[Art_NJr]

Originally Posted by fujimo

not too hard for a person as smart as you to check congress vote on iraq vote,,,public knowledge,,,only 40 or 50 of YOUR senators voted against giving permission ...hillary voted for ,,,obama against,,,pops

But it's the same type deal as F.D.R. modifiying the "Trading With The Enemy Act" in March, 1933 (look up "Bank Holiday of 1933" & "Presidential Proclamation" 2039 & 2040). Congress voted on legislation they hadn't even read & approved what are now called "Executive Orders" after the fact.

Then go to the Constitution & find the authorization to do that - it ain't there, I promise you - but don't take my word for it, look it up. Also read Senate Report 93-549 (1973) - part of it is online, but the whole book you'll find in a university law library - silver-gray binding, about an inch & 1/2 thick.

The simple fact is we've been under a "declared state of national emergency" since 6 March 1933 & presidents do things not authorized by the Constitution & then get Congress to approve of them. That is complete & total BS - you will NOT find Constitutional authorization to do it 'cause it ain't there.

[Art_NJr]

Let me add the link to Senate Report 93-549 mentioned above - best to read the actual book, but if this don't scare the heck outta you, I don't know what will: Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973

Excerpts (remember this was written in 1973 - it's a lot worse now):

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

* * *

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

Now then - show me where in the Constitution that BS is allowed.

[fujimo]

has nothing to do with what is on paper...etc,,,,what IS and HAS happened is what is for real,,,,YOU can waste your time reading,,,studying,,and preaching YOUR interpretation all you want,,,,but what happens is for real,,,, obviosly well read,,,for what purpose,,, I never spent ,ANY moneys ,,,ANY time,,, or my parents never spent on me,any of either,,,BUT I retired at 47 years old and have not turned a lick since,,,, I have saved more than one life,,,I have worked and they worked for me,,,several police agencies in several states,,, and I have been involved in several lawsuits,,,,never lost one,,, my family just monday ,,,finished the last of 28 court cases involving one child,,, and won,,,21 cases of contempt,,,won,,, in the prosess,,, women applies for,,,gets passport for 9 year old to leave U.S.,,,,NOT HER CHILD,,,, falsified documents to read she is biological mother,,,,she was not married to nor partner of childs mother or father,,,felony,,,rite???? no ,,,told her to return passport to immigration in 10 days,,,,OR ELSE,,,,what the helll,,, why not prosecute,,,,you kno she broke the law,,,NOW according to all of your wasted reading and studying ,,,You kno your laws and CONSTITUTION does not allow this,,,,but it happened ,,,the same as i told you about brandt family,,, this is for real,,,, hope you can accept fact,,,all written is not what can or will happen,,, sh///t happens,,,,pops

[fujimo]

jeez,,,, just read in oregonian,,,5/2/08,,,page A-5,,,the U.S. shot two tomahawk missles into somolia,,,oh and an air strike in kenya,,,damn someone did not read there CONSTITUTION,,,,THIS IS MY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME,,,,POPS

[Art_NJr]

Originally Posted by fujimo

jeez,,,, just read in oregonian,,,5/2/08,,,page A-5,,,the U.S. shot two tomahawk missles into somolia,,,oh and an air strike in kenya,,,damn someone did not read there CONSTITUTION,,,,THIS IS MY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME,,,,POPS

That's fine, Pops & it was never my intention to start or get into an argument, just to give information that the general public does not know. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a major problem with anyone who swears an Oath to uphold & defend the Constitution with absolutely no intention of ever doing it.

