution that states we should be defending the whole world. Don't give me Frumisms of what's happened over the past 50 years. From the document that established this nation, point to an instance or example that 10% of what the government in the past 140 years has done even leans toward being Constitutional. So Constitutional in fact that in order to add a new power for war making Presidents had to start adding them.

All of the pieces I've read by his writers so far (even the type on a long leash from overseas, frayed from this end) were written to help the enemy

Written to help the enemy? What? Diagrams of secret military equipment? Clues on how to defend against a cruise missile? How is questioning foreign policy helping the enemy. The Cold War's over. Come in out of the cold and quit seeing half the d#mn world as some sort of playground where we have some inalienable right no one's ever heard of to topple governments and spread 'democracy'

They will eventually, even the exceptionally indirect pieces that only bash the USA and our President, get some of our kids killed overseas or encourage the enemy to kill people in the USA.

Again, I ask, how is expressing one's point of view on the war going 'to get some of our kids killed overseas'? How is that? Will the Iraqis stand up, read letters from patriots, and all of the sudden the brave men and women of the Armed Forces of these United States suddenly fall down? You better not let the Iraqis see Washington's Farewell Address. Foreign entanglements and all that. You know, over dramatization does not become you.

So enjoy your French wine while you can, writers for Rockwell (ref. to another column there). It is the blood of our sons and daughters.

Metaphors, how quaint. You know the Russians sold them weapons too, as well as wait a minute, the government of these United States. You think perhaps there may be a reason our government knows so much about what the Iraqis do and don't have?!? FWIW, I don't like wine, and the cheese you neocons are coming up with is getting quite stale.

I have said while the troops of this nation's army are over there, may God guide them, protect them, and give them a quick and sound victory. Hussein needs to be gotten rid of. But don't come crying 30 years from now when another puppet this nation's government puts into place bites the hand that fed it for so long. It's called historical fact, it's happened time and time again. You might want to check into it

" I'll agree with every point you said if you can find me one instance in the Constitution that states we should be defending the whole world. Don't give me Frumisms of what's happened over the past 50 years. From the document that established this nation, point to an instance or example that 10% of what the government in the past 140 years has done even leans toward being Constitutional. So Constitutional in fact that in order to add a new power for war making Presidents had to start adding them."

The United States Constitution does not need to state "we should be defending the whole world." Our President waged war. But here's the answer to what you're alluding to.

Public Law 107-40 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
Excerpted Quote:
"...all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Public Law 107-243 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
Excerpt:
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

And here are the laws your president should have acted on.

Public Law 105-238 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
Excerpt:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
Excerpt:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

And many of us have watched as the Iraqi Information Minister rallied his [previously demoralized] troops against our kids with his news about our anti-American traitors, Canadian and other instigators saying that our country and its allies are wrong to attack them, that they are victims, etc. Anyone with a few brain cells knows by now that the public relations part of the effort is the most important part. We must be as united as possible or loudly denounce all traitors. ...and foreign instigators of hatred against the USA and the Jews.

About 80% of the USA public favors the defeat of those who show hatred for us and try to build weapons capable of destroying us. I don't think a few strange groups of clandestine propagandists (Nazis, radical Islamists, Communists and all of the same ilk who call themselves by other names to the dark side of the press) will make any effective difference in our choice to defend the USA and Israel or any other true ally.

But what interests me now is lewrockwell.com essentially calling on Catholics to resist our defense efforts by complaining about the efforts, and some Catholics actually engaging in such activity as an identity effort. That's pretty sick.

And by the way, it appears that liberaltarians resort to using "four letter words," too.

IMO, we should stop exporting cheese to the surrender monkey cousins of the north, too. To much of it or "Kraft Dinner" might just be toxic to their thought processes. And we should have them purge some of it from their systems before allowing them to cross the border.

;-)

The level of anger displayed by some against Frum
without commensurate explanation is noticeable and
did evoke curiosity.

Is it true that David Frum might soon be the first
National Review Editor-In-Chief who is not Catholic?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried48.html

Capisca? begreifen Sie?

There are at least two publishers of general interest
news and of some notice who hire libertarian/anarchist
Catholic writers exclusively or almost exclusively.
One wonders how many more are out there.

This is very strange in light of all the conspiracy
canards against Jewish publishers. I've read about
a couple of the major newspaper publishers who are
Jewish and who made it a point to hire people of
diverse religions.

I don't know of any major general interest news
publications that have made it a point to hire
nothing but or mostly protestant writers.

Then there are Novak, Buchanan and the others.
What's up? Is it weird, or what?

And no, course I'm not anti-Catholic, but it's
difficult to avoid being somewhat disturbed by
the few who laid this identity group news in our
laps with their attacks on US defense and against
"non-Catholic" Frum.

