That's about how likely that scenario will be anyway.
--
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.
Travisty, unfortunately this is not the case nor will it be no matter
how much you wish it to be true.
I mean, you hate America more than the avergae American, but you're
just a ridiculous hick for the most part.
Not only can't China sell that amount of securities to other countries
(assuming of course said countries would/could even buy it),
but China would then lose most all of it's export market, thus ruining
their own economy.
--
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.
their countries ... their problems
On Jun 3, 12:46 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Obama Flouts the War Powers ResolutionbySheldon Richman, June 3, 2011
> NATO announced that the Libyan intervention will be extended for another three months. So what President Obama said would be a matter of days, not weeks, will in fact last many months. It's safe to assume that Western powers will be meddling there a year from now.
> One thing we know for sure, however, is that the U.S. intervention is doubly illegal. Obama had no legal authority to enter the war, and given that he entered it anyway, the 1973 War Powers Resolution required that on May 20 60 days after the intervention began Obama either procure authorization from Congress or cease all operations.
> He asked for a resolution, but Congress has not complied. In fact a bipartisan move is afoot to demand withdrawal from Libya. The Republican leadership blocked that resolution from a vote. So Obama is prosecuting a war without congressional approval beyond the 60-day limit. That's illegal.
> The founders of this country were concerned about warmaking. Thus, the Constitution gives only the Congress the power to declare and appropriate money for war. But since 1942 no president has asked Congress for a declaration of war. (Blank-check "authorizations" don't count.) The War Powers Resolution was a half-hearted attempt to restore some measure of congressional authority over warmaking. But no president has accepted it, and members of Congress generally have been scared to resist a president.
> So presidents have repeatedly gotten away with lawlessness. As Glenn Greenwald notes, that does not make new violations lawful.
> Under the War Powers Resolution a president can commit troops to combat on his own say-soonlyin "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Thus the Libyan intervention is illegal.
> What does the administration say? "[The] President had the constitutional authority to direct the use of force in Libya because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest," a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memorandum states.
> In other words, if a president judges a military operation in the national interest, he mayon his owncommit forces.
> The only problem is thatthe War Powers Resolution forbids that.
> What about the 60-day rule? According to the New York Times, "Administration officials offered no theory for why continuing the air war in Libya in the absence of Congressional authorization and beyond the deadline would be lawful."
> The closest we got to a justification came from Jay Carney, the press secretary, who said that the commentary about the Resolution "could fill this room, and none of it would be conclusive." Even if that were true, the interests of the American people demand a presumption in favor of dispersed, rathen than concentrated, power.
> The Times quoted the Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who ran the Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, on the unprecedented nature of Obama's action: "There may be facts of which we are unaware, but this appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution's requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress's support."
> Some of the president's allies argue that that the Resolution doesn't apply because deadly drone attacks (which have killed noncombatants) and the U.S. supporting role for NATO don't constitute warfare! But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said, "Even today, the United States continues to fly 25 percent of all sorties. We continue to provide the majority of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets."
> That looks like war.
> Some may wonder why Obama didn't ask Congress for authorization, since he could surely have gotten it. Greenwald knows why: "The Obama White House is simply choosing not to seek it because Obama officials want to bolster the unrestrained power of the imperial presidency entrenched by [the Bush administration]."
> It would behoove Obama to heed his own the words, spoken when he ran for president: "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are.... We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers."
> We're waiting, Mr. President.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106d.asp
--
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.
On Jun 3, 1:53 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> outside the authority of government. The best short summary of the
> ideals of my New Constitution are in the New 'Pledge to Allegiance toThe Pledge of Allegiance to Socialism and Imperialismby Jacob G. Hornberger
> Since everyone is discussing the socialism of the Obama administration, it seems to me that this would be a good time to discuss the Pledge of Allegiance.
> Why the Pledge?
> Well, because the pledge was written by a socialist named Francis Bellamy. He was the cousin of Edward Bellamy, the author of the 1888 novelLooking Backward,which was a paean to socialism
> Now, I know that just because something was written by a socialist doesn't necessarily make it bad, but isn't it enough to at least raise a red (or pink) flag?
> Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892, the period in which American "progressives" were actively supporting the socialist principles that would later come to be adopted by both the Democrat and Republican parties.
> Bellamy promoted the use of the pledge in the public (i.e., government) schools. Needless to say, this is not surprising, given that the primary aim of government schools everywhere is to produce the good, little citizen one whose mind is molded and bent to a state of conformity and submissiveness to the government.
> Here are Bellamy's instructions as to how the pledge was to be implemented in the public schools, as quoted in an excellent article entitled "What's Conservative About the Pledge of Allegiance?" by Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute:"At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it.... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side."Now, take a look atthis photographof American schoolchildren delivering the Pledge of Allegiance in an American classroom. Do you notice anything special about the manner in which they are pledging allegiance to the flag?
> If not, then take a look atthis photographand see if you can't see a similarity between the two photographs.
> And if you still don't get the point, take a look atthis photograph.
> The point is this: the salute that an American socialist taught American schoolchildren to deliver during the Pledge of Allegiance is the same as the salute that Germans were later taught to use in their pledge to their country's National Socialist regime. How ironic is that?
> For some reason, U.S. officials later decided to change the Pledge of Allegiance salute to having American students putting their hands on their hearts in place of stretching their arms in front of them.
> The Pledge of Allegiance has become a permanent fixture in American life, not only in the public schools but also at many adult functions. The irony is that it doesn't even accurately portray the situation in America, given that Americans, after the adoption of the pledge, abandoned a free-market economic system in favor of a socialistic welfare state and a limited-government republic in favor of an extensive overseas military empire.
> To more accurately reflect reality, perhaps the Pledge of Allegiance should be amended, as follows:
> "I pledge allegiance to the government of the United States and to its socialism, militarism, and imperialism, one system over God, indivisible by force, with liberty through paternalism and justice through tribunal."
> Better yet, how about a libertarian revolution in America, one in which economic liberty is restored to our land, the socialistic welfare state is repealed entirely, school and state are completely separated, the empire is dismantled and the republic is restored, and the socialist-inspired Pledge of Allegiance is cast into the dustbin of history?http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-07-24.asp
--
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.
On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
> that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's
> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine
> the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate
> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our
> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama's being in the White
> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile,
> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
> without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll
> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
> Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! — J. A.
> Armistead — Patriot
>
> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> > Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an anti-democracy and anti-
> > Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate
> > is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We
> > could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> > cross Main Street! — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> > > The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> > > Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> > > Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> > > -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> > > senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> > > The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> > > Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> > > main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> > > the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the
> > > senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that
> > > constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those
> > > constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play
> > > and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court,
> > > wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People,
> > > is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem
> > > committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to
> > > think. — J. A. A. —
>
> > > On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> > > > the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has
> > > > never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> > > > means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> > > > is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population
> > > > states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and
> > > > always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional.
> > > > What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement between Sovereign States. The Senate is THEIR representative body. Amendment 17 curtailed yet another check on Federal power.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > > The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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.
Alwan wasn't even necessarily referring to the foreign troops
occupying his country, but rather to the craven and despicable
policymakers who had sent them there
---
we can thank Wolfowitz and Libby for this mess
On Jun 3, 12:56 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> He Didn't Say 'Infidels': Homeland Security Theater, Continuedby William Norman GriggThe word has a very distinct connotation. There's nothing else that quite captures it.... Give me one word that captures the same image. One word. You name it, and I will use it.~ Defense attorney Robin Weathersarguing for the admissibility of a profoundly vulgar epithet involving the emunctory orifice in the filmFrom the Hip.
> A few months after Iraqi national Waad Ramadan Alwanwas allowed to immigrate to the U.S. as a refugee, he found himself unwittingly cast in a leading role in yet another installment ofHomeland Security Theater.
> Someoneidentified in the criminal complaintas a "Confidential Human Source" (CHS) in the FBI's employ – that is, a bit player from theBureau's large and ever-expanding troupe of agent provocateursand "terrorism facilitators" – approached then-28-year-old Alwan to recruit him into an effort to aid mujahadeen fighters in Iraq.