[Ultra Al]

Art_Njr I for one appreciate your information. Ignorance was never a solution to anything, reading was never a waste of time. I took that same oath going into the Army and have a copy of the Constitution at my bedside. In the scheme of things it may not make a lick of difference but I think I have at least an idea of what the founders intended and still hope we will someday regain liberty lost rather than drift into total Socialism. I'm just stating my take and appreciate everyone else's right to their opinion. After all, this is the Soap Box. Al

[FlynDutchman]

Originally Posted by Art_NJr

[color="Navy"]BUT - the war has to be Constitutionally authorized to begin with & none of the current wars (including war on terrorism, war on drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al) are. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

You are forgetting the war powers act of 1973....& by the way we haven't had a "declared war" since 1941.....Not to mention that there is no State to declare war against. I've had this same argument with a guy I work with who continually brings up this idea that we are not at war because the congress hasn't declared one. I have had to remind him that he hasn't had to slap an A.L.I.C.E pack on, grab a 16 an run off to some god forsaken land to try & kill anyone before either. Go to a V.A. Hospital, or try to tell one of these guys coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan that we aren't at war. See the response you get.

[Art_NJr]

You are forgetting the war powers act of 1973...

Oh no I'm not & it's just another in a long line of blatantly unconstitutional acts.

... & by the way we haven't had a "declared war" since 1941...

Yes, I know.

Not to mention that there is no State to declare war against.

Sure there is - where do the people intent on destroying the United States come from? Do you think every Japanese, German or Italian citizen during WWII was intent on world domination or destroying the U.S.? But their governments were.

Got a bit of a problem today - enemies come from "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Mexico & we're not about to attack them. Sure, Islamic extremists cross borders all the time - but so did the Japanese. It's real simple - if this or that country's Gov't. sponsors attacks on the U.S., then they are the enemy & Congress has the authority to declare war against them & call up all the forces we have.

I've had this same argument with a guy I work with who continually brings up this idea that we are not at war because the congress hasn't declared one.

Oh, just because Congress hasn't officially declared war doesn't mean there isn't one - actually more than one. But that doesn't make it right either - unless you're a Machivellian "the ends justify the means" type person.

The whole concept of what was a Constitutional Republic was based on "the means justify the ends" & very strict rules of law. And in terms of warfare quite simple - you leave me alone & I'll leave you alone - if we can trade in commerce, that's great - but Lord have mercy on your soul if you ever attack me.

It's a simple fact that when your society has no absolutes it falls apart. But when rules of right & wrong are clearly established, are not changed by which direction the wind is blowing & everybody knows what they are, you have a decent chance of your society lasting.

And have you ever heard the saying, "Those who will not learn from history are damned to repeat it"? Or King Solomon's saying there is nothing new under the sun? Both are 100% correct.

Oh, well it's a different world now - no it isn't. Islamic "brethen" fighting each other goes back 1400 years - worship of the sun & moon gods goes back nearly 6000 - "global warming" isn't new either - the same cycles have repeated over & over again. Not identical, but identifiable & if we choose to "tunnel vision" on just one thing we'll miss the "big picture".

For example, why did the Soviets want Afghanistan? There's a LOT of oil & 3 times as much natural gas in Russia & the former Soviet satellite countries, but no warm-water port to ship from. Building pipelines from countries like Kazakstan, Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan is do-able & Pakistan says you can use my port on the Arabian Sea @ Karachi (for a price) - but - Afghanistan is in the way, isn't it? Have to go thru there to get to the port. Wonder what Halliburton engineers are doing in Afghanistan now? Looking for bin-Laden?

And look @ that point of land that sticks out by Abu-Dhabi, pinching the Persian Gulf down @ the Straight of Hormuz. Who's on the other side? Iran. Shut that point down & you shut off about 1/3 of the world's oil. Who's on "our" side of the Gulf? That'd be Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Iraq. Seeing the "big picture" yet?

Heck - my Dad told me about the "Arab Oil Embargo" years before it happened & why it would happen. I was a teenager back then & global Economics didn't register. But he was right & in my "old age" I understand. I do "tunnel vision" on any project I'm working on as I am not a "multi-tasker", but we do have to look @ the "big picture" to understand what's going on in this world & why.

