--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
Senate ethics panel finds evidence Ensign broke laws
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/john-ensign-ethics-investigation-/1
The Senate Ethics Committee has found "substantial credible evidence"
that Republican John Ensign violated laws and Senate rules.
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced that the committee is
referring its findings to the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal
Election Commission for further action.
The report's release caps a two-year saga that has already caused
Ensign, once a rising GOP star who was talked about as a potential
presidential candidate, to resign from the Senate.
He stepped down the day before he was scheduled to be questioned under
oath by the ethics investigators, and apologized to his colleagues for
being "arrogant."
---
What is he apologizing for? It's not a crime to be a retard or
supported by other retards.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
LOTS of precedent, before and after 1941, which was the last time.
On May 14, 1:39 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What's So Important About a Declaration of War?byTom Mullen, May 14, 2011
> Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists that the U.S. government shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say that obtaining a declaration should be a requirement before military action is authorized.
> I'm not sure that this is resonating with those who are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that Congress agrees to the use of the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president "asking permission" from Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially consideringH.J. Res. 114of October 2002. With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?
> The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a "declaration" has nothing to do with "permission." Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something thatalreadyexists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States isalready at war.
> The intent of the declaration-of-war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the "verdict" and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.
> Herein lies the difference between H.J. Res. 114 and a declaration of war. In order for President Bush to have obtained a declaration of war against Iraq, he would have had to present his case that Iraq hadalreadycommitted overt acts of war against the United States. Like a prosecutor, he would have had to convince the "jury" (Congress) that Iraq was guiltynot of "possessing weapons of mass destruction" but of havingalready committed aggression against the United States. Obviously, he would not have been able to do this. In fact, the absence of any overt acts of war by the nations in question is the reason that there were no declarations of war against Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, or any other nation that the U.S. government has waged war against since WWII.
> The declaration-of-war power requires the government to obey the moral principle that no individual or group mayinitiateforce against another. It mandates that before the executive can launch a military action against another nation, a separate body must deliberate on evidence and agree that said nation has committed aggression against the United States. Only then is waging war justified.
> This interpretation is supported by every declaration of war in U.S. history. Here are two examples.
> When James Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico in 1846,he said the following:"But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nationsare now at war.
> "As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country. …
> "In further vindication of our rights and defense of our territory, I invoke the prompt action of Congressto recognize the existence of the war, and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace."[Emphasis added.]
> After reviewing Polk's request, Congress issued the followingdeclaration of war[.pdf]:"Whereas,by the actof the Republic of Mexico,a state of war existsbetween that Government and the United States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination…."[Emphasis added.]
> Note the words in bold. The state of waralreadyexistsbecause of theactof the Republic of Mexico.
> Americans are probably most familiar with the last occasion on which the United States declared war. In what may have been the only constitutional act of his entire presidency, President Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan duringthis famous speech:"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
> "Yesterday, December 7th, 1941a date which will live in infamythe United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
> "The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.… Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."In response, Congressresolved[.pdf],"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."Every other past declaration of war by the United States government follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that waralreadyexists. It then directs the president to use the militaryto end the war.
> Had this constitutional process been followed, the United States would not have been involved in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, or Afghanistan. The declaration-of-war power ensures that the U.S. government neverinitiatesforce but only uses the military to defend its citizens against an aggressor.
> Following the Constitution on this point would have kept the United States out of every war since World War II and prevented the U.S. government from running up a large portion of its current debt. Abiding by the nonaggression principle is not only moral, but also cost-effective.
> During the South Carolina Republican primary debate on May 5, Herman Cain articulated his position on the government's war powers. He stated that, as president, he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met:
> 1. There was a clear objective.
> 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question.
> 3. There was a clear path to victory.
> While his comments clearly excited the audience panel interviewed after the debate, Adolph Hitler's wars would have satisfied these requirements. Are those the only criteria upon which the U.S. government should base its decision to go to war? How about, "They attacked us"? That should be the one and only casus belli.