> The script written by the Louisville Joint Terrorism Task Force called for the FBI's asset to pose as a representative of an unnamed "Hajii" with connections to Iraqi insurgents. After Alwan had been lured into the pseudo-plot, the role-playing stooge added a final decorative detail by claiming that he received money from Osama bin Laden – a claim that neither impressed nor interested the Iraqi, according to the account provided in the criminal complaint.
> The Bureau's bit player proposed thatAlwan, who had taken up residence in Bowling Green, Kentucky,help train Iraqi insurgents in the manufacture and use of IEDs, and assist in smuggling weapons and a large amount of money to Iraq.
> Alwan was let into the country in April 2009. A few weeks later, 21-year-old Iraqi
> Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, who would be recruited by Alwan into the federally-choreographed "conspiracy," arrived in the U.S. The FBI operation began just a few weeks later after Alwan's arrival. The criminal complaint against Alwan states that he began "notionally assisting" the supposed plot "beginning in 2010."
> At least 19,000 Iraqi refugees were admitted to the United States that year; why was Alwan of particular interest to the Bureau? One possible answer is found in the fact that Alwan, a one-time employee at an electrical plant in Bayji, was a known insurgent.
> From 2003-2006 Alwan took part in a number of ambushes involving IEDs, and was arrested by security personnel after one operation went awry. His fingerprints had been found on a wireless telephone base station used in an IED that failed to go off. That dud IED was found by occupation forces in September 2005.
> Federal prosecutors have charged Alwan and Hammadi with several crimes – including "Conspiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction,"a category of armaments that includes any destructive device, no matter how trivial its yield, fashioned by anybody other that the United States government. The prosecutors refuse to say why the two Iraqis were let into the country, whether Alwan's arrest in Iraq was known to federal officials, or what prompted the Bureau to target them for a "sting" operation.Res ipsa loquitir: Alwan and Hammadi were allowed to enter the U.S. for the precise purpose of being lured into an FBI false flag operation. That conclusion is suggested by the circumstantial evidence in this specific case, and justified by the fact that every significant "terrorist plot" supposedly disrupted by the FBI since 9/11has been a Federal Government production.
> In making its pitch to potential patsies, the FBI is too smart to appeal to the seething hatred of all infidels that supposedly festers inside every young Muslim male. Instead,they exploit the perfectly understandable and thoroughly human resentment provoked by Washington's invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.
> Were Peter King –former fundraiserforthe most violent faction of the terrorist IRA– an honest man rather than a feckless demagogue, his hearings regarding the"radicalization of American Muslims"would focus on the unparalleled success enjoyed by the FBI in recruiting once-peaceable Muslim men into ersatz terrorist plots. The Bureau has isolated a formula that works: Rather than trying to rile up Muslims over the decadence of American culture and the general impudence of the infidels, FBI-trained provocateurs focus instead on the horrific human cost of Washington's foreign policy.
> In the case of Alwan and Hammadi, the Regime was given the gift of two young Iraqi males who had already been pre-radicalized as a result of their life experiences.
> Alwan was born in 1981 – the year after Saddam Hussein, in his role as Washington's regional subcontractor,began his war with Iran– with Washington's covert encouragement andmaterial assistance. Alwan was still in diapers whenthe Reagan administration removed Saddam's government from the roster of terrorism-supporting regimes, which permitted Washington to begin plying Baghdad with military and financial aid.
> When Alwan was two years old,Donald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad as a presidential emissary, laden with promises of subsidies, military aid, and other forms of material and moral support. Thisincluded transfers of dual-use technology to Iraqi nuclear facilities, andtacit support for Iraq's development and use of chemical weapons(even thoughWashington acknowledged that this would provoke Iran to expand its own use of chemical munitions).
> In 1984, when Alwan was a toddler, President Reagan issuedNational Security Decision Directive 139, which made preventing the "collapse" of Saddam's abominable police state a strategic priority.