[FlynDutchman]

Unconstitutional or not, the war powers act is US policy....Just like abortion...theres nothing in the constitution that would allow for that, but it was interjected by radicals in this country as a "right". I have to ask you though, since you say we have a state we can declare war against, should we then be declaring war on Iran since the weapons used to kill our troops are coming from them ?? If not why ??

[Art_NJr]

Originally Posted by FlynDutchman

Unconstitutional or not, the war powers act is US policy....Just like abortion...theres nothing in the constitution that would allow for that, but it was interjected by radicals in this country as a "right". I have to ask you though, since you say we have a state we can declare war against, should we then be declaring war on Iran since the weapons used to kill our troops are coming from them ?? If not why ??

To answer your question, no, we do not have the right to declare war against Iran @ this time.

As to the why, unless you want to throw the Constitution & the law of nations out in favor of mob rule or total anarchy, when there is no lawful authority for troops to be where they are, there is no valid complaint against anyone who attacks them or where the attacker's weapons come from. By "law of nations" I'm not referring to the "UN", I'm referring to rules of international law going back long before there was a UN - and long before the U.S. existed too.

I hate seeing our fine young people die or be maimed as much as anyone (fwiw, Hon. Dis. USMC), but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that our troops have no lawful authority to be in Iraq. Or Afghanistan & numerous other nations. By comparison, the "Gulf War" was different - we have a treaty with Kuwait & a treaty is a form of contract. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we did have the lawful authority & responsibility to kick Iraq out by all means necessary. And anyone who supplied weapons to the invaders automatically became our enemy - just by the act of helping the invader.

And if you'll do some digging (you will not like what you find) you'll see that our Gov't. has repeatedly rebuffed offers from Iran to reduce the violence in Iraq, including the civil war between different Islamic factions which goes back over 1000 years. I think it was Ron Paul who said if you step into a snake pit, don't be surprised if you get bit.

Things like these are reasons why the Constitution is crystal-clear on what the U.S. Gov't. can & cannot do - including stay the hell out of somebody else's war. And don't start one - because when you do, you give up all your rights.

[Red Rider]

Actually the U.S. can declare war against anyone at any time. We don't legally have to be the good guys - we just are. The Constitution only states who can declare it and who commands it, it doesn't go into specifics as to what makes up national security or even what wording is required to declare it. We're s'posed to elect people who know what they are doing when they are doing it. We did and they did and they still do - just that the Dems are pretending they are stupider than they really are (but they are pretty stupid, to be sure ).

But since I took part (legally, according to the laws of this nation - I/we didn't give a crap about the nations' laws that I was doing things in, or the friggin' U.N.) in military actions in more countries than most high school valedictorians today can name, I'm gonna go back to keeping out of this discussion RIGHT NOW!

[Ultra Al]

So, fellow infidels, what are we supposed to do when radical Muslems have made it perfectly clear that their intent is to destroy us and Israel? Quietly sit back and watch it happen. I was very much in support of George Bush following 911 when he said "your either with us or against us" I just wish he would have taken care of business swiftly an viscously and told the liberal socialists to stuff it, I listen to my generals. If it is just a matter of paper work to make everything warm and fuzzy than by all means, whatever it takes, get the paper work done. I like most of what I hear from Ron Paul except I could never endorse any one who would turn tail and run and surrender to terrorists. As far as Iran, let Israel nuke them first (before they nuke them which they have clearly stated that is their intent) and if any of the other terrorists factions from other nations butt in then they are fair game too. If the UN wont step in than we owe it to are allies to lend a hand. Al

[FLHTbiker]

[quote=Ultra Al;39124]So, fellow infidels, what are we supposed to do when radical Muslems have made it perfectly clear that their intent is to destroy us and Israel?

They already have made that perfectly clear but the stupid Demo's just don't get it.