*sniff* *sniff* I smell foreign political thinking
here.

Ah, and here's more. David Frum is Jewish, he's
pro-USA, he's a Canadian Tory, and some say that
he just might be the Canadian Prime Minister, some
day.

And here's a meandering thought or two.

Who's after Frum like the anarchists who doused
the Canadian Alliance with conspiracy stories and
set-ups? ...the anarchists, maybe? ...stooges
for the Liberals?

Are there any US citizens in this thread, or have
a bunch of foreigners been harping against our US
President and US foreign policy again?

Hmmm?

If I'm on the right track here, I'd like to discuss
an exchange of states/provinces with you all. You
give us western Canada, and we'll give you California,
New York, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington state.
Then we'll build some great, big fences. Oh, and we'll
take Mr. Frum and give you Hitlery, er Hillary. You
can have all our Nazis, too, to keep all the successors
of Pure Idiot Truedoh in power. Eh?

...'z it a deal or what?

USA! USA!

LOL!!!

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;--Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution

Sorry but you can post all the unconstitutional passages you want, but the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war. That means every war these United States have engaged themselves in that doesn't have a formal declaration of war by Congress doesn't even meet the law by our own standards. Congress passed the buck on this one, as they passed the buck in '91, and as they passed the buck in the 1950s and 1960s with Vietnam and Korea

The United States Constitution does not need to state "we should be defending the whole world." Our President waged war. But here's the answer to what you're alluding to.

Read me back the passage in the Constitution again that states our President 'wages war'. Read that as powers to the President in the Constitution. And don't give me Section 2 either. That is dependent upon Article I, Section 8 being met, which it wasn't

What I truly find hilarious by the neocon argument, and it's been done every time, is that you bring up these same laws. It may meet the neocon and Frum's version of the Constitution but it's not what is in the document. But then again those arguing for globalism don't really give a d#mn what's in the document now do they? Your very arguments show they don't.

Congress did the following. They look like very formal, pompous declarations of war. ...more answers below those.

Public Law 107-243
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Public Law 107-40
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"

Public Law 105-238
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

The President controls the military, as you see in the following excerpt.
Article II
Section 2. [Excerpt of Pertinencies]
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He who controls the military has the power of waging war (doh). Congress may only do the pompous formality of declaring war in their usual, slug-like time.

The President has all powers not given to branches other than the executive. Congress does not have the power to wage war and, thank goodness, talk about it forever before doing anything after we're attacked. Only the radical left could want to relegate all of our fate to Congressional slug trails.

Now let's see, who in the world would want our every response to attack and defense movement to be stuck in Congress for ages?

Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Take an English course, and read it yourself.
http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html

Congress is too lazy to even prosecute anarchists/covert lefties for "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." We, as a nation are glad that Congress does not have power over the military and to wage war. If that were the case, we would be finished.

BTW, all, ever notice how lefties issue much rhetoric and emotion, often change the subject and don't come out bluntly with their intent or opinions? And some pretend to be with the right.

What all this shows is that we can win the public relations part of the fight with the enemy.

...surrender monkeys.

******* The above should not be construed as legal advice. It is part of a base bickering match by uneducated idiots on the Iraq War. I am not a lawyer. If you need a lawyer, seek one. *******

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T.

For those neocons that haven't seen one, this is a formal declaration of war. familyop, perhaps you could answer a question. Part II of Public Law 107-243 states

enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Do these United States have a Security Council I'm not aware of? To heck with resolutions passed by the UN. And it says 'defend'. How exactly was attacking Iraq defending US sovereignty when

A) no missile or troop movement could reach the borders of these United States and
B)the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia

But let's move on shall we? Public Law 105-238 states

That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Ah, those 'international obligations' now. No more defense of these United States, now it's compliance with Iraq's international obligations. Nope, no world policeman job here!! < /extreme sarcasm>

And of course we have the noted Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Whatever the h#ll that means

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

And exactly why should it be the policy of these United States to support efforts to remove Hussein? I'm sure they didn't support those efforts back in the 1980s while he was killing his own citizens. Oh, but he was fighting against Iran (another one of our screwups come back to bite us BTW) so whatever he did was A-OK with our government. And why exactly should we have a democratic government in place. Heck, even the Founders of this nation didn't establish a democratic government. They established a republican form of government. Ahh, but democracy is better when keeping the masses in line eh? Can't have people having too much power and limiting the government's massive growth. They know better than us lowlys is that it?

Now let's see, who in the world would want our every response to attack and defense movement to be stuck in Congress for ages?