> Although – or, perhaps, because – the war turned out disastrously for Iraq,Saddam continued to be a specially favored beneficiary of Washington's imperial largesseuntil literally the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During the 12-year intermission in the Persian Gulf war, Washington imposed a deadly embargo that further entrenched Saddam's rule while consigning hundreds of thousands of young Iraqis – many of them Alwan's age – to an early death through avoidable illness or starvation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RM0uvgHKZe8Like millions of other Iraqis of the same age, Alwan has no memory of a time when his country wasn't either at war with Washington, or involved in a war as a result of Washington's chicanery. During the 1990s, his country was ravaged by a murderous embargo that was punctuated with airstrikes and missile assaults, even as Washington very thoughtfully cattle-penned Saddam's domestic opposition and allowed the dictator to slaughter them (something made clear inthe account offered by former CIA operative Robert Baer).
> Alwan was 22 years old when the distant government that had visited such favors on his country invaded Iraq to remove the middleman. In a fit of ingratitude that would be inexplicable to neo-conservatives and others unfamiliar with the rudiments of human motivation, Alwan was among those who chose to greet the "liberators" with IEDs and high-velocity rounds fired from a sniper rifle, rather than flowers and sweets.
> The people on the receiving end of Alwan's attacks were Americans. They should not have been there. They had no right to be there, and no authority – moral or legal – to employ violence to force Iraqis like Alwan to submit to them. The policymakers who sent them to Iraq, thereby putting them in a morally untenable and physically vulnerable position, are criminals who should be put in the dock for mass murder and crimes against the Constitution.
> The grand jury indictment against Alwan accuses him of conspiring to murder "United States nationals outside the United States" by using "weapons of mass destruction" – that is, crude, low-yield IEDs.
> The sight of an American who has been maimed, blinded, or killed by an IED set by an Iraqi insurgent is unbearable, and this moral conclusion is just as unavoidable: The people who set that charge aren't terrorists; they're patriots fighting on their home soil against a prohibitively stronger foreign aggressor. If America were on the receiving end of a similar "liberation," American patriots would provide a similar welcome to our uninvited benefactors.
> Ina typically onanistic and self-congratulatory statementannouncing the arrests of Alwan and Hammadi, David J. Hale, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky, said that the Feds are prepared "to pursue terrorists wherever in the United States they may be found.... Whether they seek shelter in a major metropolitan area or in a smaller city in Kentucky,those who would attempt to harm or kill Americans abroadwill face a determined and prepared law enforcement effort ... to bring them to justice." (Emphasis added.)
> Note well that these two purported terroristswere not accused of plotting to kill unsuspecting Americans anywhere within the United States; they were allegedly plotting to kill the heavily armed, well-protected military personnel who still occupy their home country. If they had been consumed by an unconquerable desire to smite the American infidels wherever they could be found, they had no shortage of opportunities here.
> In any case, rather than congratulating the Feds for their vigilance, we should be demanding to know why they knowingly permitted Alwan, a purported mass murder, into the country to begin with. After all, isn't the supposed purpose of occupying Iraq to "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here"? But, once again, the critical fact is that these Iraqis had no interest in pursuing vengeance against Americans who are simply minding our own business.
> As one telling exchange with the FBI's agent provocateur illustrates, Alwan didn't lavish hostility on all infidels, or even on Americans in general; instead, he apparently focused it on a small, selective sub-population.
> During a meeting last November 8, according to the criminal complaint, the FBI's undercover asset told Alwan "to pick up weapons from a storage facility, place them in bags, and deliver them" to a waiting vehicle.
> "You will be shocked with the RPGs," the provocateur boasted. "It is almost like you see in the movies."
> "Yes, the a**holes built it?" Alwan inquired, prompting the FBI's stooge to reply, "Yeah, yeah – it is American."
> That epithet, once again,wasn't"infidels." It's also pretty clear that Alwan wasn't applying that insult to Americans in general, but rather to those he blamed for turning his country into a perpetual spectacle of violence, disease, terror, and tyranny. Whywouldn'the perceive such people as – well, you know...?