Got a phone call from my 84 year old mother, she was crying and saying something about he was killed. I'll tell you my heart just about sank as I thought that my younger brothers son Jimmy was killed over in Iraq. It turned out it was my older brothers father in law he drove his tractor over a bank and into the river. He was 83 years old and died doing what he loved doing. I worry about that gung ho young kid all of the time over there. But I know he is doing his job and according to my brother when he talks to him he always says were making big strides and making progress.
Back to the Arabs, if we elect either one of those idiot Demo's they will be over there saying were sorry we hurt any of you and begging for forgiveness. They'll pledge tons of money to help them all. They would also be playing up to the Iran dude. McCain is no G. Bush hes better and he knows how to fight back.
We can't leave Iraq now whether it was right or not to be there. At least we have not had another attack here in our country sense 911. I would rather we fight them there then here.
Just my take on it.

[Art_NJr]

So, fellow infidels, what are we supposed to do when radical Muslems have made it perfectly clear that their intent is to destroy us and Israel?

Intent & action are 2 different things. Break it down to a local thing - what would you do if I said I intend to break into your house? Probably make sure your gun was cleaned & loaded & wait to see if I was full of it or actually would do it. And if I did break in, shoot me or knock the **** outta me & send me off in an ambulance - depending on how "tolerant" a guy you are ;-)}

It's not really much different on an international level - yes, I hear your talk, yes I see the "news" reports, but what are you actually doing? And Israel can take care of itself. They've already proved that & you might be interested in this (long article): F-16I

I was very much in support of George Bush following 911 when he said "your either with us or against us" I just wish he would have taken care of business swiftly an viscously ...

I'm not going to go there - take hours to even get into that mess.

I like most of what I hear from Ron Paul except I could never endorse any one who would turn tail and run and surrender to terrorists.

Surrender to which terrorists & where? Any in your town? Ain't none in mine & if they popped up, they'd be shot on sight - by citizens.

As far as Iran, let Israel nuke them first (before they nuke them which they have clearly stated that is their intent)

Iran neither has a nuclear weapon nor the delivery system for one. Maybe within 10 years they will, but Israel is so far ahead technologically & they can hit Iran anytime they want (see link above).

If the UN wont step in than we owe it to are allies to lend a hand.

If it wasn't so tragic, the UN would be merely a joke. Has never done anything right & is incapable of doing anything right. As to allies, treaties rule there.

[CD]

Hey Red,
You remember when the pundits swore that Iraq had no WMD or WMD delivery systems? Then the reporters showed the Arty shell casings and oops....them darn Scuds.....
Oh, and that pesky Arty shell IED in 2004.... Democrat for the War in Iraq: WMD's in Iraq/ They were there! With PROOF
This is just one link, there are many.

We never know for certain what capabilities a country has.... It took years to discover everything Germany was working on.

When I spent time in the sand box (Saudi, 1984, FACP Al-Jubail) we loved Saddam. Why? 'cause he was putting a boot up Iran's ass. We gave them a full satellite bounce of what we could see and that was much of Iran's coastal air space.

The boys in the sand box are going to be fighting when the sand turns into sandstone..... They are just too frigging dumb ass and back wards to know any better. If you spend any amount of time there you would probably agree that there isn't really much hope for peace..... The Republic of Iraq, a wholly owned subsidiary of the US GOV, all rights reserved...


That sand does have a high silica content...makes pretty glass.

[Ultra Al]

Originally Posted by Art_NJr

[color="Navy"]Intent & action are 2 different things.

I wouldn't call 911, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, or the USS Cole for example, intent.



I'm not going to go there - take hours to even get into that mess.

If we get one of the liberal socialists running on the Democratic ticket then maybe people will finally give GWB some credit, at least he is honest. The truth ain't in either one of the Clinton's and Obama is said to be to the left of her.


Surrender to which terrorists & where? Any in your town? Ain't none in mine & if they popped up, they'd be shot on sight - by citizens.

The only ones I'm concerned with here are Radical Islamic's committed to the Great Caliphate and the Third Great Jihad. We can go after the Mexican drug lords later.