Well considering the Founders saw that war was the final solution I imagine they did. That's why they made it so difficult to go to war. But Congress in 1941 gave full support in one day. And for bringing up the issues at hand, I get Article III Sec 3 thrown at me. I'll give you something. At least you know what the Constitution looks like, although you still don't care what it says

Congress is too lazy to even prosecute anarchists/covert lefties for "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." We, as a nation are glad that Congress does not have power over the military and to wage war. If that were the case, we would be finished.

Wait a minute what's that you say? A neocon freely admits he doesn't care what Article I, Section 8 says?!? Thanks for coming out in the open, at least you admitted you don't care about the document that founded this nation, you only care about what you want

And so we come to your final argument, wrap it well sonny Jim

...surrender monkeys. ******* The above should not be construed as legal advice. It is part of a base bickering match by uneducated idiots on the Iraq War. I am not a lawyer. If you need a lawyer, seek one. *******

There it is!!! Uneducated surrender monkeys. Name calling through and through. Can't support your argument by the Constitution, so you

A)ignore the parts you don't like, which you have freely admitted and
B) call names

Frum is that you?!? LOL!!

As I have said from the beginning, I support the troops and the President's decisions. It had to be done. Get it over with and come home safely. However to avoid this nation going to war 30 years from now, I would suggest not playing world policeman, not 'establishing democracy' all over the place, and maintaining a strong defense for attacks on the respective states. The Founders thought quite well of these policies, but then again you say that people that think like this are somehow treasonous

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T. For those neocons that haven't seen one, this is a formal declaration of war.

You're saying that in order for Congress to be declaring war, it has to use the exact same words of past declarations? In my humble non-lawyer opinion, the following said it clearly enough.

Public Law 107-243
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Public Law 107-40
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"

Public Law 105-238
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T. For those neocons that haven't seen one, this is a formal declaration of war.

You're saying that in order for Congress to be declaring war, it has to use the exact same words of past declarations? ...or some anarcho-leftist magic words? In my humble non-lawyer opinion, the following said it clearly enough.

Public Law 107-40
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"

Again, I didn't say that. It's all explained in my post before your reply that you put that accusation in. Your arguments are circular. Only the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. It appears that you would rather Congress have that power.

From your post #67

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of these United States
--To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
--To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
--To provide and maintain a navy;
--To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
--To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Well, h#ll, since we've thrown out the rest, might as well throw out Congressional power over the military, eh? The President is only Commander in Chief once Congress declares war. Thank you for playing. I don't have a parting gift for you, but I could mail you a large print copy of the Constitution if you want. That way, you couldn't use the 'it's in the fine print' argument anymore

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of these United States --To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; --To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; --To provide and maintain a navy; --To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; --To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

"Well, h#ll, since we've thrown out the rest, might as well throw out Congressional power over the military, eh? The President is only Commander in Chief once Congress declares war."

Article II Section 2. [Excerpt of Pertinencies] "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

It does not say "only Commander in Chief once Congress declares war." It says that he's the Commander in Chief, and there's no qualification as to when. That means always. But Congress can and should declare war, yes. And where it says "when called into the actual service of the United States," that pertains to the militia (National Guard), not the President. The President is always in service and always the Commander in Chief of the military.

The Congress will raise funding, make rules, regulations, etc., about military actions in general, and they do. But as Commander in Chief, the President gives orders to the military. And there's no qualification as to when he may do so.

It's not about "fine print." It's more about common sense (i.e., not having to wait for Congress to defend us) and reading the English carefully, word for word.

We are blessed, indeed, that our founders did not open us to waiting on Congress to answer any nuclear strike or any other surprise attacks against the USA.

This is not only about Iraq, you know. Quite a few other countries have rulers who have been illegitimately blaming us in front of their ignorant, impoverished peoples for whatever bothers them for many years now. They do it to keep their own people from putting the blame where it belongs. And many in other countries yet (France and Canada, to name only two), have been instigating blame against us in countries where rulers cheat their own people. Behind the URL that follows, you'll see one of many countries that need information assistance from us so the people in those countries can address their problems directly instead of blaming and extorting us.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/873665/posts

And liberaltarians and other anarchists? They help despots in other countries to blame us by way of all kinds of stupid conspiracy canards. If the left can't get what it wants by keeping socialist Presidents in the USA endlessly, the left tries to help enemies elsewhere to gather WMD and rile their peoples into destroying our government and country.

Right now, several other countries are developing madness against us among their peoples and trying to acquire and build nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying us.

We shouldn't wait until nuclear conflict is the only answer. That's why we're going over there now.

BTW, I've continued to hear about Mr. Frum. Mr. Frum is a Canadian, right? I'm concerned with USA affairs. Canadians should be helping Mr. Frum there, unless they want more decades of Pure Idiot Trudoh successors (which I've long believed to be the case with liberaltarians up there, as they scare would-be conservatives away from conservative efforts).

