Replies

" 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.