> Going to war without a declaration of war is not only aggression against the nation in question, but also against every U.S. taxpayer. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite the protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only reason that they should be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons,including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States "the land of the free."http://original.antiwar.com/tom-mullen/2011/05/13/whats-so-important-about-a-declaration-of-war/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
It is about Islam, this guy has personal experience and it is beginning to happen in the US of A.
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/14/geert-wilders-speech-in-nashville-tennesse/
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
Sinclair Lewis
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The new tactic of placing broad distance between the President and news gathering entities is cause for concern. Red flags are going off in the heads of liberty-oriented citizens who see danger in the growing reluctance of the Administration to provide the public critical information concerning its actions.
It has become common knowledge among observers of the Administration that much goes on in the shadows, away from public knowledge, in what is known as 'the shadow government.' With Obama this entails not only billionaire movers and shakers who share his vision for a new world order but outright Marxists who give the President advice on a regular basis. The Cabinet has been rendered useless in this regime. Instead Obama relies on 'czars' and unpopular rejects from the White House staff who officially resigned under pressure from the public but still feed Obama information on policy initiatives. These persons include Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Valerie Jarrett, and Samantha Power--the wife of Sunstein who is now directing foreign policy in the Middle East and is widely viewed as the master-mind behind the push to allow Muslim extremist groups to come to power in Egypt and other nations in the region, and who reportedly is rabidly anti-Israel.
But now the White House has begun to choke off news stories that were previously allowed.
One observer says this tactic is being used to save the Obama Administration from some major embarrassments:
www.examiner.com
"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
This stat that you posted, purportedly "12.9 billion on 09-29-1993, including $2.5 Billion To Russia" didn't happen. Here is the Bill that passed, for $13.51 Billion, and that Gingrich voted for. Note that there was no funds alotted to Russia. The $12.9 Billion that alotted money to Russia, Gingrich voted "Nay" and the Bill did not pass:Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that appropriates $13.51 billion for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for fiscal year 1994.
Highlights:
- Prohibits use of funds for abortions as a method of family planning, or for any program or organization that motivates or coerces any individual to practice abortion, or performs involuntary sterilizations
- Excludes Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Iran, Serbia, Sudan, and Syria from any federal funding
- Bars bilateral assistance funds to any nation that supports terrorism or provides a haven for terrorists
- Prohibits funds to any nation that refuses to comply with the United Nations-imposed sanctions against Iraq, unless the President determines that the provided funds are used in the national interest of the U.S. or benefits the people of Iraq
- Prohibits funds from being used to pay for assessments, arrearages, or dues for any United Nations member
- Bans funds to any government that supplies "lethal military equipment" to any nation supporting international terrorism
- Prohibits funding from programs that entice businesses to relocate outside the U.S. and decrease the number of American employees
- $6.13 billion for the Agency for International Development, including $2.36 billion for the economic support fund, $811.9 million for the development assistance fund, and $603.82 million for assistance to new independent states of the former Soviet Union
- $3.15 billion for the foreign military financing program
- $835.19 million for the State Department, including $670.69 million for migration and refugee assistance, $100 million for international narcotics control
- $360.63 million for international organizations and programs
- $219.75 million for the Peace Corps
Link to Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:hr2295:
Full Text of Legislation (PDF Document)
House Passage: 06/17/1993 : Bill Passed: 309 - 111 (Roll no. 240)
Senate Passage With Amendment: 09/23/1993 : Bill Passed: 88 - 10 (Record Vote Number 287)
House Conference Report Vote: 09/29/1993 : Conference Report Adopted 321 - 108 (Roll no. 467)
Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/30/1993 : Conference Report Adopted: 88 - 11 (Record Vote Number 297)
President Passage: 09/30/1993 : Signed Became Public Law Number 103-87
Sponsor:Rep. Obey, David Ross (D-WI) (out of office)===============================So, once again, I have established that those who claim Gingrich is a "Big Tax, Big Spending, Big Government conservative, are either, (1) Wacko Left, Socialst/Elitist Moonbats with an agenda, or (2) Wacko Right, Conspiratorialist Crackpots with an agenda. In any case, the facts reveal that Gingrich does not support and never has supported large government involvement in Americans' lives!