> Every human being has the potential to earn that designation, and nearly all of us qualify at some point in our lives. Government, said James Madison, is the "largest of all reflections on human nature." Given that the behavior of human beings invested with power is invariably asinine rather than angelic, Madison's metaphor would work better if it employed aproctoscope, rather than a mirror.
> If I take his meaning correctly, Alwan wasn't even necessarily referring to the foreign troops occupying his country, but rather to the craven and despicable policymakers who had sent them there, and the corporatist parasites who profit from State-orchestrated bloodshed – which includes the death and dismemberment of American troops sent somewhere they didn't belong to carry out a mission they shouldn't have been given against a population that never harmed or threatened us in any way.
> In describing people capable of orchestrating atrocities of that kind, there simply isn't a suitable substitute for the expression Alwan employed.http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/06/he-didnt-say-infidels-homeland-security.html
--
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.
Dear MJ: What qualifies you to sit is judgment? Because Political
Forum requires that only members can reply, that prevents the majority
of readers from getting a voice. Also, since I must take so much
flack from jealous ones like you and Jonathan, people stay mum to
avoid getting picked on by you maniacs. MJ, cut out the over-sized
words and proof your replies, and I might be more considerate of your
ideas. — J. A. A. —
>
On Jun 2, 9:34 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You miss the point AND you are likely too close to see in the detail that has been provided you.
> You have stated a goal of X. You presented words that purport to meet X. Members of this forum have pointed at and elucidated for you how those words you presented and imagine fulfill X simply do not. Some have gone further to modify those words so that they might actually fulfill that stated goal.
> Lots of people cling desperately regardless of home many times they are shown to be incorrect. It hardly seems keeping with you overall goal to IGNORE reality with impunity.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power -- whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government -- could act in a way of which he himself disapproves." -- Ludwig von MisesAt 08:25 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:J. Ashley: As you should well know, I willingly explain my New
> Constitution. But I am its author, and I alone determine its
> content. There shall never be a "debate phase" that allows an
> anarchist like you to have any say-so on anything! — J. A. A. —
> >
--
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.
911 was all they needed to further their agenda
On Jun 3, 12:56 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Perpetual War Is a Bigger Threat Than TerrorismByConor Friedersdorf
> May 31 2011, 11:45 AM ETNeither Barack Obama nor his Republican challengers have a strategy for victory and peaceIn a scathing Memorial Day jeremiad against American foreign policy, Andrew Bacevicharguesthat elected officials are exploiting the troops by sending them to war when doing so isn't necessary. His whole article is worth a read, but one passage is so striking that it merits special attention:As the 10th anniversary of what Americans once called their Global War on Terror approaches, a plausible, realistic blueprint for bringing that enterprise to a conclusion does not exist.Isn't that something? He's absolutely right. There isn't even the equivalent of Richard Nixon's secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. Or popular demand for one (thebest effortsof my colleague notwithstanding).
> As Professor Bacevich puts it:Those who might once have felt some responsibility for articulating such a plan--the president, his chief lieutenants, senior military leaders--no longer feel any obligation to do so. As a practical matter, they devote themselves to war's perpetuation, closing one front while opening another. More strikingly still, we the people allow our leaders to evade this basic responsibility to articulate a plan for peace. By implication, we endorse the unspoken assumption that peace has become implausible.Our thought process is as follows: terrorism is a threat, and it justifies waging war anywhere on earth where there are terrorists. As we all know, however, it's impossible to kill every last terrorist. Thus the war on terrorism rolls on. Even if we leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it'll continue.
> Give the hawks their due: terrorism is an ongoing threat to the United States. In fact, it's likely to pose a bigger threat with every year that passes, insofar as technological advances are permitting people with meager resources to obtain ever deadlier weapons. Heaven forbid they get a nuke or a killer virus. What the hawks fail to recognize, however, is that perpetual war poses a bigger threat to the citizenry of a superpower than does terrorism. Already it ishelping to bankrupt usfinancially,undermining our civil liberties,corroding our values, triggeringabusive prosecutions,empoweringthe executive branch in ways that are anathema to the system of checks and balances implemented by the Founders, and causing us todegrade one another.