Iran neither has a nuclear weapon nor the delivery system for one. Maybe within 10 years they will, but Israel is so far ahead technologically & they can hit Iran anytime they want (see link above).

I agree let Israel TCOB but if any of the other countries jump in then we get involved


If it wasn't so tragic, the UN would be merely a joke. Has never done anything right & is incapable of doing anything right. As to allies, treaties rule there.

Agreed we should have run them out of NYC decades ago

To sum it up, in my opinion we are not at war with Iraq or Afganastan we are at war with Islamo facisam we are in the fight of our life and we have to choice but win, convert to Islam or be decapitated.
check this out.
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE

[Art_NJr]

To sum it up, in my opinion we are not at war with Iraq or Afganastan we are at war with Islamo facisam we are in the fight of our life and we have to choice but win, convert to Islam or be decapitated.
check this out.
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE

Finally got the time to read that article, Ultra Al & it's a good one. I can disagree with some of the details, but certainly not with the big picture view.

I may have mentioned this before (haven't gone back thru all posts) but one thing that is not generally understood, although it's really pretty simple, is a key reason for terrorism. When a group such as a particular sect of Islam wants to take over a region or country, but lacks the support of the people to do it thru political process & lacks the military capability to do it by force, there's another way. With no predictable pattern, blow up a marketplace, a bus, a hospital, a school, etc. - make it so you never know where the next attack will be & so that people are afraid even in their own homes.

You know what the Gov't. is going to do - crack down harder & harder in the name of "security" taking civil liberties away & making life even more miserable. Sooner or later it'll get to the point that Gov't. has gone so far that the people themselves rise up & overthrow it. But there will be a period of anarchy & during that time, if the terrorists are well enough organized, they'll seize power & install their own Gov't.

One big problem with that plan - it works.

[FlynDutchman]

Originally Posted by Art_NJr

Intent & action are 2 different things. Break it down to a local thing - what would you do if I said I intend to break into your house? Probably make sure your gun was cleaned & loaded & wait to see if I was full of it or actually would do it. And if I did break in, shoot me or knock the **** outta me & send me off in an ambulance - depending on how "tolerant" a guy you are ;-)}

It's not really much different on an international level - yes, I hear your talk, yes I see the "news" reports, but what are you actually doing? And Israel can take care of itself. They've already proved that & you might be interested in this (long article): F-16I

Ok...If you said you were going to break into my house (to kill me by the way) , but didnt actually do it yourself...you sent your friend to do it & gave him the tools, you are still as guilty....its called conspiracy. No difference than what Iran is doing. Also very Illegal. Street Lawyers....I tell ya...seen em all when I was a cop.

[Art_NJr]

Originally Posted by FlynDutchman

Ok...If you said you were going to break into my house (to kill me by the way) , but didnt actually do it yourself...you sent your friend to do it & gave him the tools, you are still as guilty....its called conspiracy. No difference than what Iran is doing. Also very Illegal. Street Lawyers....I tell ya...seen em all when I was a cop.

The Bush Admin. lies about Iran & has since day one. And the "mainstream media" doesn't report all that's going on either. Here's just one article which goes into that:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539
It's long, but certainly worth the read.

[Ultra Al]

The American Prospect then in very small print, "liberal intelligence" hmmm I guess we know which way this group is going to slant.

"The Iranians said we don't like al-Qaeda any better than you, and we have assets in Afghanistan that could be usefuf" Why of course they do, huh? give me a break.

n his remarks on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad also called Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip a trick, and said Gaza was part of Palestinian territories.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he said. Any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

Now i ask you, does that sound like someone who "doesen't like al-Qaeda any better than we do??

I could go on and on but as long as Iran has these kind of views,
Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says - International Herald Tribune
what is there to talk about?
To allow this idiot to get his hands on nuclear weapons would be pure folly, it is clear they want Israel (the little satan) and us (the big satan) to vanish from the earth. What is there to talk about? AL