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,
It is you who needs to get his facts straight. In four instances the votes you claim as nay or against are not even listed at the links you provided. In another instance you provided an incorrect link. The correct link, however, shows a yea vote. In two others you claim nay votes when in fact yea votes were cast.
INLINE:Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
On 05/13/2011 11:52 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:Hello Jonathan!I love this, "Let's Review":Just some examples of his big government votes:
03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;Voted For; And I agree with the vote, this turned out to be profitable for the United States and its taxpayers;
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps;Voted Against: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=43&go.x=21&go.y=11
Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=27&go.x=11&go.y=5
09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
Foreign Aid:
06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;Your link is bad - this vote not listed.06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=1406-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia;Nay: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
Well, you got one right!
08-04-1994 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1995.
Yea: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
=========Get your facts correct Jonathan, which means staying off of the Moonbat and Crackpot sites that you and Michael seem to enjoy so much!On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,
Holding Gingrich out as a defender of small government by accepting what he says as opposed to what he has actually done does not seem very bright on your part.
Gingrich had mediocre Conservative Index ratings:
96th Congress: 85
97th Congress: 77
98th Congress: 74
99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80
101st Congress: 57
100nd Congress: 60
103rd Congress: 78
Just some examples of his big government votes:
03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps;
10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;
09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
Foreign Aid:
06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;
06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;
06-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;
08-06-1992 - $12.3 billion for the IMF.
06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia;
08-04-1994 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1995.
I could likely spend most of the day finding his pro-big government votes.
On 05/13/2011 01:20 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:To prove my point, I will take the time to refute another one of your dumb, "cut and paste" posts.As usual, Michael took an article from a Moonbat, Tom Woods, who quotes another Moonbat, Bob Wenzel, in their bashing of Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the crux of the articles amount to nothing other than some name calling, specifically that Mr. Gingrich is a weasel.Let's review:First, Woods cites Wentzel's "brief" article as being somehow "sharp" and "insightful". Here's what Wentzel said, according to Woods, the, "brief, sharp insightful" article in its entirety:"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,The Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
A Gingrich snippet:
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies
Aside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government."========Obviously, both Wentzel and Woods are either just total ignoramuses, and/or they are purposely attempting to besmirch Mr. Gingrich's long record and established policy of smaller federal government. For example, here is a speech from just two months ago, on Mr. Gingrich's policies on smaller, limited federal government:"We need to declare our independence from trying to protect and defend failed bureaucracies that magically become ours as soon as we are in charge of them. We appoint solid conservatives to a department and within three weeks they are defending and protecting the very department that they would have been attacking before they got appointed.I think that there are two grave lessons for the conservative movement since 1980. The first, which we still haven't come to grips with, is that governing..."
Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 9, 2008
- Change the mindset of big government by replacing bureaucratic public administration with Entrepreneurial Public Management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, & efficiency of the information age.
- Balance the federal budget and insist on a lean government, low tax, low interest rate economy to maximize growth.
- Insist on congressional reform to make the legislative branch responsive to the needs of the 21st century.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org, “Issues” Sep 1, 2007 ============= I could go on and on showing and demonstrating Mr. Gingrich's belief that our federal government is out of control, and that both Woods and Wentzel are Moonbats. As a matter of fact, why don't you Google both men and see what their credentials are? You will find that they are not qualified any more than you or I, to be espousing their misinformation.So, the point being, is that the next time you cut and paste an article that you expect some kind of thoughtful feedback on, maybe you should start trying to post a little more thoughtful cut and paste articles?--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Watch host Steve Samblis every Friday as he brings you the top three newly
released movies of the week.
http://click.lavabit.com/es317zgkwbdtcdhd83676dnqtnqnqdrh9rezkdn8sz1ri83n9hry/
--
Freedom is always illegal!
When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free."Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Find: Web Services. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/ccoof4qaak15r1w1r5igya3rthn4fhxxb3h1n1wq5ch6br7qawxy/
--
Freedom is always illegal!
When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free."Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Find: College. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/44mk5zf8fewzqdpjtiaqzeu7rapprs8k6ig341a8a6rbgki3o3ty/
"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