> Despite a decade without a major terrorist attack, the government continues to claim ever broader powers and to spend billions more in treasure. So what do things look like after another decade? Or after another major terrorist attack? Or when the Oval Office is occupied by someone who wields powers President Obama already claims in an even more abusive fashion?
> All the metrics I mentioned are bound to get worse until Americans demand more than improved tactics, or an exit strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the assurance that a leader will do what is necessary to keep us safe. Though terrorism will always threaten us -- as it always has -- the American people should demand an exit strategy in the war on terrorism, and an approach to safeguarding the homeland that isn't likely to bring about our fiscal ruin, the loss of our liberty, and the corrosion of our morals. Being far more powerful than our enemies, we pose the biggest threat to ourselves.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/perpetual-war-is-a-bigger-threat-than-terrorism/239671/
--
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.
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version
of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated
February 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times
on March 7, 1992, and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign
and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist
as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive
military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and
prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
they're agenda was a veiled attempt to protect israel ... it must be
abolished
On Jun 3, 1:23 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> How America Screws Its SoldiersbyAndrew J. BacevichEveryone claims to "Support Our Troops." But as Andrew J. Bacevich explains, telling the military it can do whatever it wants works for everyoneexcept for the soldiers themselves.Riders on Boston subways and trolleys are accustomed to seeing placards that advertise research being conducted at the city's many teaching hospitals. One that recently caught my eye, announcing an experimental "behavioral treatment," posed this question to potential subjects: "Are you in the U.S. military or a veteran disturbed by terrible things you have experienced?"
> Just below the question, someone had scrawled this riposte in blue ink: "Thank God for these Men and Women. USA all the way."
> Here on a 30 x 36 inch piece of cardboard was the distilled essence of the present-day relationship between the American people and their military. In the eyes of citizens, the American soldier has a dual identity: as hero but also as victim. As victimsWounded Warriors soldiers deserve the best care money can buy; hence, the emphasis beingpaid to issues like PTSD. As heroes, those who serve and sacrifice embody the virtues that underwrite American greatness. They therefore merit unstinting admiration.
> Whatever practical meaning the slogan "support the troops" may possess, it lays here: in praise expressed for those choosing to wear the uniform, and in assistance made available to those who suffer as a consequence of that choice.
> As the 10th anniversary of what we used to call the Global War on Terror approaches, a plausible, realistic blueprint for bringing that enterprise to a conclusion does not exist.
> From the perspective of the American people, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it entails no real obligations or responsibilities. Face it: It costs us nothing yet enables us to feel good about ourselves. In an unmerited act of self-forgiveness, we thereby expunge the sin of the Vietnam era when opposition to an unpopular war found at least some Americans venting their unhappiness on the soldiers sent to fight it. The homeward-bound G.I. spat upon by spoiled and impudent student activists may be an urban legend, but the fiction persists and has long since trumped reality.
> Today such egregious misbehavior has become unimaginable. Even if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not especiallypopular or successful, no one blames the troops. Instead we cheer them, pray for them, and let them go to the front of the line when passing through airport security. And we take considerable satisfaction in doing so.
> From the perspective of those who engineer America's wars, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it obviates any need for accountability. For nearly a decade now, popular willingness to "support the troops" has provided unlimited drawing rights on the United States Treasury.
> Since 9/11, in waging its various campaigns, overt and covert, the United States military has expendedhundreds of billions of (mostly borrowed) dollars. By the time the last invoice gets paid, the total will be in the trillions. Is the money being well spent? Are we getting good value? Is it possible that some of the largesse showered on U.S. forces trying to pacify Kandahar could be better put to use in helping to rebuild Cleveland? Given the existing terms of the civil-military relationship, even to pose such questions is unseemly. For politicians sending soldiers into battle, generals presiding over long, drawn-out, inconclusive campaigns, and contractors reaping large profits as a consequence, this war-comes-first mentality is exceedingly agreeable.