And thanks to all the Canadians who've been bashing us and our President. You've assured through bringing out our Yankee stubbornness, that we'll stay Republican for a very long time.

Heeelllooo??? Anybody in there? If you also notice the time that the military may be called up is for two years and the assumption held by the Founders is that we wouldn't need a standing military. Granted, in today's Wilsonian foreign policy era of sticking our noses into anything and everything (to heck with whether these US are being attacked or not apparently), we need not only a standing military but one armed to the teeth as well. Given that however, Congress should still have the power over the military that it is granted under the Constitution. That means that while the President is CIC, that doesn't mean he can order them all over the world at what he feels may be a threat in 10-20 years.

You throw up Article II, Sec 2 as if that's a pass to do anything he feels is in the best interests of these US at the time and that it is somehow exclusive of the rest of the Constitution. Heck, why have checks and balances at all? Let's just do as Hamilton wanted (and suggested in Constitutional Convention) and have a limited monarchy. As for your statement

But Congress can and should declare war, yes. And where it says "when called into the actual service of the United States," that pertains to the militia (National Guard), not the President.

grammatically you know yourself that's not true. If it were the statement would read

'The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States;" (comma missing)

as that the last statement would only be applying to the militia

It's not about "fine print." It's more about common sense (i.e., not having to wait for Congress to defend us) and reading the English carefully, word for word.

I suggest you brush up on your English a little more carefully because you missed an important grammatical mark that changes the entire intent of the statement

Right now, several other countries are developing madness against us among their peoples and trying to acquire and build nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying us. We shouldn't wait until nuclear conflict is the only answer. That's why we're going over there now.

Ah, preemptive strikes is it? And as a Christian I am concerned about the peoples of the nations that are being oppressed. But listen real carefully now. Contrary to what you, Mr. Frum, William Buckley, and Bill Kristol think, there is no 'responsibility for the rest of the world' clause in the Constitution. If we, as a nation of separate and sovereign states, would quit sticking our noses into every conflict where we're trying to 'help spread democracy' only to establish a tinpot dictator that 30 years later comes back worse than the first, perhaps the world might be a tad bit safer. Heck, I don't know. But I do know that for over 90 years we've tried Wilson's ideals and they've only gotten this nation of states into worse and worse jams. Maybe we should try following the Constitution and see how that works.

As it is now, it's a moot point, the troops are over there, and I wish them a quick success. However as I have said, get in, get out, and let the nation worry about rebuilding itself

"Heeelllooo??? Anybody in there? If you also notice the time that the military may be called up is for two years..."

Are you referring to the following?

Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have power ... To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

I'm sure Congress will use the current appropriations within a couple of years and appropriate more when needed.

"...and the assumption held by the Founders is that we wouldn't need a standing military."

...not true of all the founders. They settled on a standing army, and a few things about militias were entered to get the paranoid to shut up. See above.

"I suggest you brush up on your English a little more carefully because you missed an important grammatical mark that changes the entire intent of the statement"

Are you referring to the following?
Article II Section 2. [Excerpt of Pertinencies] The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

So you stumbled on the "comma controversy." Lefty's trying to defeat the 2nd Amendment with that argument, too, but there's a pattern of comma use like that throughout the Constitution. Language changes.

And if you had been correct about that, you would have made a point in favor of my arguments, anyway, because the President is called into service when he's elected.

"Ah, preemptive strikes is it? And as a Christian I am concerned about the peoples of the nations that are being oppressed. But listen real carefully now. Contrary to what you, Mr. Frum, William Buckley, and Bill Kristol think, there is no 'responsibility for the rest of the world' clause in the Constitution. If we, as a nation of separate and sovereign states, would quit sticking our noses into every conflict where we're trying to 'help spread democracy' only to establish a tinpot dictator that 30 years later comes back worse than the first, perhaps the world might be a tad bit safer. Heck, I don't know. But I do know that for over 90 years we've tried Wilson's ideals and they've only gotten this nation of states into worse and worse jams. Maybe we should try following the Constitution and see how that works.

Actually, until recently, we supported monarchies and other dictatorships with a doctrine against overthrowing other governments, regardless of how rotten their leaders were. Now we go after other governments that hate us and point weapons at us.

I, personally, would like to mind our own business, stay out of other countries, build a huge umbrella defense, and if any real threat comes our way,

But I won't get my way. ...will have to settle for what most of the rest of our people and our leaders are willing to do.

As it is now, it's a moot point, the troops are over there, and I wish them a quick success. However as I have said, get in, get out, and let the nation worry about rebuilding itself

Ah, you know how it goes. We'll spend, spend, spend and work our tails off to get 'em back on their feet. Some interesting things might be coming out soon, though. ...some surprises on the way, I think.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.