> One wonders how many of those serving in the ranks are taken in by this fraud. The relationship between American people and their militarywe love you; do whatever you wantseems to work for everyone. Everyone, that is, except soldiers themselves. They face the prospect of war without foreseeable end.
> Americans once believed war to be a great evil. Whenever possible, war was to be avoided. When circumstances made war unavoidable, Americans wanted peace swiftly restored.
> Present-day Americans, few of them directly affected by events in Iraq or Afghanistan, find war tolerable. They accept it. Since 9/11, war has become normalcy. Peace has become an entirely theoretical construct. A report of G.I.s getting shot at, maimed, or killed is no longer something the average American gets exercised about. Rest assured that no such reports will interfere with plans for the long weekend that Memorial Day makes possible.
> Members of the civil-military-corporate elite find war more than tolerable. Within its ranks, as Chris Hedges has noted, war imparts meaning and excitement to life. It serves as a medium through which ambitions are fulfilled and power is accrued and exercised. In Washington, the benefits offered by war's continuation easily outweigh any benefits to be gained by ending war. So why bother to try?
> As the 10th anniversary of what Americans once called their Global War on Terror approaches, a plausible, realistic blueprint for bringing that enterprise to a conclusion does not exist. Those who might once have felt some responsibility for articulating such a planthe president, his chief lieutenants, senior military leadersno longer feel any obligation to do so. As a practical matter, they devote themselves to war's perpetuation, closing one front while opening another. More strikingly still, we the people allow our leaders to evade this basic responsibility to articulate a plan for peace. By implication, we endorse the unspoken assumption that peace has become implausible.
> Here at last we come to the dirty little secret that underlines all the chatter about "supporting the troops." The people in charge don't really believe that the burdens borne by our soldiers will ever end and they are not really looking for ways to do so. As for the rest of us, well, we're OK with that.Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-28/memorial-day-how-america-screws-its-soldiers/#
--
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.
MJ: "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth." People with a conscience
(not you) have an innate sense of right and wrong. Words that I say
that aren't hurtful to ordinary people will ring true. But your big
ego won't let anyone (other than you) have a good idea. If YOUR
motives were pure, you wouldn't care who comes up with things. You'd
only care that great solutions to problems have been found! — J. A.
A. —
>
On Jun 2, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You do grasp that MOTIVES are quite different from RESULTS?
> If you can find one million people to agree with
> you that 2+2=5 ... will it make it so?
>
> You are continuing to 'bird walk' away from your
> errant claims. As already concluded, you simply
> cannot support your deficient efforts.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> At 04:39 PM 6/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Tell me, MJ, if there are deficiencies in MY New Constitution, then,
> >why are you the only one trying to point those out? This Memorial
> >Week vacation has the readership down. But I'll bet you a Big Mac
> >that you can't find a named soul who will agree with you that my
> >motives aren't pure. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/browse_thread/thread/eb ...
>
> >On May 27, 11:34 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > IOW, you cannot support your claims which
> > have been demonstrated to be deficient.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > "Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because
> > they sometimes take a rest" -- Alexander Dumas,
> > author of "The Count of Monte Cristo."At 08:47
> > PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: When a 'child', or
> > someone with less sophistication, keeps
> > > questioning authority by asking, "why?", sometimes the best reply is:
> > > "Because I say so!" You are definitely someone of low
> > > sophistication. So... "Because I say so, kid!" — J. A. A. —
>
> > > On May 26, 1:35 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > You can spew all the fallacious matter you
> > choose, but it remains that you are (hopelessly) confused.
> > > > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the
> > Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
> > for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
> > Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.Note
> > that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the
> > power to determine the Rules of its
> > Proceedings. If that body deems Members with
> > certain affiliations to have certain
> > positions/duties, then such is within its purview.
> > > > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed
> > OUTSIDE of the House itself. This does not make
> > political parties unconstitutional, but instead
> > the advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > > Several major turning points mark the
> > reversal of this [Constitutional enumerated
> > powers] ethic. The first was the passage in
> > 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which
> > permitted a federal income tax. This was the
> > first major tax that was not levied on a
> > proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it
> > allowed Congress a political free ride: It
> > could provide government benefits to many by
> > imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden
> > on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_
> > > > At 11:19 AM 5/26/2011, you wrote:Dear
> > Pigeon-Dung-for-a-Brain, MJ: The SPIRIT of the Constitution
> > > > champions FAIRNESS and equality of the power of INDIVIDUALS to control
> > > > government. The (they were only human) Founding Fathers knew that
> > > > there were rules needing to be made and laws passed to make this
> > > > country function. But those naive Founding Fathers had no idea that
> > > > by giving Congress the 'power' to make its own rules, without any
> > > > controls over what those rules can be, that Congress would so willing
> > > > depart from the sacred SPIRIT of the Constitution that is: "Fair play
> > > > and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Having... "rules"
> > > > that give the power to 'the winning party', and not allocating power
> > > > to individuals equally, is a SUBVERSION of our sacred Representative
> > > > (parity) Republic! There is NO ASPECT OF THE MANDATED STRUCTURE OF
> > > > OUR GOVERNMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE
> > > > CONTROL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!!!
> > > > Congress, nor the President have the power to vote to take power away
> > > > from the People. And Congress, nor the President have the authority
> > > > to do a God-damned THING that is socialist-communist or unfair!!! My
> > > > New Constitution stipulates that no "rule" of Congress can concentrate
> > > > power in the hands of any individual or group beyond one-person-one-
> > > > vote. Political parties, because they are unfair and use leverage NOT
> > > > granted by the Constitution are, and always have been
> > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You would be well advised NOT to question anything
> > > > I have done on behalf of the American People, because there is not a
> > > > Patriot on Earth with my intellect and my devotion to SAVING this
> > > > country!!! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > > On May 25, 9:49 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power
> > > > > structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning
> > > > > party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue
> > > > > voted upon. You are (hopelessly) confused.
> > > > > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the
> > Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
> > for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
> > Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.Note
> > that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the
> > power to determine the Rules of its
> > Proceedings. If that body deems Members with
> > certain affiliations to have certain
> > positions/duties, then such is within its purview.
> > > > > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed
> > OUTSIDE of the House itself. This does not make
> > political parties unconstitutional, but instead
> > the advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
> > > > > Several major turning points mark the
> > reversal of this [Constitutional enumerated
> > powers] ethic. The first was the passage in
> > 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which
> > permitted a federal income tax. This was the
> > first major tax that was not levied on a
> > proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it
> > allowed Congress a political free ride: It
> > could provide government benefits to many by
> > imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden
> > on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >* Visit our other community athttp://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.
No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's
authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine
the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate
was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our
Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama's being in the White
House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile,
career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll
take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! — J. A.
Armistead — Patriot
>
On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an anti-democracy and anti-
> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate
> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We
> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> cross Main Street! — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
> >
> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> > The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> > Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> > Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> > -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> > senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> > The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> > Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> > main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> > the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the
> > senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that
> > constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those
> > constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play
> > and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court,
> > wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People,
> > is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem
> > committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to
> > think. — J. A. A. —
> > >
> > On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> > > the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has
> > > never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> > > means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> > > is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population
> > > states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and
> > > always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional.
> > > What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement between Sovereign States. The Senate is THEIR representative body. Amendment 17 curtailed yet another check on Federal power.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://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.
try again
socialism is for sluggards and cowards
On Jun 3, 1:41 pm, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yep, they sit in front of their T.V with a food stained undershirt
> watching Glenn Beck! Ain't that a hoot? They blame everything on
> government! What a bunch of sad sacks. They hate socialism and yet
> they want welfare to the oil companies! Wow! White power I think!
> Wheeeee!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTU95oI_ZT8
--
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.
outside the authority of government. The best short summary of the
ideals of my New Constitution are in the New 'Pledge to Allegiance to
Socialism and communism are
ruled out for not being fair. So, Democracy on demand can never screw
things up! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
--
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.
